QUEZONIAN CONTEXTS FOR OUR TIME

“I WOULD rather have a country run like hell by Filipinos than a country run like heaven by the Americans, because however bad a Filipino government might be, we can always change it.” Quezon the movie adopted another version of that quote, which ends with "because no matter how bad, a Filipino government might be improved." In our time, those two versions would differ significantly.

THE former. The former could be used to refer to a US-modeled system of government with a strong president under a strongly-representative democracy CHANGED IN THE FUTURE, after repeated demonstrations of failure, to a more democratic parliamentary form perhaps, and/or to one under a more participatory democracy or quasi-direct democracy like that of Switzerland. The word "can" is optimistic towards Filipinos' capacity to create or instigate or demand such a transition or transformation. The latter. The latter version of the quote (with "might") is less positive, but perhaps more realistic, as if cognizant of the fact that we have always had a policy of maintaining ignorance and propaganda-vulnerability in our country's overwhelming majority (simply via our education system that refuses to be fully socialized and takes pride in a hierarchism of trainings). But although the latter is realistic, almost implying a pessimism or as if subtly preaching the impossibility of hoping, it is however ignorant of the fact that a government molded through a plutocratic model of fake democracy WILL NEVER ALLOW ITSELF TO BE "IMPROVED". Or is it pessimistic precisely because of the near-impossibility of seeking improvements within it?

WHICH version do you prefer? At the risk of sounding like a Macchiavellian inciter of armed rebellion, I'd say that such a plutocratic/kleptocratic government system that has allowed so much power among its wielders will indeed never allow a more open government, or share legislative power with the people through truly-useful initiatives, and that the only time it will allow these to encroach into the system is when a revolution occurs that would demand the upending of those eternal refusals. As an open government and participatory democracy advocate I'll risk stating that statement bordering on Macchiavellian or otherwise Marxist pessimism, however, knowing full well that Filipinos currently want to upend our current system that continues to refuse significant changes only through the lens of either communism or Islamism, both of which our plutocracy has been able to keep at bay. Filipinos will never go to war against our eternally corrupt plutocracy in the name of open government or a quasi-direct democracy. . . . Never. Although they might be able to, someday. Can change. Might improve. Two different worlds in a parallel universe.

A short, short review

photo from Rappler

I COULD research a flaw (or rumored flaw) in Leni Robredo's personality, then make a movie out of that. I could then end up hyping up, like a troll, the flaw or flaws (or rumored or speculated flaws) I uncovered in that research, couldn't I? All in the name of a "she's just human" supposed narrative statement, since I've always claimed to love her politics. End up, I said, because that film could actually drown out all the things she fought for during her presidential campaign, against all the odds (read: the entire anti-open government plutocracy and their friend, kleptocracy). Couldn't it? . . . Now, aside from the difference in their stature, Robredo is far from being a Manuel L. Quezon, and vice versa, as far as we know, and Quezon and Robredo belong to two different times in history with very different problems. I only pulled out that example with her in the above paragraph to present an argument, with which I would now want to ask this: did Quezon the film end up being an anti-left of center propaganda film that effectively trivialized Quezon's and Osmeña's nationalism against all odds (the Americans' reluctance) as well as put in the shadows the former's (progressive) policy struggles against the landlords and industrial plutocrats of his time? All in the name of putting a "focus" on a he-was-just-human supposed cinematic statement, with no intention of making it come out like a right-wing black propaganda film produced by an Ortigas and a Rocha.

(IN hindsight, did Heneral Luna the movie help make Rodrigo Duterte's "put Tang in a" glass-shattering curses come out as no more than just charming? And, looking forward, will Quezon's supposed treatment of Osmeña, as hyped up in the film, aid Sara Duterte's communication struggle against the Luzonians of our time?)

Agam-agam

ANG mga facilitators, makukulong. Ang mga nagdisenyo ng facilitation, maaabswelto. Iyan ang prediksyon ko.
    In the interrogative, contractors and DPWH engineers ba ang magiging Janet Lim-Napoles et al. of the 2020s? Facilitators taking the fall for the architects and top beneficiaries of the facilitation?

Wala

HABANG hinihintay daw ang resulta ng imbestigasyon ng "Independent Commission for Infrastructure" (sic), may nagsa-suggest sa Senado ng isang tax holiday, isa naman bagong DPWH with new employees. Walang nagsa-suggest ng bill para sa mas transparent na gobyerno!!!
    Aasikasuhin na raw ang "anti-dynasty bill" at bill providing additional powers sa "Independent Commission for Infrastructure". Pero, again: as usual, no bill to make government more transparent!!!

NAWALA ang pork barrel, pinalitan ng insertions. Kung mawawala na ang insertions, ano ang ipapalit ng political families ng Pilipinas para maipagpatuloy ang kanilang . . .
    Oh, the performative rage of government leaders everywhere! But only a handful of them would actually back an open government bill!
    For as long as walang gagawing mother batas for an open government, lahat ng legislation na isusulat ay malulusutan in the near future! Ganyan katalino ang mga kriminal sa ating Konggreso!!!
    Kaya "open government" na now!!! Hindi lang sa SALN!!!

Para-Parochial Promise

KUNG gagawa ng masama ang aming pari o Obispo, o kahit ang Santo Papa, hindi ko ipagtatanggol. Sasama pa ako sa mga magkukondina sa ginawa o mga ginawa.
    Ikaw? Kung ang pastor niyo . . .

In the end

IN the end, all this back and forth between anti-Duterte and pro-Duterte citizens won't come out as that mid-2020s battle between supporters of ideas of good government and those conservative proponents of evil's continuance, but simply as that communication war between two parties who both tried to convince a badly educated majority that they were the ones on the side of the good. Sad.

Ukol Sa Mga Panawagan ng Pagtiwalag o Di Na Pag-ambag

HINDI lahat ng ordinaryong Katoliko sa ating bansa ay naging anti-RH Law, o kasalukuyang anti-divorce or even 100% anti-abortion, to mention a few contentious positions sa Simbahang Katolika sa Pilipinas. I may even dare say that, bagamat lahat sila ay patuloy na nagsisimba at nag-aambag sa Iglesia Katolika, lahat ng Catholics are actually cafeteria ones. Naniniwala akong ganun din ang mga miyembro ng Iglesia ni Cristo at Jesus Is Lord Church, hindi ko nga lang alam kung ilang porsyento sa kanilang populasyon ang hindi nagpapadala sa anumang groupthink na mayroon na isinusulong ng isa o ilan sa kanilang mga lider. In my case, totally na titiwalag lang ako sa Roman Catholic Church, temporarily man o permanently, o ihihinto ang aking pa-₱20-₱20 na inilalagay sa collection bag tuwing nagsisimba (na, I admit, ay ilang beses lang naman sa isang taon), kung akin nang makikita na ang LAHAT ng lider, o ang MGA NASA TUKTOK, ng aking Simbahan . . . ay kampi sa mga tao o kaugalian na di ko kailanman maaaring kampihan.

The eternal urge to control the uncontrollable

BA'T di nabantayan nang maigi ng mainstream media ang mga proyekto ng DPWH? Hindi kaya dahil . . . sa word-phrase na "street gutter" pa lang, iba na ang pagkaintindi ng Philippine news journalism sa pagkaintindi ng civil engineering?
    At itong mga project engineers naman, nag-ocular inspection naman daw. Pero an "ocular inspection" is an inspection utilizing optical devices (lenses, microscopes, &c). Kaya ba di nila nakita ang kitang-kita na ng naked eye?

MGA kababayan, narito na rin lang tayo sa usapang pag-intindi at pagtingin, . . . sana'y tingnan na rin nating maigi ang concept behind dike (levee) projects itself. Tanong: bakit levee lang ang parating tinitingnan na solusyon o ang tinuturing na pangunahing solusyon sa pagsalba sa ating binabahang mga kababayan? After all, ang mga environmentalists o ecologists, halimbawa, hindi totally supportive sa konsepto ng levees.
    At para sa mga climate change-aware, ang kahit pa up-to-standard na levees na itatayo sa mga "sinking" areas ng bansa ay maaaring mawalan na ng saysay 25 years from now. In short, kung ang perang tinapon sa levees na iyan ay ginasta na lamang sa relocation, mas forward-looking pa sana. Bakit hindi ang mga nakatira sa bahaing lugar ang tanungin natin, in a participatory-budgeting manner? Dahil ang levees sa panahon ng rising seas, walang pinagkaiba sa Dolomite Beach.

Paniniwala at kasinungalingan

I ONCE asked myself, posible ba'ng i-imagine si Jesus at ang kanyang disciples as a platoon of Christofascists? Yes, it is instantaneously possible now. Mai-imagine nga kita as one of his disciples' disciples. But wait, I'm confused. Shouldn't you be thankful and proud instead of angry at me every time I quote your hero-evangelist's words? O sige na nga, he was a good man. Bahala ka sa buhay mo.
    Dahil wala akong kilalang bilib sa kanya ang matutulungan kong mabago ang pagtingin sa taong yon. So, sabi nga ni Vi sa Arcane, "let things play out."

    Kaya, heto na nga. Sigaw mo, giyera na sa Amerika! Hmm. So, oh my God, civil war's a-brewing, between those who believe in a liberal Christ and those who worship a conservative one, and in between are people buying NRA stocks. Now, in the June shootings of Minnesota legislators and their spouses, nobody posted a "THIS IS WAR!" exhortation. Bakit di dapat nagsimula ang giyera noon, noong June? Ang tanging exhortation na masasabi ko, at diretso sa kanya, ay ito lang: "Rest in peace now, in peace perhaps with all the victims of automatic rifle mass shootings you didn't care about."
    War, eh? You know, people who campaign for violence, aggression and war always have this strong faith that they'd come out the winner. Faith, yes. Dahil ganito: anumang kasamaan ang plinano niya sa mundo, dahil ginamit niya ang pangalan ni Hesus, sumusunod ka sa kanyang "kabanalan" at makikipagpatayan sa ngalan niya. Marami nga naman sa ating planeta ang kakain ng balat ng durian, kasama ka na, sa ngalan ng faith na pinagsisigawan ng mga gumagamit lamang nito para maging makapangyarihan.

MORAL of the story, huwag sanang gamitin ang pangalan ni Hesus sa maling posisyon at baka ito ay bumalik sa iyo. Again, "Be careful what kind of America you wish for, you just might get it in your neck of the woods" is the blunt moral here. So, right-wing Anerica and right-wing America sympathizers in the Philippines, sure about the new American civil war you're craving for?
    Sabagay nga naman, sinasabi mong Kristiyano ka, ngunit lahat pala ng Bible quotes mo . . . galing Old Testament. Teka. Kung lahat ng Bible quotes mo ay galing Old Testament, hindi ka Kristiyano, malamang ika'y isang Caiaphasiyano. Yes! After all, "Christian" conservatives believe Christ was a conservative, confusing Him with Caiaphas.

    Kaya pala. Bilang isang Caiaphasiyano, kailangan mo muna ng 'sang-milyong pruweba bago mo matanggap iyang katotohanan. Kahit madali ka lang mapaniwala ng kasinungalingan.

Abolish Congress?

REFERENCING a supposed Congressional tradition of according the Office of the Vice President absolute courtesy in relation to questions regarding the "confidential funds controversy" involving the said Office, Congressman Rodante Marcoleta invoked the supremacy of that tradition over congressmen's queries, which latter by the way is in itself a part of the tradition or anatomy of Congressional hearings. Congressman Marcoleta forgets that while it's true that Congress operates with certain of those traditions installed through the decades, it exists solely on the promise that, as a legislative and enquiry body, it might also be able to create little or otherwise major revolutions for the people. In the absence of this promise, the necessity of a Congress or the rationale behind having a Congress at all disappears, and Marcoleta as a congressman would as a consequence of that disappearance cease to have a reason to exist as well.

To be or not to be . . .

NAKAKAINIS na 'tong ginagawa ng China ha. Kaya tinawagan ko na ang International Maritime Organization gamit ang Oppo cellphone ko, tapos mamaya pupuntahan ko mga kasama ko sakay ng Geely ko, o ng Chery ko, para mag-organisa ng protest sa harap ng Chinese Embassy. Kaya lang tumaas daw ang heart rate ko, sabi ng aking Huawei smart watch, kaya baka magpalamig muna ako sa harap ng aking Midea air cooler. Baka mamaya puwede na. Subukan ko muna mag-jogging nang konti suot ang Anta Sports shoes ko. Fakyu, China!

Salamat, Ma'am VP Leni Robredo, for your pioneering effort

 

Photo from The Straits Times

Ma'am VP Leni Robredo, thank you for introducing three concepts new to Philippine politics when you brought them out as the leading items in your political platform during your presidential candidacy campaign: open government, participatory democracy, and a job guarantee policy.

It may not yet be the time for the Filipino people to have them, but you will be remembered as the only presidential candidate in Philippine history (perhaps in contemporary world history) to have had the will to advocate them and become so popular with the people with your introduction of them.

May the next presidential candidate to advocate for them finally succeed after your pioneering effort. [S / -I]

Diagram by Roberto Triviño uploaded to ResearchGate

Anti-Semiotic, Ang Putik

(borrowed from httpbellyngot1.wordpress.com)

LAHAT ng bagay sa mundo ay may meaning. Kahit nga ang pambansang almusal nating pan de sal na imported mula China at Turkey ang ginagamit na arina ay isang maliit na bagay lang na may malaking meaning. Ang EdloSA pa kaya, na may kilokilometrong trapik na ngayon ay may problemang ayaw solusyunan (dahil malaki ang kinikita ng oil companies sa trapik na ito) . . . kahit pa nag-rebolusyon na sa abenidang ito ang maraming ordinaryong tao noong 1986! Diyan pa lang, may malaking meaning ka nang makikita! Kaya kung sasabihin mo sa akin na wala nang meaning ang EdloSA 1, isa kang nagbubulagbulagan sa katotohanan ng mga bagay-bagay tulad ng pan de sal. O baka naman iniiwasan mo lang ang totoo: na hinayjak ng elite, tulad ng idolo mong elite o royalty, ang naibalik na “demokrasya”. Hinayjak nila ito para hindi na ito maging mas demokratiko pa, maging sa participatory man o semi-direct na democratic direction. Di ba? Aminin. Pati ba naman ang mga meaning ay hahayjakin mo rin, tarantadong hayjaker ka. [S / -I]

The anatomy of the far right's fake news program

image from alexsarchives.org

SENATOR, the far right doesn’t mind that its communications people engaged in the peddling of fake news find themselves, along with the far-right parties hosting them, placed in a bad light. After all, the far right’s fake-news programming is not interested in hijacking the image of virtuous truthfulness traditionally claimed by journalism, the reason why it often resorts to “kidding”/“joking” (its darling technique for confusing the issues) or otherwise violent anger. The mission of the far right’s post-truth politics is to render all information suspect or personal, especially information coming from the institution of journalism that it habitually counter-accuses, naturally, of being the fake one every time the latter shouts “fake” toward an item coming from the populist right. In the final attainment of a culture of cynicism in society, where all claims at having reached the truth would have naturally been weakened (almost as if to parody left-leaning post-structuralism), it is true that the far right’s own truth-peddling would suffer, too. . . . But so will journalism’s ability to convince! That journalistic impotence is the sole or final target of the far right’s program of popularizing the political virtue of the sneering and laughing lie. For when that culture is reached, where information from all quarters (including its own) becomes trash, all the far right’s secrets become freed from the impact of any kind of journalistic scrutiny, all journalism in its old sense having now been rendered feeble, and all rightist propaganda that have replaced journalism made newly sacrosanct. [S / -I]

Ano ka?

Siyempre wala

photo from http://globalnation.inquirer.net/137508/137508

ANG problemang trapik sa Metro Manila ay problema ng tao, hindi kotse. Mantakin mong napakaraming meyor ang nag-dedecide tungkol sa traffic flow at traffic harbingers sa metropolis na ito at kailangan silang konsultahin lahat ng MMDA at sumang-ayon sa bawat panukala ng nasabing ahensiya.
    Iisa lang ang meyor ng New York City at mas malaki ang land area ng New York City (hindi pa kasama ang water area) kaysa sa total area ng buong Metro Manila! Matrapik din sa New York City, ngunit walang napakaraming meyor na kailangan konsultahin at kumbinsihin.
    May gagawin ba si Presidente Duterte o ang Konggreso sa problemang ito? Siyempre wala! [S / -I]

A BAR TOPNOTCHER'S MOMENT OF IDIOCY

photo from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Koko_Pimentel.jpg

KOKO PIMENTEL to 2016 losers: Move on, Duterte is our president up to 2022. Pimentel said this in reply to rumors about an oust-Duterte campaign. . . .
    Well, it would seem with this that Pimentel is not interested in introducing a bill that would create a law for the conduct of a recall election for any president, or calling for a charter change to a parliamentary system with a regular vote-of-confidence call, as he did not mention any of these in his critique as possible options for the future, a future freed finally from the dictatorial tendencies of our presidential system.
    It would also seem that Pimentel is intent on merely preaching acquiescence to all the whims of an elected official within his term, and on preaching as well the ideal that all the people can and must do is "move on", that is to say, take all the blows when they don't like what their president is doing anymore, likely believing perhaps that the people's mistake at electing that president can only be their punishment---thus his sermon practically saying we must allow a president to do as he pleases with the nation and country he was elected to be the sole brain of for a term, with nary a complaint from us towards any form of bloodbath this president might be imposing.
    If I got Koko Pimentel correctly with this reading of his statement, then I would be inclined to believe in his idiocy towards the concept of democracy. I wonder if his version of democracy is what informs the "Demokratiko Pilipino" phrase in his party's name, Partido Demokratiko Pilipino. He might be reminded that "revolution" is part and parcel of the demos + kratos (democratic) concept, if demos + kratos is to be clarified to his kokote (grey matter) as "the people's rule". Otherwise, he would be well advised to change his party's name to Partido Dutertards ng Pilipinas. [S / -I]

A VOZHDIST VERSION FROM MESSIANIST AVERSION

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ronald_dela_Rosa_073116_(cropped).jpg

ENOUGH already with this propaganda crap shit that argues thus, to brainwash us all into the supposed virtue of leaderism:
    "Magpasalamat kayo dapat sa amin kaysa mag-criticize sa War on Drugs kasi nakikinabang din kayo sa new peace and order situation. Huwag maging ingrato."
    Unang-una po, criticizing a manner of fighting the illegal drugs industry is not necessarily a criticism of the overall rationale for fighting the illegal-drugs trade. . . .
    Pangalawa, pointing out consequences of a certain manner of fighting the illegal-drugs trade may be meant to be corrective for that fight, not destructive to the same. . . .
    I hope malinaw/maliwanag.
    In short, magpasalamat dapat tayo sa kritisismo sa mga prosesong ginagamit sa War on Drugs dahil ang mga kritisismong ito ay maaaring makatulong sa paghubog (o pagpanatili man) ng isang magandang imahe para sa giyerang ito; ito ang imaheng makapagbubuklod sa lahat ng ayaw sa illegal drugs.
    Conversely, ang pagiging averse sa kritisismo ay pagsang-ayon sa konsepto na dapat sumunod na lang ang lahat sa iisang matalinong nag-iisip na hari para sa giyera "niyang" ito, kahit pa nakikita ng marami (o ng iilang kritiko) na ang proseso o metodolihiya ng hari ay nakasisira sa sarili "niyang" giyera.
    Unless of course ang totoo ay hindi seryoso sa pagpuksa sa illegal drugs ang giyerang ito at may ibang objective, say, creating a culture of fear lamang for the attainment of an obedient (because frightened) nation. If that is the case kasi, then dapat nga natin maintindihan kung bakit tila may bersyon na ganito sa war on drugs, isang bersyon na marahil ay anak ng isang aversion sa kritisismo na may pagkiling din sa isang vozhdist o messianist na uri ng gratitude para sa iisang nag-iisip para sa lahat. [S / -I]

DYSTOPIAS

ALL these environmentalist posts I made yesterday on Facebook, of the YouTube videos above profiling this year's non-partisan Goldman Environmental Prize awardees, could perhaps together have acted (qua posts/shares) as also my way of explaining to my Facebook friends why I cannot be for the Bongbong Marcoses and the Mar Roxases and the San Miguel Corporation-backed Grace Poes of this world, and why I cannot be a loyalist of any of them, unlike some of these Facebook friends of mine. And I said I'm sorry, even though I can't really be.
    Now, the non-partisan, anti-loyalist rationale behind those Facebook posts or shares is also what's behind my belief that says . . . the Duterte government's support for, on the one hand, environmentalist baby Gina Lopez and, on the other, mining baby Bongbong Marcos, is really nothing more than a fragment of Rodrigo Duterte's Big Tent ploy to get contending forces inside his government to fight it out on policies; he'll just watch who will finally come out the winner. And these contending forces will continue to fight it out from under that Big Tent while he, the President, dangles to all of them bits of promises to keep them all within his side of the fence and still in line, so he can do whatever he wants from that secret of a soul that he has, unimpeded by any real opposition, if ever there is going to be much of an opposition left in this everyone-promised landscape. It is my belief that this Big Tent ploy is certain to unravel in the end, although the pessimist in me senses that that unraveling will not likely be happening soon, despite recent changes in the Cabinet, which were minor. So, the Bongbong Marcoses and Gina Lopezes operating within such Big Tent governments as Duterte's will continue to fight it out from within their shared Big Tent matrix, with the Dutertes of Big Tent governance laughing all the way to the (seas') horizon to meet the oncoming realization of their public and private utopias.
    The current formation of impending utopias will shape the dystopias of our tomorrow. Our dystopias. Mine, and my Facebook friends', whichever side of the various loyalisms they now happily belong to. Our planet’s natural environment has its own big tent, and it is somewhat of a dictator itself: it asks us now whether we’re for it or against it. In the end, it doesn’t really care about us. [S / -I]

LEADERISTS ALL

Isabel Magkoeva, a Russian political activist and socialist opposed to strong leaderism in her country. (Photo grabbed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Isabel_Magkoeva.jpg)

1.
WHAT kind of leaders are our politicians and those leading government institutions? Well, I'd venture to say that probably 99% are leaderists, Vozhdists.

2.
But before that, we should congratulate Turkey for voting for a dictatorship constitution that emulates ours, and winning. Welcome to the club, Turkey!
    Well, everywhere you look these days, nations are all agog to see the fruits of leaderism.
    Are armies ever going to emerge to resist the trendy global rise of leaderism? As of the moment, I doubt it.
    So, back to our original question: How many Filipino politicians and government institution leaders are displaying a voice against leaderism?
    That is, of course, a statistical question, the statistical data for which would be hard to come by.
    But there are ways of proving the possibility of the number that purports to be the above conclusion, 99%. We can start with a backyard scan of, say, . . . how about a government institution with a reputation for independence? The University of the Philippines? You okay with that?

3.
Incidentally, ever heard of the rumor that the UP is going to bestow on Rodrigo Duterte an honoris causa?
    Talaga? Wow.
    Pero, hoy, teka muna. Ano ba ang honoris?
    A better and more specific question would be: sino ang mga naghonor sa hohonorin ng honoris causa na ito?
    Sabi at tanong ko pa nga sa anak ko na nag-graduate sa junior high with honors: "anak, nakuha mo ang honors na yan dahil sa dunong na nakuha mo at sa pagdisplay mo ng dunong na iyon. Ngunit sino ba ang mga kasabwat mo sa pag-absorb mo ng dunong na iyon? Sino silang mga pumapalakpak sa display na iyon?"
    "Isaisip mo," tuloy ko, "na ang honor ay nag-pre-presume ng existence ng isang hinonor at ng isang nag-honor o mga nag-honor."
    "Kaya," sabi ko, "pasalamatan mo hindi lang ang gods (o si God) kundi pati rin ang mga nagbigay ng honors (o nag-honor) sa iyo, silang mga naghonor sa honorable display mo ng dunong na tinutukoy, dahil malamang sa kanilang pagsusumikap din naman nanggaling ang mga bagay na iyon na na-absorb mo at siyang naging honorable dunong mo. In short, kasabwat o kasama mo sila sa achievement na ito."
    "Uhuh," sabi niya, sabay ngiti at kamot ng ulo sa sermon ko.
    Ngayon, mga anak, pag-usapan na natin ang honoris causa. Hehehe, sermon na talaga 'to.
    Maganda lang naman na malaman natin kung sino-sino ang mga nagbigay ng honoris causa sa isang tao at bakit. Kasama yun dapat sa kasaysayan ng isang honoris causa. Dahil malamang ay sa kanilang pagsusumikap din naman nanggaling ang pag-"honoris causa" na ito sa isang tao na inabsorb lang din naman ng mga ngiti ng tao na ito, totoong honorable man siya ayon sa mga naghonor sa kanya o hindi. Kailangan isaisip na ang honoris causa ay hindi lang dahil sa "achievement" ng isang tao, ano man iyon, kundi rin dahil sa mga kasabwat o kasama niya sa isang institusyon sa pagtukoy at pag-validate sa "achievement" na ito, ano man ito.
    Ang honoris causa ay tagumpay hindi lang ng pinarangalan, sino man siya, kundi rin ng standards ng mga nagsukat at pumalakpak, sino-sino man sila.
    "Hindi ako Duterte, Pa," bulong ng anak ko.
    "Alam ko," bulong ko pabalik. "Ginagamit ko lang ang honors mo sa aking alegorya tungkol sa isang suspect na honoris causa. Okey lang ba?" :)
    "Gets ko naman yun, ikaw naman," sabi niya.

4.
Sorry, we got waylaid there. Back to our question and hypothesis: What kind of leaders are our politicians and those leading government institutions? Well, I'd venture to say that probably 99% are leaderists, Vozhdists.
    On second thought, I think we were lucky to have been waylaid there, for it got us to an incident which probably amply proves our number, if you can put two and two together.

5. Leaderists! Leaderists! Leaderists! Leaderists! . . . [S / -I]