UP n,

Are you saying that you are also not in favor changing the Pinas government from presidential to parliamentary for the reason that crook’s “One of the necessities of a parliamentary government”? Hmmmn, strange. If that be so, the more reason then we should fight this ChaCha move by Gloria and The Real Deal. Because pala, even if we changed the form, the substance will be the same.

Then we are on the same side. CHEERS.

The Real Deal,

Is that correct, Real Deal? If yes, my question to you again is: Assuming that the elected official are crooks, or not crooks but became crooks after the election, does it matter whether we have a presidential or a Parliamentary form of government? Please explain why a crook in a presidential government will uncrook in a Parliamentary.

Thanks for that wineglass analogy. I think I might just need a drink (Red Horse, not red wine, unfortunately) after writing this reply.

I have no quarrel with the need for more bottles of wine so everyone can have a drink. What’s particularly bothersome to me is the steepness of the wineglass pyramid–even as we struggle to place orders for more wine. I won’t even mention the fact that many others have not received an invitation to the party.

I don’t want to stretch the analogy to its breaking point so let me get straight to the point. We have had moderate economic growth under PGMA, highlighted by the 7.3% GDP growth posted in 2008. So I think it would be reasonable to expect some of that growth to dribble mercifully down the food chain.

Guess what, hunger has been on the upward trend since the beginning of the Estrada administration in 1998. Unemployment (as also measured by SWS) has been high — in the 20s! — since 2005. Poverty (based on official NSCB figures) is again on the rise since 2003 after a long period of decline under Ramos and Estrada. All this human misery happening at a time of moderate growth.

The stock market, meanwhile, reached its all-time high in October 2007 just before the financial crisis struck and put a stop to the party. But it looks though that the party is about to start again, thanks to American taxpayers.

Your ultra-Darwinian view of economics and society in general makes even the beasts of the wild a preferable companion. The lions of Serengeti, National Geographic informs me, at least have the decency to take care of the weakest members of the pride.

And we’re just discussing here PGMA’s economic legacy. I don’t think a million Almontes could have saved her from her rightful place in history. One of our worst presidents, ever.

No, lying in my book is not clean. But in your book changing your mind is lying, why would you want to change your mind by saying Gloria was not clean before she became president?

You said before Gloria lied when she was vice-president, did you change your mind?

Therefore Gloria was clean before she became president. Yes? Ok.

First, let me just make it clear here that Charter Change is President GMA’s and her followers’ ardent advocacy. And yours, too.

Let’s be logical about this, ok?.

Let’s say that presidential (or Parliamentary) is the form of government, and the resultant product out of this kind of governance is the substance of government. Let us say, for example, that, under a presidential form of government, the government officials in power are crooks. And then we shifted to another form of government, the parliamentary, with the same crooked officials holding power.

Do you think changing the form will change the substance? What I mean is that, in a Parliamentary, do you think the crooked will become straight?

I hate it when people misconstrue what I wrote. I never said you had to stop writing about your obsession; I said I would not read it. I complimented you about having a good brain, which you passed over in favor of a curse-endowed blast rather that of a petulant child. You are entirely free to be you . . .

As I am free to laugh . . .

Joe