Everyone must feel royal about it

photo borrowed from http://kickerdaily.com/kris-aquino-erupts-in-anger-after-netizen-called-son-bimby-gay/

SO, all right, I guess everyone's got their fill on what happened to TV celebrity Kris Aquino's son Bimby last Wednesday and probably are better off, if I can be allowed a bit of ironic clause, without having a cup on what happened to a land reform beneficiary in Negros last January 9. And, just now, somebody nudged me if I heard about that Aquino statement of 2014 concerning herself and sex, which presumably also was all over Facebook in that year's January month, to which I said "no" and was therefore instantly sent a link to this report, "Kris admits not having sex", and the following video:

     I get it that many would rather get news about more serious tragedies and expect the news media to offer them precisely those. But I think they just miss the point and significance of all media coverage on the life and hours of Kris Aquino.

     For here's what else I think:

     I guess the point of all this Aquino-centric journalistic coverage is Kris Aquino herself as a vehicle for her unconscious self-promotion regarding her selfhood and selfness and therefore as a royal figure who has got all our attention but really no different than the average citizen who has to tweet on everything that he's doing right now. Such tweets, for instance, as "I'm kissing our dog's asshole right now."

     That unabridged character of hers should make Aquino everyone's Facebook friend, then. Not that all Facebook friends are true friends, but you get the idea. The concept of the "selfie" cannot be limited to self-held cameras and must now be extended to the shooting off of words that resemble the spirit of the selfie. The selfie, of images and words, thence will be seen not just as a simple gesture by individuals qua pointless individuals but as a symbol of their communing with the community of selves interested in each other's selfhood and selfness.
     If media coverage on KA, whether Boy Abunda-instigated or not, manifests a royalist pop culture, then indeed this mini-essay of mine is a Facebook thumb-up to all our little counter-royalisms. I see nothing wrong with either this media obsession with the stars nor with our own little forays into self-promotion on Facebook. I think we should all be stars to each other in the star system we design for ourselves according to each of our (narrow and broad) ideas about the universe. [S / -I]

WHAT IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH SIDING WITH THE ENEMY

image borrowed from http://oelje.deviantart.com/art/Black-and-White-15914568

First, ugly politics is alive and well again.
     And we, the people, are being drawn into it again. You and I are again being sucked into the agenda that there can only be black and white, and the propaganda that our very own white backyard cannot have brown stains on its many paths. And so we are being asked to choose once again if we want to continue to side with white or if we're already beginning to side with black (or gray or green), after being told to weigh an "obviously" continuing virtue in white against the proven dirt of everyone in black. So, some of your allies make pronouncements that they are opting to stay, while some slowly begin to blurt out brief sermons akin to the enemy's. You, meanwhile, choose to put your faith in white.
     But your present devotion blinded by white's light is making you forget what once was your original side, the side that had an original loyalty to a cause that then offered the same to a loud political color only because that color supposedly wanted to serve this cause of yours. And, having been convinced by its blinding light, you closed your eyes to the fact that that color can anytime choose to side with causes other than yours, causes conflicting with yours. Not necessarily the enemy's cause but simply another conflicting cause. A cause within. Which, as the others see it, can be a bit similar to the enemy's.
     But you are not blind, you say. Perhaps. But, you see, because you have chosen to pin your prime loyalty to that color that preached the side of your cause, you have been blinded to the possible presence of the fact that the color you have sided with for siding with your cause has through all these years also been gradually siding with those others' causes, and you continue to embrace the illusion that the color still has your cause in mind as a priority. A part of it, perhaps, which is what you know, but definitely not entirely, which is what you deny. Not entirely anymore.

     But you've closed your mind to that possibility and tell yourself over and over, and tell your friends the same, that this can never happen, and that should this happen it will only be as an illusion painted on the wall by the enemy.
     And your allies that have begun to realize the stains on the paths you have all been walking on? You have labelled them as spies, as corrupted individuals slowly being swallowed by the rhetoric of the enemy.
     You fail to see now that, unlike you, these allies of yours have never lost their loyalty to their original cause, and have never forgotten that they only offered the same loyalty to the color you both pledged allegiance to because the color supposedly wanted to serve that original cause. They have never forgotten that their loyalty to their original cause comes first, and shall forever retain that status in the eternal changing of colors. That their loyalty to any color must anytime turn to nothing in the betrayal of that original cause.
     That, my friend, is not synonymous with siding with the enemy.
     You've seen some of them dine with some elements of the enemy's side? Well, remember, at least, what you've told each other before you pledged your allegiance to a color? That whatever happens, wherever you go, you will never lose your allegiance to your original cause?
     Do you remember? Do you? Have you forgotten your promise to each other, written in blood, that in the eternal alternation of colors you will never ever lose yourselves in the control of colors but shall forever endeavor to control back? To control back! To control back what you can still control back! Have you?
     Have you?

It's time for a shift to direct democracy, Part 4

“… the manipulation of bodies in space suggests that it is not the space that creates content, but those within it. But, as [artist Joseph] Beuys suggests, such spaces might contribute to the creation of direct democracy. Perhaps this is what [Kazimir] Malevich was thinking about when he started painting black and white squares. Maybe that's what protesters have been thinking about more recently, with the Arab Spring and the Occupy movements. Space is an important thing. It can be a very political thing. And as Occupy London has been officially evicted from St. Paul's, physical space is becoming such a rarity, one might wonder where such bodies might interact….”

“… space as a place for interaction, debate and discussion.”

– both quotations from http://institutionalarchive.weebly.com/5/post/2012/2/bureau-for-direct-democracy-joseph-beuys.html

(Read Part 3)

What’s the worry about it?

WE’VE READ the three parts of this essay, wherein each Part would have passages that repeat (as probably necessary) statements already made in the other Parts. And now, here, let us paraphrase the eight most common worries about installing a strong direct democracy in the Philippines.
     First, as we mentioned in the closing paragraphs of Part 3 of this multi-Part essay, there is that worry or fear with direct democracy, namely, that in a culture as uneducated as the Philippines’ (or as poorly educated as the US’) there is in it the ever-present danger of being ruled by public relations budgets. We might not fear the mob, but save us from the trained consumers!
     This fear is understandable. However, we must bear in mind that direct democracy wakes and increases citizens’ political awareness simply by being a system focused on issues of society and the polity. Thus, it isn’t surprising to know that the uneducated class in the US states with DD (direct democracy) might seem to be more knowledgeable about political and other social matters of concern in their respective states than their uneducated peers in the US states with mere RD (representative democracy). And that’s because citizens in a DD are directly engaged in the issues around propositions and initiatives up for a vote that necessarily go through a process of being debated on in the public arena. Taxi drivers will inevitably talk about things that directly affect their profession/industry, but so will they talk about other social matters brought up to a vote in any oncoming ballot. Let’s zoom in on an example:
     When au pairs watch a documentary about poverty blues on GMA News TV, they become engaged. When the channel is turned to an ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC) debate on an issue, naturally in educated-class English as per that channel’s format, they consequently acquiesce to the speakers’ supposed high IQ. The latter is your example of apathy and “stupidity” in society produced not in a direct democracy but by a system of elitism and elite-leaning privilege and conscious or unconscious marginalization.
     So, what’s the difference between the current influence of public relations budgets made to sway media perception and protestation within our RD and public relations budgets that will be spent in any future DD? You know the answer to that one. But additionally, DD has measures to immediately correct laws passed by the people, and even laws passed by Congress, whereas in an RD it would take decades before somebody in the political elite class even starts to listen to what the sometimes-progressivist-sounding media would complain about, especially if the law that needs to be reversed is proving to be beneficial to the ruling classes. And, again, whereas we would have to wait for a politician’s term to end to expect some changes (with fingers crossed), Swiss and US DD can vote out (recall) via a motion of no confidence a national or state or local official or representative of their National Council or State House of Representatives anytime the people want to. . . .


NOW THERE’S another worry, corollary to that one above. Here’s Worry #2:
     The frequency of special interest-backed propositions. Moneyed elites, so the worry goes, can keep putting an issue on ballot after ballot, changing the wording each time (so that a Proposition that once required a “No” vote may now require a “Yes” vote). True, it can be quite amazing to see what corporate legal departments can afford to do with words. And so, in the 21st century world of PR and consumerism, the referendum or initiative could be the simple way to buy the laws a special interest group wants.
     But again, why is it better to have a special interest group-funded referendum in a direct democracy? Well, because it has to pass the people’s vote. In a purely representative democracy, all the special-interest group has to do is lobby some representatives, and that’s to make a law that would pass---as often happens---unbeknownst to the people.
     It’s true that PR is powerful and can rehash itself into many shapes and continuously hound the majority vote with persuasive talk, but let us not lose our faith in the people and their intelligence and the presence of guardians against special interests who can counter the corporate-backed PRs this early. Our media alone abound in such guardian-individuals, however corrupt some of them may be. Direct democracy is not one of the worst things that happened to California. In fact, I doubt that it is one of the things that the state’s people would want to give up.
     Let me re-state what I said in Part 1 of this essay: “… it’s quite understandable to me why the US Constitution framers avoided the temptations of direct democracy at the federal level (as against Switzerland, for instance, which embraced it); and that understanding may come from my being an Americanized Filipino, quite familiar with the American experience with oppressive majorities lording it over minorities…. (But) I would argue with America’s declarers of independence and say that I’d much rather struggle as a minority within the direct democracy lorded by a majority that may nonetheless be persuadable than struggle within the elite-handled machinery of representative democracy where the entrenched elite always wins.”
     So, how do we make this thing happen? That is precisely what the Forum for Direct Democracy Philippines Facebook group (which I created) is for. If we like the idea as a solution to our decades-old problems, let’s come up with a plan.


WORRY #3: this one says we’d be copying a foreign model. We’re afraid that model might not be applicable in our country.
     First of all, our present representative democracy is also copied from a foreign model, derivative of the US federal Constitution. In fact, this system was only imposed upon us during the American Commonwealth era, we didn’t exactly pick it from a roster of choices.
     As for copying foreign models, I always cite the example of the popular rock band Yano. In the 1990s, Yano---among other bands---got enamored with British punk rock and thought of bringing that type of music to the Philippine airwaves and Manila club scene. But while other bands copied the music (and lyrics content or allusions to the British or American psyche) and brought in the fashion, Yano emulated the philosophy alone. So, in the case of their punk fashion statement, instead of wearing Doc Martens shoes (cheap old ladies’ shoes in London at the time which were now already being sold as high-end items to the Philippine youth market), Yano wore cheap tsinelas (flip-flops) onstage, the equivalent of Doc Martens shoes according to punk fashion philosophy then. In the case of their songwriting, Yano sang punk lyrics in Tagalog, referencing Philippine political (instead of London political) realities.
     When are foreign systems/models better for our environs? Well, those would be times as when I advice my neighbors to buy imported peanut butter if only because Philippine peanut butter doesn’t seem to have aflatoxin-level standards to follow, and our government offices don’t have enough people to widely examine the local stuff for salmonella. . . .
     So, back to DD. How is direct democracy possible in the Philippines? Well, in fact, there is already a bit of it in our roster of laws. As I mentioned in Part 2 of this essay, the closest we have come to it is with Republic Act 6735 (The Initiative and Referendum Act). But is this law usable at all? That is, is the initial requirement too steep for it to be considered useful in the national level? How can a movement for direct democracy in the Philippines use this law presently? If there’s a need to amend it before it can be used, are there senators and congressmen who can help us in amending it? Would they fight for the amendment to the finish? And what else do we need to put in?
     And if we need to do more, as in, say, radically install the Switzerland DD model, for instance, then how do we achieve that? How many political figures do we need to create a movement? Would a former military figure (the patriotic and reformist type, if there is such an animal) be welcome in our ranks? How many people do we need to come with us? And how do we do it? Do we start with die-ins and other Occupy movement-style moves? Would our desires fall for a Constitutional Convention that may promise to work on a DD constitution?
     Perhaps we could start with the details. Let us look at the Swiss model, for instance. Or the California model. What are in them that’s applicable to Philippine culture, what are not? If not, why? Are there contending arguments that would negate the negativity or pessimism (or conservatism)?
     These are the questions we wish to tackle at the Forum, the reason why it has to be called a forum before it can be called a movement. If, at the end of the day, this forum arrives at the conclusion that DD is just going to be another hot air, then let’s fold up and get back to complaining about “political dynasties” and unqualified candidates/officials and anti-epal (anti-earmarking or anti-projects claiming) bills that took decades before someone upstairs bothered to pick it up, and maybe somewhere along the way of our eternal complaining we’d find another solution. But in the meantime, DD is the only comprehensive solution to our constantly-aired problems that I can think of, a comprehensive solution to these problems that have all-too-often been waylaid by “more pressing problems.” So I hope we can find lights to lead us in this road.
     So, reader, let me invite you too. I’ll give myself the honor of adding you to this new group should you be interested in such a forum as this on the subject of direct democracy, especially as you may also happen to believe that such a form of government may be applied to the Philippines. But I would understand if you opt to leave the group sooner or later.
     Partisans and non-partisans are welcome. The only requirement is for you to be interested in wresting away our country’s pure representative democracy from the total control of the political elite.
     We want everyone here, leftists, rightists, centrists, devout Catholics, atheists, everyone! Everyone who feels we’ve had enough of the experiment of pure representative democracy where a member of the political elite manipulates the media (with the help of campaign gurus) to have himself seated as a representative of millions without the benefit of causes and solutions driving him/her as a champion of. It’s about time the people get access to also represent themselves.


WORRY #4: The situation is dire. It’ll never be achieved.
     Dire. In Waray, “dire” means no.
     But one thing to bear in mind in this fight: direct democracy is true democracy, pure representative democracy is an insult to the demos (people) as well as the kratos (power) Greek roots of the word. Why would you not want to fight for true freedom, then? And what might be the reason why the elite class is averse to it? Well, the elite is averse to it because the majority in the elite is averse to true democracy. The elite would want to perpetuate the status quo where they, of the elite, can forever misrepresent the millions in their (not the millions’) democracy.
     And how can it not be achievable when everyone is welcome? Even the progressivists are welcome to join. Except maybe the communists, for I doubt they would find our direction to their liking, though I can’t say for sure.
     My social-liberal Facebook friend Dave T- (who’s suspicious of progressivists as being closet communists) asks, “Would this be a platform whereby the broad democratic Left could reach out more effectively to the masses?”
     Well, it might be a contradiction in terms to want to seek a debate with contending parties in a direct democracy when you’re holding a microphone with your right hand and a gun with your left. And, during a fora (physical or virtual), there might already be confusion about the definition of the word “democracy,” considering that communism has had a hold on that word quite an ocean away from the mainstream Karl Popperian grasp of it.
     Still, could there be a common ground? I don’t know. I can’t say for now.
     My friend the painter Marcel Antonio jokes: “I doubt if a Marxist [he means a communist] would even want to seek a common ground, because there is no common ground. A Marxist seeks direction that oscillates between two extremes. She would rather have her desires unrequited than fulfilled from the attainment of its goals, consequently burning itself out. :)”
     A succinct articulation of a century-old reality, my friend.
     “Not really,” he says, “it's Alain de Botton reading Roland Barthes reading Marx. :D”
     Then, here, my friend the Pentecostal preacher Mac McCarty offers the following note: “I agree, Marcel, as far as traditional Marxism goes---no middle ground---, but folks like Étienne Balibar call those guys theological fundamentalist Marxists who read the book of Marx as truth, literal and eternal. He subscribes to a ‘symbolic’ theology of Marxism and considers himself a reformer (not always a nice word among Marxists). He also has interesting things to say about change. (More perhaps in other threads.)
     “The point is that not all Marxists are protracted-struggle, blood-in-the-streets revolutionaries visualizing a kind of sociopolitical rapture in a ‘That Day’, a That Day after which the evil, greedy, psychopathic people and forces will be swallowed up by the earth and all will be hunky and dorey in worker’s paradise, but I’m getting carried away. I say ‘Yeah, bring on any Marxist who has “middle ground” ideas of any kind … we can only benefit.’”


WORRY #5 in case direct democracy is installed, best articulated perhaps by that page again in activatingdemocracy.com titled “Pros and Cons”---“Ordinary citizens are not interested enough in politics. They are uninformed, uneducated, irrational, emotional, egoistic and short-sighted. Citizens are politically incompetent and the issues are too complex for them to understand. Therefore political decisions on policy issues should be made by professional politicians who have the necessary skills and understanding.”
     And I can only quote the last paragraph of that site’s answer, which somewhat echoes my answer to Worry #2 and goes thus: “Political incompetence is no cause for excluding citizens from political decision-making on issues. In reality it is the other way round: political incompetence is an effect of the exclusion of citizens from political decision-making.”
     So let’s talk about it now; its advantages, disadvantages, its problems, the solutions it brings to the table, and how we can make Philippine direct democracy unique, if it needs to be.


WORRY #6: Is direct-democracy majoritarianism okay? Agree that representative majoritarianism should go, but under a direct democracy majoritarian régime, what protection do minorities have?
     Well, I believe the accusation on DD majoritarianism as potentially a return to mob rule compared to the RD majoritiarianism’s supposed educated sympathy for minorities is a myth. The developments in many a government as regards the protection of minorities has not been due to the educated empathy of the elite but due to the progress of a national or regional cultural experience. In fact, it’s the other way around. All campaigns for DD start as reactions to what are perceived to be regimes of elite democracy that have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the decades-old complaints of society, becoming unsympathetic, self-centered, uninterested in the welfare of both majorities and minorities (except their own minority class’ welfare). Furthermore, sympathy for the minority is decidedly more expressed in the masses than in the profit-motivated hypocrisy of elite-backed regimes.


WORRY #7, which would also be a corollary to Worry #s 1 and 2:
     A classmate of mine in high school who’s also a member of our Forum posed this exploratory question: “Would direct democracy’s ‘direct’-ness be a myth with media’s and government’s attempts at influencing the decisions of the people, the masses? It is sad to say that with the almost 27% poverty level in ‘Pinas, madaling ma-compromise ang popular opinion kapag kumukulo ang tiyan ni Juan.”
     My answer: Right you are, buddy. But that influence, which can be both positive and negative, is being projected on direct democracy by its opponents as though it is exclusive to it. But that influence is already here, happening right now, in our representative democracy.
     Certainly, in a pure representative democracy, some members of the media---about the only ordinary citizens 100% engaged in political issues as direct participants in this pure system---as well as of opposition parties do come up with contentions to the lies and truths moving within their own circles of privilege, but that’s precisely the point: in a representative democracy, the debate in the media is often left to the elite class to act on, with the lower and lower-middle classes put in the sidelines as mere TV audiences, perpetuating thus widespread ignorance by this exclusion. The privileged take it upon themselves to “influence” the rest of the nation with what they deem to be the good policies and attitudes for that nation. And we know better than to continue to believe in these lies.
     In direct democracies, in contrast, even well-financed campaigns by special-interest groups consider the fact that the people (inclusive of the cynical and even the uneducated) are already directly engaged as their equals over the issues, and that the people have been made aware that they are responsible (because they now have the power to be responsible) for their own welfare. In direct democracies, the people do not merely lean on the expertise of Yale- or Harvard-educated technocrats of the often self-serving elite. They listen to these technocrats as well as opposing ideas and then use their intelligence and experience for a positive or negative vote. This is what happens when debates in society are not left to “experts” and “representatives” to decide on alone, when society itself is empowered---beyond merely having the right to complain---to decide for themselves and enact or repeal laws themselves.
     And if their “tiyans” are “kumakalam” within this society with strong and simple direct democracy instruments, then the more they will want to get involved in the DD reality of involvement (via propositions and initiatives and referenda and recall elections that concern them) as against being merely virtually involved via RD elections involving faces and names that the masses cannot directly link to the search for solutions to their poverty and hunger except by way of faith in those faces.


WORRY #8 is almost an extension of Worry #7: Another former classmate of mine asked, is it applicable in a poor country such as ours?
     My answer: It ought to be applied especially to poor countries where the lower classes and the lower-middle-class have been game to the exploitative bent of their elite and lumpenbourgeoisie. If a relatively well-off people like Switzerland’s or California’s or Massachussetts’ would not allow their elite to manipulate policy through the representation of a few, how much more a poor country! For to say “no, it can’t be done here” would be to say only well-to-do people can demand to represent themselves, poor people must only acquiesce to their ilustrado elite’s expert, Harvard-seminar’d wishes. We have been doing that for more than a century now, and yet we have to wait for decades before someone upstairs acts on something as simple as an anti-epal law!
     We are all learning here, of course, and that’s why we need the inputs of those among us with more academicized exposure to this subject---Professor Ramon Casiple, for instance, whose essay (which I mentioned in Part 1, click here to read it) was partly inspirational. I’m just being the online activist for this cause since I’m the one with more free time. As of the moment, the group would like to get the eager membership of some election experts, former Comelec people or not, who can advice us on ways by which cost-efficiency can be administered into DD processes such as referenda. It would also be great to get advice from the states in the US where they have DD, advice such as on how they operate it at minimal cost. Are there adaptations to cost that we can design into the system? Questions like those need to be discussed and resolved by the group before we even accept an invitation to be present at a TV talk show. :) As of the moment, my view is that we must not allow the political elite to hoodwink us into the “malabo yan, magastos yan” (“that’s a costly enterprise, that won’t fly”) bias, especially since this is the same elite who have been appropriating lump-sum billions into government programs that are sometimes (oftentimes!) meaningless to the majority.


SO WHAT about this Facebook group called Forum for Direct Democracy Philippines? Well, this non-partisan group serves as an outlet for exchanges regarding the possibility of pushing for the application of direct democracy to Philippine society. Direct democracy could just be the cure for all the ills of our century-old representative democracy that has turned government into a milking cow for many if not most in the political elite.
     Party-list group leaders, if they’re as serious as they claim to be about proportional representation in governance, should join this forum … which, God knows, might just turn into a, say, die-in movement for real change.
     Let us study the direct democracy of Switzerland, and the US states that have it, where there is no more need for party-list proportional representation, as all parties, big and small, are given equal treatment! No, not given equal treatment by the Comelec but by the system itself! [END OF PART 4; TO BE CONTINUED]

ADDENDUM, JULY 2014:
In October of 2013, enterprising political activist Manny SD Lopez enjoined me and other direct-democracy advocates (Rey Callope Sabio, Dexter Briñas Amoroso, among others) to form ePIRMA (the Empowered People’s Initiative and Reform Movement Alliance) which would spearhead a people’s initiative (using Republic Act 6735) against pork barrel spending. The new group sought the help of Atty. Jose M. Roy III, another direct democracy enthusiast, among other lawyers, and the inspiration of former Supreme Court Justice Reynato Puno, a direct democracy advocate in his own right, who had then been coming out in the media at the height of the PDAF scam to inform the public of the available people’s initiative option. The ePIRMA alliance grew and attracted all sorts of individuals and groups: social liberals friendly and not friendly to the Aquino government, opposition groups, leftists, advocates of other special causes, even Marcos loyalists. Albeit the Facebook community page of the group allowed various subjects and viewpoints to be posted by its members, the alliance’s central committee managed to focus the group on the pork barrel system as its main target, followed only by concerns as various as total public finance management reform, Porto Alegre-modeled participatory budgeting, the abolition of ‘political dynasties’, and so on.
     By July of 2014, the group had joined in a coalition with the Cebu Coalition, the Makabayan group, PICAD, and Scrap Pork Network, for a final framing of an anti-pork barrel initiative that, after the decisions by the Supreme Court rendering both the pork funds PDAF and Aquino-administration DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Program) unconstitutional, would criminalize any similar fund-making along with their use. The initiative is slated to be launched on August 23, 2014 in Cebu City.

ANG HULING HALAKHAK

“Some men, under the notion of weeding out prejudice, eradicate virtue, honesty and religion.” 

― Jonathan Swift

UNA sa lahat, ganito.
     Joke: "Ang hirap nga kung si Jessica Soho magbobold. Kailangan gang rape lagi."

     Apologia about joke: "Hindi ko po kailanman gugustuhing kutyain ang sinumang rape victim. Wala po akong intensyong masama, na gustuhing pagtawanan ang mga rape victims, alam ko pong seryoso ang rape. Kaya hindi ko po ginawang seryoso na pagtawanan ang rape victims. Wala po akong intensyong masama. . . . pinalaki nang pinalaki nang pinalaki na ginawang isang national issue na nagsimula sa isang simpleng biro. . . . Kung hindi po ako nauunawaan, paumanhin po ako sa inyo. Sa mga nakaunawa nang mahusay sa mga biro ko, maraming-maraming salamat. . . . Hindi lahat ng jokes ay nakakatawa; depende yan sa kung paano mo tatanggapin."

HAYAAN niyo akong palakihin pa ng kaunti ang isyu. Tulad ng iba riyan, mahilig din akong magpalaki ng isyu, dahil pinalaki ako ng mga nag-alaga sa akin na ituring na malaki -- at maaaring palakihin pa -- ang lahat ng bagay, ang lahat ng detalye, ang lahat ng isyu sa mundo, kung kaya't kahit ang pulitika sa likod ng simpleng imported na arina na ginagamit sa ating inosenteng pambansang almusal ay pinakikialaman ko.

     Totoong maraming biro ang hindi sinasadya. Maraming biro ang may tanging hangarin na magpatawa lamang. Simpleng biro kung tawagin.
     Subalit ito ang itatanong ko. Gagawa ka ba ng jokes tungkol sa mga Palestino sa harap ng mga Palestino, o jokes tungkol sa korapsyon sa Vatican sa harap ng mga Obispo? Tunay na matatawa ang mga Nazis sa mga jokes mo tungkol sa mga Hudyo. Totoong matatawa ang mga macho sa mga jokes mo tungkol sa mga bakla. Tulad nitong joke ni Tado kamakailan lang tungkol sa mga bakla na ikinagalit ni Vice Ganda.

     Malaki rin ang tsansang matawa ang mga bobo sa mga jokes mo tungkol sa pamilya ni Aling Nena: pilay ang panganay, mataba ang bunso, payat ang asawang may tuberculosis.

     Hindi mo kailangan mag-isip para magpatawa. Sabi nga ng satirist na si Jonathan Swift, kailangan mo lang ang iyong prejudice kung saan naroon ang iyong honesty at relihiyon. Ang career ni Swift ay madalas na umikot sa virtue at kasalanan ng prejudice na tila kasama na ng human-ness.
     Maraming mga biro ng prejudice ang naririnig natin araw-araw galing sa mga tambay, o di kaya galing sa ating mga propesor: mga simpleng biro tungkol sa mga Bisaya, sa mga Kapampangan, sa mga Intsik, sa mga Bombay, sa mga pilay, sa mga bakla (tulad ng joke ni Tado), sa mga relihiyoso, sa mga walang trabaho, sa mga Pilipino, atbp.
     Maraming biro ang maririnig galing sa mga matatanda, mga kabataan, galing sa mga relihiyoso, galing sa mga gago, galing sa mga matuwid, galing sa mga bakla sa salon, galing sa mga barako sa beerhouse, galing sa mga kriminal, at galing sa mga santo, at ang lahat ng mga simpleng birong ito ay ayon sa kanilang prejudices.
     Uulitin ko lang po ang Swiftian axiom: ang nakakatawa at tawanan ay produkto ng ating prejudice bilang ating relihiyon at manipestasyon ng katotohanan ayon sa atin.
     At dahil ang bawat komedya ay galing sa isang prejudice, malamang na isang araw ay may aalma sa mga biro mo kung ito'y narinig ng target ng iyong prejudice (tulad nang marinig ni Vice Ganda ang biro ni Tado tungkol sa mga bakla).


HINDI ko minumungkahi na maging mas "malawak" o "sensitibo" pa ang ating mga komedyante, dahil hindi ko rin lubos maisip kung paano mangyayari iyon o paano gagawin ito. Inaalok ko lamang na sila'y maging mas mapagmatyag sa kanilang manonood. Ito ang sasabihin ko sa kanila:
     Huwag gagawa ng biro tungkol sa mga Hudyo kung ika'y nasa Tel Aviv. Huwag magbibiro tungkol sa mga Bisaya kung ika'y nasa Cebu. Huwag magbiro tungkol sa mga walang edukasyon kung ika'y nasa basketball court ng squatter area sa Tondo. Huwag magbiro tungkol sa gang rape kung ika'y nasa ospital na may mga biktima ng gang rape. Huwag magbiro tungkol sa obesity sa Christimas Party ng . . . may obesity problems.
     Kung nasa Araneta Center ka naman, maging mas mapagmatyag! Dahil hindi ka nasa Christmas Party ng mga German neo-Nazis na okey ang mga jokes mo laban sa mga imigrante sa Germany, hindi ka nasa Christmas Party ng mga Obispo na okey ang mga jokes mo laban kay Risa Hontiveros. Nasa party ka na kung saan maraming uri ng tao ang nanonood!
     Inaalok ko ito hindi dahil malambot ang puso ko sa lahat ng uri ng tao. Tulad ng lahat ng komedyante, may mga prejudices din ako.
     Inaalok ko ito dahil malambot ang puso ko mismo sa mga komedyante, dahil komedyante rin po ako -- mahilig akong magpatawa at gumawa ng jokes laban sa mga kinabubuwisetan kong tao at hayop.
     Ang mga may prejudice laban sa mga kinaiinisan ko ang tanging nakakaintindi sa jokes ko. Ang mga kinaiinisan ko, o yung mga nag-aakalang naiinis ako sa kanila dahil sa jokes ko, ay natural na di "nakakaintindi." Tulad ng di pagkaintindi ni Vice Ganda sa joke lang naman ni Tado tungkol sa mga bakla.
     Naiintindihan ko ang trabaho ng mga nagpapatawa. Ang magpasaya.
     Marami nga naman tayong kinaiinisan sa mundo, madalas nga ay hindi natin alam na kinaiinisan natin sila. Lumalabas na lang iyan sa mga jokes at pasaring natin. Ang hangad lamang natin ay mapasaya ang mga Komunista sa kanilang mga kampo, halimbawa, o ang mga Protestante sa kanilang mga simbahan, o ang mga Ilokano sa kanilang rehiyon, o ang mga robber-rapists sa kanilang mga hideouts. Depende na lang yan sa kung sino ang kliyente natin sa ating propesyong pagpapatawa na tatanggap sa mga jokes natin.
     Ngunit naiintindihan ko rin ang trabaho ng mga galit. Ang magalit.
     Kaya ito lang, bilang panghuli. Inaalok kong huwag na huwag nating pagtatawanan ang mga galit na. Sinasabi ko ito hindi para takutin ang mga sarili natin sa sindak ng kanilang galit, kundi sa takot lamang na baka, sa bandang huli, hindi maging sa atin pa rin kundi sa kanila na ang huling halakhak. ###

“The latter part of a wise person's life is occupied with curing the follies, prejudices and false opinions they contracted earlier.”
― Jonathan Swift

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

ADDENDUM:

May 31, 2013. Tinawag ang pansin natin sa isang segment ng sitcom na Bubble Gang, na ipinalabas noong taong 2010. Heto iyon: CLICK DITO.

June 6, 2013. Nagpahayag ng kanilang galit o pagkadismaya ang ilang mga taga-St. Scholastica's College dahil sa isang Pugad Baboy comic strip na may slur laban sa lesbians sa all-girls Catholic schools: CLICK DITO.

August 19, 2014. Idineklarang persona non grata si komedyanteng Ramon Bautista sa Davao City matapos mabastos ang city government officials sa isang patawa nito: CLICK DITO.

WHY MY TWO CANDIDATES NEED TO BE JERKS IN ORDER TO WIN IN THIS ELECTION

 

photos from http://www.liberalparty.org.ph/ and http://soksay.blogspot.com/2013_05_01_archive.html

YOU know what they say in fiction, where there’s no conflict there’s no story. And you know what they say in public relations, negative publicity is better than no publicity at all.
     These two axioms seem to escape the campaign of two of my candidates. I have been campaigning on my Facebook wall for the senatorial candidacy of Ramon Magsaysay Jr. and Risa Hontiveros, if only because they are two of my chosen candidates that need the boost, being not yet in the top 12 of the most recent surveys. I do this, aware though I am that their image seem too clean, and therefore not that relatable to people. It’s possible they’d lose.
     Empathizing with the people, it’s easy to relate to Loren Legarda—the mataray face that rarely sports a smile. There is ready conflict in that face alone, seeming to say by itself, “I am a fighter.” There’s that other fighter on the Senate floor easy to relate to, Alan Peter Cayetano—fierce, sublimely sardonic, who can mix feigned respect into his arguments. It’s also easy for the masses to relate to Chiz Escudero—talks with nary a comic flair, robotic in his legalese, but all in relatable Tagalog, never mind if much of that legalese is beyond the average voter-fisherman; there’s all the flavor of conflict in his stance alone, defensive and offensive at the same time; the triangle rift with Heart Evangelista’s parents could help him further his bid if managed well. It’s easy to relate to Nancy Binay, even. Daughter of a father constantly chided by a colonial mentality for wearing that dark skin, survivor of many an allegation of corruption, consistent organizer of rallies on Erap’s behalf. It doesn’t matter if it’s true the daughter is running on and in the father’s behalf, it’s still him, and there’s ready conflict in that position alone, whether you like it or not. There’s also a ready conflict in JV Ejercito’s name, son of a man beloved by the masses for his defiance of all protocol imposed by a worldly world, a man deposed by a "more corrupt" Gloria Arroyo.
     My candidate Risa Hontiveros, on the other hand, is being wrongly sold, merely as maganda, which doesn’t count for much even to Miss Universe juries. Jun Magsaysay’s story, meanwhile, is a seemingly forgotten story. There is no conflict behind the face anymore. For my two candidates to win, they have to be jerks. That’s why it would serve Hontiveros’ campaign abundantly if the Church starts hitting her personally. It would serve Jun Magsaysay’s campaign abundantly if defenders of the Fertilizer Fund Scam starts maligning his name now.

photo from http://www.ivoteph.com/senator-2/candidate-for-senator-2013-risa-hontiveros-and-his-profile/

TO be called nothing is to be insignificant. To be called an asshole or a jerk presupposes haters. And where there are haters there are defenders. An asshole or jerk tag, therefore, signals conflict, and conflict reboots people’s attention to issues of evil and good, right and wrong, heroism and villainy. The “asshole” or “jerk” comes out to the majority as either a champion or an enemy. To come out as an enemy is to lose in a campaign; but at least one lost in a fight, not in a non-fight.
     In short, like Loren Legarda, it’s not important to enumerate the wars one will fight for, though that would be a bonus or necessary for a springboard, but it’s important to project the aura that you are fighting, or defending, or offending. Not simply smiling.
     The art of politics is the art of projecting a story of conflict. The art of being a politician is the art of projecting the face of a fighter, the face of a jerk. It is no wonder that even in art, the greatest of artworks are often politically incorrect. Because art is primarily concerned with itself, its own art. The cause of the art often overpowers the cause of a thematic cause. But the correct thematic cause within an artistic cause is always a bonus, especially after a win.

BUT there are two kinds of jerk-ness.
     As a social liberal, I’ve often come across the complaint that within social liberalism’s campaign of virtue and empathy and sympathy, some social liberal celebrities turn out to be unworldly assholes. Impressions like this come, of course, after one such social liberal celebrity’s stumbling into a large mistake (whether true or not) that starts to show tragic flaws in his person on mainstream media, certain disappointing flaws that qualify his asshole-ness to conventional wisdom, flaws which mainstream media could in turn embed into an encyclopedic definition of this “asshole”’s sensational image, perhaps permanently waylaying too his boring heroic social liberal achievements into the dustbins of memory.
     One example of this victimization by achievement-dustbinning is that one done on the person of John Edwards, a US senator who fought long and hard for the popularization of the concept of universal healthcare (along with housing vouchers and universal college education) as an agenda for US legislation even before Barack Obama became a US senator. We know of course what happened to his media-managed story, and what he has come to be known as now. An ass. The problem media had with his jerk-ness was the disconnect they read into his espoused causes and what he later “did to his wife.”
     Some leftists would also include the true compassion for the poor in Che Guevara as belonging to this roster of victims of Western media pigeonholing, he whose image has been handled by American rightist media—or so those leftists would aver—to revolve around certain Cuban executions alone. The problem media had with his jerk-ness was the biased disconnect they read into his espoused objective and what he had to do to the enemies of the state, never mind if the West itself did the same to its outcasts, mostly blacks.
     The problem with social liberal jerk-ness is it’s passive and tagged, requiring lots of explanation. There is the other kind of jerk-ness, the managed jerk-ness, often associated with false progressives, although any political bent can appropriate this approach.
     Unlike the social liberals whose flaws are observed and hyped by the enemy, false progressives traditionally flaunt their character flaws as hallmarks of ordinariness to which the masses must (and often do) relate. In short, they manage these flaws in the media to gain the applause of the masses’ own, as if their flaws are proud reflections of the masses’. One could say that their argument is full of bread and circus, an ongoing argumentum ad captandum aimed at duping the object of their treachery by pretending to be on their side in a pre-defined conflict with a pre-defined elite.

photo by Associated Press, linked from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/anthony-bourdain-paula-deen_n_1522031.html

NOW, I’m not going to illustrate my characterization of the asshole and jerk (social liberal or otherwise) further with names from the political arena, these names often being with a following cloaked in the diaper of confirmation bias, talk about whom—therefore—would lead us nowhere rational.
     Let me talk instead about two chefs, embroiled in a seemingly similar contrast of positions in 2011, as a metaphor for what I mean by jerk-ness that presupposes conflict, which consequently raises the bar of any contest.
     In mid-2011, famous chef Anthony Bourdain, still streetwise but well-loved enfant terrible of food television, added another name to his roster of named “worst chefs,” this time the equally famous and well-loved Paula Deen. Bourdain called Deen “most dangerous to America” for her “unholy connections with evil corporations,” all the worse because “she’s proud of the fact that her food is f---ing bad for you.” His reaction’s main gist was contained in this clause: “I would think twice before telling an already obese nation that it is OK to eat food that is killing us.” He finished up with a painful punch: “Plus, her food sucks.” One would have thought that that last sentence was all he really wanted to say.
     This time, however, he got a target who fought back. Said Deen: “Anthony Bourdain needs to get a life. You don’t have to like my [and those others’] food . . . but it’s another thing to attack our character. I wake up every morning happy for where I am in life. It's not all about the cooking, but the fact that I can contribute using my influence to help people all over the country. In the last two years, my partners and I have fed more than 10 million hungry people by bringing meat to food banks.” She added, “I have no idea what Anthony has done to contribute besides being irritable.”
     Many food writers, while conveying their admiration for Bourdain’s TV show and personality, sided with Deen on this latest exchange—after Bourdain’s last word on a tweet that went: “Resolved: Next time I’m asked (for the millionth time) who the worst cooks on Food Network are, I’ll just shut up. Who cares?”
     The food nation was divided.
     At the outset, Bourdain did come off as an “asshole,” as some comments put it, sounding quite unfair in implying Deen has been a major contributor to Americans’ obesity problem, though that statement could have been positively taken as simply in cognizance of Deen’s broad fandom, a fandom who seems to be worshipful of her fatty, fried foods dipped afterwards in mayonnaise heaven. Was Bourdain being envious?
     On closer examination, however, since we might find it hard to connect Bourdain’s rant with Michelle Obama’s campaign to reverse childhood obesity, we may glean a simple elliptical point in this latest Bourdain sardonic grunt.
     You see, many food writers missed Bourdain’s point when they failed to review his own record with beurre blanc dips and fatty foie gras. And they seemed to have been taken in by Deen’s argumentum ad captandum, wherein she dangled her connection to food banks as her bread and circuses recipe for applause against Bourdain’s merely chain-smoking, punk rock-loving enfant terrible image that seems to constantly hate the majority’s good taste even while celebratory of their street taste. Understandable, yes, considering food writers are not trained like political scientists to accept the fact that champions of mass behavior are themselves posited in a sort of rebel’s ivory tower stance (in defense or in offense).
     That was sad, because—for one—every time Bourdain says something philosophical on his show or in his books, it’s always with a tongue in cheek, albeit substantive with allusions. Sad, likewise, because media might have noticed those times when he’s totally serious, as when in the throes of a (to him) rarity, sentimentally enjoying fatty chicharrones with pan de pais in a Puerto Rico small-town plaza. If media had taken the time to review his record, though of course I am speaking from a position of perfect hindsight, they would have seen the reason why he has earned the love of many—he has been one Ramones-loving “jerk” of a champion passionate about empowering “peasant food” in their purity, beyond the apostasy and sacrilege of fusion. He praises local food because of their local-ness, not their bastardized here-from-there-ness. Taking note of that significance, they might have been able to conclude that it’s possible it wasn’t really those other chefs (that he named worst) that he hated, he’d easily be Emeril Lagasse’s friend tonight after being the enemy yesterday, but the “corporatizations” of food around them, including those food idealizations espoused by Food Network.
     So, that said, we can’t and mustn’t take Bourdain seriously and literally on any sudden Jamie Oliverian concern about fat’s popularity, or any sudden un-Bourdainly rally for healthy haute-ness for that matter, knowing him to be that ongoing champion of much unhealthy stuff that he now seemed to be rallying against. Those unhealthy stuff he’d raised like flags before include the ever-No Reservations-popular foie gras, accompanied by such delights as, say, Quebec’s cheese-heavy poutine, that pop up every now and then in his shows. As for his supposed hatred for “corporatization,” it must be clarified likewise that he has been a staunch defender of Ferran Adria’s recipes using such corporation-churned products as Smint.
     So, let’s keep it all in context from now on. The Bourdainene thesis is: pure people’s food versus culinary bastardizations and simplistic fusions by importation. When he imports, he makes sure he doesn’t bastardize, even when he attempts variations. Therefore, when he says “I don’t like your piña colada, it’s so unhealthy and bad,” he really means that this corporate invention is no better than crappy corporate cheese by Kraft that needs a Ferran Adrian artistic doing-over to be acceptable to an un-duped people who’ll be paying for it. He’d preach against “promoters of obesity” like Deen while praising a coconut-water flavored roasted pig in Bali, its lard dripping, for the same reason. Food integrity.
     It’s not what the kid says, it’s what he means, then. He’s that kind of a jerk, that sort of “peasant food”-championing asshole that the food media couldn’t, at least for a couple of weeks, connect to a food thesis.
     Now, having said that, clarifying things on Bourdain’s behalf which seemed to require a lot of explanation, let me say now that I doubt that Bourdain’s rant would have discouraged many a Bourdain fan from his shows. It might even be safe to say that his fans will remain his fans whatever the hell he says to offend others. In fact, I think the only moral one could derive from this brouhaha is with the fact that non-fans of the man got interested in what he was talking about, some getting interested in what he really meant to say, if only to see whose side they could side with. One would have thought, were he running for political office, that this jerk-ness was all managed.

PARENTS teach their kids not to be jerks.
     A friend of mine once ranted over a just-transpired experience with an (to her) asshole, “Why did God create assholes? I know they’re where shit come from.”
     But, then, of course, there are assholes and there are assholes. And the good thing about them, all sorts of them, is they actually liberate us from our own stupid shit. They’re something to be thankful to God for, since it is, after all, by their mere existence that we are able to churn out revolutions from our guts. We begin to discuss right and wrong, good and bad, left and right. A conflict of views ensues, and a real contest is instigated.
     But sadly, presently, if the poll surveys are to be our mark, it seems that Jun Magsaysay’s having been an asshole to the Fertilizer Fund Scam’s backers and defenders and Risa Hontiveros’ being a female jerk to the RH Bill-hating male-managed Catholic Church (“they must respect the separation between Church and State”) have already been so quickly pigeonholed as ‘soft’ by media, thus into the dustbins of short-term memory. The resultant on their media image has been different from John Edwards’ (realigned) or Che Guevara’s (biased). In contrast to, say, presidential sister Kris Aquino’s image after her public dramatizations of her husband’s purported evil manners that have instigated a debate on many a Facebook thread, they (Jun Magsaysay and Risa Hontiveros) are coming out too clean, seemingly perceived as devoid of enemies and therefore boring.
     Someone must hype up their having, like Anthony Bourdain, been jerks once. [END]

Mas mabenta sa mga network ang bakbakan at iyakan sa Sabah kaysa ang mapayapang usapan sa geopolitics (o, Ang tunay na kuwento sa likod ng Sabah invasion)

photo from blauearth.com

AWAY SA TOPIC

JANUARY 9, 2013. Naroon kaming tatlo, ako, ang kaibigan kong pintor at ang kaniyang asawa, sa Ma Mon Luk Quezon Avenue kasama ang ilang mukhang pulitiko sa ibang mga mesa na dumating lulan ng mga Pajero nila na may kasama pang mga police escorts.

      Kung maririnig mo ang usapan namin, parang see-saw: ang kaibigan ko'y gustong mag-focus sa mga simbolo ng pop culture habang ako ay nakatuon, at least sa araw na iyon, sa mundo ng geopolitics. At lahat ng ito ay sa harap ng mainit pang siopao bago dumating ang aming wonton soup.

      Geopolitics. Don't we just love this topic? Isn't this the alphabet we'd like to see in our soup? By we, of course, I can't include Philippine television.

      Unti-unti, nadala ko rin ang kaibigan ko sa topic na mas gusto ko noong araw na iyon, at napunta na nga ang usapan namin sa pagtulong ni Mr. Ma sa mga Hapon noong panahon ng giyera, mga Hapong gustong magpalaki ng teritoryo para makakuha ng yamang maiuuwi nila sa kanilang Emperador at mga isla. Painful memory, but almost forgotten. Sa isang mesa naman, pinag-uusapan ang isang tumatakbo sa pagka-senador na si Mitos Magsaysay, na sabi'y dismayado at di natuloy ang ZTE deal ni Gloria Arroyo with China (see ZTE scandal). Pero bagamat politics na may geopolitcs pa rin ang usapan from table to table, walang cinematic theme sa Ma Mon Luk, walang barilan kahit me mga talk of wars of the past. Dito, everything's pure, boring Discovery Travel and Living television around a hot siopao while waiting for one's wonton soup.

AWAY SA LUPA

FAST-FORWARD sa February 9.

      Around 200 kataong pinamunuan ng kapatid ni Jamalul Kiram III na si Agbimuddin Kiram ang nag-land “illegally” sa Lahad Datu, isang town-district sa “Malaysian state” ng Sabah. Supposedly iyon ay isang irredentist siege na nag-a-assert ng claim ng Sulu Sultanate sa state ng Sabah. Ang mga taong yaon ni Kiram, na ang karamiha’y heavily armed, engaged in a standoff with Malaysian police, telling reporters Malaysia is "only renting" Sabah from the heirs of the Sultanate and should be the one to leave.

      Ang pangulo ng Pilipinas, si Benigno Aquino III, ay nagpadala ng mensahe kay Kiram na mag-stand down at i-settle ang kanilang claim sa pamamagitan ng isang peaceful process. Tinukoy niya ang kabuhayan ng mahigit 800,000 na Filipino (documented at hindi) sa Sabah na madidiskarel ng isang bayolenteng konprontasyon with the Malaysian forces. Inusig ni Aquino si Kiram sa kanyang ginawa at sinabihang pabalikin na niya ang kanyang mga tagasunod at pag-usapan na lang ang lahat, habang sinabi rin niyang nararapat arestuhin si Kiram sa kanyang ginawa, dahil siya’y nakikipag-giyera sa ngalan ng Pilipinas, na isang krimen ayon sa Konstitusyon. May mga nagalit sa media at sa oposisyon sa tough talk ng Presidente.

      Si Kiram naman, for his part, ang nagsabing siya’y naubusan na ng pasensya sa gobyerno ni Aquino (at ng mga nakalipas na gobyerno), at ito'y matapos ang isang diumano’y sulat niya sa Palasyo ay ayon sa kanya'y hindi binigyan-pansin ng kasalukuyang Pangulo. Malacañang searched, or pretended to search, for the letter. Sa kasagsagan ng standoff, nagpatawag ang Palasyo ng isang press briefing upang ianunsyo na ang nasabing sulat ay nakita, kung kaya’t makabubuti na sa lahat kung magpunta na si Kiram sa Maynila para mapag-usapan ang kanyang claim. Ngunit, dagdag pa ng announcement, di ito nangangahulugan na abswelto na si Kiram sa ginawa niyang paglabag sa batas ng Pilipinas.

      Nang tangkain nang arestuhin ng Malaysian forces ang grupo ni Kiram, nagkaroon ng palitan ng putok. Nabalita agad na may mga nasawi, kasama ang ilang sibilyan. Nagkaroon ng isang exodus ng mga manggagawang Pilipino (karamihan Tausug) by outrigger boats and small launches. Bagamat binalita ng Philippine media ang pagkasawi ng ilang Malaysian police, majority ng reports ay tungkol sa mga nangyayari sa partido ni Kiram at sa mga displaced Filipino workers, understandably.

      Ngunit tila sinisi ng media at ng social networking public opinion ang tough talk ng Aquino administration sa mga mensahe nito sa partido ni Kiram na tila raw siyang nag-udyok sa partido ni Kiram na ituloy ang “invasion” at naging sanhi na nga ng pagsiklab ng putukan. May tila pagkiling daw ang gobyerno natin sa mga reactionary forces at interes ng Malaysia. Yun ang sinasabi ng pamilya Kiram at tila yun din ang slant ng maraming reporting ng media at propaganda/amateur “reporting” sa Facebook. Gumamit ng hindsight bias ang mga opinyon ng kritiko ng gobyerno para ipagduldulan ke Aquino ang hard tone na ginamit niya para takutin si Kiram, na ayon sa kanila’y isang tonong tila di umobra. Hi-nype-up ng mga opinyong ito ang isang “amateurish handling” daw ng gobyerno sa ongoing crisis, at tinawag pa nga ang later “disengagement” call ni Secretary of Interior and Local Government Mar Roxas na mabagal ang pagdating sa huling minuto.

      Sa kasagsagan ng conflict, umapela rin si DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman sa media na huwag tawaging “refugees” ang mga Pilipinong pabalik ng Mindanao galing Sabah. “Can I also request the media not to call them refugees because they are not,” she reportedly said. “They’re returning citizens. They are not refugees. Kasi iba ‘yung refugee. It’s as if you’re fleeing your country and you don’t have a country; they do. They are Filipino citizens, working in Sabah [who are] unfortunately not documented.”

      Tila nag-backfire ang statement na ito ni Soliman, what with media’s focus on the horrors of the ongoing armed conflict. Soliman ought to have been aware of the fact that media’s micro-journalism was painting a patriot out of Kiram’s person and a Malaysian collaborator out of Noynoy Aquino’s.

photo from gmanetwork.com

AWAY SA DEPINISYON

OKEY. GUSTO kong dito simulan ang sanaysay ko tungkol sa isyu. Let us examine Soliman’s statement.

      “Kasi iba ‘yung refugee. It’s as if you’re fleeing your country and you don’t have a country; they do. They are Filipino citizens, working in Sabah [who are] unfortunately not documented.”

      Technically, mukhang wala namang mali. Dahil kung may paghahanap man ng refuge na nangyari, tila ito’y nangyari noon pa, noong lumikas ang mga workers na ito sa Mindanao patungong Sabah bilang mga economic refugees mula sa bansa nilang walang maibigay sa kanilang trabaho o kabuhayan.

      Technically also, di natin puwedeng masabing bansa nila ang Sabah, unless they count themselves as subjects of the Kiram monarchy, and many of them do not. Kahit ang isang Pilipinong nagkaroon ng titulo ng lupa roon would have a readily existing technical dispute between himself and the Kiram royal family.

      Technically, ang Sabah ay bansa in transit. On paper, it may be said to belong to the Philippines, ngunit wala pang may may-ari, dahil puwede mo ring sabihing technically ay maaaring di i-honor ng Kiram family ngayon ang 1962 ceding of Sabah to the Philippines ng previous Raja Muda na si Muhammad Esmail Kiram I. Puwede mo ring sabihing hindi rin atin ang Sabah kung wala tayong kakayahang i-enforce ang ating claim by force, which force would technically strengthen the claim. Technically, therefore, wala pang may may-ari dahil in transit, pinag-aagawan ang sovereignty, by both paper claims or claims by force (or disguised force).

      So, umaksyon na nga si Kiram III para sa kanyang sovereignty claim, na meron nang force element, through his irredentist move. Sadly, though, ang action na ito ni Jamalul Kiram III demonstrating sovereignty also presumed a sub-sovereignty, parang provincial sovereignty claim under the Philippines' national sovereignty claim. Malungkot ito, sabi ko, dahil may kontradiksyon. Malungkot, dahil ang kontradiskyon na ito ay hindi makita ng mga kritiko ng gobyerno, kung kaya’t tila kulang ang sumusuporta sa posisyon ng sarili nating gobyerno.

      Kaya tutulungan kong magpaliwanag ang gobyerno rito kung ano itong kontradiksyon. Ganito ang takbo no’n: ikaw, Kiram III, habang sinasabi mong ang provincial sovereignty claim mo ay dapat tinutulungan ng national sovereignty claim, gumawa ka ng isang unilateral na aksyon na nagpapakita na wala kang pakialam sa national sovereignty claim. Kaya ka nga gumawa ng sarili mong action demonstrating your own sovereignty, e. In effect, habang sinasabi mong Pilipino kang dapat tinutulungan ng Pilipinas, ang action mo ay walang pakialam sa Pilipinas, di nakinig sa Pilipinas, di pinansin ang concerns ng batas ng Pilipinas, at di nag-isip sa puwedeng mangyari sa mga Pilipinong nasa Sabah. At, kung totoo ang lahat ng sinasabi mo sa propaganda mo tungkol sa kadakilaan ng aksyon mo, prinesume mo na tutulungan ka ng isang bansang ayaw mo na o di mo kinikilala. Ano ka ba kung ganon? Masasabi kong ikaw ang hindi naging Pilipino, ikaw ay naging Kiramian lamang. Pero, of course, hindi nakita ng mga kritiko ng gobyerno yung kontradiskyon na iyon, kaya suwerte mo (at suwerte ng mga propagandistang nasa likod mo).

      Ang action ni Jamalul Kiram III ay hindi para sa Pilipinas. Ang aksyon niya ay para sa kanyang pamilya lamang, o para sa isang faction ng pamilya Kiram lamang, dahil ang pamilyang Kiram ay isang pamilyang mayroon ding kani-kaniyang claim sa soberanya sa kanilang apelyido at pagka-heredero. In short, mga kababayan, kung meron tayong claim sa Sabah, tayo sa Pilipinas, ang kalaban natin sa claim ay dalawa: ang Malaysian claim at ang claim ng faction ni Jamalul Kiram III. Sa palagay ba natin ay ibibigay sa Pilipinas ng faction ni Kiram ang Sabah kung makuha na natin ito mula Malaysia? Di matatapos doon ang giyera. Tayo naman ang gigyerahin ng royal forces ng Sulu.

      Entonces, tama si Soliman. Refugees nga ang mga lumikas na Tausug noong nasa Sabah pa sila, dahil ang Sabah mismo ay lupa that doesn't have a country yet. Nung bumalik sila sa Pilipinas, napunta sila sa isang bansang kanila at siguradong sila lang ang nagmamay-ari.

photo from positivelyfilipino.com

AWAY PARA KANINO?

SUBALIT umiikot ang talakayan ngayon sa nakalipas, sa History ng Sabah, na tila may malakas na patunay na sa Pilipinas na nga ang Sabah. Ngunit, assuming na pakikinggan ito ng Malaysia, di ba iikot din ang tanong sa kung ano ang ibig sabihin natin ng “Pilipinas” na may karapatan sa Sabah? Ito ba’y ang buong Pilipinas bilang estado o ito ba’y Kiram family lamang (na kinikilala natin bilang mga Pilipino)? Kasi kung ang latter, ibig sabihin hindi natin ipinaglalaban ang karapatan ng Pilipinas sa lupa ng Sabah, ipinaglalaban natin ang karapatan ng isang pamilyang Pilipino upang makuha nila ang kanilang inangking lupa. Ito ay dapat klaro, sa dahilang kung tayo ay makikipag-giyera sa Malaysia, dapat alam natin na nakikipaggiyera tayo hindi sa ngalan ng Pilipinas kundi sa ngalan ng isang Pilipino-kunong pamilya. Ang lupang ipaglalaban natin gamit ang dugo ng ating mga anak ay upang maibalik sa pamilyang Kiram ang kanilang lupa. Tanong ko: ipadadala mo ba ang anak mo na gawin ang patriotic act na ito para sa isang inagaw na islang pagmamay-ari lamang ni Lucio Tan?

PUNO’T DULO NG AWAY

SO, OKEY. Technically Sabah is the Philippines', as per the former sultan’s ceding of Sabah to the Philippines in 1962. Pero this is all technicality looking at the past. Technicality looking at the future would shed light on the behavior of the country's leadership, at maaaring magbigay-sagot sa atin kung "bakit ganun ang behavior ng Malakanyang at tila pumapabor pa sa Malaysia."

      Eto. Bakit ba nag-apura na si Jamalul Kiram III at ang kanyang mga funders at gumawa na ng isang desperate na show of force para i-claim ang kanyang proprietary rights sa lupa ng Sabah (habang hinihimok ang gobyerno natin na tulungan siya kasama ang “ating” sovereignty claim)? Hindi ako naniniwalang nagpadala nga ng sulat sa Malakanyang si Kiram. Tumakbong senador ng Lakas-Kampi-CMD noong 2007 at nakabili ng million-pesos worth of weapons, pero di makalipad sa Maynila para makalapit sa ilang mga opisyales ng gobyerno? Simple lang ang rason. Ayaw talaga ni Kiram at ng kanyang mga funders ng peaceful talks na alam niyang (nilang) walang patutunguhan. (Ngayon na lamang sila nanghihingi ng talk with the president, matapos nilang makita na wala silang ipoprogreso sa standoff maliban sa pagkalipol ng kanilang angkan).

      Oo, iniisip nila noon, bago ang bakbakan, na walang patutunguhan ang peaceful talks. Kasi nga naman, in a matter of months na lang, come 2015, magsisimula na ang ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), isang magaganap na economic at political revolution sa Southeast Asian region that would recontextualize (and postmodernize) the Sabah dispute. Prime movers ng ASEAN Economic Community ang Philippines at Malaysia. Why do you think inapura rin ang Bangsamoro treaty? Why do you think Malaysia finally agreed in the Aquino period, after starting to entertain the idea in the Ramos period, to have nothing to do with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) [with Indonesia’s help] any longer? Gusto na ng ASEAN region na tapusin ang mga maliliit na territorial disputes sa rehiyon para imbis na papunta sa secessions ay magtrabaho na ang lahat para sa integration, kahit man may mga autonomous na regions sa loob nito. Naniniwala ang ASEAN governments na narito ang tunay na power para sa lahat ng ASEAN members, at sa mga corporations ng ASEAN member countries, laban sa superpowers at kanilang mga super-siopao intereses.

      Alam ng gobyerno natin na hindi padadala si Kiram sa mapayapang usapan dahil alam niya rin na getting obsolete na ang sultanate claim. At alam din marahil ni Aquino na walang saysay ang makipag-usap kay Kiram, kung kaya’t ang unang naging hakbang niya ay ang takutin si Kiram ng arrest, dangling the Philippine constitution, at para takutin ang sinumang iba pa na gustong sumunod sa movement ni Kiram.

      Habang nangyayari ang Sabah invasion ni Kiram, ano sa palagay niyo ang binabalita sa PTV-4, ang government channel? Ang pag-uusap ni Noynoy Aquino at ng Sultan of Brunei. Ang Brunei ang isa pa sa hinihimok na sumali totally sa integration, na may tila konting problema sa integration dahil sultanate din ang lupa ng Brunei. By the way, ang Malaysia ay mayroon ding mga sultanates, being a state with a constitutional monarchy. . . .

      Itong lahat ang macro-view at future view, hindi ito ang past view. Sa pananaw ng mga Pilipinong sumasang-ayon sa integration, ang malaking kalaban natin ay hindi ang Malaysia kundi ang economic at political bully na China! Makakaalis tayo sa pagka-inferior sa China (or, more properly, makakacompete tayo sa standing ng China) kung mag-iintegrate ang Malay race, economically at first at pag-isa ng aviation routes nito sa 2015. Who knows kung susunod na agad ang United States of Southeast Asia in a matter of a few years, towards a supranational union.

      Ito. Ito ang puno't dulo ng lahat ng kaguluhang ito. (With some sidebar stories, perhaps, about Lakas-Kampi-CMD interests to boot).

photo from nst.com

TINAPOS NA AWAY

MALAYSIA helped the MILF and MNLF movements precisely to protect its interests in Sabah. Tapos, bigla-bigla, ayaw na niya. Ito ang rason: may mas maganda nang interest na hindi lang para sa kanya, para sa lahat din. Hindi maaaring walang rason ang mga biglaang pagbago ng ihip ng hangin kung bakit ang magkaaway ay biglang magdedecide na huwag nang mag-away. Ito yun, ito ang rason. At iyon din ang rason kung bakit may free flow na ng workers to and from Malaysia na di na istrikto sa dokumentasyon. Sa mga susunod na dekada, hindi na foreign country ang Malaysia, parang ibang state/province na lang ng isang rehiyon na may iisang ASEAN passport.

photo from internationalist.org

DAHIL SA MGA KAAWAY?

Okay, so, now that it's out of the bottle, tanong ngayon: bakit tinago ito ng Malakanyang at hindi na lang sinagot ng diretso ang puno at dulo? Ito pa siguro ang pagkakamali. Sa takot na any loud masses-directed announcement regarding the AEC would mobilize pro-China Philippine leftists to sing anti-globalization songs, Malacañang contrived diverse rationales for its actions that looked "favorable to Malaysia." But that reason, the AEC reason, is the only reason that will pacify the nation. Well, understandably, of course, the pro-China Left sa buong rehiyon ay maaaring makalikom ng following ng madla para ibalik tayo sa middle ages ng division.

CONSPIRACY:
President Aquino issues warning to people who plotted the expedition of Sultan Jamalul Kiram III’s men to Sabah. MALACAÑANG PHOTO BUREAU

WALANG KAAWAY?

Noong di pa nagsisimula ang bakbakan, may pinakalat na feelers ang Malakanyang na may intelligence reports daw silang nakuha na may kinalaman ang dating administrasyon sa pagsalakay ng mga Kiram sa Sabah. Marami ang natawa rito. Ipatatawag daw ng Palasyo ang ilang tao noon ng administrasyong Arroyo, kasama na rito si former defense secretary Norberto Gonzales, ang parating pinaghihinalaang may pakana pag may ganitong mga pangyayari (Glorietta explosion during proceedings for Arroyo’s impeachment, LRT explosion during proceedings for Joseph Estrada’s impeachment, etc.) Sabi ng oposisyon at ng media, ano na naman daw stretch ng imagination ito ng Malakanyang? Bakit daw naghahanap ng kaaway na wala rito? Nasa Malaysia raw ang kaaway natin, at bakit daw di tulungan ng gobyerno ang ating kapwa Pilipino, ang mga Kiram?

     Pero kung intelligence reports, iaassume ba natin na walang katotohanang mayroon nga nito? Sa pagkakaalam ko, matagal na ang understanding ng Lakas people with CMD (Christian Muslim Democrats)/PDSP (Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas) people, kaya nga Lakas-Kampi-CMD alliance, which latter party includes Kiram (under Norberto Gonzales’ PDSP’s banner). Natatandaan mo ba noong pinag-uusapan pa lang ang ASEAN Economic Community na mula pa sa panahon ni Fidel Ramos? Tapos nagpatayo si Gloria Arroyo ng quasi-consular office sa Sabah noong panahon na niya? At di ito pinayagan ng Malaysia? Nung luminaw na ang usapang ASEAN Economic Community noong latter part of 2007, biglang sinabi ni Gloria Arroyo na di na interesado ang Pilipinas sa sovereignty claim nito sa Sabah. Marami ang umangal. Ano ang nasa likod nitong pagbabagong ito? Noong 2007, pinatakbo ng Lakas-Kampi-CMD si Kiram for senator. Bakit? Kung wala ka nang sovereignty claim na isinusulong, bakit kaalyado mo ang isang taong may patuloy na prorprietary claims sa Sabah? Ha? A, oo, may proprietary claim pa nga pala. Sinabi ba ni Gloria Arroyo na di na rin interesado ang Philippine government na suportahan ang proprietary claims na ito? Ibig sabihin, kung magkaka-ASEAN Economic Community, at ang Sabah ay magiging autonomous province ng ASEAN Economic Community, at rendered obsolete na ang sovereignty claims ng lahat ng bansa, at least mayroon pa ring proprietary claims. Shortly after Kiram was adopted by Lakas-Kampi-CMD's senatorial slate, pinalaya rin ng Arroyo government si Nur Misuari early in 2008. Naaalala rin ba natin ang dating attempts ng Arroyo government later for a Bangsamoro treaty on ancestral domain na nauwi sa pag-teterrorize ng ilang paksyon ng MILF dahil sa conflict ng gusto ng Malakanyang at ng desisyon ng Korte Suprema tungkol sa treaty? At may pamumugot pa ng ulo ng ilang miyembro ng Philippine Marines na nangyari?

     Tanong: ano ba ang maaaring interes ng mga tao ng Lakas-Kampi-CMD sa Kiram clan? At kay Misuari, gayung delikado pa ring challenge ang waning MNLF sa stronger MILF? Or, by a stretch of the imagination, ano ang puwedeng interes ng mga funders-we-don't-want-to-believe sa Sabah? Hmmm. Alam niyo, ang oil reservoir sa ilalim ng sedimentary rock na pinagkukunan ng mayaman-na-ngayong Brunei ay parehong source na pagkukunan mo kung magdidrill ka sa Sabah offshore. Matagal nang binalak palawigin ng Malaysia at ng Petronas ang drilling doon, pero dahil nga sa claimants hindi ito magawa (ng hayagan).
     Balik tayo sa funders. Noong pinaplantsa pa lang ang Bangsamoro treaty ng Noynoy Aquino administration, wala kang maririnig kay Nur Misuari. O baka lang hindi marinig dahil walang lumalapit na taga-media. Noong malapit na ang araw ng pirmahan at kumpirmado na ng government media ang withdrawal ng support ng Malaysia sa MILF (at waning MNLF), at Malaysia pa nga ang tumulong sa pag-uusap ng lahat ng partido, heto't nag-iingay na si Misuari laban sa treaty bagamat may mga delegates siya rito, na kung tutuusin mo ay wala namang mababawas sa kanya (unless maging unreasonable siya tungkol sa hatian ng natural resource revenues at sa territory na masasakop ng autonomous region). Or, heto't may mga taga-media nang lumalapit kay Misuari (sino kaya ang nagsabi sa kanila na puntahan si Misuari?). Ngunit ito ang tanong ngayon: kailan ba nagkaroon ng multi-million peso weapons ang mga Kiram? Sino ang nag-supply sa kanila? Bagamat sa una ay dineny ng MNLF na nasa likod din sila sa napabalitang sabotahe sa Bangsamoro treaty between the Aquino government and MILF at sa pag-provoke sa mga Kiram na gawin ang balak nila, noong Marso 5, 2013 ay kinumpirma ng MNLF spokesman na si Hadhi Acmad Bayam na mayroon silang mga Malaysia-trained na tao at mga nakatagong weapons na ipapadala para tumulong sa mga Kiram.

     Ngayon, corollarily, sino ang may kapangyarihan o access para ma-monitor ang accounts ng pamilya Kiram, their capacity to buy weapons, outgoing funds and incoming funds, big and small? At sino ang may capacity to monitor a sudden influx of journalists to Sabah prior to the Kiram's Sabah announcement of an "invasion"? Dalawa: Philippine government and Malaysian government. Ano ang findings ng intelligence nilang dalawa?

     Of course, we can choose to believe na walang funders, na lahat ng $3,000 ArmaLites ay donated lang ng mga concerned citizens. Oo nga at mahirap magpatunay sa publiko, lalo na kung may mga bagay na di puwedeng sabihin sa publiko regarding how governments can monitor the traffic of funds and sources (e.g., ipapaalam ba ng US na ang naintercept nilang Iraqi weapons ay galing sa team ni Oliver North kung hindi nag-leak sa media? Syempre hindi, internal na lang yon). Mahirap talaga para sa press release managers kung may delicacy sa paglabas ng information sa media kung may diplomatic repercussions din dito vis a vis a flammable public lacking in knowledge about the whole picture (inclusive of opposition partisans na may sariling propaganda agenda na nagbubulagbulagan sa whole picture). Tandaan natin na marami sa mga weapons ng MNLF ay nanggaling din ng Malaysia, at maaaring makasira sa role ng Malaysia sa mata ng publiko (both Philippine public and Malaysian public). [Conversely naman, puwede mong ilabas sa media ang mga bagay tulad ng existence ng isang Jose Pidal account na common knowledge sa isang bangko, pero iba naman ang haharang sa iyo roon sa paglabas ng detalye. Batas, hindi diplomatic issues.]

     We can choose to believe na walang funders, and even choose to believe all sorts of meme reports of rampant rape and torture sa isang Facebook wall na may larawan lamang ng nahuling mga bihag na galing sa kampo ni Kiram. Nagkalat ang “reports” sa Facebook na ni-layout sa Microsoft Word na nagsisisigaw ng katotohanan tungkol sa nangyayari sa Sabah na mga pagsasamantala ng mga Malaysian forces doon. Tila nanalo ang propaganda ng mga ganitong “reports” sa unang bugso sa mata ng matatalinong tao sa Facebook. Sabi ko sa sarili ko, kanya-kanyang confirmation bias na lang ito, sabi pa nga sa sociology. Hay naku, galing na ako riyan. Sa advertising industry, ang liit ng tingin namin sa masa (kasama na ang well-educated masses), madali mong mabilog sa pamamagitan ng mainstream at guerrilla media sa ngalan ng "katotohanan".

photo from loyarburok.com

AWAY NG MALALAKI VS. MALILIIT?

NGAYONG narito na nga tayo sa usapang AEC, sasabihin ba natin na tila biktima pa rin dito ang maliliit na tao na may mga buhay na nasawi at kailangan pa rin silang tulungan? Teka nga muna, sino bang maliliit, ang mga tao ni Kiram? Kung sasabihin nating ang AEC ay panaginip lamang ng mga malalaking industriya para sa kanilang mga sarili, thus an issue between people in power or big business and ordinary people like the Kiram warriors na namamatay sa sagupaan, hehehe, sino ba itong latter na tinutukoy natin? Ano ba ang interes nila? Di ba big oil business din para sa kanilang amo?

      Mas mainam na tanungin kung sino ang caught in the crossfire, sino ang kawawa. Inisip ba ni Kiram ang maaaring mangyari sa kanila, silang mga undocumented workers na Tausug sa Sabah, pag nakipagbakbakan siya sa Malaysian forces? Ano ang pakialam niya sa mga aliping Tausug na hindi miyembro ng royalty, ang interes niya ay ang claim niya sa oil reserves. Wala siyang pakialam sa maaaring mangyari sa kanila, pero ang nakakatawa, lumabas sa media na siya pa ang champion ng Tausugs. Ang micro-journalism nga naman, oo, at ang kanyang profitable na anecdotal factualizing at conclusions from one premise.

     Iyan ang nakakalungkot kapag puro facts ng politics on the ground and on Facebook walls ang kina-cover ng media, hindi ang facts ng geopolitcs behind the curtains na maaari sanang magbigay-linaw sa tao kung sino ang tunay na kakampi nila at sino ang huwad na champion. Lumabas na champion si Kiram ng mamamayang Pilipino at traydor ang sabwatang Pilipinas-Malaysia. Subalit sino ba ang magpapaganda sa buhay ng nakararami at sino ang mangingiwan lang sa maliliit sa tabi? Kaya lang kasi, ang mga usapang ganyan, PTV-4 lang ang nagcocover, boring.

     So, global conspiracy kaya itong AEC ng mga malalaking industriya? Subalit ang "global conspiracy" na ito ay transparent, lahat ng dokumento tungkol dito sa ASEAN Economic Community na ito ay available online. Pero magkakainteres ba ang ABS-CBN News o ang GMA 7 dito? Walang tensyon e. Syempre do'n sila sa mabenta. Isang babaeng ni-rape ng Malaysian police, kahit hindi kumpirmado at sinubo lang ng Kiram party o ng anti-Aquino part ng media, gagawing geopolitical reading. Nagsasaya ang opposition propaganda.

photo from http://www.prolanguage.co.th/

AEC LABAN SA AWAYAN

KUNG interesado sana ang media sa dapat ipinapaalam sa tao, o kung interesado sana ito sa konsepto na hindi dapat parating government-averse fourth estate ang media, at kung di rin sanang masyadong matatakutin ang government sa pagsiwalat ng tunay na impormasyon, disin sana ay matagal nang malinaw kung bakit inapura (as against “minadali”) ng Aquino government ang mga bagay-bagay tulad ng K-12, Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro, etc.

      Kung may gagawa ng dokumentaryo tungkol dito, mainam sana kung ito’y all about the preparations for the 2015 ASEAN Economic Community launch, mga preparations mula pa sa panahon ni Fidel Ramos o beyond hanggang kay Arroyo kung kelan ito finally pinirmahan noong Nobyembre 2007, at hanggang sa Aquino period, kasama na ang pag-apura sa K-12, ang RH BIll (kasi kelangan kang magpakita na may interes kang magbawas ng liability para sa regional welfare fund), ang Bangsamoro treaty, airlines development at airport plans para sa ASEAN Single Aviation Market, etc., etc. Isama mo na rin diyan ang pagluwag ng Burmese government ke Aung San Suu Kyi, ang takot ng China kaya pinalibutan niya ang Spratlys at Scarborough Shoal, etc.

      Subalit kailangang i-brainstorm ng mga producers sa Ma Mon Luk iyang dokumentaryo na yan. Alam mo naman, sa network may awayan ang programming people tungkol sa topic, tungkol sa market, tungkol sa profit. At madalas nababasura ang usapang maganda ng geopolitics laban sa madalas na nananalong tensyong bigay ng micro-journalism, tulad ng bakbakan at iyakan. Sa Philippine news television, maliban sa PTV-4 at ABS-CBN News Channel talk shows, tila walang may gusto ng Discovery Travel and Living programming kung saan ang usapan ay umiikot lamang sa mga nakaraan nang labanan habang nagsasalo ang lahat sa mainit pang super-siopao. [END]