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]

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.

A CARPET BOMBING PRAYING FOR GOOD LUCK

photo borrowed from http://pcij.org/stories/duterte-revisited-what-he-said-in-2001-on-drugs-vigilante-killings/

HE ALSO said once: “At kayong mga drug lords, magtago na kayo kasi papatayin ko talaga kayo kapag ako naging Presidente.” Something to that effect.
    Hmm. At tila nagsipagtago nga. Dahil ngayon, ang tila kawawa ay ang maliliit na drug runners lamang na walang ibang makitang trabaho, sila nalang ang pinagpapapatay. Parang Pilipinas lang din, kung saan ang maliliit na napilitang maging kriminal lang ang naipatutumba at ang biggest criminals ay labas-pasok sa bansa at may mga offshore accounts na nga, may mga libingan pang mararangya na aakalain mong minsan sila ay naging bayani.
    You could say one ought not to shed tears for even the smallest drug runners or pushers, approaching all this from a position of retribution against the evils these people have also brought upon their barangays. But if I am to take the same approach, I would actually still say “enough with the drug pushers dying, I’d want to see the biggest drug lords’ heads swinging from EdlSA MRT poles, including those of their brokers on the Ilocos shorelines that have served as these drug importers’/exporters’ ports!”
    On this approach of retribution as social cleansing, the National Economic and Development Authority chief socio-economic planning secretary, Ernesto Pernia, recently called the President’s war on illegal drugs “a necessary evil” for long-term economic gains. Well and good. Pero huwag naman evil. Dahil wala namang matinong kritiko ng war na ito ang nagsasabing evil ang Duterte anti-illegal drug campaign. Ang sinasabi lang nila ay tanggapin sana ng Presidente at ng Philippine National Police chief na mayroon marahil nangyayaring execution ng ilang apprehended suspects committed by police, o on-location execution ng mga lower echelon dealers and runners and users committed by police, with links to the illegal drug trade (as police under drug lords’ payroll or as secondary drug dealers of confiscated drugs), executions all done in the spirit of eliminating possible whistleblowers on these police elements. Kung maluwag daw sanang tatanggapin ang reyalidad na ito ng civilian at police leadership, marahil ay maaari na nilang mabawasan ang lumulobong numero ng “drug-related deaths”, not to mention deaths due to possible wrongful accusation or mistaken identity or as collateral damage.
    But here’s where the problem is. One thing that attracted a lot of Filipinos to the Duterte team (as against the Mar Roxas team) during the 2015-16 election campaign was its image of being so grounded in reality, its being streetsmart, almost defiant of academicism. But how grounded in reality was it really? It’s been so right about the enormity of the problem, that’s for sure! But it also comes as a surprise that PNP chief Bato de la Rosa would now come out surprised at this, to him, news of so many policemen involved in illegal drugs. His attitude surprises us because it’s “news” that the general public have already been treating for a long time as common knowledge! Kung ganito ngang nasosorpresa pa si Chief de la Rosa sa bilang ng mga pulis na sangkot sa using at trading of illegal drugs, aba, hindi nakapagtataka na tila di matanggap-tanggap ni Tsip na may summary execution nga talaga ng lower echelon links committed by cops involved in the drug trade (who’ve also likely used the “nanlaban” alibi and an evidence-planting habit)!
    The intent of the shooter to prevent the suspect from spilling the beans, that’s the overwhelming suspicion among critics of the ballooning number of anti-drug-campaign-related deaths. The overwhelming suspicion among these critics is that some of these “operations” have actually been done by police elements trying to erase links or tracks that would lead to them in any investigation. In short, preemptive strikes against would-be whistleblowers.
    The PNP has been defensively arguing that its operations follow the laws of the land to the letter. But here’s the thing. All the critics need is one to two anecdotal evidence of extrajudicial killing or vigilante killing, or a simple execution by police allegedly linked to the drug trade, for the critics to qualify the argument that says such killings exist. In contrast, the PNP cannot present an anecdotal evidence of a legitimate and clean arrest, and consequent killing in a shootout, of a dirty narco-cop by his fellow cops to qualify an argument that says all its operations are similar to this operations. The single evidence presented by the former already contravenes the evidence presented by the latter.

ALL THIS actually started when the President introduced a loophole in the law to the most law-ignorant of policemen when he publicly pronounced: kapag nanlaban, you have all the right to shoot the suspect in self-defense. That could have paved the way for executions hinged on the self-defense alibi, which would not be hard for perpetrators to contrive, given that it’s been a PNP personnel habit to plant evidence on unwanted elements of society (or unwanted elements of police scalawags’ kind of society).
    The problem is also on the bottom-up approach of Duterte’s war on drugs, the rationale for which can vary. As of the moment this approach is not giving the campaign the 100% social support it ought to get, even from anti-drug activists. Some among the latter actually could be seeing this bottom-up approach as worrisome for the campaign in that it could work against it instead of gather the much-needed 100% support for it. . . .
    Unless the President is not interested in any 100% support, now that he’s President with so much power. In which case all we can do is wish him and all of us good luck, about all the things that may come in the wake of this carpet bombing when the dust settles. [S / -I]

DUTERTE'S CLUSTER BOMB

photo from http://www.redthreadinc.co/red-thread-blog/2015/4/2/dyi-cyber-vigilantism-the-heroes-we-need

I'D AGREE that when you let calls and checks for human rights work for the criminals, as criminals have no concern for human rights, then human rights end up benefiting criminals, to the disadvantage of anti-criminal enforcement (which is usually the only present subject for human rights calls and checking).
    However, I also buy the fact that when due process that is meant to protect the wrongfully accused is removed from the equation of going after criminals, the absence of that process also successfully removes from the face of the earth both 1) the criminals and 2) the wrongfully accused . . . having both been summarily executed by the judge, jury and executioner-cleaner who implemented their removal. And should we ignore the collateral damage that these executions produce? One wonders if the absence of due process is truly the only way to successfully clean a dirty street, or if there is a more precise way with almost no collateral damage.
    Could there be a cleaner with a cleaning plan better than what the Duterte/de la Rosa cleaning theory boasts as being the only plan sure to successfully clean streets? Could a denial of an alternative plan be due to an attitude indifferent to collateral damage? [S / -I]

ANG PULISYA AT ANG DIWA NG KARTON

photo from https://twitter.com/biancadava/status/749329266139992064

SABIHIN na natin na ang mga nasa larawang ito ay totoo ngang methamphetamine drug pushers na direkta o di-direktang may kinalaman sa maraming krimen na nangyayari sa ating lipunan. Malamang totoo ngang pusher sila, dahil . . . may tattoo.
    Pero paano, halimbawa, kung ito ang nangyari? May mga akyat-bahay na pumasok sa isang shop at naabutan sila ng dalawang may-ari ng shop kaya pinatay na lang ng akyat-bahay ang dalawang may-ari ng shop at nagsulat ng "pusher, huwag tularan" sa isang nahanap na karton at itinabi ang karton na ito sa mga bangkay ng kanilang napatay na mga may-ari ng shop. Ano sa palagay ninyo ang gagawin ng pulis ukol dito? Iimbestigahan ba nila ang marder na ito? Maaaring hindi. Dahil maaaring maging malakas ang dating sa superintendent nila ang diwa ng karton. [S / -I]

BINABARIL BA KAYA NG BARIL MO ANG SARILI MONG PAA?

photo mula sa http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/07/16/3-lalaking-nanlaban-sa-mga-pulis-maynila-patay

ILAN sa mga napabalitang napaslang (sa ilalim ng anti-drug drive ng gobyerno) ay anti-drug activists na pinaslang ng mga drug trafficking organizations? Ano ang ginagawa ng gobyerno para di na dumami pa ang mga anti-drug activists na mapapaslang ng mga organisasyong ito?
    Ilan sa nabalitang mga napaslang ang napaslang dahil sa mistaken identity? Ilan na ang nadampot dahil sa mistaken identity?
    Ilan sa napabalitang mga napaslang ang wrongfully accused o biktima ng wrongful execution (na tinaniman pa ng ebidensya at baril)?
    Ilan sa napabalitang mga pulis na nakapaslang ng diumano'y nanlaban na mga suspek ang bahagi o nasa payroll ng drug trafficking syndicates at maaaring napag-utusan ng sindikato na paslangin ang lahat ng may nalalaman tungkol sa kanilang druglord? Ano ang ginagawa ng gobyerno sa pag-usisa tungkol sa usaping ito? Naniniwala ba talaga si General Rock ofthe Rose (Bato dela Rosa) na hindi ito posible, ayon sa sabi niya sa panayam sa kanya ng TV5 tungkol dito, dahilan kung bakit walang pag-usisa sa usaping ito?

KUNG walang ginagawa ang gobyerno para maprotektahan ang mga anti-drug activists na may kaunting alam tungkol sa ilang public figures sa illicit drug trade, ano ang impact nito sa anti-illegal drug drive ni Presidente Duterte?
    Kung walang gagawin ang gobyerno tungkol sa mga napaslang dahil sa mistaken identity, kung totoo ngang mayroon, o nadampot dahil sa mistaken identity, kung totoong mayroon, ano ang impact nito sa anti-illegal drug drive ni Presidente Duterte?
    Kung walang gagawin ang gobyerno sa mga kaso ng wrongfully accused at mga kaso ng wrongfully summarily executed, ano ang magiging impact nito sa anti-illegal drug drive ni Presidente Duterte?
    Kung walang gagawin ang gobyerno sa mga problemang nabanggit, dahil lamang sa kaniyang paniniwala na hindi posible maging totoo ang mga problemang ito, . . . dahan-dahan bang pinapatay ng gobyerno ang sarili niyang anti-illegal drug drive?
    Abangan na lang siguro natin kung saan ang lahat ng ito ay patutungo, at kung tataas nga ba ang bilang ng mga napaslang na di dapat napaslang. [S / -I]

Why perfect crimes worry democracies

photo from http://www.philstar.com/nation/2016/07/14/1602788/top-drug-personality-killed-oriental-mindoro-raid

PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte's announcement of his goal to “really go after” illegal-drug traders and illegal drug-manufacturing lords has produced one seemingly desired effect: the illegal-drug “companies” were seen quickly initiating the elimination of their own armies consisting of small drug-pushing armed gangs. This quick decision by the “companies” is understandable, considering that these armies’ elements also function as smell tracks for the police dogs now let out to hunt for the sources of the illegal-drug menace. The Philippine National Police, especially now under anti-illegal drug advocate Bato de la Rosa, would be quick to admit that sometimes the companies would do this elimination process through their own assets within the PNP ranks.

     Now, this is not what President Duterte should allow to happen if he wants to gather whistleblowers who 1) could point to drug-manufacturing lords he doesn't know yet and 2) could testify against these lords in court. But that's if the President doesn't know these lords yet and has any intention of bringing any of these lords to court.
     Now, the reason why I call the ongoing spate of drug-pusher killings a “seemingly desired effect” is because the government doesn’t seem interested in putting a stop to it or in investigating the legitimacy of all these so-called “encounters with police raiders”. You would wonder why the government is leaving the momentum to consume its own fire, so to speak. You would wonder if it already has a plan for the next scenario.

     My theory is that the reason why the government is allowing all these “fatal encounters” and “discovered bodies” to proliferate is probably because it's precisely those little armies that shoot down police, lawyers, and judges, and journalists mind you, who are not aligned with the lords. And so, by allowing the "companies" to eliminate their own armies—presumably as they try to cover their tracks—the government is simply paving the road for government authorities to later operate clear of these armies. Once the fire has consumed itself, as it were, government can then proceed to go after the lords it had already known the names and whereabouts of since the day of Adam and Eve, now absent their armies that they eliminated by themselves. It will be smooth-sailing thence.
     But here's the downside to that plan. Because of Duterte’s announcement of his desire to clean up the streets on Robert de Niro’s behalf, which seems to have been taken by the illegal-drug industry as a serious pronouncement, the industry didn't just end up eliminating its own armies qua links; it also initiated a program of eliminating anyone who could point to industry lords, and this includes anti-drug activists who (may) have information on them. Thus the assassination of that Ateneo de Manila teacher, who seems to have been involved (as per circulating information) in anti-drug campaigns as an anti-illegal drug activist. Now, if this goes on until all the hovels in the barangays grow silent, it's likely that we won't be left with any whistleblowers or witnesses around. Whistleblowers and witnesses with strong testimonies, whether from the bad side or from the good side, whom we could tap to testify against the apprehended lords the day they appear in court, could all be gone soon.
     So, here’s my question: I wonder if it is indeed better to let the illegal-drug industry keep at it, in this ongoing elimination of its own armies that the government is standing down against, than have those armies largely around for use as testifying witnesses. Because the latter option, given that the members of drug-trafficking gangs number in the thousands, does run the risk of leaving elements that could still (as they definitely would) start killing police, lawyers and judges and, I almost forgot, journalists who know much about or have an inkling on who's who in the trade. True, lawyers and judges (and journalists) won't like it that the Duterte government, as per its recurring pronouncement, won't be coursing the elimination of the lords through their much-avowed space of usual due process; they won’t like it for the traditional reasons why one shouldn’t like it. This, even if the Duterte government’s decision to go in this path of “letting the fire consume itself” is what would give those very lawyers, judges and journalists the safety of their lives, a possible fact that these lawyers, judges and journalists might find hard to accept or not have the capacity to appreciate.
     Now, in case you’re  starting to read me as a total advocate of the Duterte government’s procedure, let me tell you that what I’m interested in right now is the availability of alternatives. Thus, now, my quick question: How would you do it? If you were appointed head of the Commission on Human Rights, with a mandate to protect the human rights of all, and concurrently head of the government's anti-drug trade agencies, tasked with the objective of the total-if-possible elimination of the illegal-drug trade, and concurrently a court judge, tasked with the legalist ethos to look at the evidence solely . . . how would you do it? For, evidently, the task and mandate of the President of the Republic cannot be any less than of those three. So, in case the President was you and not Rodrigo Duterte, what would you seek to achieve with your alternative? Which of these three departments’ concerns would you most likely put prior focus on and likely be more successful at? Which of these three departments would you be most likely to fail in?

     It's a comfort to think that we live in a democratic world with absolute respect for due process, which process—I'd like to believe—is largely aimed at protecting the innocent, the wrongfully accused. But, correct me if I’m wrong, there’s a reality that stares us in the face, a reality also telling us that the demos of democracies (which includes their lawyers and judges) have not been able to fix certain menaces through the available due process precisely because the menaces have had—from the git-go—a direct handle on it, in short have hijacked that process almost completely, rendering the crimes of drug trafficking perfect crimes. It’s a sad truth there, but it’s a 3D truth, and the only available options are for one to either deny or accept its being true.
     Now, from the point of view recognizing the truth of the fact, it’s absolutely sad that due process in democracies has been failing at protecting the innocent victims of a certain menace and have been succeeding more at protecting the industry stakeholders of that same menace. We could choose to simply live with that paradox for a very long time and not do anything about the legalism, and certainly students of democracy and democratic jurisprudence would be debating on the born issues decades from now.
     But that doesn’t mean that, within this sadness, there’s nothing we can do except watch the police up their game. For, even now, that point of view can pray that a Senate investigation—meant to be launched anytime soon on the currently growing number of “assassinations” and “police raids resulting in deaths”—does us all a great favor by focusing on this sad truth, to thereby look for a resolution that might harmonize the true objectives of the anti-illegal drug agencies and those of the authorities of democratic law. [S / -I]

A tiny pebble of a linguistic joke about leaving no space for hard-headed dealers of crack, stoners, etc.

photo grabbed from http://mybigblogger.com/de-la-rosa-challenges-drug-lords-quick-draw/

DECLARING a war on drugs and druglords is no laughing matter. However, assured now that we have a government that wants to doubly assure us that we can rest easy from worrying too much about this phenom, since the authorities are already off to taking care of that business this early in the game, maybe we can now crack a tiny joke about it too. Here goes mine, which is kind of on the linguistic side (sorry):
     My countrymen, in Bato dela Rosa's and Rody Duterte's seemingly solid war on "crack," "stoners," "meth," "ecstasy," etc., I think we ought to give Bato some space to work through those cracks in the hovels. . . . Space, yes. After all, his name means Rock ofthe Rose (note the missing space between "of" and "the").
     Not really a funny joke, I know. Unless you're a semiotician, to whom there could be a symbol there literally begging for a meaning, or a prescriptive linguist, for whom one ought to think twice about giving that Pinoy cultural linguistic flaw concerning that nobiliary particle (or prepositional particle for a non-noble toponymic name) some slack. :) [S / -I]