Angelo Suarez Charged

AS a sort of follow-up to my posts regarding the government's traffic management efforts or shortcomings (read them here), we're giving way to this announcement posted on Facebook by a Facebook page titled MRTBulok Resbak (which translates to "RottenMRT Revenge") regarding the arrest of Angelo Suarez.
    We will be observing how the chain of events that culminated in this charge unfolds in the days to come and what that unfolding might/would signify in terms of being a manifestation of government's real management ideology (not to mention its overall political ideology beyond its lip service).
    We would also welcome any input from government in relation to its stance towards Angelo Suarez, whose initial case we mentioned in the closing paragraphs of our earlier blog titled "More Big Tent Bullshit Than Socialism, Really".

AND now to that Facebook post, which we are here reposting verbatim:

photo from https://www.facebook.com/mrtbulokresbak/posts/1418481751513573:0

#MRTBulok Resbak!

Sa gitna ng kabulukan ng MRT, nagbitiw sa posisyon si DoTr-MRT3 General Manager Roman Buenafe. Sa araw na inanunsiyo ang kaniyang pagbibitiw, ipinagmalaki ng DoTr ang kaniyang “achievement of 20 running trains.” ISa mismong araw ng pagmamalaking ito, nagkaproblema sa riles ng MRT, tatlong beses napilitang huminto ang operations, at naipon sa mga nagsarang estasyon ang mga agrabyadong pasahero. Na naman.

Malinaw na malinaw: Wala sa lugar ang pagmamalaki ng DoTr sa bulok na serbisyo ni Buenafe, dahil bulok pa rin ang MRT. At ang kabulukang ito, dulot ng pribatisasyon sa mga tren kung saan inuuna ang interes ng mga negosiyante bago ang kapakanan ng mga mamamayan. Ang MRT, kabilang ang LRT, itinuturing na negosyo, hindi serbisyo.

Inaresto noong Agosto si Angelo Suarez, isang miyembro ng Train Riders Network (TREN) dahil sa pagsisiwalat at pagpoprotesta sa kabulukang ito. Pinakasuhan at pinaaresto ng DoTr-MRT3 sa ilalim ni Buenafe, batay sa eye-witness account ng isang guwardiya na nagbandalismo raw siya ng “MRT bulok” sa isang bulok na tren. Matapos salubungin ang kaarawan sa presinto, nakalaya lamang siya dahil dismissed ang kasong nagpiit sa kaniya—kasong di dapat natuloy kung pinili na lamang makipagdiyalogo ni Buenafe sa mga tulad ni Suarez na nagpoprotesta sa kabulukan ng MRT dulot ng pribatisasyon.

Sa araw ng kaniyang paglaya, sa isang meeting kasama ang Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), nagbitiw ng salita si DoTr Sec. Arthur Tugade na bagaman kinokondena nila ang naganap na bandalismo, hindi sila interesadong ipagpatuloy ang kaso. Mas interesado silang buksan ang diyalogo sa pagitan ng gobyerno at ng mga nagmomobilisa laban sa pribatisadong MRT.

Kaya kagulat-gulat na matapos ang isang buwan, nakatanggap si Suarez ng subpoena. Noong September 28, nalaman niyang hinahabla siya ng gobyerno, matapos sabihang di interesado ang gobyerno sa habla. Kasinglinaw ng pagkabulok ng MRT ang kagustuhan ng pamunuan ng DoTr-MRT3 mang-harass ng mga militante sa kabila ng sinabi ni Sec. Tugade.

Para sa damages na naghahalagang P380 dulot ng bandalismong ginagawa lamang ng mga nagpoprotesta sa kawalan ng alternatibo para sila pakinggan ng mga awtoridad, nahaharap si Suarez sa posibilidad ng kulong hanggang 6 na buwan, dagdag sa multang aabot ng P3,000.

Sa October 12, haharap siyang muli sa Office of the CIty Prosecutor ng Quezon City para maghain ng counter-affidavit. Sa gitna ng pagbabago sa liderato ng DoTr-MRT3, walang pagbabago sa kaniyang kaso. Batay sa pagtuloy ng DoTr-MRT3 sa habla, tila sarado pa rin sa diyalogo ang gobyerno; ang bukas lamang ay ang posibilidad na ikulong si Suarez at iba pang militanteng lumalaban sa pribatisasyon ng MRT at iba pang public utilities.

Sa bagong pamunuan ng DoTr-MRT3—sina Cesar Chavez at Deo Manalo—ito ang panawagan namin:

—Drop all charges against Angelo Suarez: Umiba sa landas ng nakaraang lideratong nakagawiang mang-harass ng mga militante. Pakawalan na ang kaso at tanggaping hahanap nang hahanap ng paraan para magprotesta ang mga mamamayan hangga’t nananatiling negosyo, hindi serbisyo, ang trato ng gobyerno sa public utilities gaya ng mga tren.

—Dinggin ang mga militante: Maraming taon nang paulit-ulit ang sigaw ng mga nagmomobilisa—balikan ang onerous contracts na pinasok at pinabayaan ng mga nakaraang rehimen, at usigin ang rehimeng Duterte na panindigan ang pangakong #ChangeIsComing pagdating sa kasalukuyang pribatisadong mass public transport.

—Rescind onerous contracts: Panahon na para bawiin ng gobyerno ang mga pribatisadong tren. Unang-una ang MRT sa mga dapat isauli sa taumbayan. Suportado ito ng mga mamamayan, at tamang suportahan ng DoTr-MRT3 ang panukalang ito bilang #PartnerOfChange. Makiisa sa tulak tungong pambansang industriyalisasyon! Magsisimula lamang ito sa nasyonalisasyon ng public utilities gaya ng mga riles.

Umaasa kaming hangad din ng bagong liderato ng DoTr-MRT3 ang pagbabago sa mga tren. Masisimulan ito sa pagbitiw sa kaso ni Suarez.

—————

Inaanyayahan ang lahat ng nakikiisa sa protesta na lumagda sa online petition na bitiwan ang kaso sa http://www.ipetitions.com/…/mrtbulok-resbak-mrtbulok-fight-…

at paki-share ito nang may sumusunod na mga hashtag: #MRTBulok #PPPBulok #DropAllCharges #SerbisyoHindiNegosyo [S / -I]

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT’S PERSONAL AND EMOTIONAL LEVEL (o, SINO ANG KAWAWANG KOBOY?)

photo from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/802103/pacquiao-duterte-wants-to-restore-death-penalty-i-do-too

1. In that corner and in this corner

ALAM siguro ni Senator Manny Pacquiao na bagamat ang pinanggalingan ng boxing bilang organized sport ay maaaring noong tanggapin ito ng mga ancient Greeks bilang isa sa mga Olympic games ng taong BC 688, nag-evolve ito mula sa mga prizefights noong 16th- at 18th-century sa Great Britain hanggang sa mabuo nito ang forerunner ng modern boxing noong mid-19th century, muli sa Great Britain at pagkatapos ay sa Estados Unidos kung saan maraming taga-Great Britain at Ireland ang nag-emigrate. Ito ay mga around the time na nagbabarilan na ang mga later-generation pioneers at mga American Indians ng Midwest at West ng North America na maaari nating tawaging Koboy Age sa westward movement na ito ng mga bagong Amerikano, just for purposes of our non-cinematic discussion. Sa panahong ito, marami ring outlaws ang binitay (literally hanged) pagkatapos mahuli ang mga ito ng mga sheriff ng paparami nang pioneer towns.
    Pero, Senator Manny Pacquiao, bago tayo bumalik sa topic ng mga koboy, may maikling wiki lang po ako rito, paki-click lang po at pakibasa (baka sakali makatulong, lalo’t hinala ko ay nabasa na ito ni Senator Tito Sotto):
    Wrongful execution - Wikipedia - Wrongful execution is a miscarriage of justice occurring when an innocent person is put to death by capital punishment, the "death penalty". Cases of wrongful execution are cited as an argument by opponents of capital punishment, while proponents suggest that the argument of innocence concerns the c... - EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

----------------------------------------

2. The context of this and that

LET’S contextualize the many mobile nouns now contending in the ring:
    When you punish a child by spanking him or by denying him a hefty baon the next day, I can fully understand why you would call it a punishment or penalty, because I understand what punishment and penalty mean. But when you punish a man who hates his life so much that he thought it a nice idea to hurt people who also hate him, I don't know why you would call killing him by the death penalty a penalty, and if that really still stands true to the definition of penalty or punishment. Because from his perspective, who knows?—maybe our killing him might actually be more a fulfillment of a wish than the receipt of a penalty. And even if the perpetrator of a heinous crime is pleading for his life, would rest in peace in death really punish him? Aren’t we actually just exploiting the word “punishment” as a euphemism for the ancient decision (desire, even) to exterminate existences?
    My friend H- says, “I would still kill a man who has killed other men, in order to protect others.”
    Well, actually, honestly, I would, too, but not in the name of a death "penalty" or capital "punishment" but in the name of eliminating him from my vision or in retribution for my loss. The difference is here: the first (capital punishment) is exercised by the state on a legal and formal and communal level while the second (revenge) is expressed from a personal and emotional level or standpoint. And while the second (revenge) may often be surer about the culprit when the commission of that culprit’s murder is witnessed first-hand by the avenger and happened only a few seconds or minutes prior to the avenger’s decision to initiate revenge, a quick revenge therefore, the first (capital punishment after a trial) may be less certain, especially as the communal experience of everything in such trials (including a resultant belief beyond reasonable doubt) would be nothing more than simply vicarious. It’s also ironic that it’s the surer second that would be illegal while the only vicariously sure first would be the one deemed by the state as legal. I’d say that it is in this area of uncertainty that death as punishment may be checked, as per the concept of possible and irreversible wrongful execution. And, hey, lest we forget, our appreciation of the reality of wrongful execution must never be separated from an appreciation of the long list of people involved in wrongful convictions in even such sophisticated legal systems as the United States’.

----------------------------------------

3. Hindi lang naman iisang source (or, Tsk tsk tsk)

SPEAKING of lists, I understand that all this recent hoopla about the “restoration” of the implementation of an existing capital punishment law is all in aid of the ongoing Philippine war on drugs.
    But, interestingly, an examination of that war itself seems to provide more proof of why capital punishment’s aiding it may, instead of formalizing its “extrajudicial” messiness, be exacerbating its problems. Consider just one of that war’s questionable element and how that might impact the certainty factor of even just one death penalty, the element called the “drug watch list” (sic):
    In interviews with Philippine National Police chief Bato de la (corrupted to dela) Rosa by such TV personalities as Winnie Monsod and Daniel Razon in their respective channels (GMA News TV and UNTV), the good general had been saying or implying something like this concerning “drug watch lists”, lists that the President would be wont to proudly and loudly announce in his many later speeches:
    "Malayong magkamali iyang mga dumarating na intelligence reports na yan sa Presidente kasi galing na yan sa maraming intelligence sources, at bawat intelligence source ay may validation process na yan. Ibig sabihin, hindi basta-basta na kahit na anong ibulong mong pangalan ay paniniwalaan agad ng bawat intelligence agency, dahil may validation process yan. Nasala na yan."
    By the way, these interviews happened before the “Drug Matrix” brouhaha, wherein the President apologized to a number of politicians for the error of their names’ inclusion in said Matrix. Leila de Lima, the President’s loudest critic whom the President’s camp has in turn tagged as the Mother of All Drug Lords, was not one of those exonerated from the list.
    What else can I say, except: Tsk tsk tsk.

----------------------------------------

4. Hindi lang naman tayo ang human (or, Tsk tsk tsk, hey-yo, Silver, away!)

MGA kababayan, sa mga naririnig nating diskurso among government people, legislators, and supporters of this government, mapapansin natin na may iisang pagkainis na pinanggagalingan ang urgent clamour for the death penalty at ng agresibong war on drugs na ating tinukoy—ang pagkainis  sa pakikialam ng konsepto ng human rights o paggalang sa karapatan na mabuhay (kahit ng mga convicted na mga mamamatay-tao na nasa death row, na by the way karamihan, kung di man lahat, ay mahihirap at tila walang kasamang mayaman).
    Ayoko nang makipagdiskusyon dito tungkol sa human rights at sa kabuluhan nito dahil nagkalat na ang diskusyon at klaripikasyon tungkol sa konsepto na ito at may mga paliwanag na rito kung bakit may ganito at bakit kailangan. Marami na ring sine tungkol dito, kasama na ang The Green Mile (set not in the pioneering era in midwestern North America but in the landscape of poverty and racism in that part during the Great Depression). Ang magiging kontribusyon ko lamang sa usapin na ito ay ang pagbibigay ng susunod na caveat sa lahat:
    na hindi lang ang nanghihingi ng paggalang sa human rights ang may human rights ngunit pati rin naman ang mga taong gustong itakwil na ang ilan sa mga ito kung di man ang buong konsepto ng human rights. Dahil hindi lang naman ang mga nanghihingi ng paggalang sa human rights ang human.

SABI NILA, ang human daw ay punong-puno ng takot dahil ang halimaw ay punong-puno ng galit. Kaya siguro naimbento ang human rights.
    Kaya nung tila itinakwil ni Rodrigo Duterte ang mataas na halaga ng prinsipyo ng human rights sa marami niyang talumpati, prinsipyo na isa sa mga civil liberties na ipinaglaban ni Napoleon sa mga monarkiya ng Yuropa at sa mga disipulo ni Robespierre para sa mga humans ng Pransya, ako ay nabahala. Sabi ko, ang human rights ay ang tangi nating armor, tayong walang mga armas, laban sa extrajudicial adjudgments ng kung sinong enforcer na gustong mag-astang huwes sa loob ng tatlong segundong trial dahil lamang nakindatan natin ang girlfriend niyang magmamani.
    Ngunit, pagkatapos ng ilang minutong pagkabahala, napag-isip-isip ko, . . . teka; baka naman patas lang din ang laro. Dahil kung minura ni Rodrigo Duterte ang mataas na kahalagahan ng human rights ng bawat isa sa atin, . . . hindi ba't by converse ay itinakwil din niya ang kanyang mahalagang armor, ang kanyang human rights, at ang human rights ng bawat isa sa kanyang mga kaalyado, kasama na si Manny Pacquiao?
    Kung ganun, nakakabaliw ito, sabi ko. Dahil tila may biglang open season na binuksan! Tila it's a free-for-all era na naman sa open country o kalungsuran! It's cowboys-vs.-Indians in the virgin, western regions of America before people in America ever heard of the phrase "human rights"! It's the age na uli where both the criminal and the sheriff don't have it, can't invoke it. Well, fair is fair, sabi ko! Wala tayong armor, wala rin naman sila. Fair is fair.
    Ang ibig ko lang sabihin sa ating mga kababayan ay ito: habang tayo ay nangangamba na baka bukas tayo o sinumang kaibigan natin naman ang ma-extrajudicially adjudged as guilty of whatever may be written on a blank cardboard, isipin natin na hindi tayo nag-iisa, Dahil baka marahil ay nangangamba rin ang bawat tao ng gobyerno na baka bukas ay sila naman ang bigyan ng kawalan ng respeto ng anuman o sinumang paksyon o grupo ng mga halimaw na may balak silang palitan, palitan nang walang pag-aalinlangan na murahin at duraan ng makapal na plema ang kanilang mga human rights. Di kaya fear is everywhere in Congress and the local governments these days? So, sa bandang huli, baka hindi lang tayo ang kawawang mga Indians; baka pati rin naman ang mga koboy.
    Well, anyway. Kung ganito na nga ang sitwasyon sa ating bagong sibilisasyon sa gubat ng ating panahon, well, . . . good luck na lang sa atin and a happy new year na lang, mga kapwa ko indios and indians in the new Pinoy Koboy Age. [S /-I]

THE LUMPENBOURGEOISIE’S METHOD IS TO DIVIDE US ON ISSUES OTHER THAN WHAT THE LUMPENBOURGEOISIE HAVE THEIR EYES ON TO IMPOSE ON ALL OF US

photo from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/571910/news/specialreports/scenes-from-president-rodrigo-duterte-s-inauguration

1. On Behalf of Inang Bayan Kuno

PUTANG INA MO, China, hanggang ngayon di ka pa rin nag-aapologize sa pekeng rice na pinasok mo sa amin, sa mga illegal drugs na pinapadala mo rito sa Opium War by Shabu ninyo laban sa amin, sa pag-okupa mo ng Scarborough Shoal hanggang sa mga oras na ito, sa mga fraudulent loans ng mga pulitiko namin na inasikaso mo, sa dumping mo ng kung anu-anong shady products sa buong mundo, at marami pang iba, . . . China, I wish you see hell!!!!!

    Pero teka, teka, teka, mali yata ang script na binabasa ko. Dapat pala, kung sang-ayon tayo sa script ng pamahalaan ni Rodrigo Duterte, ang Amerika ang hinihingan natin ng apology saaaa . . . let’s see . . . ah, alam ko na . . . sa atrocities nito sa Bud Dajo noong taong 1906. So sige, heto na: Amerika, tang-ina mo ka, padala ka ng padala ng aid pero di ka pa rin nag-aapologize sa Bud Dajo, tang ina at ama mo rin ka! Go to hell!

    Ok na ba yon? Yey! Rak en rol!

2. An "I" Persona

KUNG IHAHAMBING MO ang Rodrigo Duterte script na ito sa, say, Noynoy Aquino script o kahit sa Fidel Ramos script noon, makikita rin natin na ang Rodrigo Duterte script ay karaniwa’y isang “I” persona script, as against the former presidents’ conventionally “we” personae scripts. But of course we can argue that, in effect, all presidential scripts, whether presented in the ‘I’ mode or in the ‘we’ mode, are all largely dictatorial products of the dictatorial presidential system, and are thus all “I” persona scripts at the end of the day (dictating the president’s will upon the nation through either threat of violence, threat of being denied funding, or threat of legalist suit).

    So one could say that Duterte’s “I”-based script is simply more honest, or vulgarly forward, if you will, about it. Or simply more cognizant of the fact that presidential personae are largely all ultimate products of the big “I” hype manufactured by the star system that defines the presidential system as the most star system-reliant form of representative democracy. Duterte’s cognizance and embrace of that privilege now wallows in the very depth of the hype, or at the summit of it, almost as if to test its limits.

    Thus Rodrigo Duterte is now wont to utter such lines as "I might break up with America" or "I might go to China and Russia instead" and "I only want to be at peace with everybody, doing business with everybody, and no quarrels with anybody" in reference to a desire for "an independent foreign policy” for the Philippines. And as if to hide the kingly grandiosity in these pronouncements, at one of his speeches for his police camp audience (as he’s been wont to visit the police camps of the country since day 1), he recently said, referring to the “insulting” United States and European governments’ criticism of his war on drugs, "when you insult the President of the Republic of the Philippines you also insult the Filipino people." Really?

    I am beginning to wonder if all this honesty from the “I” persona of Duterte’s script also means that Rodrigo Duterte now regards himself as independent of the Filipino people's opinion, post-election, so independent in fact as to be able to unilaterally decide on such things as what happens to the Philippines (which he now seems to consider as his) and the Filipino people (whose brains he seems to now consider as connected to his, irrespective of their current individual desires). The thought of referenda on anything major be damned, and fuck even a bit of decrease on his still-high approval rating, and a spit of phlegm perhaps on thoughts of a coup that might subsequently try him for treason. His government has said it not a few times: he was elected by a large majority of the Filipino people, which by his understanding gave him the license (given by that large majority), or prior approval, to do whatever he announced he’d do during the campaign and things he intends to do now and henceforward, ostensibly all for the betterment of the Filipino nation that he loves (often completing such a pronouncement of love with a gesture of touching the flag behind him on a stage in a visited police camp somewhere). But this should not be a surprising proposition, given that that’s precisely the attitude that presidential systems and presidentialism expect presidents to don, post-election.

3. Braggadoccio

AND SO IT was no surprise to read that report wherein the President claimed that the Philippines can survive without foreign aid, referring to aid we have received mainly from the United States and Japan.

    Well, unang-una, there's no such thing as aid na walang kapalit (which kapalit might take the form of export or import concessions); madalas din ang aid ay synonym for a loan/debt.

    Pangalawa, this is total bullshit from a government that has been in close contact with the AIIB from day 1.

    Otherwise, this almost sounds like taunting Western banks and the ADB to leave us, I suspect as per instructions from AIIB officers whose institution must be eager to send its people in droves to our archipelago in the way a Russian missile system triumphantly entered Syria last month.

    My friend Hubert Posadas, a security consultant, commented on a post of mine on Facebook on this subject and wrote: “There will be a trade-off, and it will work if we are a country united. However, he could have done it more smoothly, without creating overt tension and hostility in a growingly threatening climate. In a country rich with natural resources, we have become addicted to aid, which has only perpetuated our being a natural resource-rich country with a poor populace, a country exporting natural resources without added value and buying it back as finished products we could have created ourselves (thus a country importing produce we can actually produce on our own), a country furthermore exporting fathers and mothers to become slaves abroad and leaving a generation of kids without guidance in return for material goods that addle our children's brains. . . . We are addicted to aid to the point that we do not learn to manage what we have for our collective good, never questioning businesses that perpetuate this cycle where only the few oligarchs and industrialists prosper. We never question the control that AID and Borrowing creates for the Lendor, believing in the institutions that create the machinery that exploit us, how the World Bank loans us on paper money they never really give as we hire their contractors and pay their services with siphoned resources. We never understand our complicity in the deaths of other civilians around the world that suffer a war for pretended causes just because they have resources our big brother wants. We have to ween ourselves from these addictions.”

I WON’T COMMENT on my friend Hubert’s trust and optimism towards the Duterte thrust towards China away from the West, if that’s what he meant by his first sentence, nor would I comment on his preference for a more statesman-like Duterte mouth (especially as I suspect it is all from a script suggested by the President’s targeted main creditor and possibly foreign election campaign donor, the AIIB), nor on his view of foreign aid as motivated by some blind addiction, if I got him correctly on that. But I definitely agree with much else that he wrote. Not because I believe that our leaders (national and local) have been treating foreign aid from a position of blind addiction, but because I believe that foreign aid (from whichever source) has always been that product peddled by foreign banking or governmental interests (of whatever nationality) to countries such as ours, where these in turn are received with warm welcome by these countries’ respective lumpenbourgeoisie-gone-wealthy.

    In fact, in the Philippines’ case, that state of affairs described above by my friend is all due to our having been through decades of being managed by elements of the lumpenbourgeoisie, a lumpenbourgeoisie whose instincts are naturally inclined to the enriching of themselves and the neglect of those they would pretend to serve. Here’s where I have qualms on any shift from West-based creditors to a China-based credit source: a pro-American lumpenbourgeoisie replaced by a pro-China lumpenbourgeoisie is not going to remove us from the shackles of conditions imposed by global banks (which banks also happen to be attached to governments with their attached conditions and impositions). And, worse, while you can shame Western banks when certain details about them are exposed, there's no shaming the AIIB (China's West Philippine Sea attitude is already an omen of what our relationship with our new creditors are going to look like).

    For as long as we are managed by this niche, this class, we are never going to be united, precisely because the elements in this niche (the lumpenbourgeoisie, now also interestingly containing elements from the Left) are, to repeat, naturally inclined to forever work for themselves and their factions in the guise of working for the nation. Being thus predisposed, they are likewise necessarily inclined to divide us, us who are easily duped into siding with the competing left-right-center factions of the lumpenbourgeoisie on various issues other than their lumpenbourgeoisie-ness. That is to say, we are led to debate and curse each other on distracting issues (or false flags) that hide the bigger issues that define their being lumpenbourgeois. We are divided the way TV viewers have been duped into joining either a kapamilya or kapuso or kapatid kind of TV channel brand loyalism, where we get deeply passionate about these myriad team affiliations for groupthink while missing what the lumpenbourgeois man did to our country for his and/or his faction’s enrichment and/or their personal ideas’ fulfillment.

A LIBERATING VIEW of a truer division has yet to be seen. It is a view within which we can glimpse and acknowledge how we are actually divided: into two separate nations, with the mob of the lumpenbourgeois-gone-wealthy on the one hand and then the rest of us on the other. When the time comes for us to awaken to the ideals of true democracy, let’s say participatory democracy wherein we become participants in decision-making, especially on matters pertaining to what happens to our country, only then can we say that we have attained the first step to independence, to a true freedom to choose among policy choices and not merely to be led into obeying the readymade choices of messiahs from the center, right or now-included-left of the lumpenbourgeois class with their foreign bank and superpower-big-brother preferences.

4. The problem with us, the people

NOTICE THAT I used the clause “time for us to awaken . . .” Now, is that day near at all? Hmm. Presently, there is reason to be pessimistic. For every time we start talking about “we,” we usually do not examine the we-ness in it or of it.

    The "we the people" phrase that we often use, for instance, is—true—often associated with democracy, more specifically representative democracy, almost never for an absent demand for some direct democracy. And there's the rub. The Philippine problem is that "we the Filipino people" have a political culture of always wanting to fight not for our personal or collective causes primarily but for politicians and such personalities, primarily. We would fight wars and die for these in the name of our politician or celebrity or sports team/athlete or favored TV channel. In that fact alone we can already say that "we the Filipino people" are still living in a kind of monarchic system akin to those before the occurrence of the events that led to the French Revolution.

    I agree, it is our poverty that has pinned us to this ignorance about the vicious cycle of exploitation by various actors. And so, perhaps, even in the attainment of true democracy, we might still need the miracle of being blessed with true leaders of the people, as against mere actors pretending to be leaders of the people. The French at the onset of the French Revolution were poor, but a culture of revolt was propagated by an intelligentsia that realized what was in this intelligentsia’s minds by making revolt the inevitable through the inculcation of that culture in the people, making the latter own this culture as if it derived from them, because, after all, it was for them and not for anyone else or for any political party seeking one-party rule. Unless, by some Marxist criticism, we propose that that culture may have actually derived from them, the masses, and was merely articulated by the intelligentsia.

    “When do we really start comprehending Rousseau and get away being puzzled by Montesquieu?”—wrote my Facebook friend, the banker and gallerist Remigio David. “For the time being, it's self destruction, defeat, disaster!”

    Expect to see light at the end of this tunnel of horrors soon, ser David. That's the optimist side of me speaking. :)

    “We shall celebrate when we bump into our own ‘Age of Reason’,” he wrote. “And when it does, let us hope it will endure despite the social contention. Little by little, our old world should crumble! I am an optimist like you, tu vois!”

    My friend Hubert P- came back with this: “Ah, but we are growing. All the institutions are being questioned, all crumbling. Catharsis begins with these kinds of event, helped by the dawning of awareness given insight by people like you. Frame the positive outcome and prescription and we’ll see that the change is already here with people like you. Know that it is hard to break old habits but easy to create new ones. That is why the revolution in psychology has been to steer away from talking about the past and more on reframing the positive outcome one wants to produce. Conditioned helplessness is the condition one finds oneself in by constantly complaining without looking for a solution. The mind works by seeing a proof of concept, not by discussing logics. The ability to train the mind to see a problem as a situation is the first skill in training the mind to find the solution. That is why we keep changing our leaders without success, because we only know what we do not want without knowing what we need to do. Most Filipinos think that a movement is to find a fault and ask others to join in agreeing to find fault and rally behind that negative statement. They are actually talking about a reaction, not a revolution. A revolution is a dynamic of change from one State to another. But without a clear scalable proof of concept, it never really becomes a movement. Change begins with a small group with clearly defined acts that prove a new reality. Everything else is reaction.”

    À votre santé! Vive la démocratie directe!

5. The problem with our intelligentsia

BUT FOR NOW I don’t see things as brightly as my friend Hubert, despite my desire to continue to rally people towards direct democratic and participatory democratic directions. That’s the pessimist side of me speaking.
    "I don't blame the Americans for keeping to their interests. Ang problema is how well we fight for ours," Filipino historian Xiao Chua said in a talk show on Net25.
    Well, mabuhay ka, ser Xiao. Natumbok mo ang anatomiya ng lumpenbourgeoisie-ness; ang lumpenbourgeoisie-ness na hindi mawawala sa paghahanap ng ibang amo.

    And so, if our French Revolution of sorts is to be provoked by our intelligentsia, we should wonder where our intelligentsia are.

    Recently, this news came out about Duterte defender and former journalist pundit Teddy Boy Locsin’s engaging Duterte-critical netizens in a word war as he defended the President, specifically on Twitter: click here. Locsin has been designated by the new President as the new Philippine ambassador to the United States.

    We do not begrudge Locsin his newly-avowed opinion and position, as this new position may reflect his utopia of a better world articulated in his criticism as a journalist. Perhaps his fans’ dismay at his “having changed” is a mal-appreciation of what he stood for on the whole in the past, thus their shock at his present behavior.

    Nevertheless, it also cannot be denied that elements of the intelligentsia in this country, like their contemporaries in government, find it easy to sacrifice old ideals for new pragmatisms, being armed with the articulateness to justify flip-flops when a flip-flop or perceived flip-flop occurs.

    And whenever that adaptation happens, and I’m not saying that that’s what happened in Locsin’s case, it’s because that’s precisely what happens when our intelligentsia elements unwittingly or subconsciously promise themselves not to fight for their causes of old (or even new causes) but for a politician, especially when they fight for their selfish enjoyment under the patronage of those politicians. There are way more “fuck-faces” in this republic than the number of letters in the name of Teddy Boy Locsin. Politician-directed loyalism is the national disease in this our disguised monarchic system, in this our era before the far future occurrence of events that may lead to our French Revolution of sorts. [S / -I]

SIX QUESTIONS IN LIEU OF SEX VIDEOS (or, INVESTIGATIONS NA WALANG KADALA-DALA)

photo from http://www.alvintube.xyz/sen-leila-de-lima-nagbabala-kay-pres-duterte&page=CBQQAA.html

1. CAN I PLEAD FOR CLARITY?

Again, let me appropriate the voice and jargon of divination priests as I here present what I already said to some friends about the Rodrigo Duterte government's going after the former Commission on Human Rights chairman, former Justice secretary, and now senator Leila de Lima through a House probe run by its House allies, purportedly in aid of legislation:

    That the repetitive going over some things would not help anything except to create the impression that one is repetitively going over these things. That this kind of persistence within the chamber is going to be unfortunate, for the simple reason that trying too hard to bring hidden manipulations to light will underline nothing else but the fact that one is trying too hard to bring those hidden manipulations to light. And the House allies of the government must imagine what they have to lose by this, not merely in terms of the people's tax money wasted but in terms of the political positioning of their careers henceforward (or are they doing this precisely to help their careers in the present, tomorrow be damned?). Things won't go well with this qua a House probe, I said, as the most that it can do is make a resolution for the filing of charges against de Lima, which was what the government should have done in the first place. And if what it wants is to get all this out into the media, it could actually have done so without a House probe! Well, I can imagine that this is a situation that is unfamiliar to many of these representatives (a historic moment in the history of this House, the committee chairman said), which makes it dangerous for them to handle, as they have perhaps yet to fully get into it and get accustomed to it in the manner of judges and justices accustomed to poring over the arguments of lawyers, which unfortunately they can't go into that way as they pore on the fundaments of the case as the Duterte government’s lawyers themselves! I wonder if some of them are behaving with extreme unease toward their need to also keep in touch with their feelings (of doubt, of suspicion). Or is what they're feeling fear? Would they take action to remove themselves from that last state, if that's the state where some of them are in? That may sound funny, but it is actually the bigger question, considering that the bulk of them have been proven to be political turncoats all their lives, or at least to belong to families who have displayed themselves as such.

    And now this: last week's promise to release clips of an alleged celebrity sex video involving de Lima and her driver, as the latter is purported to be the bagman/collector of drug money from New Bilibid Prison drug lord inmates. It may be that the government is pursuing a worthwhile persona here in de Lima's driver. But, assuming the sex video is real, what's the plan in forming that connection beyond theory? Is a sex partner necessarily a business partner? Shouldn't the House have been probing the driver's connection to the prison-based drug trade first before de Lima's connection to the driver?

    So, where to now with this? Is the investigation moving now into the supposed missing ₱300 million mentioned by one? How did the government come up with that in the first place? Who would corroborate it? Who would belie it? Are the personas who could belie the existence of those missing funds still alive? And if they are, who has a hold on these witnesses? And if the government's "prosecution team" has a hold on these witnesses (in jail guarded by Special Action Force personnel), how can these witnesses be expected to belie anything? And weren't some of these the subjects of a supposed assassination attempt inside the NBP recently (which oppositionists insist was part of a psychological torture if not an outright assassination attempt)? You see, these are the details that would oblige the government to come up with a really good plan to make its story hold, if not in court, at least in the eyes and ears of the majority of the public.

    The ultimate question that the people should be asking is this: what does the government really want? It certainly must not come out that it merely wants to destroy de Lima, out of spite for her investigations into extrajudicial killings by Duterte in the present and in the past, for it is spending much of the people's money in that pursuit. It must make its choice clear now and make sure that what it wants and what it is doing to get to what it wants will satisfy this want. Otherwise it will only get itself into trouble, and we, the taxpayers, will suffer the consequences of that trouble more than the wealthy people in government.

0000

2. IS THE PURPOSE OF A HAMMER THE SAME AS THE PURPOSE OF A CHISEL?

So, again, where to now with this? Is the situation now dissolving for current Justice secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II (who also happens to be the former lawyer of one Davao police officer who owned a piece of land purported to be the burying place of victims of the Davao Death Squad)? Might it be a good idea for him and his president to start with something else, say the filing of a case in court against de Lima, and make good use of what they have now? But what do they have now, actually? Aha! And where merely did they bring these? Aguirre announced that these are all "material witnesses" with "explosive testimonies". But, but, material witnesses with explosive testimonies sent to a congressional committee hearing? For what end? Ano ang magagawa no'n?

    Aguirre says de Lima is coming out guilty. Hmm. So I guess his law experience expects the congressional committee to sentence de Lima to life imprisonment a week from now, huh?

0000

3. WHAT DO YOU THINK DUTERTE’S DUTERTE WOULD HAVE DONE?

If I were Rodrigo Duterte here's what I believe I would say about all this, being Duterte:

    "Ang hindi ko talaga maintindihan dyan sa congressional hearing hearing na yan . . . sus . . . Bilibid? How can you solve the problem in Bilibid with a congressional hearing, aber, can anyone tell me here? Put- . . . Alam niyo, kung ako yan, . . . puntahan ko lahat ng mga drug lords na may ginagawang kalokohan diyan, drug transactions there sa loob, . . . tapos pag nanlaban, well, . . . barilin mo. Yun lang. Barilin mo! What's the problem there? Sus, ginoo, pa-hearing hearing, putang-."

    But I'm not Rodrigo Duterte and, interestingly, he's not being Duterte here. Instead he's allowing this committee of coalition partisans to go on with its pa-hearing hearing because, perhaps, his majority coalition’s primary purpose with this is not to finally "get rid of drugs in Bilibid" but something else, whatever else it is.

    A total waste of the people's money, then!

0000

4. MABUHAY ANG LEHISLATURA?

Pero sa tingin ko di pa dapat tapusin ang congressional committee hearing na ito na nag-iimbestiga sa drug trade at drug supply sa NBP. Sa pananaw ko lang naman, kailangan pa siguro ng mga isang taon pa o at least 100 days pa para marami pa itong mausisa bago makagawa ng kahit na isang legislation man lang. Mga ₱90 milyong pa siguro ang kakailanganin para rito para makabuo tayo ng isang maliit na legislation.

    Ako ay hindi naman kongresista, kaya mababaw lang ang naisip kong legislation sa ngayon, ang baguhin ang pangalan ng Bilibid. Inaasahan ko na may malalim na magagawang batas ang hearing na ito pagkatapos ng isang taon at ilang milyong pisong halaga ng supply ng Absolut distilled drinking water ni Lucio Tan, kape, at turon para rito. Mabuhay kayo!

0000

5. NGUNIT MAY MGA NANINIWALA NA SA MGA TESTIMONYA AT IYON ANG MAHALAGA?

Okey, okey, sige nga. Ako na rin. Naniniwala na rin ako na may sex videos nga si Leila de Lima at ang kanyang dating driver. Naniniwala na ako na tumatanggap ng bilyon-bilyon si Leila de Lima mula sa drug trade sa New Bilibid Prison that would put to shame amounts of money pocketed by people involved in the PDAF scam of 2013, says Aguirre, at ang kolektor niya rito ay ang dating Marine sergeant na naging private security at driver niya na si Ronnie Dayan. Naniniwala na ako sa lahat ng sinasabi ni Vitaliano Aguirre II tungkol kay Leila de Lima. So, ano na ngayon? . . . Well, mabuhay ang congressional hearing! Maaari niyo nang sentensiyahan ng habambuhay na pagkabilanggo yang si Leila de Lima na yan!

    Ha? Ano? Di kayo nagsi-sentensya? E, sino ang magsisentensya? Ha? Ano po yon? A, ganun ba? Ay, sus, ganun pala. Tsk. E, ba't dito niyo dinala?!!!!!!

0000

6. AT NASAAN NA TAYO NGAYON?

photo from http://saltmarshrunning.com/2014/09/10/why-runners-love-bananas/

KUNG ANG LOHIKA NG IMBESTIGASYON NA ITO AY PARANG ISANG PILÍNG NG SAGING NA KAILANGA'Y BUO PARA ITO AY BILHIN NG TAO, GANITO MARAHIL ANG MAGIGING ISTRAKTURA NITO (KUNG HAHAYAAN NIYO AKONG IDROWING ITO SA SALITA):

    SAGING 1 (HYPOTHESIS 1): May drug trade na nangyayari noon sa New Bilibid Prison.

    SAGING 2 (HYPOTHESIS 2): Tumatanggap si Leila de Lima ng drug money mula sa isa sa mga drug lords dito.

    TWIN SAGING 3A & 3B (HYPOTHESES 3A & 3B): Si Ronnie Dayan ay boypren ni Leila de Lima at siyang kolektor nito ng drug money mula sa drug lord sa New Bilibid Prison.

    SO, ANG UNANG IIMBESTIGAHAN NATIN AY YUNG NASA SAGING 1 AT 2: Kung may mga testimonyang magpapatotoo na may drug trade sa New Bilibid Prison at na totoong tumatanggap si Leila de Lima ng drug money mula sa isang drug lord dito.

    ANG PANGALAWANG IIMBESTIGAHAN NATIN AY YUNG NASA SAGING 3A: Kung totoo ngang boypren ni Leila de Lima si Ronnie Dayan.

    NGAYON, ANO ANG MISSING LINK SA DAPAT SANA'Y KUMPLETONG PILÍNG NG APAT NA SAGING? Aha! Ito ang matagal nang hinahanap ng mga evolutionists at creationists: ang unggoy na may hawak ng Saging 3B. Ito ang makapagbibigay kasagutan sa tanong kung totoo ngang kolektor ang unggoy na ito ni Leila de Lima sa NBP. Dahil kahit ilang milyong sex video pa man (tunay man o peke) ang ilabas ng mga gorilla ni Rodrigo Duterte na magpapatunay na mag-boypren nga ang dalawa, kung wala rin lang ding testimonyang magsasabi na kolektor nga itong si Dayan (at tandaan nating walang kongresistang nagpakita ng malakas na interes sa tanong at sa unggoy na ito at mas binigyang pansin nang paulit-ulit ang pangalan at imahen ni de Lima bilang babae na nagsubo raw ng saging na saba sa kanyang boypren), putol na ang saging na ito (Saging 3B) sa pilíng ng argumento. Ang matitirang tanong ay . . . sino ang nagnakaw ng isang saging sa kanina'y buo pang pilíng ng apat na saging na basta na lang na binili mo? At nasaan na ito?

    I-SIMPLIFY NATIN SA ATING PARAPHRASE. Ang tanong: e ano ngayon kung mapapatunayang may relasyon si de Lima at si Dayan kung wala namang pagpapatunay na kolektor nga ng drug money itong si Dayan? At yun nga: dahil ito nga ang alegasyon kay Dayan na pinalabas sa media at ikinalat sa mga kongresista, di ba dapat yun muna ang pinatunayan at binigyan halaga ng mga testimonya at ng mga nag-iimbestiga? Bakit inuna ang relasyon nila ni de Lima? And even assuming na mapapatunayan ang relasyon at ang pagiging runner ni Dayan, kailangan pa rin patunayan na alam ni de Lima ang pinaggagagawa ni Dayan, lalo na ang alegasyon na si de Lima mismo ang nag-utos kay Dayan. Ganito kahirap patunayan ang mga paratang sa kasong ito kung sa korte dadalhin. Kaya siguro hindi doon dinala.

    Ito ang sabi ng kaibigan kong si H-: "Maling-mali ang paraan. Pero insider rumours lang, ha. Totoo raw ang DDS, at totoo rin daw na kumita si de Lima sa drugging sa NBP. Mali lang ang mga paraan nila, pero yung tamang paraan ay matagal nang hinde posible sa sistemang inherently bulok (ang ating justice system). . . ."
    Gayunpaman, mahirap nga talaga ang kasong ito, kasi puro testimony ang hawak, at lahat ay galing sa 1) mga preso na hawak na ng bagong gobyerno, at 2) mga taong may axe to grind kay Leila de Lima. Mahirap dumating sa beyond reasonable doubt, kung di ako nagkakamali. Tsk. I think maybe the Digong knew he simply had to do this while also knowing it won't prosper. Then, recently, he might also have been led to think that this might be creating a backlash, the reason perhaps why there were instructions to close it down na. . . .
    On the other side, meanwhile, its people are indeed starting to paint a dreary picture of the Duterte government as a Marcosian sort that would concoct stories and force people to testify (under threat of death or a relative's death) against anyone who ventures to criticize its main current direction. Duterte's reactions to US, EU and UN criticisms of his war on drugs has only bolstered some people's belief in the truthfulness of that picture. In this following, Duterte is already an animal, and so are his people. Recently, also, de Lima spoke at a women's rights conference and made a scathing speech against this President's and this government's misogyny, painting those siding with this president's brand of humor as pigs.
    And so the battle for the public's trust continues.

0000

P.S. Today, Rodrigo Duterte will attend a Banana Congress. Totoo yan. Well, alam na natin kung ano ang magiging laman ng script. At alam na rin natin kung ano ang sasabihin ni Leila de Lima, something, perhaps, that might sound like this: "abangan ang tawanan ng mga unggoy na animal na nandoon na pumapalakpak sa kanyang galit at patawang may mga walang kuwentang pagparatang."

    And the battle for the public's belief continues in this jungle of a banana republic. [S /-I]

Another advice to the foreign tourist

pgoto borrowed from http://www.factmag.com/2012/07/07/bloc-2012-and-why-speculative-coverage-of-last-nights-chaos-leaves-a-bad-taste/

SIR/MA'AM/MADEMOISELLE, there's nothing to fear, really---in spite of all the news you're hearing, there's absolutely no conflict in our islands; instead, there's total harmony! You often hear that our government here is in shambles? There's absolutely no truth to that bit of propaganda. Let me give you this advice that I have the habit of giving to foreign tourists like you.
    For instance, Sir/Ma'am/Mademoiselle, in the Philippines there is no difference between a majority bloc and a minority bloc; they both belong to the same bloc. In our Congress, it's true that our congressmen are divided into two blocs and the blocs are given different names (majority and minority). And, true, there are times when the minority appears like a true minority, in conflict with the President on a number of policies. But that would be a mirage in the desert, sir, ma'am, mademoiselle. You see, the names majority/minority are just there for the sake of giving tourists the impression that they are different, because, in fact, they're not! It's all theater, you know? And what do they say in theater? They say, "where there's no conflict, there's no story." We have total harmony in our theater, er, country, sir/ma'am/mademoiselle. All right? Absolutely nothing to fear! [S / -I]

THE PERFECT VISION OF HINDSIGHT UPON A DEVELOPING BLINDNESS

photo from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/324877/news/regions/davao-mayor-duterte-moonlights-fights-crime-as-taxi-driver

THE faults and loopholes in plans are always clearer in hindsight. And it is from this perfect angle within the present that you might grant me the indulgence to find out where the presently-perceived progressing wrongness in Rodrigo Duterte’s national war on drugs may have started, going even beyond its practical launch during the transition period prior to his inauguration.

    I won’t get into the good things the war brought out from the dark as it exposed to national attention a problem already so huge that the gravity of the situation in solving it seems almost unimaginable now. I’m sure Duterte’s defenders can enumerate quite well enough some of those good things.

    But if the world and a growing number of Filipinos have perceived some things going wrong with the Duterte approach to the problem, so have I, and—thanks to the beauty of hindsight—I may now proceed to venture into where those mistakes may have been lurking prior to and during implementation:

1. First, it seems to me now that when Duterte made his drastic solution to the drug problem as one of the highlights, if not the sole highlight, of his presidential election candidacy and campaign, that was perhaps also when he practically started to shape what would later be his impending war on drugs’ problem with critics (perhaps also this war's later-found difficulty in quickly and efficiently obliterating the menace). True, Duterte the candidate might not have been the Duterte candidate that many wanted to see blossom, though we don’t know that, if he had not harped too much on that subject (or on that solution of his to that subject). But Duterte is Duterte, and if everyone has an obsession, this was his.
       But one thing for sure now, well at least now looking back, is that the loquacity of the campaign rhetoric on it as a problem needing a drastic solution, while it served his campaign was also already paving the way for its potential unraveling. For it was simply by announcing this solution of his to the nation, and consequently to the world of criminals (and to the parallel universe of policemen frustrated with the requirements of the law and the corruption in the judiciary) that he may have unwittingly planted the seeds of the war’s own defeat.
       We might remember that the death toll from this war actually already started during the transition period when Noynoy Aquino was still commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Duterte was still the president-elect with diktats in waiting. When, during this period, Duterte made speeches encouraging police to kill drug criminals who opted to fight it out with arresting officers, the encouragement certainly sounded like an offer to policemen to use that scenario as their perfect alibi for the summary execution of confirmed drug dealers that the President might have wanted done (as per some other contents of his speeches). The encouragement would likely also have been useful to erring or criminal cops friendly to drug lords, who may have used the same scenario as the same perfect alibi for the elimination of would-be-whistleblowers (small pushers, runners, client users).
2. The garrulousness of Duterte’s anti-illegal-drug campaign never changed its ways after his inauguration, maintaining a high profile via its appetite for loudness. That practically functioned as a warning to big drug criminals of their impending arrests. In fact, Duterte and his henchman, newly-installed Philippine National Police chief Gen. Bato de la Rosa, would state very explicit warnings to those drug lords on broadcast TV, saying, clearly or in effect, “get ready, we’re coming for you”. This ill-advised loudness defeated the potential of getting to the big drug lords through the quiet use as assets of small dealers (and client users). Instead, the government practically encouraged and aided the elimination of these small dealers, in the process eliminating their potential use as assets and witnesses necessary for getting to the big drug lords and necessary for the latter’s later ultimate conviction in the courts. In short, the Duterte proclivity for braggadocio made it possible for the program to only get the small fry as it practically warned the medium and big fish to get out of the way, even aiding the latter in eliminating elements in the equation who would potentially rat out on them. Thus the so-called “vigilante killings,” which, for all we know, may likely have been killings of simple users who necessarily knew who were who in the trading of the drug supply. These “vigilante killings” by drug dealers would be exacerbated by such programs as 1) Oplan Tokhang that encouraged the surrender of runners and users for listing and 2) mandatory drug testing that announced results: these two programs exposed users to the world of drug dealing as potential testifiers, which would be reason enough for their later or immediate assassination/elimination by the drug dealers. The programs' ultimate accomplishment? These eliminated the witnesses, setting free the drug lords. 
3. Another offshoot of Duterte’s loud campaign (which might have been frustrating to the PNP’s quiet spies and assets) was its susceptibility to being used by the regular murderers for hiding the real motives of their murders. It’s not unlikely that some policemen frustrated with the law and the justice system might have been easily taken in by the cardboards laid on top of murder victims' bodies announcing an anti-drug-pusher motive for their killing, a reaction that would lead these policemen to dismiss any enthusiasm to investigate further other possible motives behind those killings. And when one such occurrence multiplies itself to a horrific number that may trouble the media and human rights organizations as well as the rest of the relatively civilized world, then the war on drugs starts to move on its way to defeat. Instead of gathering more fans (in the manner it gathered fans during the enthusiasm of the election campaign period), it accumulated critics.
4. I need not say much about the potential of Duterte’s approach—along with any killings via vigilantism that may likely have been encouraged by Duterte’s passion—to eliminate wrongfully-accused persons (innocent persons) or persons adjudged as guilty by the verdict of mistaken identification.
5. Much of the enthusiasm for and loyalism towards Duterte’s war on drugs seems to have derived from a mythical appreciation of its beauty, lacking any favor for a delicate treatment of the problem. This kind of enthusiasm would necessarily churn out more good-looking braggadocio (bravado) instead of more scientific thinking towards winning the war. The potential unraveling of the still-continuing war (for which the President has asked for another six months to complete) could start precisely from this seeming waylaying of any delicate treatment of the situation in favor of the charismatic carelessness of the drastic, thanks to the penchant for sweeping obsessive thinking in the President himself. Thus his announcements (after the Davao explosion that some have begun to regard as an experimental false flag) that the military might have to be hauled in into this war, without weighing the fact that this solution could bring in more problems (via evolution) instead of real closure. We’re not even talking yet about the announcements that seem to be jeopardizing a long-time alliance with the relatively more democratic West (that has been critical of his war) in favor of a sweet-talking trickster called China (that has offered him rehab centers allegedly already under construction). This obsession by Duterte with one single personal interest (the dreamy utopia of a drug-free world) seems to have become so emotional to him that it has placed the drug problem in a pedestal worth any sacrifice, even the sacrifice by a leader of his country’s national sovereignty, thanks perhaps to a blinded confidence that he will not be deceived by his new like-minded allies from the lands of Qin Shi Huang and surviving KGBs.
6. The recently-accumulating careless statements of the President have made people nervous, primarily of the fact that he may have used this bottom-up war on drugs not for the serious elimination of the trade and drug lords but merely as a casus belli for the establishment of a culture of fear and obedience, fear of and obedience to a loved leader, after which establishment he can perhaps impose whatever personal utopia he has had in that strange 71-year-old brain of his, and likewise place in power the friends and institutions (local and foreign) that he wanted placed in lieu of the old friends his 71-year-old memory had come to hate.

    Sadly, all this developing blindness or myopia (in government or in the people) may perhaps only be proven true when it’s already too late and the only redeeming solutions available are already hidden in the tears of hindsight. [S / -I]





P.S. October 4, afternoon: If I may be allowed to speak in the language of divination priests, I'd bluntly say this to you now, Mr. President: "Here you are again, sir, deciding out loud, making all your thoughts known at a local leaders' congress. Sure you're telling them truths, collective truths and personal truths, but isn't the habitual or continuous screaming out of extemporaneous, lecturing truths risky when you are telling these to the populace yourself, touting yourself as your own best communication expert? Isn't it a disadvantage when you are being heard in the battlefield of your war, consequently warning the enemies you shouldn't be handing the benefit of a warning? Might it not be better to tell all these to key people in your team, giving them the blunt truths they might already know that yet need to be quickly and aggressively addressed? Might not the communication of a positive purpose or goal work better for the people's collective listening ears? Can you come up with a better communication plan than the non-plan you now have of making criminals daily hear your ever-present anger that's enabling them to adapt or be ready for?"
    Here's my joke about you to counter your Hitler rant:
    Kung si Rodrigo Duterte ang naging Hitler ng Germany at si Bato de la Rosa ang kanyang naging Goering, hindi na kakailanganin ni Churchill si Turing dahil walang magiging Enigma.

UNLESS WE PUT BACK THE L IN EDLSA, CHANGE WOULD STILL BE STUCK IN TRAFFIC AND WON'T BE COMING AT ALL

hiram mula sa http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/video/380824/balitanghali/rep-salceda-mas-nagdudulot-ng-traffic-sa-edsa-ang-pokemon-go-kaysa-provincial-buses

EMERGENCY powers. Ito ang hinihingi ng Malacañang sa Senado para malutas ang traffic at transportation crisis sa Metro Manila. "Change is coming" with those emergency powers, pangako ng paulit-ulit na campaign at government slogan ng Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte. Subalit, teka, kung ang departamento ehekutibo ang nanghihingi at hindi ang Senado ang humingi ng hearing tungkol sa usapin na ito ng emergency powers para sa Pangulo, ito ang tanong: Di ba ay may inihanda at isinumite ka na dapat na plano sa Senado bago ka pa man pumunta roon para pormal na manghingi ng emergency powers? Bakit kailangan ka pang tanungin kung ano ang mga plano mo ng mga taong hinihingan mo ng emergency powers?
    Huwag na natin isa-isahin ang mga planong inilahad din naman ng departamento ehekutibo sa Senate hearing tungkol dito, pareho yung wow, na naman at yung maganda o tumpak na plano; kayo na ang bahalang mag-research kung ano ang mga ito at kumumporme o kumamot sa ulo sa bawat isa sa mga ito. Ngayon, gusto ko lang balikan ang mga nakaraan para mailatag ko ang aking pananaw sa buong polisiya sa trapik at transportasyon ng gobyernong ire.


MGA kababayan, may paborting salitang Bisaya na ginagamit ang Pangulo kapag nalalamyaan sa isang tao: bayot. Sa Tagalog, ibig sabihin nito ay bakla. Alam ko naman na ang ibig sabihin ng Pangulo ay malamya lamang, o walang tapang, o mahina, at hindi tunay na bakla, dahil alam naman niya siguro na maraming bakla ang may tapang at lakas ng loob, tulad nalang halimbawa ng tapang na marahil ay nakita niya kina Behn Cervantes at Lino Brocka noong panahon ng Martial Law. Gayunpaman, ayokong gamitin ang salitang ito kung ako naman ang malalamyaan sa isang polisya ng gobyernong ito dahil homophobic ang dating, tulad ng pagka-sexist ng pagsabing "para ka namang babae." Kaya ang gagamitin kong salita pag ako ang malalamyaan sa isang polisiya o kawalan ng isang pagkaklaro at pagkadiretso at pagka-malakas ay . . . malamya lamang. O di kaya walang kuwenta. O di kaya supot. Oops, di rin yata politically correct yon.
    Huwag na tayong magpaligoy-ligoy pa. Ito ang tanong ko:
    Kelan kaya tayo magkakaroon ng gobyernong may buong tapang na i-nationalize ang lahat ng sasakyang pampubliko sa metropolis o di kaya gawin ang ginawa sa Melbourne na di man nationalized ay nasa ilalim ng consortia kung kaya't di magulo, dahilan kung bakit nakaya niyang ipagbawal ang pribadong sasakyan sa ilang daan ng metropolis (maliban sa business cargo vans), at inobliga ang lahat na gumamit ng sasakyang pampubliko, maging janitor man o CEO ng mga korporasyon. Parang sa Japan din, kung saan pati ang mga CEO ay kumakain sa cafeteria ng mga sararimanu (salary men). Kelan kaya tayo makakakita ng ganitong uri ng tapang para sa pagkakapantay-pantay ng lahat sa daan? Kelan? Kailan?!
    Sa ngayon kasi, tila may pagsandal na naman sa rason na ang trapik ay di naman parating "matrapik", at ito ay pinapalala lang din ng isang kathang-isip nating mga komyuter. Hmm. Kaya pala't narito pa rin tayo at may patuloy na pakikinabang ang oil companies sa malalang trapik na nagpapalago sa kanilang mga negosyo, salamat sa pagsunog ng mga sasakyan ng gasolina kahit di umaandar ang mga ito.
    Naroon ang nakapagtatakang mga naunang utos ng LTFRB kung saan ipinagbawal ang pagdaan sa EdlSA ng isang uri ng public transport (UV Express) pabor sa isang public transport (buses), na di ko malaman kung ano ang naitulong sa trapik sa EdlSA gayung dumami lang naman ang nagcolorum na mga vans at naglipana na rin ang mga Uber at Grab. Ito ay habang nagkakakanta ang gobyerno na priyoridad daw nila ang public transport, gayung wala pa namang nagagalaw na paggalaw ng mga pribadong sasakyan at ang UV Express pa nga ang unang pinagdiskitahan, at pinaglakad pa ng malayo ang ilang mga mananakay nitong working class patungo sa kanilang mga MRT connecting stations. At sasabihin ng gobyerno na socialist daw siya at maka-working class? Sus, ginoo.
    (Mabuti naman at pagkaraan ng ilang linggo ay binawi rin ito ng mga taga-Dabaw na nagpatupad nito na tila may weird na konsepto tungkol sa trapik sa EdlSA, bagamat may mga kondisyon pa rin itong di ko pa rin maintindihan. O naiintindihan ko kung umaalis ako sa sosyalistang perspektibo na pinangalandakan ng gobyerno na siya rin daw perspektibo na pinanggagalingan nila. Pweh.)
    Meron ba talagang solusyong bago ang gobyerno natin ngayon maliban sa mga imprastaktura na naman na makikipaghabulan na naman sa dumaraming sasakyan na humahabol sa bilang ng mga indibidwal sa lumulobong populasyon ng lungsod?
    Ang problema ng trapik ay hindi ang trapik, kundi ang kathang-isip ng mga rehimen na ang tanging solusyon sa paglobo ng populasyon ng mga pribadong sasakyan ay nasa paggiba ng mga bahay para matayuan ng mga kalsada. Saan ito hihinto, pag naubos na ang mga bahay? Ang problema ng EDSA (at hindi ng EdlSA) ay sa patuloy nating pagsamba sa pagkasanto ng mga pribadong sasakyan nang walang pagtatanong man lang kung alin at sino ba talaga ang dapat na ituring na santos ng highway na ito. Matagal na nating tinanggap na santos ang mga pribadong sasakyan dito, nang walang pagpreno at pagmunimuni tungkol sa kung sino ba talaga ang los santos. The saints. Napapanahon na siguro na ibalik natin ang L sa EdlSA, silang mga tunay na los santos, ang public transport commuters na siyang dapat na sinasamba ng mga polisiyang pang-transportasyon.
    Sa ngayon, wala. Wala akong nakikitang solusyon na magpapahinto sa pagpabor ng gobyerno sa pribadong sasakyan. Ang future transporation utopia kung saan wala nang pribadong sasakyan ay di pa darating sa Pilipinas sa mga darating na siglo. Kailangan pa siguro natin ng liderato na sa isyung ito ay may totoong tapang, tapang na may dalang pagbabago sa buhay ng mga taong di pinagkaitan ng kaukulang pansin ni Lino Brocka. Tapang di lamang sa pagtanggap sa katotohanan na kailangan na natin ng nasyon ng mass transport at di nasyon ng mga pribadong sasakyan na wala na ngang maparkingan ay siya pa nating sinasamba, at lalo ng tapang na igiit ang solusyon na para sa nakararami, o para sa kanila na araw-araw ay gising sa reyalidad na hindi pinalala ng kathang-isip itong mga nangyayari.
    O di kaya, let's gather our heads on this, people! And I mean, let's gather the real bravery of working together on this in a participatory democracy, instead of relying on just the macho bravado of a Department of Transportation that keeps on giving us nothing but the drugged view of a promise of a bogus socialist transport policy that shall be coursed through diktats. Let's believe in us together, instead of just a Tugade. Together, not Tugade, and rally for real change sans the kowtowing to private interests via emergency powers. (Concerning PPP projects, here's a caveat to all optimistic about new government PPP arrangements expected to come from the emergency powers setup, marketed as the Duterte solution. . . . which, for our information, were actually also marketed before as the Noynoy Aquino, Macapagal-Arroyo, Estrada, Ramos, and Cory Aquino solutions: read about New Zealand's "promised electric trains derailed by misguided enthusiasm", for example).
    I say again: Let's take back our EdlSA, this time with the L that refers to the real santos, the los santos, Lino Brocka's santos, the public-transport-commuting masses. Yan ang epipanyo (o epifanyo, o epiphany) na pinapanangalin kong makita sana ng lahat bago pa man sumambulat ang mga lumang uri ng solusyon na dala ng emergency powers na ito. [S / -I]