Waste segregation: Sorting the good critics from the bad

commies

A beginner’s guide to the personalities and groups opposing DAP

by Andrew Lim

The noise on the DAP issue has reached deafening levels, and it is time to classify the sectors that are doing the screeching. Just like household garbage, we need to sort them out, since many of them have very dark motives why they oppose not just the DAP, but practically everything that government does.

However, there are a few who oppose the DAP purely on principle, and they are the ones we should listen to and learn from.

The following lists are not exhaustive. There are several other groups/individuals  who are actually too obscure and no longer relevant. Citing them here will only aid in giving them legitimacy.

I. EXTREME LEFTISTS AND THEIR LEGAL ALLIES

Marxist-Leninist-Maoists –  Bayan Muna, Bayan, KMU, Courage, Kabataan Party List, Gabriela, LFS, Anakbayan, etc. These are the above ground representatives of the CPP-NPA-NDF.

Their objective is to seize power by any means – legal, armed struggle, parliamentary struggle.

Install a Communist party-led government that will nationalize all industries and centralize the economy.  The US is the great Satan, and Russia and China were once their guiding lights. They once held a rally in Mendiola holding up portraits of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, as if they were canonized saints.

They have been at it since time immemorial. You can just insert current names into their pre-packaged slogans:  “Dismantle US – (put name of current President here) Dictatorship!”

President (Insert name here), tuta ng Kano!

They will rally in the streets as full-time protesters, and will oppose every President until they install their own Party chief.

II. SUPPORTERS OF PAST CORRUPT REGIMES:

This group’s objective is payback for the hurt suffered by their patron (previous leader) and if possible, to bring down government and return to power. They have been at it since 2010.

ARROYO LOYALISTS – Rigoberto Tiglao (Manila Times) , Belinda Cunanan (booted out of the Inquirer for integrity issues and now blogging) , Augusto Syjuco, Gary Olivar (has been silent since his appointment to the Board of Directors of BDO), Alex Magno (Philippine Star).

MARCOS-ROMUALDEZ  LOYALISTS –

Kit Tatad  (Manila Standard) – the man who can justify the corruption of the Marcoses and proudly show off  his knowledge of Catholic doctrine simultaneously.

Jojo Robles (Manila Standard) fond of inventing “unidentified sources” in his columns.

note:  Manila Standard is owned by a group headed by Martin Romualdez.

Oliver Lozano, the serial filer of impeachment complaints.

CAMPS OF BONG REVILLA, ENRILE, ESTRADA, et al. –  For obvious reasons. Kung naipit na sa PDAF, e di gumanti sa DAP.

OPPORTUNISTIC POLITICIANS –  UNA camp –  Binay, JV Ejercito, Toby Tiangco

Sensing an opportunity to ensure victory for the 2016 polls, they have positioned themselves accordingly.

III. PRINCIPLED CRITICS, WITH SOME HEADLESS CHICKENS

The last group is mostly composed of academics, public interest lawyers and journalists.

Ellen Tordesillas, the Stuart Santiagos, Harry Roque, Liling Briones – smart, principled people who have taught and written for a living for much of their lives. Their integrities are still intact, but they have the tendency to lose their heads on a single issue and throw to the wolves everything due to their frustrations with a policy of government. They behave like headless chickens when they disagree on a single policy of government.

Randy David, Winnie Monsod, Jarius Bondoc, Conrad de Quiros, Rene Saguisag –  the best critics on the DAP. They are telling it like it is, and find solutions to move forward. Bondoc, De Quiros and David are against the DAP, but they are not advocating the destruction of government.

CBCP – Some bishops are saying, “Pro-RH yan si Pnoy eh. So dapat sa lahat ng issue kalaban na rin.” Ha haha. Kidding aside, CBCP head Soc Villegas appeared in Tina Palma’s Talkback on ANC and has voiced a very balanced view of the subject.

Ben Diokno – very cogent arguments in his columns (Though I cannot escape the suspicion that he is angling for the Budget Secretary position once again, under a Binay regime. And why did he support Erap Estrada as Budget Secretary till the end?)

Dean Tony La Vina – of the Ateneo School of Government – very sober and even-keeled. He should be listened to.  His concerns are legitimate.

Professor Prospero de Vera, UP NCPAG-  just like Dean La Vina – very balanced and considers all sides, like what you expect from a high caliber academic.

Joker Arroyo – he signed the Administrative Code of 1987 as Cory’s Executive Secretary, and may have played a role in crafting it. Flerida Ruth Romero emerges as an author, but it may have been a team from the UP Law Center. He called the use of the Administrative Code of 1987 as defense of  DAP as “evil genius”. Does he mean it’s a valid defense?

There you have it. Participate in the debate, as the freedom to do that is what we fought for when we kicked out the Marcos dictatorship.

But,

Be careful that you are not dragged into supporting the agenda of the first two groups.  They are wolves in sheep’s clothing!

Comments
50 Responses to “Waste segregation: Sorting the good critics from the bad”
  1. Joe America says:

    As I was rereading the article after posting it, it struck me that today we had a very clear example that criticism is often situational rather than principled, just as political parties are fluid and personality based rather than principled. Senators Guingona and Alan Caytano came down on different sides of the DAP debate, Guingona seeing it as an important way to stimulate the economy, Cayetano seeing it as an abuse of discretion. Both are bright, decent, straight-dealing people. Why the difference?

    Well, Senator Cayetano has announced he is running for the presidency. He needs to diminish President Aquino and the candidate he backs.

    Situational, not principled.

    I think the whole of politics is intellectual corruption, actually.

    • andrewlim8 says:

      Im not sure if Cayetano even has his timeline right. Typhoon Yolanda came after the DAP had been stopped. The DAP covered funds from 2011 to early 2013. Yolanda came in the last quarter of 2013.

    • Cris Lopera says:

      my sentiment, unfortunately our views are not shared by the majority so it seems from my understanding…

  2. Jo says:

    Waste segregation, heh. Timely, especially after Glenda.

    I’ve been dismayed over my idol CDQ lately. He’s vigorously against Butch Abad and Mar Roxas to the point of extolling the virtues of Jojo Binay. Really icked about that.

    I’m still irked that Jojo Robles share a last name with Raissa, though no fault of her own (unless you count falling in love with Alan Robles).

    Bayan Muna et al… I’ve been wondering if there was an administration where they were quiet. Perhaps it would only happen once we’re ruled by China?

    This DAP issue is really showing us who are for and against this country.

    • vernon says:

      On CDQ:

      Conrad, compared to most columnists, is in a class of his own. He’s an intellectual. His opinions are deeply rooted in the classics. The others are reactionaries who engage in knee jerked opinions (could be because they have deadlines) and most of them suffer from inaccuracy making them submit false arguments. Watch carefully how they pivot. Now they want Abad to resign out of “delicadeza” . CDQ on the other hand relies on facts and his dislike for the Liberals of today is based on first hand experience he may have had during P’Noy’s campaign (the Samar Ave. & Balay factions). I do not think he dislikes Butch Abad. He dislikes what Abad represents. As for Mar Roxas, he seemingly is not convinced with the guy, when compared to his late father, Sen. Gerry Roxas. Mar Roxas appears to be awkward, impulsive, short tempered and “kalat”.

      His opinions on Binay is not about Binay’s virtues but rather on his opportunism which, unfortunately, still resonates with the “masa”.

      On Jojo Robles:

      You can not use Jojo Robles and responsible journalism in the same sentence.

      Have fun.

      vernon

  3. macspeedmacspeed says:

    All those critics are well defined by Sir Andrew Lim, but for me all of them has the same OBJECTIVE>DESTROY THE IMAGE OF PNOY AND HIS ADMINISTRATION.

    Well, these critics will succeed if and only if PNOY:ADMIN
    1. STEALS MONEY FROM THE VAULTS OF PHILIPPINE SAVINGS, TAX COLLECTION AND LOANED MONEY.
    2. EXECUTE SUMMARY KILLINGS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST or Political opposition
    3. DISREGARD MUSLIM WISHES FOR IMPROVEMENT
    4. STOP MEDIA FROMFREE OF SPEECH

    STEALING:
    Well, all political foes and a lot of rich and middle class, PNOY does not steal. He has more money than any Bachelor in the whole Philippine islands. PNOY Admin is very transparent for all expenses in the Government which highlights NO TO CORRUPTION POLICY.

    EXECUTION:
    PNOY is the only President that does not depend on militaries, he is like Dirty Harry in disguise, can fight whenever cornered, 99% sharpshooter, he doe not need one gunman to protect himself. He is like, you can do whatever you want but don’t get near me….

    MUSLIM REJECTION
    The only President that provide solid long lasting peaceful agreement with the Muslims, PNOY knew, he needs this Peace process for Progressive Mindanao…

    FREEDOM OF SPEECH
    Every sector of media can do whatever such as open strike did by the Bayan Muna, none were arrested. Despite some issues for FOI, none were arrested, freedom are still intact with PNOY Admin, PNOY has no intention of remaining in Power, he is not GREED of money, women or gambling.

    If I sit in PNOY position, i will have a clandestine group of executioner to terminate ALL that are involve in Drugs and Communism. These two types of CRIMINALS are a sore to development. Everything else are part of growing nations such as jailing the corrupt politicians and alike.

    • Joe America says:

      I think you share Mr. Aquino’s passion for doing good works, Mac. To me, there are two classes of critics. Those outside the media and those within the media. Of those outside, I’d say that maybe 5 percent put the Philippines first and themselves second.The other 95 percent have an agenda to push, and because their first goal is to push that agenda, they are not really interested in what others think, unless it supports their agenda. They will tear down opponents at a personal level. I can’t go to Inquirer discussion threads any more because the comments are so unkind, so closed to any contrary view. The more popular a discussion thread is, the less likely it is to have anything meaningful in it. Because the 95 percent work there.

      Those within the media are a huge disappointment to me. Many, as Andrew points out, have axes to bear, political positions to support. They are not journalists in the sense that I define a journalist, who is an unbiased reporter of events and facts. Editors and columnists write the opinions. A lot are just talking heads. The media generally are focused on money, making it. Getting audience, selling ads. There is precious little “journalism” hereabouts. There are sensationalists. Again, about 5% of the media consists of journalism, the rest is trash or bias. Rappler does better, but the scribes there are often young and loose with opinions. But they go to educators for views, and those are generally better, less biased.

      In that kind of environment, things work against the President. Every enemy has a platform, and in the case of the leftists, it is loud. Also, the crooks have a lot of friends. So vile criticisms are common.

      For sure, it would be easier here to just be a corrupt president.

      • Joyce says:

        the left is so loud, and pdaf-ers ride on their vehicle, strange bedfellows, and the masses jump and join the bandwagon on the basis of personal, often irrational preference. and the media is a disappointment. but come to think of it, save for a few media persons (you can count them by the fingers) who wrote against the marcos dictatorship,who fearlessly exposed corruption and wrongdoings, most of media were apologists during marcos time, and continue to be apologists, this time, for those who pay them. a cruel environment, indeed for reform by an earnest president.

        • Joe America says:

          Freedom has responsibility attached, and it generally is in the form of a code of ethics, either written and unwritten. There is no keeper of journalistic ethics in the Philippines.

          • Joyce says:

            the thing is people read, hear and believe their tabloid journalism without verification, what do you expect in a country of many unemployed, idle minds of little education, except for the trash that broadcast media often peddles to them. so these unethical media persons do not know what great irresponsibility they hold, they who hold sway over public opinion. someone wrote here that they dash on to write, on reflex, often without research, just gut feel or opinion to beat the deadline. and this is what the masses will lap up. the masses who will be the one, in turn, to dictate the results of the polls by their sheer numbers come election time. here in this case, with mass ignorance, democracy becomes tyranny of the unenlightened majority, tyranny of the lumpen proletariat, to borrow the class classifications of the left.

            so i know of people, friends, who no longer listen; they mute their tv or radio sets when they are hearing things they do not want to hear. can’t blame them, it’s just too much assault on our senses, our sense of decency. we don’t deserve the trash perennial as the grass being peddled to us, shove on our faces by media day in and day out, its coming out of our ears and noses and mouths. we just want peace, and to allow this government to govern until its time is up.

            • Joe America says:

              Living by tabloid journalism and rumor and superstition. Believing what someone else says (who to vote for). That sums up the information base for the great majority of people.

  4. Rejtatel says:

    Those who belong to 1 and 2 are classified as WASTE;

    Those who belong to 3 should be further classified as:
    1. Biodegradable- will naturally perish without artificial intervention in due time.
    2. Recyclables-with proper ‘motivation’ can have alternative use.

    Now pick your choose.

  5. edna aquino says:

    this is really treading the dangerous path….i hope you know what you’re doing and are awaer of the consequence of this article to people who will eventually get labelled and how it would pave the pay to isolate the most “rabid critics” (based on what standards?) . Then what’s next – a hit list? Isolate the most rabid critics (based on their standards) and make it easier to order a shoot to kill , extra judicial executions against them?

    I am very very disappointed that this is going viral. And you claim that you are for democracy which include among others – the right to freedom of expression ?

    • Joe America says:

      So critics are permitted to criticize but walk a hallowed ground? We must leave them alone? I find Andrew’s article remarkably FOR freedom of speech, but he implies a partner to that freedom, which is responsibility. Take a newspaper. It carries with its printing the presumption of journalistic ethics, that it will report the deeds that occur, and in a section clearly labeled “opinion”, offer interpretation of the deeds. And advice.

      But what happens when the editor decides, no, his publication is not journalistic in the true sense, but is an advocate for a certain idea or group. Then we get Fox News in the U.S. and some Manila papers in the Philippines. Or what happens when a journalist or editorial writer gets paid to write from a certain perspective? When they conduct the interview if they get paid for it? There is no byline to the article that says “paid for by candidate X”.

      We ought to be wary, and aware that there are indeed “culprits” in the journalistic ranks. Andrew asks for no censorship, he asks for no penalty to the critics, writers and groups he mentions, he offers his view here in open territory where it can be debated. He advocates awareness is all. I call it personal responsibility, or not being gullible or maleable. He offers us the value of his opinion. If it has gone viral, it means his message strikes a responsive chord. That is, it is meaningful.

      You are asking me as the editor of this blog to . . . OMG . . . censor this?

    • andrewlim8 says:

      I was about to reply when the power outage hit. So with the benefit of a long period of reflection:

      a. Labelling is not a bad thing. When we buy a consumer good, we look at the label for impt info – expiration date, nutritional value, contents, etc. It communicates what the product is all about – it is the brand one is selling, and in this case, they are the views and positions of a group or individual.

      But labelling is not good when the label is not accurate or truthful. Will you buy an unlabelled canned good? Are you saying the labels I gave are not accurate?

      b. If you are referring to group 1, the extreme leftists – the military has known all of these since the start. There is nothing new here. The above ground leftists enjoy their freedoms because they do not resort to armed struggle and join the process. But once they cross into the underground, then they are fair game, like what happened to the Tiamzons.

      The public has its own method of dealing with bad critics, and it is worse than being on a hit list. They just ignore and tune out like what happened to so many in the past. They become the movie that nobody wants to watch anymore. There is no need to isolate “rabid critics” because they have done it for themselves. Look at how many times Tatad has called for a revolt to topple the present government in his Manila Standard column. Who has followed him?

      Joe has answered that shutting down this list is actually the greatest threat to freedom of expression,

      My list actually gives the public a chance to evaluate the critics for themselves and see if they agree/disagree with it.

      And thank you for telling us it has gone viral.

  6. JM says:

    I and most of the II (don’t know the others except for the corrupt) should be burned alive. I don’t know why the people are tolerating these retards. They hinder this country’s growth. Oh wait, even politicians who commit plunder gets re-elected. Only in the Philippines

    Some of the III can be tolerated, it’s a free country after all but there are some who should be classified as I or II. Ex. I have read several articles of Ellen Tordesillas and she is pro-Chinese. I just can’t understand how a Filipino be pro-Chinese when the Chinese are still currently trespassing in our territory and stealing our resources. She is a traitor in my book.

    On second thought, hanging may be better than burning them. I don’t want to further heat up this planet and bring more cat 5 storms. Another choice is to put them in the crocodile farm especially the corrupt politicians. They should be with their own kind.

    • Joe America says:

      Ellen Tordesillas, pro-Chinese, anti-Aquino, and lays claim to the handle of “journalist”. But she at least affords the space on her blog to comment, and I have taken to using it to provide some balance. I am not called names on her blog. On that despicable place called Get Real Post out of Australia, and on Breitbart News in the US, I am banned from offering comment.

      Ellen also does articles on the arts or other humanistic topics that are not political, and are wholesome.

      As for I and II, they have a right to advocate. I am sorry that the standards of journalism here are so low, so interested in hyping wee small extremist elements as if they were mainstream ideas, simply to sell more newspapers. So I fault the newspapers for bothering to send a photographer out to Roxas in front of the American Embassy (again) to snap a well-framed shot that makes 100 people seem like thousands, and then plasters it on the front page as if it were meaningful. It’s not. Those groups would dissolve if they were framed in their proper place. Malcontents and criminals and . . . . ahahahaha, ideological retards.

      Thanks for your typically bloodthirsty comment. 🙂

  7. Killer says:

    Andrew, we forgot mainstream media. Our friends who never fail to claim the holy state of the fourth estate; esteemed icons of democracy and free speech who tirelessly offer to do our thinking for us; the last bastion of hope for those unwilling to help themselves.

    DAP? Meh. The whole thing stinks of Enrile money.

  8. josephivo says:

    Follow the money… I wonder what the link between the categories are. The stable income of so many corrupt is threatened, so they have to bring down the support for the President at any cost. Who is financing the left? Who is paying some of those principled critics and some headless chickens? The core strategy/energy/capital may come out of prison, GMA, Estrada, Enrile a powerful trio.

  9. manuel buencamino says:

    Good list Andrew.

    And now I hope you will make a list on reporters. Top source of news in the country, for all economic classes, is TV evenings news.

    Top two news shows are ABS-CBN’s TV Patrol and GMA 7’s 24 Oras. Poor third is ABC’s Interaksyon broadcast.

    Are those newscasts and newsreaders objective, fair and balanced or do they editorialize with their snarky comments?

    Just as important is who decides what news to report? Might be good to identify the news editors of those shows and find out if they belong to certain camps that you identified above; or if they are honest and aboveboard; or if they are for rent (because no newsman with half a brain will sell himself and remain bought.)

    Op-eds and blogs are easy to categorize. It is in news reporting where propagandists do their best work – by feeding reporters their stories and giving them their slants.

    Have you noticed how stations highlight certain issues that certain camps favor? And the reports are dressed with credibility by the use of anecdotal newsclips? Anecdotes are the lifeblood of newsclips but how often are those selected clips backed up by hard data?

    To cite a specific example of how this trick is used by the networks. X network will send out a field reporter to video people stuck in traffic. Then they will interview PUV drivers who complain they don’t as many trips as they used to because of traffic, they will interview some commuters who say they are always late for work because of traffic, some commuters who will say they never have enough time to cook dinners for their kids because of traffic. Now none of those people are lying. But here’s the thing. The network will not tell you if traffic has indeed worsened say from a year ago. They won’t show you comparative pace of traffic data between one period or another, they won’t locate the jam and tell you if last year the traffic was less because this year the road is under construction for expansion or flood control etc. News is presented without context or data.

    Another example is coverage of rallies. Notice how they are always tight shots. No wide angle or aerial shots that will give you an idea of how many actually participated in the rally. And then they do one on ones with the rally leaders and they pan on all the banners. One time in front of Discovery Suites in Ortigas Center I saw a TV network van arrive when the rally was about to start. The pretty field reporter jumped out of the van followed by her camera. The rallyists served as her background while she delivered her report on cam. I watched the news that evening. If I was not there to witness what happened I would have thought it was a big rally and not a sorry gathering of less than fifty people.

    No one calls those networks to task for that kind of reporting. No one bothers to ask the networks who is the person in charge of picking what news to air on the evening news. The news is putty in the hands of propagandists who own news editors and reporters. And unlike op-ed writers, reporters and news editors can do their nefarious work under the cover of “reporting the news”.

    • andrewlim8 says:

      Thanks, Manuel.

      Unfortunately, I rarely get my news from TV anymore – mostly it’s internet, with a little of paper, and just parts of TV. Radio, if driving.

      But based on my experience:

      a. I think reporters are more likely to cover sources who take the extreme views because they make the best copy; notice that the incumbent Bayan Muna, Kabataan, Gabriela reps and the mass organizations always get quoted for their views on issues – because they oppose virtually everything, and with force. Imagine how boring it would be if they only got their views from moderates who will fill it with nuance and details.

      b. I observed that some do editorialize – like Anthony Taberna for example. Noli de Castro got called for it by Pnoy before, remember? And the Tulfo brothers who shoot everything in sight first, then think later.

      c. Since TV news come in small segments, the opportunity to make the medium the message comes easy. Sound bites, tight shots, edited conversations. Very few analysts like Teddy Boy who is so brilliant but is so full of himself. ha ha ha I think he thinks it’s always about him and not his thoughts. ha ha ha which is why he enjoys twitter so much- condensing wisdom into 144 characters is fun for him.

      d. I dont think any of the networks have ideological biases; they get slanted on a case to case basis. For instance, in the Vhong Navarro case, I take the side of Vhong but you can see early on that the other side had no chance to win the media battle. Not that it needed any reinforcement. Just like the police, you hurt one of their own, you are in for a lot of hurt.

      e. It would be interesting to monitor how much ABC 5 and GMA7 do reports on mining, considering it is now Pangilinan-owned.

      e. Lately I favor Solar News because it is more straightforward, with no showbiz element in their reports. Not to mention almost all female anchors there are pretty. 🙂

      • manuel buencamino says:

        None of the networks have ideological biases, they are all guided by the business interests of their owners. The slant comes from news editors and reporters. If you want a slant you don’t go to the owners of the stations, you deal directly with editors and reporters.

        Another thing I find wrong with the coverage of the leftist groups is news organizations treat them as separate entities when in fact they are part of the Makabayan coalition. So when thereis a segment and they get soundbites from Bayan Muna, Kabataan, Gabriela , ACT, KMU etc commenting on the same issue it becomes a farce, pretending that they are getting opinions from various sectors when in fact they are getting the party line from the same party wearing different masks.

        As to Teddy Boy, I used to write a regular op-ed column for his paper Today before he sold it and it became Manila Standard Today. I think I did Wednesdays for him and on one or two occasions the paper’s editorial for the day. Anyway, I think his animosity towards the president, which is personal, has gone overboard and now he can hardly write or say anything without taking a swipe at the president. And so as an analyst/commentator for this era under PNoy I have placed him among the yellow-haters found chiefly in Manila Standad, Daily Tribune, Manila Times, and Malaya and one or two columnists in Philstar and Inquirer. He is not with any vested or loyalist group except when his animosity towards Noynoy and the interests of those groups coincide. He simply dislikes the president and will like the leftists will take the opposite of whatever side the president is on. Thank God he is not in TV Patrol or 24 Oras. He probably would be if he could speak Pilipino fluently.

    • Killer says:

      Thank you for laying these ideas down as I could never have.

      Blatant editorializing is par for the course–from Failon’s smirks, De Castro’s misinformed blabber (and Sanchez failing gloriously at pretending to agree with them) to Enriquez’s feigned concern for public welfare and the Tulfos being, well, the Tulfos.

      Miss Edna Aquino, in a comment a few posts up, worries that Mr. Lim’s “branding” is dangerous to the freedom of speech. What she should be worried about, in fact, is mainstream media’s ability to mask its agenda and hide its vitriol using the exact same principle.

      That they do it with supreme arrogance is more a function of their minute intellectual capacities more than the massive power they now wield.

      Question, though: I do not get Locsin. What’s up with his hatred for Noy?

      • andrewlim8 says:

        I don’t think Teddy Boy is in it for any other interest than his own – he just disagrees with the govt on so many things. And he likes the sound of his own voice, the wisdom of his own brain and the wit of his own tongue. Narcissus! 🙂

  10. Joe America says:

    Excerpts from Twitter:

    From Cocoy Dayao @cocoy to @societyofhonor May I shake Andrew Lim’s hand? 😀 That was a very good post 🙂

    From Ricky Carandang @rickycarandang to @cocoy @societyofhonor some of those people considered “principled critics” actually aren’t.

    From Arbet Bernardo @ArbetBernardo to @rickycarandang @cocoy @societyofhonor Actually: The Joke, Briones, Roque, CBCP – not principled for me.

    • andrewlim8 says:

      Thanks to Cocoy.

      To Ricky Carandang, Arbet: When I re-read the posted piece, I wanted to do revisions immediately but such is the nature of these things. Those under the “headless chickens” really deserve a second look and re-classified.

      As for the CBCP, there are bishops who are principled , and those that aren’t.

  11. Gerardo Vergara says:

    The problem with this country is that critics of all colors and/or kinds will sprout even if a leader is really that good and/or honest not for the sake of the country but for their own.

    Righteous principles, if ever it exists in their beings, is forever compromised by means that only their kinds will readily accept, especially if they come in the handsomest terms.

    Andrew’s analysis is nothing new but it is worth his effort to rehash this old disease that had bedeviled the country since our brand of ‘democracy’ was introduced to people whose business is not to add stability, peace and progress to a country that is longing for such things for the benefit of the majority.

  12. jcruz says:

    Thank you for writing this article. I believe this kind of material is needed to the fast and uncontrolled flow of information.

  13. Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    In this land of no opportunity is in need of waste management. If we wanted instantaneous change we need to outsource the government. Enough already of Filipinos playing government. Leave it to the professionals. The Philippine press is a clear transparent show Filipinos have a long torturous trip to their destination. Philippine press is politicized owned by politicians or connected to political heavyweights. They serve their masters. They are not journalists, they are spokesperson of politicians. Their talking heads do not even have an iota of knowledge about laws, evidence and prosecution. Their failure to analyze the legal aspect of PDAF and DAP is a clear transparent show of ignorance unlike American press and OP-Eds.

    If Filipinos can import half-breed half-white American beauties to represent 98% of traditional-looking browned-skin punk’d nose Filipinos, basketball players and American security forces it can import real brilliant political imports. Filipinos are not wired for running government. Now is the time to outsource with 24/7 help line.

  14. This spin omits the obvious- the Supreme Court decided against DAP.!

    • Joe America says:

      I don’t follow the line of thinking here. The article is about the biases that various critics bring to the table. The Supreme Court ruling had to do with legal issues about Executive budgetary processes. “Spin” suggests that there is some agenda to the writing other than what is presented. I have no idea how to connect your mysterious dots. Kindly elaborate . . .

      Thanks.

      • josephivo says:

        At Raissa I made a similar comment…

        Waltzing away from the hot potato? I got lost. It all started when Estrada claimed that senators were bribed to convict Corona. And now we are discussing constitutional issues, a battle of lofty principles as the separation of powers and the executive priority of growing the economy, both getting my sympathy. But I didn’t see the transfers to the Senators in any of the SC document, the only part of DAP that stuck with the public. Is this orchestrated or just coincidence?

        Is this the ‘spin’ of the well connected? All this bright people fighting a legal battle instead of a battle against corruption. Are we sucked away in a battle were we can demonstrate our understanding of the legalistic, formal English language in mile long sentences? The people around me got lost and I can’t explain anymore.

        • Joe America says:

          About 9% of DAP went through legislators. Some have itemized their projects but most have not. It is a minor matter compared to the constitutional issue.

          To me, the Supreme Court did “small thinking” on the decision rather than “large thinking” of the style of Thomas Jefferson. So they got all balled up in the particulars and the legal expressions came off as quite insulting to Executive, and it has already damaged Executive project work. Some P5 billion was put on hold for flood mitigation projects and relocation of people. I believe a skilled thinker and writer in the Jeffersonian tradition could have crafted language to permit planned projects to continue, not impute bad faith, and require that future adjustments go through Congress. Essentially, the Court bowed to the extremist complainants, and gave the Executive the shaft. Pretty small-minded it seems to me. I doubt if there are political axes being ground, I just think law here is detail-bound rather than vision or principle bound.

          • josephivo says:

            Yes that’s all true, but it is beside the question. The seed that Estrada planted is still growing and blossoming. People are asking what happened with the millions the Senators ‘got’ and by extension what the President got. All this talk about the constitution is above their heads.

            Even I start worrying that the SC decision of July 1might be a welcome gift for some in the Liberal party and/or their allies. Sereno that strong and independent? And it is the perfect diversion of attention and it buys valuable time. The corruption issue is reduced to a constitutional discussion and 3 Senators with 2 ladies not liking their privileged prison cells.

            • Joe America says:

              Yes. True. I think the 2016 elections will see a lot of vote buying. Indeed, the groundwork of loyalty is being built now.

              • Joyce says:

                which is sad but true. and the masses who sell their votes, vote the popular, and decide the results of the polls without their knowing it, will, through their newly elected leaders, put the drive against corruption by the wayside again. until another firm, determined and principled leader comes along. but does the electoral public have the capacity to elect such leaders, in the first place? given present circumstances and past results, esp. in senate, maybe not in our lifetime. 😦

    • Bert says:

      Catholics, you omits the obvious yourself-that the Supreme Court used the same DAP they decided against. What’s good for the gander is not good for the goose, is that what your Supreme Court wants to project?

  15. ricelander says:

    My classification is less complicated: You agree with me all of the time, boy, you’re excellent. Most of the time, hey, you’re very good. Fifty percent of the time, well, no comment. Rarely, you are bad. Not at all, you are f***ing biased bastard.

    Kidding aside, it’s really all about alignments. The Left, well, you classify them derisively as garbage now. Come 2016, when the President is Binay, Bongbong, or anyone you hate, you will be singing praises for them Leftists again, that’s for sure, just like the old times when you were both on the same side, highfiving each other, and conspiring to oust a sitting President.

    • Joe America says:

      No, I will be supporting the President, no matter who he is, and criticizing specific decisions if they warrant it (like I criticize President Aquino for this or that). Should the future President prove to be another Arroyo or another Marcos, through an accumulation of bad deeds, I would trust the great masses of regular people to rise up. If leftists went along for the ride, no problem. How can I argue against 100 percenters and then be like one of them?

      If the voters put someone in office, the voters deserve respect, assuming the electoral process is not rigged. The starting point is a clean slate and trust in the President.

    • andrewlim8 says:

      Nahh. Never high-fived them – when I used my right hand, they used their left, and it always missed.

      When they boycotted the 86 elections, we said no, we participate. When they oppose US forces doing exercises here, we disagree. When they cry for human rights, but do not condemn abuses of the NPA, we take note of that.

      You never conspire with a tiger – it will eat you up after the revolution, as so many moderates and democrats have found out too late.

  16. Attila says:

    How come Anakbayan is so popular in the USA among young Filipino Americans? I never understood that. These Filipino kids are speaking fluent American English and acting like a Communist version of Al Sharpton. How can they be brainwashed so easily?

  17. brianitus says:

    Great effort in classifying the critics. Main point here is people should be critical of what they read and hear whenever they form their opinions. There’s always that element of “buyer beware.” If you’re interested in what a group is saying, make sure you also check out other views.

    On group I: Hey, the never-ending struggle is…well, never ending. I consider them more like the black sheep of “popular” politics. Some thoughts are okay, some are just too extreme, like that angle where the US is in everything evil.

    On group II: They have to earn their money, too. I think it’s wise if UNA really distances itself from this issue since Binay is a direct beneficiary of a PNoy impeachment (like, if that even happens). That’s simply in poor taste. Heck, even GMA didn’t come out right away when they went after Erap.

    On group III: Go easy digesting them.

    Some random thoughts:

    1. Someone ought to make an infographic: Should you be pissed-off with the DAP Issue?

    2. By the way, there’s a series on DAP at PCIJ. Good read, too.

  18. stitch says:

    Reblogged this on bleary and commented:
    I’ve been meaning to write about the DAP and the various screaming heads we find currently filling media. Here’s JoeAm giving what I think is a fair list of people/parties and their agendas.

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] With these messy issues around, I have learned that segregating waste is not only applicable to leftovers and scratches. Waste segregation in the way we dispose the news we are getting will keep as a healthy informed citizen. Like Joe America’s write up and in the way he identified the waste news and those which are intellectually made commentary will be very helpful for us to shape the right information in our mind. See https://joeam.com/2014/07/17/waste-segregation-sorting-the-good-critics-from-the-bad/ […]

  2. […] recalled Andrew Lim’s fine blog here a couple of weeks ago (“Waste segregation: Sorting the good critics from the bad“), and went back to look. He had the MARCOS-ROMUALDEZ  LOYALISTS – under his category II […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s