Caffeine Sparks makes an insightful critique on another one of Conrado de Quiros‘s lame attempts to prop up his manok. Tragic for Noynoy Aquino‘s campaign as I think de Quiros is doing more damage than good as he goes about his ironic crusade.
I echo Nick’s call in a comment he made there:
Framing the debate is how many political strategists go about highlighting key aspects or what they want the voters to think are the aspects in any issue.
Indeed, frame the debate over an encompassing framework, not on narrow emotionally-appealing lines. People like Conrado de Quiros, for one, are very dangerous people because they propagate a retrospective approach to regarding politicians and their politics rather than one that is prospective (i.e. forward-looking).
This is something I highlight in my article Fixated on the past, or looking to the future? where I pose this challenge:
Are you going to vote on the basis of what a candidate was or what past events he/she is associated with? Or are you going to vote based on what a candidate envisions the future to hold for us?
To put this question in the proper perspective…
De Quiros’s and his ilk’s approach to thinking is the worst kind of deductive thinking — one based on incomplete data or information that is deliberately framed along narrow lines. It is the kind that routinely adds to the ballooning miseries of this world — from the assumptions made based on historic “trends” that resulted in horrific financial crashes to the it-can’t-happen-again attitude that characterises the safety strategy of the Philippines’ passenger shipping industry.
You frame a “debate” on a singular event, achievement, or cause that…
occurred in the past; and/or;
is based on outdated thinking;
… and you set yourself up for a tunnel-visioned approach to the future at best. It’s like reading about how Germany and Japan started World War II and then concluding that World War III will most likely be started by those two countries.
Certainly Filipinos deserve something better than an administration that, (a) derives its mojos from nothing more than poetry forged along the lengths of Edsa in 1986 and (b) likened to a janitorial service, ruling them over the next six years.
Here’s a case in point. It has come to light that Aquino is on a collission course with the Catholic Church on the issue of reproductive health. Simply put he is pro-choices and the Church is sticking with its 2,000-year-old guns. So is it still a good-vs-evil cause, Mr. de Quiros? That’s what you get when you contribute to the dumbing down of an entire society. Another cook has come to add a bit of salt and stir things up in that little pot of tamis-anghang broth you cooked up.
The Philippines is a large country made up of more than 90 million people. The worst one can do is be presumptious about what handful of “issues” are relevant to the “average” Filipino. We need a balanced scorecard approach to evaluating our politicians — specifically one that is prospective (i.e. encourages thinking around what a candidate envisions for the future) rather than one that is retrospective (i.e. focused solely on what he has done in the past, his credentials, or worse, his pedigree). The latter is how primitive societies think and the earlier is how progressive societies think.
Our duty as members of the so-called “intelligentsia” is to propagate the right frame of mind around which our people should regard the coming elections.
Here’s the latest product of our efforts to get more visual and therefore get the message across to a broader audience. The challenge of 2010 is not some kind of “laban” as some old-school pundits, “activists”, and politicians purport it to be. The challenge is maturity in the way we conduct ourselves as an electorate:
Download as a PDF file here!
Download, print, and DISSEMINATE the forces of enlightenment to Da Masa (and all Pinoys with no access to the Net)!
The voters are the final arbiters in this competition of ideas and personalities (mostly personalities). But at the end of the day, the leaders of a country merely reflect the character of their constituents — specially in a democracy.
============
Join us on Facebook!
Popularity: 1% [?]
Two of the most profound notions in the universe are life-changing once one understands their deep meaning:
1) We don’t know what we don’t know.
2) The past no longer exists.
How do you come up with this stuff? In the middle of the night, or whilst drinking, or off staring at the Pacific, or what? I need to find that kind of routine.
I tell my friends in the US, few of whom know the Philippines at all, is that it is a country stuck in time: Social and moral values of the 1500′s, gunslinger values of the US days of cowboys and indians, technology values of the early 1980′s.
A third concept also holds sway:
3) To change you have to change.
Joe
i tell you, joe-am, you are not the most grateful overstaying visitor of the philippines. it beats me how you can manage to live there on a “permanent” basis and brag to your u.s. “friends” how backward the country is. i wonder where in the u.s. are your friends from. they could not be so uninformed not to know about the philippines in this day and age unless their only source of information is you. sounds to me that they are not any better than the filipino people that you are maligning.
Joe you should travel to South Asia and Central Asia.. I am fervently hoping Bencard makes the trip someday and runs into the warm embrace of a shaheed.
You can still witness societal formats akin to the Old Testament.
English is a unique language in that it evolved from many other languages. English literature was a hard subject for many pinoys who were not born with English as their first language.
The effects can be gleaned from many posts ..
Metaphorically Marx must be singing in his grave.
Paradigm shifting can be earth shaking..
J_ag,
Actually, I’ve been to the long houses on Borneo, stared at the skulls and wondered as to the flavor. I neglected to stay for dinner though.
English is hard for Americans, too. But fun to play with. I note the laws of the Philippines are in English. I suppose no one is really supposed to understand them anyway.
Regards,
Joe
bencard,
Backward is your word, not mine. Mine is “stuck in time”. How do you describe the Philippines to Americans, so that when they arrive, they understand the moral values (no divorce, no birth control, runaway population growth), the lawlessness (death squads, no justice, guns on the guards at Jollibee), the absence routine technology (can’t use the technology, government offices aswamp with paper)?
For myself, I enjoy the dynamics. The US is boring, frankly, a bunch of know-it-all consumers running around on concrete paths looking for the next trinket to buy or reality show go vacantly gape at. Americans are a self-absorbed bunch, in case you didn’t realize. That’s why many think the Philippines is in the Caribbean.
Joe
if you people want to reply to my comments, at least be responsive. you cannot muddle the meaning of what i say by resorting to verbal mambo jumbo or by calling me names. joe-am, for an “american” you are the most incoherent, supercilious and shallow user of the english language.
if you say the philippines is “stuck in time” (1500′s) and you are in 2009 (obviously), aren’t you calling the country “backward”? and what has marx got to do with the price of kamote, as your self-described “brilliant” playmate tries to express some kind of connection with what is being talked about here?
bencard,
You complain about others using misleading words, but I responded because you overlaid my comment with the term “backward”. You complain about name calling, but I responded sharply because you called me an “old punk”, a term deleted by the moderators.
That is what I mean by amoral. A hypocrite is amoral, arguing out of both sides of his mouth.
Backward suggests a people who are not up to speed, character wise. Filipinos are not backward; they are intelligent and becoming more aware of how to shape their destiny . . . without guns. Filipino “social institutions” are stuck in time. That is a function of government and the way things evolved. And as I explained to Bert, I was commenting about Benign0′s perspective about living in the past.
You are an intelligent man, and I appreciate your perspectives on issues. I don’t know why you insist on diminishing yourself by always getting personal.
Joe
and who are you calling “amoral” and “hypocrite”, you, benigno or me? do you even comprehend the meaning of amoral? who appointed you judge of morality, mr. america, and on what qualification?
bencard,
As I learned from reading Alice in Wonderland, a word means whatever I choose it to mean.
I am saying your writings smack of a lack of principle. You say one thing and do another. Pray for Mr. Obama, then do all you can to undermine him. Criticize me for calling you names, whilst calling me an “old punk” (first). Complain about me misrepresenting what you write, whilst misrepresenting what I write.
You do not strive for understanding or agreement, which requires anchoring one’s views on a set of defensible principle. You strive for victory, through intimidation, name-calling, misrepresentation, and any skilled use of argument you have learned in your long and distinguished career as an attorney.
I’ll stick to my principles, and also doing the best I can at not letting you cast me as something I am not.
Joe
Very hard to moderate this specific thread guys, just don’t get too personal, I like the discussion, but not when it comes to the name-calling. Don’t care who started it, please do stop.
– Thank you
Nick,
Sorry to put the squeeze on the moderators. It is very evident who went to personality rather than issue. Bert went to issue on my poorly expressed statement; bencard went personal.
I appreciate your being diplomatic, but why . . .? Because he is a respected elder of the Philippine community and cannot be admonished? Now THAT is an issue of Philippine society worth discussing. Those who are above criticism . . . Ilda touches on it below.
Joe
Bravo!
Let’s move on from 1986. The high score card of Noynoy in the recent survey conducted only proves his popularity. He is popular only because of his parents.
What I’d really like to know is, what is the basis of why people would vote for him in the coming election though?
Ilda,
Character, mainly. Capability is unknown; how does the Legislature respond to a man who is interested in trimming their pork? Intent (platform) is unknown, but probably will reflect an effort to clean up government and help the people.
I fear he will, like Obama, walk into an economic typhoon once all the buried “treasure” is identified and he discovers the country is on the edge of financial disaster.
Joe
A lot of people in this blog are trying to fill in the “unknowns” or the blanks. They presume to know what Noynoy is thinking and what he is capable of doing even if he hasn’t said much. I hope they are not trying to emulate the Obama fever before the US election.
If the Aquino’s have so many admirers and supporters because of their “integrity and honesty” as one blogger puts it, why is the Philippines so full of dishonest local and government employees? If Cory really made a lasting impression on the majority of the people (I saw a big chunk of the population who showed their support during her wake and the funeral), why is the country ripe with deception and mistrust?
We need someone with a strong conviction. Someone whose principles will not falter the moment the bishops and the priest try to tell them what to do. The Church have their own doctrine set in stone and they won’t compromise. The head of state should be able to rule according to what’s best for the country and it’s people without being influenced by any groups who have their own agenda.
Iilda,
Re. Your second paragraph: If you toss a kitten into a den of snakes, you don’t emerge with a den of kittens.
Re. Your third: Correct. Who do you figure will be best at that? We are limited by the practicality that there are maybe two or three people who realistically have a shot at the presidency.
Joe
his legislative record is a good place to start
“I tell my friends in the US, few of whom know the Philippines at all, is that it is a country stuck in time: Social and moral values of the 1500’s, gunslinger values of the US days of cowboys and indians, technology values of the early 1980’s.”-Joe
Joe,
You have to admit those are negative opinions you’re telling your American friends about the Philippines. I wonder why you did not tell them about the beauty of Biliran instead.
It’s a bad thing your American friends were not FV readers or commenters, because if they were, and they’re as bright as most bloggers and commenters here in FV, they would be asking you difficult questions, like this: “Joe, our friend, benignO the native who speaks like you had abandoned the ship already, why are you still there?”
Bert,
Good points. But not to worry, my comments above pertain specifically to Benign0′s blog regarding the element of time, past or present:
“Are you going to vote on the basis of what a candidate was or what past events he/she is associated with? Or are you going to vote based on what a candidate envisions the future to hold for us?”
My friends understand that I believe the Philippines is the most beautiful place on the planet, that I am having fun, that the people are, when not busy slinging guns, fun and good natured, and that my dollar goes a long way here. They also consider me a little eccentric for choosing to abandon the security and good life of the USA for an occasional robbery or tromp by NPR through my house (both factual).
Thanks for not calling me a moron or some other untoward descriptor.
Joe
ps,
If Benign0 did not care, he would not put so much energy into whacking readers into shape with his harsh commentary. He would move on.
Australia is a great place, I might add.
Joe
Joe, this guy never tires of mentioning his dislike for people who live overseas who are actively engaging in the discussion of important topics. It gets so tiring really.
The funny thing is, he doesn’t realise that just about everyone in the Phils have a relative abroad due to the lack of opportunity in their native land. He doesn’t realise that he should blame someone else for the fact that people have to go elsewhere just to be able to live a decent life or even simply to avoid living with people with a mentality like his.
PS
Just in case it’s not clear, I’m talking about people like Bert and Co.
Ilda,
Bert and I have our discussions, for sure, but I don’t think he “dislikes” overseas people. His perspective is that of a loyalist, to the Philippines and its president, through good or bad. In a way, he accepts responsibility where others do not.
I think it is good to have his perspective here, as it keeps things in balance. I’m sure it wears a little thin reading the incessant criticisms from those abroad, most notably I suppose BongV and BenignO. But they are both brilliant people, and can receive as well as dish.
Bert has never been offensive to me, never called me names, as others have done. But he is not afraid to challenge.
By the way, it is good to see your comments here as well.
Joe
Thank you, Joe. Just one clarification, I am a loyalist to my country, the Philippines, the only one I have. And I love my people, too, the Filipino people. But I’m not a GMA (Gloria) loyalist, my Manoy Bencard is. That’s all.
Bert:
by the same argument you use on Arroyo -
you are an Erap loyalist i presume?
how can you be loyal to erap (and his plundering ways) and still be loyal to the country?
moreover, you don’t have a monopoly of love for the filipino people. condonation of unproductive behavior is not an expression of “love” in my book.
“love” means, i want the filipino to succeed. if the unproductive behavior is keeping the filipino from success, then such unproductive behavior has to be identified, cast under the glaring lights, and the ongoing repercussions of such behavior – hammered in, an an alternative behavior to replace the unproductive behavior is identified, and an enabling environment for the new behavior to sink in is provided.
when you “love” you don’t condone unproductive behavior, you strike at it with passion, hammering out the dross, so that the gold may come out.
The behaviour of some people here in FV is a microcosm of the behaviour of the Philippine society in general.
There are three things I noticed about most Filipinos and they are represented here in FV:
1. Most Filipinos resent Filipinos who live overseas who voice out and make suggestions about the Filipino culture.
2. Most Filipinos resent foreigners or the non-Filipinos who are permanent residents of the Phils who voice out and make suggestions about the Filipino culture.
3. Most Filipinos take things too personally and cannot see beyond the perception that Filipinos are being publicly shamed when people point out some facts even when the evidence is staring them right in the face.
It is plain obvious that most Filipinos resort to name calling and snide remarks when they cannot address the relevant issues anymore. They just attack the messenger when they cannot respond to the message.
BongV,
Your presumption of me on Erap is wrong, I am not an Erap loyalist either. And what was that “by the same argument you use on Arroyo” mean, pls. clarify. I admit I’m a bit of a moron most times like you and benignO always said of Filipinos, but what argument did I use on Arroyo?
For your enlightenement, BongV, I am not claimming monopoly of love of country. Could be that you and benignO love your country, too, whichever country is that. Could that love of country be the reason why you guys said the Filipinos are pigs living in pigsty?
Ilda,
I think FV misses the perspective of the hardworking Filipino . . . fishermen, farmers, tricycle drivers, taxi drivers. But your comments are accurate as to responses here. In real life, though, I don’t go spouting off about Filipino society and government, so I don’t insult people, and for the most part get good feedback. I am gawked at a lot, for being 6’4″, but, hey, sometimes it is fun, especially with the teens . . .
Joe
Bert:
Yes, PI is a pigsty. Does it make me love it less? No it does not.
BongV,
You called your country, the Philippines, a pigsty because maybe you are oblivious to it’s beauty, you see only the mud. I say, look up, BongV, look up! Or you’ll get the stiff neck.
Call your country a pigsty and you’ll be a pig, a swine, or, a boar, hehehehe.
Bert:
Well, if am a pig, a boar, a swine… so what?
does it make me love it less? hell no.
BongV, only pig loves to stay in pigsty, if you love your country of a pigsty as you had admitted, are you a pig? And since your preoccupation is looking at/for mud/muck, are you really a pig?
No, I don’t believe you are a pig, BongV, just loving your country in a sort of a pervert way.
Bert:
Davao City’s Talomo river and Bankerohan river start from the springs and aquifers on Mount Apo. You head for Calinan or even higher and take your tubes.
You start off with cool clear rapids, as you get closer to the population centers – the water starts to turn brown, replete with trash, and yes – pig poo from the pig farms. You want to be proud of that? I am not. Are you?
When environmental groups complain what do they get – bullets, and legislators who tell them to clam up. Is that how you love your country?
So go tell me about pigstys.
Thanks Joe. As to how I come up with this stuff, well, in the words of an insightful friend of mine, I let my annoyance be my mojo. ;-)
There are reasons why people stay and reasons why people leave. But whether you stay or leave, there are certain things about the Philippines that simply need to be highlighted. And those things tend to be consistent whether you are writing from within or without. However, it usually takes an outside perspective to get to what is real.
As the venerable Manuel L. Quezon III say here:
=======
But the bottomline in light of some of the moronic comments in FV I observe comes down to this:
Where you choose to live is a personal choice and does not belong in a discussion that is supposedly focused on the issues.
;-)
Most of the candidates talk nonsense. How can they debate?
Joe America,
The Meiji government wanted to end/curb/temper/…. the Samurai culture. Laws were crafted and enforced. The Samurai were no longer to carry their weapons or at least out in the open, can no longer exact their brand of justice on commoners, no longer endowed to receive a share of rice in their community in lands that they didn’t own, ….
Some of the Samurai resisted. Some went as far as to assassinate officials of the Meiji government. But as the law was enforced, the Samurai as they were known then was gone.
Laws were crafted and enforced. Culture change followed in Japan.
Some say your native land has a gun culture.
So how did your ancestors deal with their gunslinger ways? Did your ancestors just suddenly give up a gun culture? Did they rant continuously against others who wanted to persist in such a culture so they would change? Did they have the law enforced? etc…..?
Yoshihiro Hattori was an exchange student in America. One day, he was supposed to experience the culture of dressing up for Halloween. Instead, he ended up experiencing America’s other culture.
If you notice a value or culture that you find negative and correcting/curbing/ending/… its practice happens to be covered by a law; can you demand the value or culture to be changed, can you (as a private citizen) demand the law to be enforced, do you demand the value or culture to be changed, do you demand the law to be enforced, etc… ?
justice league,
Nice perspective of weapons and cultures. Oh, no doubt about it, the gun culture is very strong in America. The NRA can almost pick presidents. But security in America is better and you usually don’t find guards at McDonald’s carrying shotguns. And you don’t need signs at the airports reminding people to take the bullets out of their luggage.
Also, in the “Old Wild West”, the landowners were the bosses, much as here. And they often ruled through intimidation, as here.
For me, it is a personal point of view. I think we should strive for a higher level of civilization, with less violence. The only way I can shape culture is to offer opinions . . . maybe someone will agree, and it will be like the proverbial piece of sand that you pick up, throw, and thereby change the course of the universe.
Joe
To justice-league:
To your question of “… Why can’t USA change the gun culture which is so wrong?”
The answer is the opinion “USA gun culture is so wrong” is not accepted by many Americans. Many Americans value “..right to bear arms”. And the right to bear arms is protected by the USA Constitution.
If it were only up to the citizens of the USA National-Capital-Region of metro-Washington DC, then US gun laws would be much stricter. Unfortunately, constitutional amendments require the agreement of citizens of all the states. metro-Washington DC has to execute a coup-d’etat or a PeoplePower for them to impose their will on, say, Texans. Hasn’t happened. Right-to-bear-arms is still in the USA Constitution.
The right to bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right.
It is a safeguard, the last line of defense, when tyranny rules; when the states armed apparatus ceases to function to serve the citizenry, the citizenry have the means to reclaim their hard-earned freedoms.
Some quotes:
Joe America,
So how did this “intimidation” end? Did your ancestors talk about niceties to each other, by rants, by enforcement of the law, etc….?
UP n grad,
You imply that there are indeed US gun laws already.
Do you advocate that those laws already existing be enforced or do you intend to leave it to the will/whim/…. of those Americans who don’t accept that a “USA gun culture is so wrong”?
BongV,
Interesting.
Which has force or more force? Demands to change culture or demands to have the law enforced?
justice league,
By enforcement of the law, Wyatt Earp et al. The US has police departments at community, county, state, and national levels (FBI). They are professional, for the most part, well equipped, and everywhere. I never see police here, driving about, for instance.
The “gun culture” you cite is not everywhere. It is strong in rural areas, hunting areas, etc. In the suburbs, if there are guns, they are tucked in the closet, rusting (like mine did). But the issue is hot hot hot among those who feel good with a weapon.
Joe
Depends on how you define “culture”. Americans may not have the same definition as you.
You might define it as “wanton discharge of ammo”.
Another might define it in terms of “basic human right – to possess a gun”
Or another might limit it to assault weapons. A demand was made. A law was passed. The law was enforced.
In which case, the law – for example The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in a 2004 report entitled On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act.[8] The report looked at 1.4 million guns involved in crime and determined that “since the law’s enactment … assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime — a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate” and that the Act prevented 60,000 assault weapon crimes over its 10-year period.
BongV,
Well you did say that “The right to bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right.”
But do they get to bear those arms everywhere or are they prevented from doing so like in an airliner?
From the TSA website:
You may only transport firearms, ammunition and firearm parts in your checked baggage. Firearms, ammunition and firearm parts are prohibited from carry-on baggage.
There are certain limited exceptions for law enforcement officers who may fly armed by meeting the requirements of Title 49 CFR § 1544.219. Law enforcement officers should read our policies on traveling with guns.
BongV,
So basically this “gun culture” of “basic human right – to possess a gun” … and “The right to bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right.” has its limitations under the law and you are in favor of having those law enforced.
jl:
the law only regulates but it does not ban the possession of guns.
as the saying goes – when guns are outlawed – only outlaws will have guns.
so, yes, i am in favor of owning guns, provided the law has safeguards such that psycopaths don’t get to own guns legally.
if they get guns illegally – or use a legally issued gun in an unlawful manner, the law is enforced, and the perps go to jail.
BongV,
My Dad owns one.
So when a nonpsychopath with a legally issued gun wants to use that gun in an unlawful manner like say bringing said gun to places where they are not allowed; you expect the law to be enforced, and barring that you demand that it be enforced and not rant about the culture, do you?
Cities, communities, states as well as agencies put to paper the restrictions that they want on guns. For example, Washington DC had always had one of the strictest gun laws, banning not only ownership of AK47′s, M16′s, “streetsweeper”-semi-automatic shotguns but also 5-shot 38-caliber pistols and even .22 target pistols. Then one day, a citizen pursued the case and US Supreme Court ruled that the DC gun laws were in violation of the Constitution. Two years ago, they could not, now they can. WashDC citizens who want to buy themselves a Beretta 92F or WaltherPPK can do so.
Different communities have different gun laws. What is legal in rural Roanoke, Virginia can be illegal in Arlington, Virginia (more urban – “next door” to Washington DC). HOWEVER, a community-law can not violate a state law or the State Constitution. Somebody pursued a case all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court regarding a particular community’s law banning the carrying of handguns in public. Virginia Supreme Court ruled that Virginia constitution allows its citizens to carry handguns in public. So a citizen walking into an Arlington Virginia with a Beretta strapped to his hip will have people glancing at him, but nope, the citizen does not get arrested. But there is a separate law against walking onto a college campus with a holstered-Beretta on the hip. Nobody has challenged those laws yet, so the Virginia Tech ban remains — walking on campus with a handgun tucked into waistband is not allowed.
Then to remember that the US Constitution takes precedence over state constitutions. It is possible that the wording of Hawaii’s constitution would allow the state to ban its citizens from owning guns, except “Second Amendment – right to bear arms” has precedence. All Hawaiian citizens can own guns.
Minor note: one of the reasons many rural communities are pro-gun is their fear of those uncivilized folks from the big cities.
UP n grad,
So basically it still points the idea that when the urban folk go to the rural area; that’s where they need much of this enforcement of the law on their “gun culture”.
justice league: Here is a link pointing to Texas gun laws (and has info on when it is legal to carry a gun into a restaurant or onto a college or university campus).
http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/TXSL.pdf
UP n grad,
Thanks for the link. No doubt you want those laws enforced.
Joe America,
Ok then.
Point of concern but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they aren’t elsewhere enforcing the law.
I live in the metropolis and I see them driving practically everywhere.
You must be living in a very peaceful place. (Just teasing if you aren’t)
So when the urban folk go to the rural area; that’s where you need much of this enforcement of the law on your “gun culture”; don’t you?