Everyday Dead

There are dead people in Iraq everyday, victims of roadside bombings and sectarian violence. I feel sad for Iraqis who have to live in fear everyday for their lives. But Iraq is a war zone where violence is expected to be an everyday occurrence.

More saddening is the thought that here at home, people are killed everyday too. Many of the dead are said to be journalists or leftists or both. What happen in the Philippines are targeted killings, unlike in Iraq where the dead are victims of indiscriminate killings.

Meanwhile, through the media, many of those identified with the left, or so called militants, condemn the killings and point to the military as the culprit. They openly identify the newly installed AFP chief Gen. Palparan and even Pres. Arroyo herself as directly responsible for the killings. They say that this is what is meant by the government’s "all-out-war" against the New People’s Army, as stated in the President’s recent State of the Nation Address (SONA). They say the Arroyo government is targeting the militants because she is afraid of the growing dissent against her.

What the leftists fail to say though is the fact that the NPA themselves are known and proven to have assassinated in the past people outside or within their ranks. The statements of so many leftist leaders can be suspect. Never did many of them spoke against the NPA. It is so easy for them to point an accusing finger to the government when dead people cannot speak for themselves. I am sure that even if the leftists knew that the NPA did the killings, they would still blame the government.

It is somewhat annoying when it seems now that so many dead people are easily identified as leftists... do they carry ID cards that say they are? The same is true with dead journalists… were they killed because of their profession or because of something else?

There are many dead politicians too. Why is the Arroyo government not blamed for these. In fact, lots of people turn out dead… politicians, supposed drug pushers (are they really?), even by-standers and so many unknown people. Who can say that these people are leftists or not? Aren’t the leftists themselves, by identifying every dead Tom, Dick and Harry as leftists, muddling the situation? Is there anyone really trying to uncover the truth in this recent spate of killings?

Meanwhile, the recently formed Melo commission is branded as a whitewash even before they start their work. Parallelisms are drawn between the Melo and the Fernando commissions (which started the Ninoy assassination investigation) in which people insinuate that Justice Melo is a Macapagal crony as Justice Fernando is to Marcos. The only proof they have is that Melo started work in government appointed by former Pres. Diosdado Macapagal. Never mind if he has integrity or not, never mind his past performance. They do not want anyone known to the president to head a commission to investigate the killings. It is like saying they do not want any investigation at all, for of course the President will appoint someone she knows. Or would they only accept an investigation if it is done by people linked to the NPA?

Here is another area where we sorely miss the services of a credible media. We are as usual lost in the dark in getting to the truth. There can be no justice in our society as long as our media is not doing their job.

If Ninoy were Alive

Every year, when commemorating Ninoy's (Sen. Benigno S. Aquino Jr.) death, it seems to me that a lot of people who make their speeches or comments refer to what Ninoy would have done if he were alive today. It is as if they really know Ninoy, his philosophy and morals. It is not funny anymore how everyone thinks that Ninoy would do what they thought he ought to do.

There is only one thing clear though... they are no Ninoys. If they do know what Ninoy would do, why don't they just do it themselves? Why do they need to exhume Ninoy from his grave just so he would agree with them?

The truth is no one knows what Ninoy would do. If he were alive, we wouldn't know if he would push for PGMA's impeachment or ask her to resign? We just wouldn't know if he would endorse Charter Change or oppose it?

But whichever side Ninoy goes, we know we would have approved it. We believe him. He speaks with logic. He can change sides, tell us why, and we would have change sides too. He convinces us.

We believe in his past, and in what he has done. We thought he is right. Always. That is why we follow him. He is our leader - a leader that we all so miss, and desperately need.

Is Jim Paredes Giving up on RP?

I saw yesterday an Inquirer article ("Finally, Apo's Jim Paredes gives up on RP").. and cannot help but be surprised at first how Mr. Paredes can do that. However, as everyone very well know, I have a critical eye on media and I always listen, read or watch news carefully lest I too may be misled by what they say. Also, I know that Mr. Paredes went to Australia long ago and it is confusing why the Inquirer would only now cover his departure if he indeed gave up on the country. I also know that Mr. Paredes is often in the country even and I thought he is never really "away" anyway. So, I reread the article with the intent of clarifying what Mr. Paredes really said. As expected, I was right. It is easy to note that Jim Paredes never said nor insinuate (even) that he is giving up on RP.

The article title therefore is a mere interpretation by the writer (a certain Gerry Lirio) as to what Jim Paredes has done, or why he went to Australia.

Some of my journalist friends told me long ago that this is a valid journalistic writing technique - making conclusions out of what was said and not just report out what is actually said. It is like I was told that they have a license to mislead their readers with their headlines. I am sure Mr. Lirio would say that Mr. Paredes might have not said that he is giving up on RP, but he did not say either that he is "not" giving up on the country.

Since I am not a journalist, I do not question this specific technique they use. I have observed though that the newspapers headlines has direct effect on the readers thinking. My friends who read the article all have the same conclusion: that indeed Mr. Paredes is giving up on the country.

Of course, Mr. Paredes is fuming as he was portrayed in a bad light. Aside from the misleading headline, he pointed out (Mr. Paredes' blog) some factual errors: that he never was with the MTRCB and that they did not sing "Handog ng Pilipino.." in the Australian concert as described in the article. Perhaps, journalists such as Mr. Lirio can get away with being heartless but they (he) cannot and should not get away with being wrong.

Cheating is the Rule of the Game

Have you ever participated in a game where cheating is the rule? Would you like to join such a game?

I never learned or liked to play basketball because I think you have to learn how to cheat in order to win in that game. You wouldn't survive a minute of baskeball if you do not know how to cheat. Elbows and knees should be part of your tools if you want to excel. Cheat and make sure you're not get caught seems to be the rule. Meanwhile, avoid the others' elbows and knees at all cost but pretend you're hurt by them even when not. The more convincing your acting is, the better at basketball you'll be. There is just no place for righteousness in the game.

And that is why I do not want to get myself into politics, where cheating is the rule. In our brand of politics, you cannot win by merits of your candidacy alone. You have to buy votes, pretend what you are not or cheat in the counting in order to win.

The question therefore is not who cheated in elections? The real question is who did not?

Many opinion makers said and they are angry that PGMA cheated in the past elections. You see, it doesnt require any form of logic to have that conclusion. Even before the elections, we knew that already. We knew right from the start that PGMA would cheat her way to the Presidency and that is the only way she can win. We knew she would use the government resources to her own advantage (aka: buy the people's votes). We knew she would cheat even on the counting. In fact, a lot of people shifted their support from Roco to PGMA because Roco does not have the equal capability to cheat! PGMA indeed was voted by many on the basis of her unwritten platform: that she would do everything just to win (and avoid a FPJ presidency).

So, saying PGMA cheated is easy. The hard part is saying who did not?

People are mistaken when they conclude that FPJ did not cheat. One might argue that FPJ need not cheat. He is so popular with the "masses" (yes, everyone blames the masses) already and he's got no need to do that. Indeed, this is a very big mistaken conclusion. You see, FPJ is the biggest liar in the last election. He pretends to be what he is not. We know his platform: to win on the basis of his popularity.

Yet, there is no one crying foul how FPJ tried to cheat in the last election. Opinion makers does not detail how FPJ treated all of us like fools. They do not say how FPJ used other politicians (like Pimentel and Guingona) to add credibility to himself (or conversely, how the same politicians use FPJ to gain popularity for themselves). No one would show details how FPJ got away from media scrutiny. Everyone is suddenly silent about FPJ. In fact, to this day, no one notices how big a cheater Erap was and got away to being President (but not for long). That using popularity is cheating in itself is never discussed for pure lack of will to go against the popular tide.

And that is why we need Electoral reforms. Yes, we need reforms in order to guard us against cheating by those in power (PGMA). Also, we need reforms to guard us against cheats that transform the elections into popularity contests (FPJ). We need real elections, of real public servants.

It is wrong to think that our electoral reforms should be focused mainly versus those in power. It is like handing the government to the likes of Erap and FPJ. When that happens, we will have more political uncertainties. It is like killing us faster rather than slowly.

What's behind Keana Reeves' ABS-CBN coverage?

I was told she was caught on TV peeing behind a house (Pinoy Big Brother?). Almost everyday, she is on DZMM's news. She's got a new boyfriend and she'd get ABS-CBN's headline. It seems to me that when she'd go to a certain beauty parlor, we would all know about it.

There must be something about this girl, I thought. Isn't she that self-confessed former GRO or escort was it? I must be mistaken, though. She must have won numerous awards, or if not, she would soon have. She must have shown great acting (like Julia Roberts) or was she a great host (like Oprah)? Or perhaps she's so popular or should I say infamously rich (like Paris Hilton)? Why else would a leading media outfit go gaga about every move she makes?

So. I tried to catch her on TV. And there I saw her... and I couldn't say anything about her except she's got some curves (but not really). She doesn't speak well. She seem to be overly self-conscious. She was not as beautiful as I hoped. And her acting forgettable, except when she show some skin.. but it is not worth the headlines. Tabloids yes, but not ABS-CBN.

So why is ABS-CBN making it a big news of Keana? Is she some VIP's girl who can demand exposure from a media giant? Or is she being used as probable blackmail material for some people in high places?

There is something fishy about ABS-CBN and this girl. What is, we can only guess...

How low can DZMM be?

I listened today to DZMM's 7AM news (anchored by was it Angelo Palmones?) on my way to work and can only be amazed at how low the quality of their news reporting is. The first 10 minutes of their program, which reported on the current PGMA impeachment proceedings, is totally one sided and unfair.

They refer to the impeachment as to have been totally slaughtered or "kinatay" by pro-administration congressmen. Their news reports directly said the Impeachment is slaughtered just so the truth would not surface. They featured voice clips of a congressman who spun that Mrs. Arroyo is afraid for the process to push through because she is guilty.

They also feature Jinggoy Estrada's speech regarding his supposed arrest where Jinggoy said that he will continue his crusade against the PGMA and spouse who were the "biggest smugglers" in the country. Meanwhile, they did not provide the details why Jinggoy might be arrested in the first place!

DZMM is obviously doing the media propaganda for one side of the political arena and I can only conclude that it was for the Erap side. Their strategy is to have bad things about PGMA repeated again and again on the radio but not so much as to be able to discuss its merits. As for the reason why, I do not know. We can only guess that they are in it for the money and influence. And they sure are doing the people a great disservice.

I am never for PGMA and I agree that she is likewise involved in election fraud (all of them are). But this is not the way to treat the issue.

It is because of DZMM and the other media outlets like them why our country cannot move forward to where we should be.

What's behind Mr. Anthony Taberna's Success?

His voice does not really sound good. He speaks tentatively and unsure. His opinions are often baseless. He hides behind his listeners text messages (if they really are) to get some points across. His interviews are shallow. Yet, he’s got primetime radio programs on DZMM.

He is neither cute nor handsome. He doesn’t look true. He does not even project a wholeseme image. Yet now, he is on TV!

I knew nobody who listens to him. He is totally unremarkable. So, what is behind Anthony Taberna’s unbelievable success?

He was the first to have the Garci Tapes. He was also there at the San Carlos seminary when so called anti-Arroyo witnesses are holed up. He makes fun of everyone but not of Erap.

Hmmm, well… we can only guess.

One Voice Flaws

It was I think more than a month ago when I have heard of the One Voice movement and read their Position Paper cum Invitation on the Internet. I dismissed the group right after reading them as just another elitist movement that knew so much but cannot do anything. However, now that they are on their media campaign, I can’t stand the inaccuracies and contradicting statements they use just so they would have media mileage.

Before I start, I would like to say that I agree with the grounds from which they founded their movement, namely:

1. Amending the constitution is important yet should not be rushed, and

2. Electoral reform is what is most needed;

(Note: Yes, the above two points are the only points they are actually making) but agree also to the fact that even the above two points could be contradictory (for some could say electoral reforms can only be made by amending the constitution)!

Non-partisan movement

They begin their Position paper by saying that they are a “non partisan movement of citizens”... and claimed that “many” of them “have not participated in rallies”. Surely, they want to establish their credibility. Since many of them did not participate in rallies but not most, does it mean at least some of them did? So are they saying that they are a non-partisan movement of many non-partisan citizens and at least some partisan citizens? Why do they need to say they are non-partisans when still some of them obviously are?

Acting for the poor

Surely, any mention of the poor by those trying to get support of the people is using the poor. The poor are so much of a victim already and they need not be used for whatever purpose some elite members of the society ought to use them. The One Voice movement thought that they knew so much better than “the poor”, for whom the “political alternatives” are not clear - the usual elitist ego that put us where we are in the first place and, yes, that same ego that drives the proponents of charter change! Short of saying that the people are stupid...

“For our people, many of whom are poor, it is often not clear how these political alternatives will make a difference in their lives.”

“5-step”(?) Proposal

Their position paper then went on to outline their proposal: a so called “5-step process” which really did not involve “steps” and which is basically composed of two points (as mentioned earlier), one main agenda - stop the “people’s initiative” that is, and a whole lot of motherhood statements and generalities every politician uses.

First among the 5-step process is they want to discontinue the “Peoples’ Initiative”. This is because they say the initiative is “legally flawed”. My question is: How do you stop something that is legally flawed? By saying it is so or by challenging it in the courts (Supreme Court)? If the initiative is illegal, shared by the “opinion of legal experts”, then what are they so afraid of? Can they not just question it in the Supreme Court right after the so called initiative has been submitted to congress? Or can they not ask the Supreme Court to stop the so-called initiative? Or can they not wait for the proponents actions to finish before they say it is illegal? Or perhaps they do not believe anymore in the Supreme Court, or worse, One Voice do not believe in themselves?

Still they want to stop the initiative because it is “based on fallacious and deceptive reasoning” by its proponents which they did not say who. Do they mean all of the initiatives’ proponents are fallacious and deceptive?

Meanwhile, while pointing an accusing finger at the initiative’s proponents, they cite studies (actually cited one study only, that of a certain Jeffrey Sachs) that said that the form of government is “not indicated” to be a “material factor” that differentiates growth among countries. They however did not say wether the same study has proven that the form of government to be NOT a material factor of the same! At best, the study cited proves nothing.

They went to say further that the parliamentary form of government will result in “even more power to those who already have it”, meaning it is in itself defective. They must at least have some studies to point to their conclusion. But surprisingly, they just say it is so based on their opinion. They say the system will take away from the people the power to vote for President – which they deceptively mean to be bad. They say that fusing the Executive and Legislative chambers is also bad as it will “remove certain checks and balances”. They even went on to make speculations that the would be Interim Parliament (after the constitution is succesfully amended) can amend the same themselves and extend their own terms, weaken the Supreme Court (which One Voice did not trust in the first place), and restore the power of the President to declare Martial Law. Sadly, One Voice did not point to any reference to their conclusions and speculations. They just wanted to sow fear, not provide a healthy debate. Now tell me, is this not as deceptive and fallacious as the People’s Initiative itself?

Aside from stopping the initiative, they say they want Social Reform Program now – which is mainly included in their agenda to get the agreement with many (i.e. of course, nobody is against Social Reform). They did not have specific suggestions though, just the same ol’ run of the mill statements used by many politicians which are easy to say, but hard to execute.

Electoral Reform

I agree with One Voice to push for Electoral Reform. However, the only Electoral Reform they propose are those which will limit the administration’s capability to cheat. Although good in itself, they did not propose reforms that will also limit the popular’s capability to cheat. Did it not occur to One Voice, that ammending the consititution is electoral reform in itself? Did it not occur to them that the first problem of our election is that it has become a popularity contest rather than a sober look at the capability of the candidates? Did it not occur to them that the main problem with our electoral system today is that it favors comedians like Erap Estrada, Lito Lapid, Bong Revilla, Fernando Poe Jr., and Noli de Castro?

While declaring themselves to be non partisan, they take shots versus the administration but not versus the opposition. The only non-partisan portion of their statement is their fifth agenda – rebuilding “of trust in our democratic institutions, our leaders and ourselves”, but where again they use nice to hear motherhood statements that is useless at best!

Media Double Standard on the Religious

There is an obvious double standard by many media practitioners on how they react to politicking by religious leaders, bishops and priests.

I know that from later in Marcos' time and the duration of the Aquino, Ramos, and Estrada presidencies, there are negative reaction everytime the late Cardinal Sin speaks about anything that is bordering on politics. During those times, many media commentators draws from the principle of separation of church and state to lambast or ridicule the cardinal even when the latter spoke mainly on general terms.

Meanwhile, media does not react a bit to any comments or religious instructions by the Iglesia ni Kristo - even when the said religious group directly endorses lists of candidates every election. Even to this day, media does not have any reaction even to Mike Velarde's (El Shaddai) obvious political maneuverings short of direct intervention of the affairs of the state. In fact, everyone is bent to believe that both INK and El Shaddai are able to place their own people to lucrative government posts after elections. Both INK and El Shaddai are obviously at the center of politics but media does not see anything wrong about this.

At first, I thought many in media is mainly biased against the catholic leadership, but I was wrong. Whereas commentators frown upon Cardinal Sin's every generalized suggestion on what the public must do (or everytime the Cardinal spoke anything political), the same media practitioners does not notice that catholic Bishops Labayen, Iniguez and Tobias are all directly involved and brashly commenting on politics. The three bishops are joining political rallies, involved even in impeachment movements, even espousing leftist ideas. Meanwhile, when the CBCP spoke of generalities and conservatively about the political situation and most recently about (and with a critical eye on) the impeachment moves, media seem not satisfied to CBCPs pronouncements which are then branded as vague and useless. Amazingly and suddenly, media forgot all about the principle of separation of church and state!

Media selectivity proves that it is not really against the catholic church, not even to the catholic leaders. I also believe that media is not for or against the "Left". But it is very obvious that media is protecting some political interests. Further analysis points that mass media is protecting the interest of one political side - that side which includes the Marcoses, Danding Cojuangco, and Erap Estrada (more of this analysis in future entries). Generally, media is selective based on which side is benefitted by a religious groups' pronouncements.