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

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

1. On Behalf of Inang Bayan Kuno

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

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

    Ok na ba yon? Yey! Rak en rol!

2. An "I" Persona

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

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

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

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

3. Braggadoccio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. The problem with us, the people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    À votre santé! Vive la démocratie directe!

5. The problem with our intelligentsia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. CAN I PLEAD FOR CLARITY?

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

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

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

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

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

0000

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

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

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

0000

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

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

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

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

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

0000

4. MABUHAY ANG LEHISLATURA?

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

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

0000

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

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

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

0000

6. AT NASAAN NA TAYO NGAYON?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0000

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

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

Another advice to the foreign tourist

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

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

THE PERFECT VISION OF HINDSIGHT UPON A DEVELOPING BLINDNESS

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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


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

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]

MORE BIG TENT BULLSHIT THAN SOCIALISM, REALLY

photo from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/570094/news/nation/duterte-s-inauguration-to-be-held-in-malacanang-over-500-invited

OUSTED THAI Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra vaunted his Thai Rak Thai party, during its rise from 1998 to 2001, as a populist party that culled its support from farmers, small villages, and small businesses in contrast to its big rival, the Democrat Party, which prided itself with classical liberal rhetoric that would readily find friends in big business and among ordinary worshipers of trickle-down economics. I'd leave it to you to research on how populist Shinawatra remained or whether later political parties that pronounced loyalty to his principles had the same populist motives.

    Let's fast-forward to today and move to the Philippines, where during the Philippine presidential campaign of 2015-16, candidate Rodrigo Duterte declared not a few times—to the delight of those disillusioned with the preceding Noynoy Aquino administration’s combo meals of neoliberal focus—, "I am a socialist."
    Both men, the one populist and the other one a self-described socialist, launched their own respective wars against drugs, particularly against methamphetamine. I don’t know if populism has got anything to do with Shinawatra’s war on drugs, given that his strong campaign was at the instigation of the King, or if Duterte’s socialism has any bearing on his anti-meth passion. But, sure, one can easily look for links—the Thai majority was probably likely waiting for just such a war to happen from the top, and probably Duterte for his part is worried that the lower classes’ welfare is going to be eroded fast by the effects of the meth supplied by rich importers and distributors of the drug. We’ll get back to this later, after the next paragraph.

INDEED, as Marvin Bionat of Inquirer.net’s US bureau reports, the current Philippine war on drugs launched by Duterte is not the first of such magnitude in Asia, and points to the similar Thai war on drugs launched by Shinawatra in the early 2000s. Interestingly, Shinawatra’s war resulted in the killing of more than a thousand innocent Thai citizens picked through blacklists drawn by eager participants in his campaign, this as per findings by a post-Thaksin Shinawatra government enquiry that was reported in 2008 by the international media. Shinawatra was overthrown by a coup in 2006 during the second year of his second four-year term. The populist party that he founded, Thai Rak Thai, was soon banned by the junta.
    Here are my questions concerning Shinawatra’s war on drugs and how it might signal something to Duterte’s present one: Is it possible that what happened to Shinawatra’s campaign (thousands killed, almost half of the specific number of which were soon found by that abovementioned subsequent enquiry to be innocent) is precisely what happens when one does a fascistic (far from socialist) bottom-up type of war against such a criminal menace as the illegal drug trade? And could it be that it is only through a coup that a country can stop that war? And if such inevitability of a coup is already what some may presently be mulling as a possible way out of the current momentum of killings, what non-mercenary faction would even attempt to deliver such a now-possibly-not-so-sinister-plan? Could a coup be a recipe possible to, say, anti-Marcos military factions within the Armed Forces of the Philippines averse to the President's (far from socialist) unabashed embrace of the Marcoses, assuming such factions exist at all? Or by anti-NPA military groups averse to Duterte’s openness to the Communists, who possibly number a lot? Well, . . . sigh, . . . we ordinary citizens can only brace ourselves for a possible rough ride, and brace ourselves tightly as we wait on the sidelines.
    But, first, why does this war on drugs have to be called a “war”? Is this by a wording strategy that would semantically excuse that war, qua war, from the usual “peacetime” legal due processes required of democracies? If so, then isn’t it rather unfair that a leader can declare a “war” on drugs anytime, but over which program none can prosecute him later for “war crimes” committed?

I WOULD declare now that Duterte really has no ideology that one could comfortably categorize as either left or right or, even, safely, as center.
    And, likewise, what is complicating critics’ checks on Duterte’s war on drugs is Filipinos’ ideology-less tendency to be mere loyalists and partisans. For instance, what's this proliferating bullshit about defending the politician you voted for (since “you’ll only be heckled for having voted, and possibly campaigned also, for the leader you’re now criticizing”)? My usual answer to this political myopia is this: I don't vote for politicians, my countrymen, I vote for promises upon certain serious causes. True, it’s sad that every time I vote for those promises, inevitably through politicians, I would often end up disappointed. And sometimes it would take me three years to get out of my confirmation bias and bias blind spot to get deeply disillusioned (which disillusionment would then be met by both heckles and hugs from the loyalist partisans of the opposition). I confess that today it has taken me less than two months.
    So here’s my prayer: Lord God, I pray that every Filipino would stop being a politician- and party-worshiper and will remember henceforward his primary loyalty: to his more/most important causes (which ought to be the sole recipient of his loyalism).

WHAT ought to be checked in Duterte’s war on drugs? Well, in the August 25 issue of Time.com, Rishi Iyengar published a long story on this war. Comprehensive enough for a good appreciation of what’s going on in it and to introduce questions that must be raised against the same, the article quotes jarring realities such as this one emailed by Richard Javad Heydarian, a professor of political science at Manila’s De La Salle University: “There is also deep shock at the drug war’s financial implications: Duterte has given huge funding boosts to the police and military by slashing the country’s health budget by 25%, and reducing expenditure on critical sectors like agriculture, labor, employment and foreign affairs. On the other hand, the budget for the presidential office has increased tenfold, and now includes a provision of $150 million for 'representation and entertainment'.”
    And it is not as if troubling reports like this can only come from Duterte detractors with an ax to grind or political analysts with career points to push. Duterte himself would provide the media with explicitly discomforting proposals. Last week, for instance, Duterte—irked by “criticism” or reports from UN rapporteurs concerning his war on drugs—showed his exasperation by threatening to withdraw Philippine membership from the UN. That is not likely to happen, of course, but such surreal outbursts have now been deemed typical of Duterte. Surreal, since it goes without saying that should such a position be taken seriously qua a position of exit it would mean that the Philippines would have to deem itself able to afford consequent exits from programs the UNDP and the UN system have been providing many member states (through such agencies as the Asian Development Bank and the Food and Agriculture Association—check here), not to mention decisions by arbitral tribunals within the UN system. Not even the left-of-socialist (communist) states of China and Cuba would want to be out of the UN today.
    Duterte has in fact been his own detractor since his route to the presidency began. Comedian John Oliver’s pre-election skit about him as being the Donald Trump of the East has had 1+ million views on YouTube, and this comparison is not exactly loose—Trump’s propensity to say “Believe me” for his facts-telling (as compiled in this video and as caricatured by Tim Kaine at the US Democratic National Convention) does find an exact parallel in Duterte’s own presentation of alleged facts through recurrent “maniwala kayo sa akin pag sinabi ko” (you all believe me when I tell you) or the Tagalog-Bisaya “sus, ginoo, maniwala ka” (Lord Jesus, believe you me).
    And millions of Filipinos believe in Duterte.

STILL, how believable, really, is the President?

    "I am a socialist," said he not a few times during the Presidential campaign of 2015-16, to the delight of those disillusioned with the preceding administration’s combo meals of neoliberal focus.

    However, when he won the presidency, the new President rolled up his sleeves to quickly show us his brand of socialism. And surprise, surprise, not really a center-left sort of socialism was seen in the unveiling, nor even a center-center social liberalism or social democracy. What gradually came out of the caterpillar cocoon was a butterfly’s lip service to socialism for a . . . Big Tent absorption.
    Sure, Duterte has appointed leftists to anti-poverty, agrarian reform, labor and social welfare posts in his cabinet; placed a stalwart anti-unlawful mining activist from the big business class to the government’s environment and natural resources department; announced pro-people policies against red tape and a labor force-favoring stand against employment contracts; reluctantly appointed a freedom-of-information and participatory democracy and participatory budgeting advocate of a vice president to the housing post (reluctantly, she being from an opposing party); and started as well conciliation talks with the Communist Party of the Philippines. That's about it so far.
    Meanwhile, for the other side of the big tent, he has brazenly held close the Marcos family as if he were a part of it; has slashed—as per Heydarian—more or less 25% of the public health, labor and foreign affairs budgets in favor of military and police budget increases; has started a bloody bottom-up (I repeat, bottom-up) war on drugs (that look a lot like Thailand's Shinawatra's) that has yet to see a drug lord's head roll; and has ejected a form of public transport (the UV Express) from Epifanio de los Santos Avenue in favor of the city bus lines, Uber, Grab, and slippery "colorums" (with nary a groan of sympathy for this policy's impact on working-class commuters walking the distance to a connecting MRT station and nary a finger on private users of the avenue despite the new transport secretary's repetition of that oft-quoted Gustavo Petro socialist quote—"a developed country is not where the poor have cars, it's where the rich use public transportation"); and is even now intent on seeking emergency powers for traffic policy-making in Metropolitan Manila for anti-delayed procurement reasons the Supreme Court Chief Justice says is inspired by a myth.
    I don't now believe Rodrigo Duterte is a socialist. I see him now as a big tent figure intent on achieving all sorts of reforms, socialist and otherwise, in an autocratic way that everyone who has come to his Big Tent will be expected to kowtow to and defend.

RECENTLY, poet, conceptual artist, young socialist and extreme commuter Angelo V. Suarez, known for his “#MRTBulok” Facebook posts against the management of the Metro Manila Metro Rail Transit System by both the Aquino government and the system’s private co-owner as well as the incursion of money-making by the Pangilinan Group and the Ayala family into the system’s ticketing, seems to have been a victim of an alleged set-up. He arrived at the usual MRT station he starts his hypermobility with, and, voila! He witnesses a part of an awry MRT train part with the Suarezian tagline “MRT bulok!”, whereupon he finds himself quickly taken by the station’s security guards for detention at the station’s office, which lasted for two nights, accused of having written the marker’s marks on the bulok (rotten) MRT part. Here’s what Suarez later posted about it (also published here with his permission):
    “I feel bad having been detained for word against me by a fellow worker who relies on public utilities and infrastructure as much as I do, who has been let down by the MRT even worse than I have.
    “The allegation against me was made by a guard under pressure to find 'vandals' who have been writing, posting, and stickering their grievances on the MRT. According to her fellow guards—many of whom agree with me that the MRT is rotten—the pressure on them to find these people has been incredible, having been on the receiving end of reprimand by management. One even whispered to me that, as a guard, he knew even more than the average passenger cld how rotten the MRT truly was.
    “Big compradors like MRT Corp. Chairman Robert Sobrepeña and bureaucrats like General Manager Roman Buenafe who enable them play this sick game of pitting workers against workers for their profit or pleasure. This shldn't have been my word against the guard's words; this shldn't have been a matter of me combating policemen, tho there is much to be said about the police being an institution for the protection of private property despite its impact on public interest. I wasn't the only one deprived of sleep and time; so too were these fellow workers—MRT personnel caught between their job and our protest, policemen whose cramped office my friends and I made even more cramped because of my detainment—instrumentalized by corporate interest to suppress dissent from their logic of accumulation thru dispossession.
    “Bulok ang MRT, pero bulok lamang ito dahil nasasadlak sa bulok na estruktura ng estadong kinakasangkapan ng kapitalismo. Umaasa akong magkakaisa ang uring manggagawa para patumbahin ang tunay nating kaaway.”
    Suarez, after his detention, had a talk with the Gustavo Petro-quoting transport secretary, Arthur Tugade, and I can only wonder what socialist exchanges they had during those minutes of discourse and counter-discourse.
    Days after, Suarez would tell friends of emails sent his way via Facebook. He writes:
    “The things you find in your filtered messages inbox after 2 nights of police detainment for alleged vandalism:
    “1. Dick pics –‘sulat-sulat ka pa diyan, chupain mo na lang 'to!’
    “2. Charges of idiocy – ‘bulok na nga ang tren, susulatan mo pa! tanga!’
    “3. Accusations of being a 'yellowtard' – ‘bakit ngayon ka lang nagsasalita? dilawan ka kasi!’”
    Ms. Caroline Arellano, a friend of Suarez, commented on Suarez’s post: “Basta kinalaban mo ang administration na ito yellowtard ka o addict.” To which Suarez replied: “(Here’s) the funny thing: the general manager who delayed my release and was insistent on getting me detained was an Aquino holdover from (Jun) Abaya's time in the DOTC. Duterte supporters of this sort are weird.”
    Which brings me to my three reasons for dragging Suarez’s episode with mysterious forces into this essay: One, to ask the question as to whether turncoating for job security or protection could also be another psychology behind some of the killings by police of drug-trade and drug-use suspects, essentially for demonstration of competence and self-assigned quota, this apart from the elimination of links by drug-involved police. Two, to ask whether those messages sent to Suarez’s inbox does not show us enough why loyalism and politician-worship is so dangerous not only to others but to the health of our nation's brain cells. And, three, to perhaps show that many if not most Duterte supporters are far from socialist. [S / -I]