A Brief Deconstruction of a Drunken Logic

THE "death penalty" (already an oxymoron nobody cares to deconstruct in our drunken nation) is a direct admission of the Philippine prison system's inability to truly isolate from society perpetrators of heinous crimes. Therefore, it---as a solution to that prison system problem---makes it no different from a man's resorting to drinking wine when he can't anymore drink from his long-broken water faucet. Like Mr. Bean, this man will stupidly applaud his own newfound solution and will avoid arguments against problems that may arise from his habitual wine-drinking. Like this man, the "death penalty", in fits of beating its chest like a man excited with having found a manly solution to his stupid problem, will avoid arguments against historically-proven new problems that could arise from it---such as wrongful executions of persons adjudged as "criminals", or criminal society's countering with its own death-brandishing judgments upon all privileged. Bur even before this, like Mr. Bean, the death penalty (or capital punishment) would avoid the basic introductory question we hinted above, which asks whether death can be considered a form of punishment, or whether a dead man made dead by the "death penalty" can both be considered as one that "has been punished" as well as one now "resting in peace". If it is the death process that is actually being referred to here as the punishment and not death itself, then is it possible to have that sans the death? Thus, torture? Or should we be done with all this stupid nonsense and just call a spade a spade, so to stop all this bullshit about the death penalty being a penalty. Let's all call it what it is, the extermination of what our civilization would judge as our society's "true criminals" (some of whom may actually have logical reasons for considering our neoliberal or "jedem das Seine, mir das Meiste" civilization as criminal by itself). In which case I may be all for it, this extermination after having honestly called itself so, . . . with the hope that I won't end up like Mr. Bean or a knocked-out Manny Pacquiao after a media-publicized wrongful execution happens years from now. [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]

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]

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.

Napoleon Bonaparte and Ferdinand Marcos Are Antonyms, Not Synonyms

photo from http://empiresandallies.wikia.com/wiki/Napoleon_Statue

NAPOLEON Bonaparte to the French people.

    Ferdinand Marcos to the Filipino people.
    I don't think they're synonymous.
    In fact, the reason why Bonaparte is considered a hero by the French is because he finally got rid of royalism, despite bringing back the monarchy, by introducing to the world an extensive list of human and civil liberties previously deemed unfathomable in the whole of Europe, known as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. The manifestation of this seed on consequent world tracts on civil liberties would deem Napoleon's declaration as at the pinnacle of the French Revolution's mountain of a legacy.

photo from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bust_of_Ferdinand_Marcos,_near_the_town_of_Baguio.jpg

    In contrast, Ferdinand Marcos, like other US-sponsored dictators in their countries, introduced royalist kleptocracy to the Philippines' republican democratic system by embedding in it limitations on, at times denials of, human and civil liberties to Man and the Citizen. The manifestations of this seed on history would be in the abuses that would act as the pinnacle of Marcos' own plutocratic and crony capitalist New Society manifesto for mass obedience, his Revolution from the Center, the black mound of a legacy of which continues to live in our hopeless day.
    So, should right-minded Filipinos deny Marcos the "hero" tag and funeral honors the Duterte government would like to proceed with if the French would not deny the same to Napoleon?
    Again, from the beginning. [S / -I]