Are you a social media bigot?

rage

[Photo source: the nextweb.com]

By Joe America

Often, we are the problem, not someone else.

Have you ever been driving the car down the expressway taking your mother-in-law to the doctor’s office when some twit in a big black SUV zooms past and cuts you off? What do you say? (1) Nothing? (2) Mutter quietly, “What an idiot!”? (3) Shake your fist at the other driver and scream, “You asshole!”?

It doesn’t matter to the driver, and doesn’t change the incident, whatever you do. So all you are doing is venting your anger at having been treated badly. We all do that.

Well, having mother-in-law in the car interjects a new factor into the equation. Now what you say does matter because your mother-in-law, if she is like most, is a judgmental creature and will not think highly of you if you curse. If your lack of decorum gets back to your wife, then YOU pay the price for your emotional rant.

I’m thinking that we ought to participate in social media as if our mother-in-law were sitting beside us. Not as if what we said did not matter.

Because it does matter.

It matters to us.

How did I get to this conclusion?

After Donald Trump’s winning of the US presidential election, this tweet came across my monitor:

“So, America has resoundingly affirmed they’re a racist, bigoted nation with little care or compassion for minorities or, really, the world.”

Now I don’t like Donald Trump either, but it occurred to me that this particular observation was itself a form of bigotry, and it is EXACTLY the form of bigotry that the writer dislikes. The tweet casts easy slurs that denigrate rather than search for reason, or reasons.

America is not a racist, bigoted nation with little care or compassion for minorities. Consider the laws and the social movements in favor of human rights that have dominated American social discourse the past half-century. America is one of the most diverse, racially mixed nations on the planet, with people living in peace and constructively, Jews beside Arabs, Muslims with Christians, Blacks with Whites, men and women competing within laws that mandate fairness, laws that protect the old, the handicapped, the children . . .

But if you look at the election through the lens of personal anger about Trump, well, you can see a different picture, and it is a characterization that denies the truth about America. It also does not consider that millions of voters were earnest in casting their votes. It does not even try to comprehend the REASONS for the vote.

Americans did not vote for bigotry any more than Filipinos voted for killing thousands of Filipinos.

I have a hard time distinguishing the bigotry of Trump’s language and demeanor from that of the person who sent out that tweet. Both are disparaging millions of people who had a personal reason for doing what they did. I’d guess these millions are not malicious people, they just got to their place in life differently than we did. It seems to me that each individual ought to be considered innocent of bigotry until they are proved guilty. No EJS, no extra-judicial slurring, allowed.

Donald Trump was elected for the same reason that Rody Duterte was elected. Americans believe their government is not working earnestly and successfully for THEM, and Hillary Clinton represented exactly what Mar Roxas represented here. More of the same. (The rightness or wrongness of that conclusion is not the topic of this blog.)

Voters essentially concluded that the only way to break the mold is to break the mold. Throw the old model of polite-speak and diplomacy out and cut to the chase. For that purpose, civility is a WEAKNESS and abrasive is a strength. Ineffectual civility and political gameplaying is just more of the same.

I think the vote had very little to do with racial or gender bigotry, and a lot to do with what it takes to change government’s way of getting things done (or not getting things done). Indeed, most voters likely believe sincerely that their vote was FOR harmony, not against it. If it takes a wall to get harmony, build a wall. That is an earnest view.

It seems to me that until we understand that easy labels, easy slurs, easy categorizations are the PROBLEM, not the solution, we won’t get where we want to go.

I suggest we invite our mothers-in-law to read our tweets and Facebook postings before we push “send”.

We are, in the end, affected by the style and tone of our writing. Our nation is either a civil place or uncivil based on the character of our dialogue, and today there is not enough civility. You are I are often a part of the problem.

I would add that I think there definitely IS a proper time to object or protest, to curse and stomp about. But it ought to be calculated and done with a full understanding of the consequences. When a dictator is being buried with honors, and the goal is to stop that . . . hey, we have a clear understanding of why we do what we do.

But every word we type need not be emotionalized, and we ought to understand that we all pay the price for our . . . and other people’s . . . quick and easy incivility to earnest people.

 

Comments
243 Responses to “Are you a social media bigot?”
  1. NHerrera says:

    I posted this in the previous blog. I am posting this again; it seems relevant to this current blog-topic.

  2. ‘cut down to the chase’. friend of mine is a black American and a Trump supporter..

    ‘people want those leaders who tell it like it IS’ he told me, some months ago..

    • Excellent statement of the key point. The election was mainly about government, I think, not race or women or immigration. And perhaps a lot of whites who are feeling squeezed toward irrelevance. Complex . . .

    • a distant observer says:

      There is a huge problem with this “telling like it is” notion. Trump was ranting about all the Mexicans flocking in to the US. If one looks at migration statistics, it becomes clear that there were actually more Mexicans leaving the states that coming in. Duterte is emphasizing the problem of drug criminality, as if it’s the biggest problem of the Philippines in terms of criminal activities. He ignores the issue of prostitution and human trafficking in the Philippines, as if the drug problem is the only issue worth caring about.
      “Telling like it is” frames the debate into a certain direction, but just because one states one’s opinion more assertive doesn’t make it more true. That’s the problem of “telling like it is”.

    • edgar lores says:

      *******
      Duterte told it like it is. Then he told it like it really is. Then he told it like it wasn’t.
      *****

      • parengtony says:

        Duterte and Trump were both good at making it look like they are telling it like it is. Upon examination by people competent in the specific area of study, almost always it really is, at best, BS.

        What’s interesting is the reaction of their supporters to this kind of explanation – they take it personal, become angrier, and more passionate.

        Btw, I am trying to say this as if my mother in law was sitting here beside me, he he he.

        As an example, the following is an excerpt from a CNN article which I find relevant to the issue of Duterte and Trump’s vow to lock up their political opponents:

        …” any such prosecution would be transparently political, and would thereby set a precedent pursuant to which newly elected presidents might seek to pursue trumped-up charges as a way of silencing their opponents — or use the specter of such prosecutions as a means of intimidating those who would run against them.
        But as then-Attorney General (and future Supreme Court Justice) Robert Jackson warned in a celebrated 1940 address, “It is in this realm — in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”
        And abuses of prosecutorial power, Jackson warned, not only demean the integrity of the entire criminal justice system, but, even worse, they can beget further abuses — by future Presidents — against the very prosecutors who started the vicious cycle.”

  3. Richard JP Cavosora says:

    hear! hear!

  4. karlgarcia says:

    Was it Edgar who said that a sweeping statement is not meant for all? I suck at paraphrasing because when you sweep everything near will be swept out.

    You call someone judgmental then it boomerangs back to you. Pointing a finger with three fingers pointing back at you……

    In social media decorum in FB, not only your mother in law watches your words,but your whole family tree,even those without fb will hear about it if you misbehave loud enough.

    • Generalizations are useful because they enable us to draw conclusions, but they should be asterisked to note there are a lot of individuals who fall outside the description.

    • davidmasangkay says:

      Say “God Bless You” to the other driver. The blessings will come back to you. 🙂

    • andy ibay says:

      THIS IS NOT MY TAKE on the on-going protests against a President elect. This is just an incomplete compilation of words portraying vivid dichotomy of what is TRUE DEMOCRACY or MOB’S BAD RIGHTEOUSNESS.

      Please read on and cogitate because it could later be termed biblical modern Jerusalem but there is no need for somebody to wash his hands nor carpenters to build three crosses for crucifixion.

      “The Latest: Police call Oregon Trump protest ‘riot’
      One protester says the demonstrators aren’t happy with the president-elect and “we’re trying to let everyone know that.”

      “Not Our President,” ”Trans Against Trump” and “Make America Safe For All.”

      “Not 1 More Deportation.” she acknowledges Trump as president-elect, but doesn’t accept it.
      People passed Dixie cups holding candles in a vigil that organizers say was meant to provide a place to “mourn, grieve and be in community together.”

      “We must remember to love ourselves and each other” and “not our president.”

      “Not Our President,” ”Trans Against Trump” and “Make America Safe For All.”

      “Love Trumps Hate” and “Spirit Unbreakable.”

      And THIS IS MY TAKE: Protesters could be clueless how placards and words of reckless emotions condemns not their target but themselves.

      • andy ibay says:

        No one should post the very clear photos of demonstrators lest viewers think that from the faces of the protesters they will see the support and admiration of the very people who idolized and contributed millions to the riches of celebrities who can not accept the President elect and vowed to move out of the country. The photos should not be reflective of protesters choice: NOT the voter’s heel but their heroes. In the land of the free, the free should not lose their living heroes to immigration.

        • andy ibay says:

          THE ACADEMIC SLANT WITHOUT EINSTEIN OF PROTESTS VS TRUMP.

          If in teaching sociology of underdevelopment, (including its opposite) and superficial exposure had been made to Paulo Freire’s PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED and Robert Dahl’s COMMUNITY POWER STRUCTURE; The first book might have some little relevance on interest articulation of the have less and have nots: poor farmers and fishermen, garbage men, roads work men, building construction men, restaurant servers and cleaners, office janitors, stay home homemakers, etc. Although their numbers overpower the rest of the polity; they are not the decision-makers, but they are— only by fluke of circumstance as when they were able to choose who leads them.

          The second book in a way touches more on the HAVES and the HAVE MOST: which and who comprise the power elite in their community and the country at large, who decides “who gets what, where, when, how and why” and most important: they decide what is prim and proper, what is sacrosantly politically correct and are sensitively touchy of deviants. The HAVES have the monopoly of the resources of community power apart from possessing beauty, health and money for entertainment and to pamper their celebrities.

          The photos and the actual conduct of the protests against the President elect suggest very strongly of a disgusted Community Power Structure in several cities and few states. In a HIGHLY and very developed country like the USA students needs lots of green bucks and brain matter to belong to the ELITE whose ideas counts. The students and mostly middle class young people are probably aware they belong to their community’s power elite intelligentsia and have the democratic right to be heard when governing decisions of non-elites do not match theirs.

          So if and when protests escalate and deteriorate into riots in the likes of an Arab Spring the law promulgated by the elite should interfere and must prevail for their own sake and welfare.

          • andy ibay says:

            To avoid the rascality in me, I always say with a chuckle: I TOLD ME SO. Instead of the common braggadociec: “I told you so, with feelings of being right out of foresight. so here’s a link that I told me so! first to fall was UK PM.

            http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/after-trump-win-parallel-path-is-seen-for-marine-le-pen-of-france%E2%80%99s-far-right/ar-AAkczhQ?li=AA59G3&ocid=spartandhp

            • andy ibay says:

              So? So what? Why haven’t I heard or read on Obama’s presidential response to stop the American Autumn of protest vs Pres-elect Trump ? Why does PRESDU30 still allow riding in tandem of motorcyclists? Is it because those vigilantes allegedly carrying out EJK will need an extra motorcycle? Or will two or three motorcycles make their mission so obvious to gawkers, curious witnesses?

              • andy ibay says:

                Is America capable and will not be a failure to produce the likes of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Pinochet, Muzzolini? The moment after Donald Trump lower his right hand from the OATH, he will be a SPENT FORCE on the alleged evils he had promised to do. Watch him try to avoid being a SOFTIE and be the American leader the founding fathers failed to define. Putting this into writing, I am like I have the celebrities’ guts to promise to move out for a failed I TOLD ME SO, because I haven’t even earned a buck in the territory and God Bless I reside out of the territory.

              • andy ibay says:

                This piece in the link below had been made AVAILABLE to all billions of English language literate peoples of the world. Only in Trump’s USA Great Again country can a Great Journalist like Bob Woodward write with astute confidence and have it published this INCISIVE article: NOT IN RUSSIA, NOT IN CHINA, not even in UK perhaps not even during OBAMA’ s USA could this be allowed.

                JoeAm’s SOH should not fail to read it and cogitate why I wrote a few times somewhere that the blind did not and still can’t see why George W. Bush did right when he (lied? and) sent American soldiers to a hostile beach in the Middle East to fight and die and successfully ESTABLISHED a US beach head against a future formidable US enemy only to be dismantled by a softie successor.

                Did I not write above (below) that after the OATH (NOT AFTER THE BRIEFING eh?) that Pres Trump could be a spent force UNABLE to carry out his unheard of, politically incorrect if not politically felonious policies?

                What did that Missouri office clerk who nuked the enemy and stopped in its tracks WWII in Asia said as he drove his wife in a rickety car from the White House to his humble home of retirement? Please read on for info.

                https://www.bing.com/search? q=who+is+bob+woodward&form=EDGNTT&qs=AS&cvid=e8482a4ee5cb4dab98ec37bdd42c7e07&pq=who+is+bob+woodward

  5. karlgarcia says:

    People want change, without need of a reason. Like you go out for change of environment.

    We still do not know what change people want when they voted for Duterte and Trump, because the more things change the more they stay the same is the wiset quotable quote I have ever read.

    • That’s true. I think people have lost track of their “cause” or reason for being. The US went through the war years, the economic productivity and consumerism, the social movements (race, gender equality), and now the terrorist era. I think they are losing their grasp of why the nation exists, and what it is supposed to be doing. And what THEY are supposed to be accomplishing, by the end of life.

      • Zen says:

        What about the adage ‘ if it ain’t broke, then it doesn’t need fixing’? Well, you could improve on it to be progressive and pro active – saves you a lot of your resources but with Donald Trump, he will reverse everything from Obama care to gun control to whatever the previous administration had started and finished. Just like what’s happening here in the Philippines.

        • He has to deal with democrats and the public. As today’s protests illustrate, he will not have a free rein and all changes will go through a vetting by the legislature and public. He won’t have the same power as Duterte.

      • Fedelynn says:

        Perhaps you could ask them these…and remind the Americans of the answers. In little memes–to make the point easy to understand and remember…. The Philippines is also in the same situation except that it has never found its way. I have asked people I know (fellow journalists, activists, artists) to do the same here. I asked them to teach our lessons in snippets.

        • That is an excellent point, Fedelynn. I note that on my Facebook posts, the volume of likes generally correlates with the length of the lesson. Over 1,000 likes for a pithy three-liner, and 100 for a blog article that people actually have to spend time reading.

  6. caliphman says:

    Bingo on the main reason why US voters chose Trump over Clinton. Exit polls of those who did show 70% of them disapproved of trump. They just want a change more than they disliked him. These were lower middle class workers both men and women in the crucial midwest states that felt neglected and left behind by US-style trapos. Millions of registered Democrats who voted for Obama stayed home in addition to those who switched to Trump. It is quite uncanny that the citizenry of both countries were willing to overlook the clearly flawed characters of Trump and Duterte because they desperately wanted change. Only in Trump’s case his triumph was a,complete surprise!

    • chemrock says:

      It’s the lazy uneducated whites holding blue collared jobs in the dust belts regions.

      Sorry, a bigoted comment, but we learn from Trump to tell it like what it is

      • Define lazy. They are holding jobs, but are lazy? Trump won by getting the RUST belt voters. Southern states are almost always Republican. But he nailed Pennsylvania and a lot of other ‘Clinton” states. Trump tells it wrong much of the time, or is a blowhard for effect. I hope that is not the tenor of the commentary here . . . which is why I wrote the blog in the first place.

        • caliphman says:

          I consider Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and a couple of other traditionally democratic bastiions being part of the Midwest and these went Trump, defying pollsters and winning him the presidency. But its not as if the rest of the electorate elsewhere disliked him, even more than they hated Hillary, but they overlooked that and voted for him anyway. This is the same voter behavior that swept Duterte to power and possibly a possible dictatorship. That is my main point!

          • Yes, he drew huge votes everywhere. Historically, we think of California leading the nation in liberal social trends, and innovation, good thinking in the sunshine. But now there seems to be a conservative trend (toward isolation and building America), and rabble rouser states like California have become folowers, dragged along kicking and screaming by a force they can barely comprehend. I’m from California.

          • Yes, he drew huge votes everywhere. Historically, we think of California leading the nation in liberal social trends, and innovation, good thinking in the sunshine. But now there seems to be a conservative trend (toward isolation and building America), and rabble rouser states like California have become followers, dragged along kicking and screaming by a force they can barely comprehend. I’m from California.

            • caliphman says:

              My roots and rings are strongly Bay area . Liberalism and future trends have California as their breeding grounds. But that is different from where one can best get a feel of the current pulse and sentiments representative of most Anericans. I believe such a community is usually found in middle America and not on its coasts. I would like to say thats where pollsters and market researchers go to get a present read of what the whole country is feeling and thinking. But I hesitate when Brexit and Trump’s triumph.catches survey firms with their pants down.

        • karlgarcia says:

          Re: lazy
          Trying to find the correct word or phrase. Is it the unschooled,unemployed and not trying to find employment, schooled,unemployed and not trying to find employment?

      • andrewlim8 says:

        @chemrock,

        I have to take strong issue with your use of “lazy” because what happened with this demographic is that they are all located in states that were unable to adapt to the changes wrought by globalization, trade deals, etc.

        Look at CA and NY, where Clinton maintained comfortable margins over Trump. These are very dynamic states, economically speaking and were able to make use of immigrants to their advantage. CA has the IT/computer industry, Hollywood, farms and vineyards which are thriving. NY has all the premium white collar jobs- finance, media, IT, etc.

        But the demographic that went to Trump were unable to cope with the changes when the steel mills, shipbuilding yards, manufacturing plants all closed or went to China. They had nowhere to go.

        In CNN interviews, several of these blue collar whites point to their 60 plus hour weeks at work and still be poor. That is how they measure their hard work.

        That was old economy; the new economy, with telecommuting and organizational agility focus on productivity and value added. They measure it differently.

        There are two Americas, and that demographic came out this time and won.

        • caliphman says:

          They maybe lazy or not, unable to adapt to economic sea changes or not, but they mainly voted for Trump because they were unemployed or underemployed . He promised to get them they would get their jobs back and Clinton told these voters whose grandfathers worked in the same mills and factories that new industries would emerge with jobs to replace the ones they knew. Both probably hoped lightning would not strike them as they spoke, but obviously the crowds wanted to believe Trump.

        • edgar lores says:

          *******
          “Lazy” can mean unemployed or unwilling to exert [thought].

          In context, the use of the following adjective, “uneducated,” lends itself to the second meaning. It cannot mean unemployed because the referent population hold blue collar jobs.

          “Uneducated” may mean lacking formal education, or lacking the drive to self-educate or to acquire new skills.

          It’s a tough call. I worked in IT and, yet at the end, I felt “unable to cope with the changes.” I worked on legacy systems but the new world of interactive mode languages, visual languages, and object-oriented languages had me gasping. I had — have — the drive to self-educate but one cannot teach an old dog new tricks.

          In my case, one can teach an old dog new ways of looking (abstraction) but not new ways of doing (concretization).

          My point: there is something true in what Chemrock said. The referent population were not thoughtful of what Trump is really like and of the consequences of a Trump victory. They voted emotionally.
          *****

      • chemrock says:

        Sorry for late response.

        Why Trump won and why Clinton lost has been analysed by just about anybody. It’s still ongoing. Most accounts do seem to make sense, but there is certainly no single cause. Caliphman’s and Andrew’s accounts are location specific and both could jolly well be correct on the strength of logic, but not empirically. The lingering doubt is logic seems to have been missing in this election, same as in Philippines.

        If we were to pinpoint a single major reason, there would be diverse opinions amongst commenters here. My own opinion is the world has been overtaken by a new disease, it’s called RAGE. It’s not about economics, it’s about rage. We’ve seen this in Brexit, then Philippines, and now US. My prediction is Marie Le Pen will take over France soon, Angela Merkel and her Christian Democrats are on the way out.

        Democracy has been taken over by democrazy.

        Where did this rage come from? This alone can de discussed till the cow comes home. In brief, I think the digital age has a lot to do with it. Fast paced living, easy dissemination of falsehoods, ego-frenzy feeding on social media permeates every society that motivates one and sundry to go for postings to get ‘likes’, truth is irrelevant. A culture of instant gratification has taken over. With this comes the impatience with the governance of traditional politics. The impatience for change feeds into the rage

        All over the world, the political centre is loosing out to the ultra-rights. We are seeing the rise of populist leaders – the demagogues, the haters, the thuggies, the misogynists. The data guys are loosing out to chest-thumping guys. Even in my country Singapore, beneath the veneer of a well-known disciplined society, this rage is very evident in the social media. What’s missing to ignite the fireworks is a firebrand activist.

        A major reason constantly offered for the US election result is the Libertards have totally misread the white working class. This is the context of my ‘lazy’ comment. Caliphman and Andrew are right, and I do apologise, there are of course many who are working extra hard trying to make ends meet, no doubt about that. My ‘lazy’ connotation is pretty much in line with Edgar’s explanation on my behalf.

        Let me expound a bit further.

        Factory closures isn’t the govt’s making. Its capitalism at work. Production goes to where risk-returns are the best, other things being equal. Should cars still be manufactured in Detroit where a simple machinist can have a lifestyle of owing a car and a suburban home, and in China or elsewhere the machinist is living in a dormitory? My point is, industrial history is dynamic, it changes all the time. If the industrial landscape of the dust belt has changed, people must understand why, make sacrifices, remake themselves. Will Trump’s bring the factories back work? I doubt very much. US needs structural changes that’s painful, require fundings, no immediate paybacks, great leadership, co-ooeration of govt-worjers-businesses.

        Let me quote 2 Singapore examples. Not a comeuppance thing, but it’s just the examples I know off my head. We made 2 structural changes in our short history. One when the Brits left Spore. The Brit military was our major GDP provider. We went for labour intensive type of FDIs, never mind how low tech, just to get jobs. Second was 30 years down the line, every ASEAN country was catching up, so we abandoned low tech and went for high value types. This demanded educational system change, retooling, lots of displacements, unhappiness, etc. But long term goals were correct. Moral of the story is, no short cuts, lots of sacrifices. Stop the whining and get to work.

        I believe in American ingenuity and capacity to turn around. They will get the economy back sooner or later. Unfortunately, they dealt themselves a Trump card that will see the rise of white supremacists – the KKKs, the Nazi Youths, racist bullies. Rage will turn into hate. It’s already happening and it will get worse before America can be great again.

        • NHerrera says:

          chemrock,

          Nice wrap-up on the thread centering on the modern day RAGE. Your input on the Singapore — how it planned and tooled in the early years; sacrifices made in short-term paying off — is a good read. And consistent with present day RAGE, that Singapore beneath the disciplined veneer, as you gleam from social media, may succumb too. An added thought: Singapore is rich and the sacrifices of the early years may have been forgotten and may not come easy this time around, compared to the pioneering days.

          • NHerrera says:

            But I believe there is something going for a compact city-state like Singapore. I notice that in residential villages, small villages are most often better managed, than big ones — all other attributes being the same.

            • chemrock says:

              I do agree with you. There was a time Italy and Greece thrived on the basis of city states.

              Big or small all nations have unique challenges, the the social challenge may have lots of similarities.

          • chemrock says:

            Indeed NHererra, historical amnesia is a problem everywhere. How does one combat this ignorance? If the authorities try to drum it into the educational system, it will be branded propaganda. Bring it up too often, it becomes a bore, hence desentisised.

        • edgar lores says:

          *******
          Hmm. Rage. Anger. More inputs for Thea.
          *****

        • Waray-waray says:

          Right there you are Chempo.

          Sometime in October a UK daily has this headline; ” A Culture of Rage” . It is everywhere now. First, dissatisfaction, then anger. Anger turning into rage and rage fuelling hatred. It would be frightening to imagine just one single spark to hatred would lead to combustion.

          @Thea, Joeam is correct, this topic would provoke excellent discussion. Looks like we are going to have a sequel to this topic. I can’t wait to see when The Sage wields his pen.

    • andy ibay says:

      my one cent opinion but may be worth two-cents awakening: Even media hurricanes, straight or crooked are powerless against the wind breaks of insidious change. US media against Donald Trump shitted and urinated in their pants going all out to ram down the public’s throat the status quo of decay and should be ashamed. If media is shameless, like its gullible public should know, shamelessness as evolution is also the cause and at the same time the effect of bad change leading to revolutions. It is far fetch but shamelessness had led some French nobles to the guillotine.

  7. TRIVIA: If the US election system is same as PH, Clinton would have won. She won the popular votes- more Americans voted for her than Trump- but she lost because she did not garner enough of the needed electoral college votes. Electoral college votes of 270 or more clinches the presidential winner.

    _________________________________________________________________

    Andanar’s latest column below is just over the top. He tried so hard to paint PRD as “an exemplary communicator.” I respectfully request for PDI to hire his mother-in-law as his column editor.

    http://opinion.inquirer.net/99111/an-exemplary-communicator

    • fedelynn says:

      Thank you, Juana Pilipinas, for that one-sentence clear explanation of the US election System. My uncle tried to explain it in several paragraph’s worth of oral explanations, but my mom and I didn’t get it.

    • karlgarcia says:

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

      I understand that the electoral college elects the pres and the vp, but I still do not understand the details.

      • Electoral College Votes Details

        * There are 538 electoral college votes total.

        * It takes 270 or more electoral college votes to win the US presidency.

        * If no candidate garnered 270 votes (majority votes) or more, or in case of a tie, the House of the Representatives will settle the score by voting for the POTUS.

        * Electoral college votes are derived from the number of representatives for each state which are based on the state’s total population.

        * 48 states have the winner-takes-all system —where the candidate with the most popular votes, takes all the electoral college votes for that state— except for Maine and Nebraska where electoral college votes could be split.

        * In the recent election, Americans did not directly vote for the winning POTUS, they voted for the electoral college voter(s) who will cast his/her(their) vote(s) in December at the state’s capital (first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. 2016 = Dec. 19).

        * In essence, the president elect is not officially the POTUS until the December electoral college votes are tallied. The “losing” candidate usually concedes after the November election because the electoral college voters usually vote according to that state’s November election outcome.

        * Each state has electoral college voters representing each political party chosen by its party members.

        * In the electoral college map, a red state means the Republican party won that state ( blue = Democratic, Yellow = Libertarian, Green = Green).

        ***Please ask questions if did not give all the details you need to understand the Electoral College Voting System.

        • karlgarcia says:

          👍🏻 Many thanks. You have to do an Edgar to explain.😄

        • Thanks so very much, JP…I learned so much from that post of yours. So it is an indirect voting.

          700 amendment proposals on that electoral college in 200 years, as shared by Thea. Not a single one prospered and the democrats are always on the losing end.

          Why can’t it be done proportionately? That way, a candidate who wins the populist votes need not lose in the electoral college?

          • Thea says:

            I have crossed an article about how Democrats can change the scenario. Since many have considered migrating to Canada after knowing Trump’s victory,this article suggested instead of residing in the Swing States or what they call the “battleground states” or in our parlance,”balimbing” states.

            For me, Pres. Obama and Michelle and all other democrats must learn from Filipino politicians. Become sponsors in baptisms and weddings in these Swing states. They will gain more kumpadres and kumares. And future voters in “ina-anaks”.

        • chemrock says:

          Thanks JP, I had a fair grasp of the US system but your description makes is so easy to see clearly.

          So is it right of say the electoral college voters technically can vote according to their conscience?

          If so, would any Republican electoral college voter actually vite against Trump. I have read of a GOP electoral college voter who resigned prior to the election because he felt he could not vote for Trump should that be the outcome of the election

  8. fedelynn says:

    Sad about the situation in the Philippines and the US, but there lessons to be learned. Mine? If we want to avoid major, upsetting upheavals in society, make sure that the basic needs of all sectors are take c are of.–from free speech to choice on whom to love. No discrimination to any group because of religion, gender orientation, ethnicity, class situation… I understand that my perception of things is incomplete, but being ‘marginalized’ can kick over a very large bucket. Good change is needed.

    • fedelynn says:

      Forgot to add that, unequal access to basic services (and a decent life) can be manipulated by groups with selfish interests.

      • karlgarcia says:

        basic services and utilities. the post yolanda housing was a major example. One example PNP AFP housing besides no electricity and water the units wre built for three people, we all know that families are five and above.
        —-
        Professional squatters aremaintained not by the incumbent mayors, but by syndicates who deal with all incumbents.
        ——
        Marginalized must be defined further, because of the sprouting of party lists.
        —–
        I reiterate the feeling of being a victim must soon must change somehow, without abandoning the need for justice and accountability.

  9. RKL says:

    Just substitute Mindanao for the rust belt. Poe for Sanders. Roxas for Clinton and our own DU30(Jesse Ventura) effect. ‘The Last Stand of the Angry White Man’ = The Stand of the Visayans/ Poor/ Mindanaoans

  10. Did Electoral votes rule over populist votes in the just concluded US Presidential election?

    I know that in the US, it is possible that a candidate can win populist votes but may lose the election thru electoral votes, an indirect voting.

    If yes, then then the 44.4 % who did not vote for one reason or another (The US Elections Project estimates that 128.8 million Americans cast a ballot in 2016, out of 231 million eligible voters—a turnout rate of 55.6 percent.) made that happen…. the current POTUS is correct in saying in one of his campaign speeches, go out and vote, specially in the states where there are so many numbers of senators and congressmen assigned to that particular states.

    Surely, a few of those populist voters are just venting their disappointments or frustrations, and are equally earnest in their expression, although they vented such frustrations in the presence of their mothers-in-laws.

    Not saying that being a social media bigot is acceptable, it’s just that sometimes one has to undergo some stages before acceptance can set in. In the heat of the moment, disbelief and shock can sometimes over rule caution, civility and manners, and sadly, the ease of sending a tweet, an FB comment is a contributing factor.

    I uttered words like “ok, so the 16M Filipinos can identify with the 270 electoral voters of the US, they so like the rude treatments afforded by Trump to women, his rude comments in his tweets, the way he interrupted and invaded Hillary’s personal space in an effort to intimidate and rattle her during the presidential debates, they even ignored those women who went forward to confirm rumors of such sexism and sexual harassment”. I did not tweet those words, though. But I vented.

    Just like I vented against the SC 9’s decision re FM burial, in private, not in FB…..yet. Am still counting up to 10, am still at 4….don’t wanna be a social media bigot… and I still need to heal. hehehe

    • Ok, I did not see JP’s comment at 12:01 pm, PHT when I posted the above.

      I have just returned to this world of reality (to forget the pain and to escape stress, I devoted so much time in e-books by Linda Howard) so I have not yet been updated with the details.

  11. RKL says:

    Add on ‘The The Stand of the Visayans/ Poor/ Mindanaoans/working class non-College Grads

  12. RKL says:

    An explanation by the A video from the BBC Adam.Curtis ‘HyperNormalisation’.

  13. edgar lores says:

    *******
    1. Bigotry and incivility in social media are preceded by bigotry and incivility in the home and in the community. These ugly flowers did not bloom overnight. They are rooted in our social life.

    2. Even before the elections this year, bigotry and incivility were prevalent in social media. I began commenting on news and social media in 2012. The topics of discussions then were particular acts of the three branches of government – and religion. And there can be no greater bigotry and incivility than in debates on politics and religion.

    2.1. There can be no doubt the unbending belief in and the imposition of religious doctrine engendered uncharitable religious discourse.

    2.2. Recently, no doubt the lack of the recognition of politesse by Duterte has inflamed impolitic political discourse.

    2.3. And there can also be no doubt the rise of social media and opinions in news media provided the now vast platform for the outpouring of prejudice and invective.

    3. The root of bigotry is ignorance and the root of incivility is anger. But anger is a reaction of ignorance. So both bigotry and incivility have a common root.

    3.1. If the primary root of these ugly flowers is ignorance, the secondary drivers are (a) an inability to listen; (b) poverty in logic and reasoning; (c) a deficiency in rhetoric; and (d) a lack of respect.

    3.2. The inability to listen is the hallmark of a closed mind. The purpose of a discussion is not to learn but to impose.

    3.3. The lack of respect precedes the inability to listen. Why listen when we are right?

    3.4. If one is deficient in logic and rhetoric, one readily makes use of the tools of disparagement and vituperation to prove correctness if not superiority.

    4. If we understand an issue or a phenomenon, we would not be bigoted. If we understand the many sides of an issue or all aspects of a phenomenon, we would not be uncivil; we would try to explain.

    4.1. If we understood the frailties of mankind, we would not react in fear and anger. We would be moved by compassion.

    5. I must confess there is anger in me… sometimes.
    *****

    • 3.3 and 3.4 are hallmarks of “argument” in the PH, and most discussions are arguments that never reach conclusion. Few enter a discussion with the idea of learning or even negotiating for common ground. That “need to win” is common in the US, as well, with the insults flying from left to right and back again. How refreshing if we entered all discussions with a “need to learn” instead.

    • Thea says:

      3. Anger is not usually a reaction of ignorance. Anger sometimes is a reaction in knowing what is correct yet there are hindrances in achieving this correctness. It can also sprout from painful experience. Whilst,bigotry is rooted from fear. Fear that people will outwit us,for example. It is ignorance coupled with disrespect and incivility. Anger and bigotry though may bloom to hatred.
      I may say, Duterte is not angry but he has a bigot mind manifested in his utterances. Fear that he might be outwitted by those opposing him.

      5.1 Getting angry is okay. Sometimes. Provided it is for the right reason and expressed with civility. Anger may lead to achievements and performance.

      • edgar lores says:

        *******
        Thea,

        3. I agree. You are talking about righteous anger, which is the exception.

        But whether righteous or not, anger is a negative emotion and is destructive to the holder and the recipient, if there is one.

        5.1. If one sees something that is wrong, one can take corrective action without the acidic burn of anger. In certain situations, pausing and understanding what is happening will channel anger into constructive action. Anger may be the impetus but it is not the maintaining force; understanding is. I know this to be true because it works for me. And this is what I strive for. Try it. Remember to pause and really try to understand.

        This will work in highly personal situations when interacting with another person. I still haven’t found a way for it to work in impersonal situations, like me interacting with fascists.
        *****

        • Thea says:

          Edgar,

          I agree, anger should not be the maintaining force otherwise it will become hatred which will block senses.

          In dealing with fascists? You have reason to be angry. With them, there is only one Dalai Lama. hehe. But take care of your heart and be healthy. That’s the best way to deal with these people.

          • edgar lores says:

            *******
            Thea, thanks.
            *****

          • Waray-waray says:

            Ah, anger …and that negative emotion.

            Thea and Edgar, such an illuminating exchanges.

            Thea you wrote in 5.1″Getting angry is ok. Sometimes. Provided it is for the right reason and expressed with civility. Anger may lead to achievement and performance”.

            Our collective anger as a nation made EDSA possible.

            It took us 3 years since that fateful day of August 21, 1983. It would have taken us more than 3 years if EDSA did not happen. Our collective anger sustained us for the three long years which is exactly the number of years in the Yellow Ribbon song, but it was not just anger that helped and sustained us through.

            What is the opposite of anger? Is it affection? Can two opposite emotions go hand in hand to achieve something like an impossible dream as EDSA? Or should we say it should be the case as ying and yang? True, positive emotion such as affection or love inspires us to do great things but with anger we are also capable of doing impossible things.

            Edgar wrote that anger maybe the impetus. And it was with EDSA. But it was not all about anger. Everyone then understood what we were angry about. We re channeled our anger into protests, marches, stage plays and other creative and constructive actions.

            So anger as negative emotion and other negative emotions not that negative after all? Do we sometimes need it to jerk us into action? Don’t we think there is just too much it it nowadays?

      • Care to do a guest article on the subject? It would provoke an excellent discussion, I think.

    • chemrock says:

      Edgar, I applaud when you throw out gems like this.

  14. I came across this analysis by Will Oremus. An accident of geography and America’s electoral system. Thousands are protesting. Is this true democracy? Am not interfering with another country’s sovereignty as one migrant cousin arrogantly declared. Just wishing to understand.

    Excerpts:

    “More Americans appear to have voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for Trump.

    As of 1 p.m. on Wednesday, she held a slim lead of 47.7 percent to 47.5 percent, according to CNN. That’s a margin of about 230,000 votes with 92 percent of the vote tallied. The precincts that remain are likely to widen that gap, according to the New York Times’ live forecast.

    Still, it does matter that Clinton received more votes than Trump in the U.S. presidential election. It means that the majority of Americans are not Trump supporters—not even a plurality of Americans are Trump supporters. And it punctures the argument that Trump “has been given a mandate,” as his campaign manager claimed Wednesday.

    That Trump won with fewer votes is largely an accident of geography and our electoral system. The primary reason for the discrepancy is that Clinton’s votes were more heavily concentrated in a few big states, especially California and New York, which she won by 28 percentage points and 21 percentage points, respectively. Trump won the largest red state, Texas, by a more modest 9-point margin, while carrying several swing states by slim margins.”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/09/hillary_clinton_appears_to_have_won_the_popular_vote_does_it_matter.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_fb_ru

    • andy ibay says:

      Oh, Oh, in this ocean of learned opinions can it be reposted here (tawag pansin) like a bubble over a freak wave? so it can be whack into nothingness?

      my one cent opinion but may be worth two-cents awakening: Even media hurricanes, straight or crooked are powerless against the wind breaks of pernicious change. US media against Donald Trump shitted and urinated in their pants going all out to ram down the public’s throat the status quo of decay and should be ashamed. If media is shameless, like its gullible public should know, shamelessness as evolution is also the cause and at the same time the effect of bad change leading to revolutions. It is far fetch but shamelessness had led some French nobles to the guillotine.

    • There is no one model of democracy. The electoral system in the US is a little weird, but it is the accepted way. Trump did win, and he does have a mandate, as endorsed by both Secretary Clinton and President Obama. Protesting is a right enshrined in the American Constitution, and protests have brought many, many good things to America. I engaged in protests for racial equality and against the Viet Nam War. I wear them internally as badges as important as university diplomas or medals earned in Viet Nam.

    • andy ibay says:

      Madame Senyora MGPG I might had posted this item first in the wrong thread so kindly understand why I am re-posting it here:

      andy ibay says:
      November 11, 2016 at 6:03 am

      To continue the Hah, Hah, Hah, not in derision but more in innocent giggles, the high carat of the US Presidential election process can be stretched into highfalutin level of abstraction.

      The sum of Electoral College votes is simple DEDUCTION of who is the true winner while the total popular votes are merely INDUCTIONS hoping to support deductions. Like misleadingly saying that like in SYNERGY the WHOLE of the electoral votes are more than the sum of all popular votes.

      Albert Einstein was and probably until his death remain DEDUCTIVE. As a physicist he wondered whether he could have been more effective BEING INDUCTIVE if he had studied mathematics the real language of physics. His deductions about the relationships of mass, speed and energy lead to the theory of relativity. Some scientists later proved by mathematical inductions that Einstein’s deductions were accurate and won the Nobel Prize for their efforts. Read about this may be 15 years ago. I could be senilely (no such adverb yet, eh?) wrong. Just as DEDUCTIONS (George W. Bush?) could be a little bit wrong if history says so.

      The electoral college had deduced Donald Trump should be President. And that’s that. But Albert E. kept on deducing notions which are difficult to prove by induction. Like when he said : “God does not play dice with the lives of men” or something to that effect.

  15. a distant observer says:

    Am I a social media bigot? Sometimes yes. Even though I generally prefer to not comment at all on social media (NSA is watching you know, keyword: social media profiling) sometimes my emotions just make me venting my opinion that lacks logic or rationality.
    But I certainly agree with you JoeAm, that the “tone makes the music”. That’s why I like this virtual place here, because people with a genuine love for the Philippines (emotions) gather here to discuss matters in a reasoned manner (logic).

    • And we look forward to you leading the orchestra one of these days, with a guest article.

      Social media is too often a desert, or closed clubs that talk to one another. This one has a different goal, to provoke (kindly), to teach, to learn. The discussion is what the blog is really about. The gems of insight here are spectacular.

    • josephivo says:

      I wrote about our “post-factual” society in a previous blog, but now I realize there is a more fundamental shift. One can discuss the wingspan of a Philippine eagle and the wingspan of the Holy Ghost. This are two very different fields, one should have factual underpinnings, and the other is solely based on beliefs. In the new world it seems that we threw away this distinction. Every issue is solely a belief thing and thus facts are superfluous or even stronger they are “elitist”.

      In a factual discussion there is no space for bigots, it is about correctness, probability, logical deduction. To talk about bigots there is an intellectual blunder as it is to talk about the weight of angels. The problem today is not the distinction, but the lack of understanding of this distinction.

      • Bravo, Joseph. You hit the nail on the head with that one.

        That is why past leaders who were steeped with bigotry tried to suppress knowledge and factual information by killing intellectuals and burning tomes. Bigots “fear those with knowledge and control those without it.”

  16. NHerrera says:

    bigot — a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

    some synonyms:

    extremist
    fanatic
    maniac
    racist
    zealot
    chauvinist
    diehard
    doctrinaire
    persecutor
    opinionated
    dogmatist
    puritan
    sexist
    superpatriot

    • NHerrera says:

      TSH = a social medium

      Are you a social media bigot?

      If I go by the first line definition, the majority in TSH may be viewed as intolerant on occasion in their opinion, but not utterly intolerant. Hence, except for a very few contributors here, we fail to be labeled as full-scope, full-barrel bigot, I am happy to assert.

      🙂

      • One of the hardest things for me to deal with is the label of being an “intellectual elitist”, that by offering an idea, I am automatically being a bigot because I project that it is better than someone else’s. It is a tough charge to combat. The guy I quoted in the blog article and I continued our discussion, and that’s the point we eventually got to, that by arguing for civility in discussions by objecting to his comment, I proved myself the bigot. I speak from a position of “privilege”, and because I do, my views are not worth anything. By his view, whites have no business commenting on racial matters because we are all racists to begin with.

    • edgar lores says:

      *******
      Ah, chauvinist! I remember the term. It was usually coupled with a certain sex and a four-footed three-lettered animal.
      *****

  17. edgar lores says:

    *******
    This may best explain Clinton’s failure.

    This would be a good argument to make voting mandatory ala-Oz.
    *****

    • caliphman says:

      I mentioned this early on but this chart makes it crystal clear. Its quite surprising at first because Democrats supposedly the much stronger ground game and women and minorities were assumed to be higly energized to vote against Trump because of his sexist and racist comments. The Clinton campaign managers are admitting their own and mefia polling was mistakenly based on 2012 turnout assumptions and the resulting overconfidence led them to spend more on advertising and less on a grass roots groundgame effort. I would also add when both campaigns are largely negative and choosing which is the lesser evil, the very low turnouts are to be expected.

    • Trump is Sander’s fault, as Duterte is Poe’s.

      • Follow-up thought. If Poe had been Roxas’ VP, Roxas would be president. Had Clinton been so bold as to pick Sanders as her VP, she’d be president.

        • caliphman says:

          Ahahaha…thats very speculative. My opinion is it is more likely Duterte would not be president now if Mar ran as Poe’s VP. Duterte’s following is so strongly anti-establishment and anti-yellow, sliding a judicially wounded Poe under the LP’s and Aquino’s anointed one would not have changed the outcome, most of Poe’s supporters defecting to Duterte.

          As to Clinton picking Sanders as her VP, I question if choosing him as VP eould have made a difference. As you know, the VP is not elected separately in the US. Whatever anti-establishment following Sanders had running as the presidential nominee would by and large not have translated to additional Clinton votes. Clinton had huge trust issues and putting the more trusted Sanders in a basically ceremonial VP slot would have done little to lessen the distrust.

          At this point, my attitude about these VP whatifs is…who knows or cares?

      • True. I still can’t look at Poe’s pic on FB shares, TV news or in newsprint without resentment, God help me. That’s why I avoid watching or reading news. She’s bad for my health. I need to change my reaction to her. Sadly, she is blithely moving on without a care in the world, same with Escuderoo as he and his wife Heart joins PDu30 in his foreign trips.

        Sometimes I think Escuderoo (knowing surveys tend to change drastically as election day comes near, like what happened to Poe, Roxas and Mrs. Clinton) purposely pushed Poe as spoiler – a candidate who might have no chance of winning but who may draw enough votes to prevent one of the leading candidates from winning. That usually happens in a multi-party system, one of the legacies of Marcos who destroyed the 2-party system we had before.

        • Yes, Escudero seems to be at the center of dysfunctional elections.

        • karlgarcia says:

          Bill in Oz proposes preferential voting, where you rank the candidates.
          Since multi party ststem is here to stay, I think that system would be better.

          • Bill In Oz says:

            We now have a government which has a parliamentary majority of 1 ( one). The government lost a swag of seats in the July elections but managed to remain in government by a hair ! That was an outcome of preferential voting. And I rejoice that we can vote in this way and send our pollies a message if necessary…

            In my own area courtesy of the preferential voting system, the local polly lost his seat and was replaced by a Xenophon Team member. Getting drunk in Hong Kong last November and attempting to be too friendly to a young attractive public servant became known at home.

            He copped the royal order of the steel capped boot. The new member is a young attractive progressive female. A delicious irony.

            Cheers for preferential voting !

    • NHerrera says:

      edgar,

      May I ask what the sanction or penalty is in Oz if one does not vote if qualified and healthy and no good reason why he failed to vote?

      • Bill In Oz says:

        The penalty is $60.00 Australian.

        But nobody can be compelled to vote for a given candidate. One can also vote informal

        • NHerrera says:

          Thanks. Does voting “informally” allow one to write a name of a registered voter-friend not on the list of those in contention?

          • Bill In Oz says:

            No NHerrera,, there are ‘no write-in’s’ allowed in the Australian voting system.

            All nominated candidates for election are checked by the Australian Election Commission before being placed on the ballot to ensure that they
            1 : Are citizens and
            2 : Registered on the electoral roll at their actual place of residence
            3 : That they have no criminal convictions against them requiring more than 12 months in jail..( IE Major criminals are excluded )

      • edgar lores says:

        *******
        NHerrera, The penalty for not voting in a federal election is $20 (about P740).

        Other penalties include:

        1. Impersonating someone for voting purposes attracts the maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment.
        2. Voting more than once at the same election is $1,700 (P62,900)
        3. Intentionally voting more than once at the same election is $10,200 (P377,400), or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.
        4. Bribery (asking or receiving) to influence a vote is $5,000 (P185,000), or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.

        I am not sure of the distinction between 2 and 3. Perhaps 2 is unintentional?
        *****

      • edgar lores says:

        *******
        I notice Bill in Oz quoted a penalty of $60 (P2,220). That must be for a state election in Southern Australia. In my state of Queensland, the penalty is $118 (P4,366).
        *****

        • NHerrera says:

          Thanks for the details on mandatory voting, edgar; and to bill again.

          • Bill In Oz says:

            Nherrera, you use the word “mandatory’ whereas we in Oz say compulsory. The word mandatory is from Latin and is associated with some one ‘commanding’ the rest….

            Frankly nobody would get away with that here especially re voting…

            Rather it is simply that we have agreed as a people to have a lwa that says it is compulsory for all voters to vote at elections…. And if I don’t it’s not a major breach of legality. Simply a fine…

            There are nuances here at work that indicate our national culture..

        • Bill In Oz says:

          Curious Edgar….Yes it is ( or was a year or so ago ) $60 in South Australia… And I am just a puzzled about the distinction between sections 2 & 3 above..It could be that you have acessed the electoral law for Queensland state rather than the Commonwealth law.

          • edgar lores says:

            *******
            Bill in Oz,

            My initial source was:

            http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/australian_electoral_system/electoral_procedures/Electoral_Offences.htm

            And I extracted the info from the following paragraph:

            Fraudulent voting offences under the Act include the following (the numbering is mine):

            1. impersonating anyone for the purposes of obtaining a ballot paper and voting, maximum penalty: imprisonment for 6 months (section 339(1)(a) and (b)).
            2. voting more than once at the same election, penalty: 10 penalty units (i.e. $1 700) (section 339(1A), (1B) and (1C)).
            3. intentionally voting more than once in the same election: 60 penalty units (i.e. $10 200) or imprisonment for 12 months, or both (section 339(1C)).

            I then read the pertinent references in section 339 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918. Note that subsection (1C) is referenced in 2 and 3.

            Here are the pertinent provisions of section 339:

            (1A) A person commits an offence if the person votes more than once in the same election.

            Penalty: 10 penalty units.

            (1B) An offence against subsection (1A) is an offence of strict liability.

            (1C) A person commits an offence if the person intentionally votes more than once in the same election.

            Penalty: 60 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.

            (1D) If a person votes more than once in the same election, the number of offences the person commits under subsection (1A) or (1C) because of that voting is the number of times the person voted in that election less one.

            Note: This subsection means that each act of voting (other than the one act of voting that would be legitimate) gives rise to a separate offence but it is not necessary to know which act of voting was the first one and therefore legitimate.

            I think the penalty of 10 units apply to (1A) alone.

            The distinction between (1A) and (1C) seems to be in (a) the term “intentionally” in (1C) and (b) the term “strict liability” in (1B). This last term must have a special legal meaning.

            We need the help of a solicitor.
            *****

    • chemrock says:

      Voting is mandatory in Singapore too. Failure to vote gets one delisted from the electoral register.

    • Bill In Oz says:

      I have NOT followed the USA elections closely.

      But it is curious that the Democrat Party vote dropped so much compared to 2008 & 2012. Consider this : Trump alienated the Hispanic/Latino & the Black & the feminist female vote so presumably they all had a extra incentive to go & vote for Clinton….

      So who didn’t vote in their millions ?

      • NHerrera says:

        Like you I have not followed US election that closely but one thing comes to mind. A lot did not like Trump, but those put-off by Trump did not generally like Clinton for one reason or another. That or the phenomenon that animated a lot worldwide, as explained in Andrew’s link.

        Please see my note below (November 11, 2016 at 11:55 am).

        CHANGE. CHANGE. CHANGE. The mantra of Trump caught on. Not that there is an easily implementable plan in that mantra. Unlike perhaps in the Philippines, Trump cannot simply wave that magic wand (or his say so) and it is realized.

      • edgar lores says:

        *******
        Bill in Oz,

        Obama extensively used social media and computers to get people to vote. This time around, the Democratic Party did not put in the same effort. They assumed there would be the same high voter turnout because Trump was so comprehensively loathed.
        *****

        • Bill In Oz says:

          You may be right about the Democrats not putting the same effort..But I suggest that the Clinton /Sanders divide also played a major part..

          Also if ” Trump was so ‘comprehensively’ loathed” how come over 53 million people voted for him…Certain groups certainly loathed him : feminist white females were ( are ) one. I suspect that Latinos outside Florida did. And the black population as well. But each of these groups is a minority.

    • Juana Pilipinas says:

      The “October Surprise” of FBI Director James Comey, together with the bomb he dropped about Clinton’s e-mail investigation being re-opened 11 days before the election affected Democratic voters’ perception of their candidate resulting in a low turnout. It was also enough for some Democrats to view Trump as the lesser evil.

  18. Interesting reactions from various celebrities to Trump being the next POTUS.

    Can you spot a social media bigot among them?

    “People r angry. People r broke. They voted 4 change. I disagree but that is 🇺🇸. We can. ACCEPTANCE today. COURAGE, change, ACTION tomorrow.” –Jamie Lee Curtis

    “America didn’t find Trump’s flaws fatal for a prez, but can we now all at least admit they’re flaws and work together to keep him in check?” –James Van Der Beek

    “I’m taking tonight to grieve for minorities, women, immigrants, muslims & the LGBTQ community but tomorrow I’m waking up ready to fight.” –Jesse Tyler Ferguson

    “This is an embarrassing night for America. We’ve let a hatemonger lead our great nation. We’ve let a bully set our course. I’m devastated.” –Chris Evans

    “I am just absolutely beside myself right now. I can’t believe the way this thing has turned. Trying to remain hopeful but geeez louise.” –Mandy Moore

    “I still believe in us. Despite this evident, great divide. It’s time to come together. Hear each other. Not give up, cry, or gloat. Unite.” –Sophia Bush

    “If anyone in Los Angeles is organizing a march/protest please let me know.” –Alyssa Milano

    “Woke up feeling like I’d had a nightmare. Then started crying again. Mantra: I am not alone, we are not alone.” –Anna Kendrick

    http://www.msn.com/en-ph/autos/autosmypreview/celebrities-react-to-donald-trump-becoming-president/ss-AAk6GRF?ocid=UE12DHP#image=20

  19. Andres10K says:

    The System chose Trump over Hilary. Trump won by the electoral college, Hilary won by popular votes. I’m not an expert on how US presidential election works but i’m sure it is quite complicated. The very fathers of american democracy knows that pure democracy is dangerous. They have these “safety nets” that protect the nation against the tyranny of majority. The fathers understand democracy that it is not simply majority. Compare it to the presidential election process of the Philippines, one-time-in-one-go, free-for-all. If i will put this way, President Duterte is never a clear winner. First, PRD didn’t won the 50%+1 votes. Second, 67% of the voters did not want him to be the president. The result? the never ending wars between the yellowtards and dutertards. What i am trying to say is that we should replace our presidential election system to get the better result.

    • NHerrera says:

      Drawing mainly from the perspective brought up by Andrew’s link above,

      https://flipboard.com/@flipboard/flip.it%2F2Jq6cr-we-just-saw-what-voters-do-when-they-fe/f-4b9ac44989%2Fqz.com

      the election of Duterte and Trump — and widely stated, the election of other countries’ leaders of late, including the vote on Brexit — is a worldwide phenomenon and not mainly related to the electoral system. “The unfair distribution of the pie,” the link shouts, seems more plausible to me as the spirit consciously or unconsciously driving this recent phenomenon. This has been made more glaring because of the easy information coming through the technology of the smartphone and internet.

    • chemrock says:

      Parliamentary system, my friend. That’s why Queen Elizabeth offered Americans the choice before the election, vote to be a part of the Brits again.

    • Thea says:

      Yes, the Founding Fathers of American democracy saw the dangers of pure democracy but did not see the equal dangers of the minority. It is frightening like mobs of blind supporters and bigots erasing what is left in the sanity and normalcy of beings. Surely, Trump did not get the majority,so thus Duterte. But both has these cult-like groups that could terrorize the majority. Remember, it will take only one uncanny man and his fanatics to bring havoc to civility and rights.

  20. I had hoped that what is happening now in our country would not happen in the US under the new POTUS. Alas, after reading cha’s FB post, I was truly dismayed to realize that that hope is slowly proving to be in vain. The supporters are following the lead of their candidate. The bullying has already begun in the street, not only in social media.

    I wonder what my arrogant migrant cousin-in-law and cousins who are active supporters of Trump and Duterte feel about this bullying of the Asian Americans.

    http://nextshark.com/asian-americans-now-targeted…/

    https://scontent.fmnl4-3.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14962575_10209151043106645_2849805624310450600_n.jpg?oh=94dd0c1a3ccd26c95efcc96ee5db7015&oe=58948FE2

  21. How’s this for biggest irony of all?

    In one of his characteristic tweets, Trump called the Electoral College a “disaster for democracy”.

    “Clinton won the popular vote; by the time the last of the ballots are counted, her total tally will likely be about a million more votes than Trump’s.

    But America’s antiquated system known as the Electoral College ensured that, like George W. Bush in 2000, the candidate with fewer votes would end up in the world’s most powerful office.

    In 2012, in one of his characteristic tweets, Trump called the Electoral College a “disaster for democracy.”

    In that it now helps normalize what is abnormal, many people, not only in the United States, will agree.”

    Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/99145/trumped-2#ixzz4PfchuxMo

    • Andres10K says:

      Irony in the sense that Trump condemned the electoral college way back in 2012. However, no irony when it comes to the electoral college itself. There is wisdom behind that.

  22. Waray-waray says:

    Why do I keep on coming back here?

    The events taking place since the elections both in the Philippines and the US had been fast and furious. It had been so stressful that I am wanting to go somewhere else with no internet to take a breather from it all. But I know I couldn’t, just like the line from a sad song that goes “I run but I can’t run away”…

    It is the quality of discussion and insights, the amount of learning I gain from articulate and sagacious commenters that I got addicted here. I know that addiction is bad manifested by my chronic gastritis and GERD as side effects. But at least with TSH addiction I would not worry endangering myself with EJK.

    IMO we all have our own prejudice and to some extent bigotry. But maturity, acceptance, experience, openness, education and lifelong learning help temper these negative characteristics. We had the opportunity to live in the Middle East before moving to HK. Of course I had my reservations based only on what I heard but soon after seeing it for myself coupled with reading their culture and place, mingling with the locals and eyes open with curiosity, I realized that Muslims are just as humans like you and me. On one Christmas event (the Catholic church stands right beside the Mosque) the hubby would not even dare go the Indian buffet table. Their food looked exotic and interesting to me so I tried first the Biryani rice and my it was so good. It just started with food and after that there was no turning back – we got curiouser and curiouser with another country’s culture, people – and food! Just last month on our way to Manchester airport we had a pleasant encounter with a Muslim taxi driver who was born and grew up in Nigeria. When it was time to bid our goodbyes, he placed his right hand on his chest and I reciprocated with the same gesture. The gesture coming from a Muslim man to a Christian woman touched me and warmed my heart that day!

    I must admit I have not completely eradicated this feeling of prejudice and bigotry. But encounters such as the one just recently is a reminder the need as humans to be heard, respected and accepted. Let’s go out more. Meet and experience people more. Learn how to listen more than talk.

    • Waray-waray

      Like you, I keep coming back here.

      It’s like a thirst for order amidst such chaos in the social media, a hunger for logic and sense when all you hear and observe all around are the senseless and illogical gloating of the super majority in the government and the seemingly total control of the media, FB c/o of the heavily budgeted OP and the millions of the rude supporters and mechanical bots….such thirst and hunger can only be quenched and satisfied by the few remaining blogs like these, but TSH tops it all because the host is very much involved and participating in the discussions not to mention the all-important filtering and moderation.

      I may not participate that much, but I lurk…. a lot.

    • Forgot to mention the unli knowledge and insights offered by the contributors and commenters here. I may be nearing retirement but strive to learn more, to add to what I already learned knowing that search for knowledge and wisdom is a never ending process.

  23. Dispatcher says:

    How are you, Joe? Must be really painful seeing the election results and the protests that greeted it. I feel the pain too.

    • I’m doing fine, dispatcher. After Duterte, the Trump win seems disappointing, but I don’t feel there is a disaster brewing for the US as there is for the Philippines. President Elect Trump will not have Americans shooting Americans, I think. Plus, a lot of what he has to do requires congressional endorsement, and that will be tough because there is a real opposition, unlike in the Philippines. Plus media are not easy to buy and, as the street protests show, he has to deal with public reaction. I’m rather fascinated to watch it play out, particularly the budding relationship with Russia . . . and how he handles the terrorism war. Not to mention the economy. Stocks have responded well to his election. So I am not weeping and moping for the US. I am for the Philippines.

  24. NHerrera says:

    THOUGHTS ON THE SEEMING NEGATIVES OF TRUMP ELECTION ON THE PHILIPPINES

    (This will take some space and some technicals.)

    This is one topic discussed in the wake of Trump election to the US Presidency. The negative being pointed out, among many, is the bringing back of the business associated with BPO to the US.

    This is my initial thought — call it knee jerk if you like.

    My main thesis is that whatever labels have been used on Duterte and Trump is that they are both intelligent and pragmatic (for one, Trump is a businessman).

    For my purpose, I label

    BH = Bringing back the job associated with BPO Home to the US. I subsume in that, items like US trade/ investment in the PH. BH is just a label I use for this basket of items.

    NBH = Not BH

    ME = Military Exercise, jointly between PH and US. I use this also as a label for a basket of things to include other items like EDCA, VFA, US military assistance to the PH.

    NME = No ME.

    SIMPLE GAME THEORETIC THOUGHTS

    I submit the following “Game” with the following elements:

    Two players representing their respective countries: Trump and Duterte

    Trump strategy — BH, NBH
    Duterte strategy — ME, NME

    The values or “payoffs” to be attached to the 4 combinations of strategies I will confine to the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 with the higher number, the higher value or “payoff” in game theoretic terms.

    NOW MY NOTES ON VALUES I ASSIGN (a debatable assignment I admit).

    – To Duterte, the highest value comes from the combination (NBH, NME) = 4. His own sense and that of his Economic Advisers must impress upon him the importance of NBH. At the same time his avowed foreign policy independence and his commitment to the left, make coupling that with NME making sense.

    – To Trump, the highest value comes from (BH, ME) = 4. Bringing back jobs associated with BPO, etc comes to the core of his belief. At the same time his National Security Advisers including his pragmatism must impress on him the importance of ME.

    – There is symmetry in the two items above in terms of values: to Trump (NBH, NME) = 1; to Duterte (BH, ME) = 1 for the reason implied in my notes on the first two items.

    – To BOTH Duterte and Trump, the combination (BH, NME) will rate a 2.

    – To BOTH Duterte and Trump, the combination (NBH, ME) will rate a 3.

    In tabular form I display the Game Theoretic Strategy below.

    In the theory, the Nash Equilibrium for such a strategy game is (BH, NME) with value each of 2 to both players. That “Equilibrium” says that a unilateral move by one — from such equilibrium — to the other strategy gives the other player a better value. Thus, if instead of (BH, NME) Trump moves to (NBH, NME) his value reduces to 1, while Duterte’s value increases to 4. WITHOUT COORDINATION OR CONSULTATION, through envoys or back door channel, etc, such combination of moves (BH, NME) is the right Game Theoretic strategy.

    But WITH COORDINATION OR CONSULTATION, the strategy may come to (NBH, ME) which after all rate 3, higher than the Nash Equilibrium of (BH, NME) which rates only a 2. Also, after all, rid of the rhetoric of Trump and Duterte — there is indeed a lot of warmth and good relationship between the two countries. PERHAPS an adjusted relationship in keeping with the times and very recent history will result from these events and make for better relationship going forward.

    My note is thus more optimistic than even NEDA Chief Pernia fears relative to BPO.

    • karlgarcia says:

      Nash equilibrium-The Beautiful Mind

      • NHerrera says:

        karl,

        Yes, Nash Equilibrium from John Nash — featured in that film A Beautiful Mind, — who along with an earlier genius John von Neumann and others before Neumann laid the foundation of a still evolving Game Theory.

    • NHerrera says:

      The following report where, compared to Trump, he, Duterte, said, he is

      just “a small molecule in this planet,” unlike the American billionaire who is poised to lead the “most powerful country in the world.”

      is consistent with my note above.

      The link further noted:

      ******
      He also vowed to respect existing agreements with the US like the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty.

      In a change of tune, Duterte said Balikatan exercises with the US would continue, at least until the end of his term.

      He explained Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana had convinced him of the need for joint military training with US troops.

      Defense officials briefed him on the benefits of joint military drills during a Cabinet meeting two weeks ago.
      ******

      http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/11/12/1642950/rody-im-molecule-compared-trump

      An implied or a signaling on quid pro quo? Continue with your economic and trade relationship with us and we stay on the status quo on military cooperation

      • edgar lores says:

        *******
        Under Duterte, the national foreign policy is being conducted as a personal policy, based on whim.

        “Yesterday, I hated America because of that sum bitch Obama. Today, I looove America because of that kick-ass Trump.”

        “When has it ever been so that a president can carve foreign policy by whim — without recognition of existing ties, without consultation, without reflection, without any scintilla of prudence and foresight?” (Me on FB)
        *****

        • caliphman says:

          Edgar, I fear that description may also apply to Trump. Umm..I wonder if the vast open spaces in Queensland offer a safe haven for US residents afraid of Russian, Chinese, and Nokor ICBM’s? Hehehe

          • I checked Australia. It’s kinda expensive. Chile is better, but in Santiago you have to deal with the air pollution. Still, the wine there is very good, and if you like living in the open spaces of nature, there are plenty of them, from the desert in the north to Antarctica in the south. Get a pet guanaco. You can either pet them or eat them . . . er, nevermind.

            • NHerrera says:

              If I may:

              – Australia is expensive — Exhibit A: my daughter’s experience
              – Chile’s wine, very good — Exhibit B: my experience when with a Chile friend

              Stay here, Joe. The world being what it is, you can take the positives and the negatives. Of course you will not have a “guanaco to eat.”

            • caliphman says:

              San Francisco is not exactly cheap either and home prices run notth of $1k a square foot. Biliran must be dirt cheap compared to that and a comparative paradise as well.Only thing going for Australia is they have no Duterte or Trump but maybe there is a Mad Max-type waiting in the wings.

          • NHerrera says:

            I am rather afraid that Trump will do a Dr Strangelove on the nuclear code of the Blackbox. In the film Strangelove is the NS Adviser of the President. Here he is virtually the President and NSA rolled as one. (In the movie, coincidentally in a parallel of the reel and the real, both the President and Strangelove are played by the same Peter Sellers.)

          • edgar lores says:

            *******
            Queensland has the reputation of being the Texas of Oz. It is two and half times bigger than Texas. It is the home of the Big Pineapple, the Big Apple, and the Big Cane Toad.

            Yes, it would be a safe haven as there is nothing for ICBM’s to target and destroy. Just be forewarned there are saltwater crocodiles.
            ****

  25. Bill In Oz says:

    A very curious USA presidential election with both parties split in one way or another…
    The Democrats split between Clinton ( on this occasion the ‘establishment’ ) & Sanders ( the old time true believers ).
    The Republicans split three ways between the Trump insurgency on one hand and the old time conservative establishment & the sectarian Christian right wing !

    No wonder so many did not bother.

  26. Happy Veterans’ Day, Joe. Thank you for your service.

  27. caliphmanc says:

    The biggest risk with Trump is that like Duterte, he is rash, tempetamental, erratic, thinks on the fly, shoots from the hip, and is inexperienced and usually clueless on crucial national and global issues. Oh yeah one huge difference, Duterte has his flag and jet ski to deal with a hot crisis…and Donald has his finger on the trigger releasing the nuclear launch codes.

  28. josephivo says:

    Of topic (?)

    Look where enlightenment and science has brought us, look where cooperation and trade has brought us. Violence never in history as low as today, wealth generated per minute never higher as today, health and lifespan never better as today, the list is endless. And then saying that we are weak and the others are strong? The others who believe in the scientific relevance of holy books, those who fear Islam, and those who want to build walls and favor isolationism?

    I’m so afraid. Just watched TV and saw the nationalist demonstration in Warsaw, zapped away and then saw kids in a Californian school who didn’t want to answer a teacher of Mexican decent because “she will be deported anyhow”. Is history totally irrelevant? Do we all believe that for the first time mankind will react differently on hateful speeches of its leaders? I hope that my TV will break down soon, the internet connection will be reduced to speeds of 20 years ago and violence will stay out of our subdivision.

    But what for today’s children?

    • If they are lucky, parents who read, teach, encourage, and guide them toward values that cherish diversity of peoples and ideas, and who are not emotionally needy.

    • josephivo says:

      Also knowing that Robredo will never be able to trump the millions Marcos will pay Supreme Court judges to vote in his favor… May history rest in peace.

    • Waray-waray says:

      Anyone who watched the lunchtime “Build That Wall” chant courtesy of middle schoolers in Minnesota? Most of these kids are not even of voting age yet. And just like a contagion political bullying has infested not just the adults but also the kids.

      Is it not ironic that a Republican, the late Pres. Reagan was instrumental in tearing down the Berlin Wall in 1989 and yet here in 2016, less than 30 years after, a Republican, Pres. elect Trump would just do the opposite and build a wall between the US and Mexico? Would he stay true to his promise? If he did then I am calling on Ireneo to urge his countrymen in getting back a piece of that wall they gifted America.

      A sense of deja vu? In the Philippines People Power ousted a dictator in 1986 and 30 years later in 2016, allowing a heroe’s burial at that sacred ground reserved for true heroes.

      How have things changed from the 1980’s to the 2000’s. As most millennialist would normally ask today in street lingo; Anyare?

  29. madlanglupa says:

    > ARE YOU A SOCIAL MEDIA BIGOT?

    Rather than blathering at length on Facebook about him or her supporting people I am disgusted at, I simply unfriend the person.

    Anyhow, Happy Veterans Day, sir. And to my late father who used to serve the riverine patrol forces along the Mekong.

    *raises bottle of Bamuiba*

  30. chemrock says:

    Am I a social media bigot? Let’s not kid ourselves. We all are guilty of that one time or another.

    In pre- computer days we pen our letters. It was so much harder to be a bigot because the slow process of writing allow us those precious seconds to ponder the appropriateness of what we were going to write. It also helped that we were mostly writing to someone we know, so we don’t want those angry words to come back to haunt us.

    In today’s high speed environment, most people just fire away on their keyboards or phones like automatons. Watching those millennials firing away at their digital gadgets in FX vans I’m amazed at the speed of their fingers. I’m pretty sure the fingers were working faster than what their brain was thinking. What does this speed mean? Shortest fastest response or comment. Means less thinking. Means shortcut. Means forget niceties, proper explanation, civility. Just get my points out.

    How many if us have been guilty of jumping into the fray when we see an idiotic comment without thinking about what is the best way to go about responding. For example, in dealing with pro-duterte diehards, and I’m referring to those lowest types, the one with no intelligence and contributing nothing, we either totally give up or we join the fray and be as nasty as the other.

    I think nastiness can be countered if we have at least a strategy in the way we respond. Hitting a wall head on injures only our own heads. Some time back I think Andrew or Sonny mentioned his strategy which made some sense. It has to do with not being antagonistic and politely asking the commenter for their examples or data or suggestions.

    A good start may be Aristotle’s 5 canons for rhetorical strategy. Although it’s rhetoric, it has same application in social media. Remember invention, style, delivery, tone and memory. I think style is where we should improve on. For style, I recommend the Mark Anthony approach. How does one speak to a rioting crowd of conspirator supporters, ready to kill you the instant you say anything against the conspirators, persuade them that the conspirators were wrong and the crowd to flip flop to your side. ” Friends, Romans and countrymen ” to me is a good way to engage closed brains, thus avoid the need to bigotry and incivility

  31. NHerrera says:

    Is there such thing as a cycle of RAGE in history — Rage type 1 on the surface at one time and Rage type 2 at another time? And with such cycle, the surfacing of more bigots of one type compared to another type in another cycle? Meaning too, that with a mild Rage we have milder bigots that most ignore because most go about their daily pre-occupation with work, celebrities goings-on, and yes, fiddling with their smartphones — soon to be tiny and embedded in their heads?

  32. karlgarcia says:

    OFF topic:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2016/11/09/will-india-spoil-chinas-south-china-sea-ambitions/#5ce3f6415992

    We have forgotten all about India.
    India matches China’s population, Military ambition etc.
    China allied with Pakistan in the Kashmir issue and India hated that and India remembers.

    India has allies in South East Asia,it is an ally of US yet it is also an ally of Iran.

    • NHerrera says:

      karl,

      You bring to my mind strategy games that have sprouted lately. I have not downloaded or bought one yet. The theme seems to me, from the ads, of countries or groups against other countries/groups with resources, etc, to fight for. And nice weapons to use in the game. An interaction of game makers with what they see in the real world.

      We should forget about the real world and go to these virtual worlds for fun.

      🙂

    • Well worth factoring into our global strategic thinking.

  33. Sup says:

    Maybe Joe UK can make JoeAm smile again? 🙂

  34. chemrock says:

    Here’s a link on the rise of white supremacists in the US aided by high tech, not that we don’t already know how that’s being used by thuggish elements here in Philippines.

    Even a guy with 500 startups is mad at the very technology that he champions.

    Technology may just well be the anti- Christ in our midst.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/507473/

    • Juana Pilipinas says:

      Technology is not the culprit. It is the people with base motives using it to create chaos and spread discord. I will not be surprised if Internet access and utilization will be regulated by individual governments or a world cyber police federation in the future.

  35. chemrock says:

    Trump just googled Obamacare and Mexico for the first time ever and admitted that are a lot of good stuff he didn’t knew before.

    Someone please get Duterte to google human rights and Marcos.

    http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-confirms-that-he-just-googled-obamacare

  36. R.Hiro says:

    HRC will eventually win the popular vote by over 2M votes in the recently concluded election.

    However her failure to over just over 100K votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, where the army of underemployed/unemployed swung the electoral college vote to Trump.

    More on this will follow in my blog soon. Due to the sunset of Pax Americana and the challenges of the new multipolar world where new alliances are being formed after the severe dysfunction of the American sponsored and inspired global multilateral institutions which have existed for over 70 years, the new global realities require new perspectives.

    The fraud that was the founding of the U.S. based on the the exclusive regime for Northern Europeans and slavery will finally be resolved as the contradictions have been heightened by Trumps campaign rhetoric. Entering the oval office will not be the same.

    • karlgarcia says:

      Good to hear from you again R.Hiro. 👍🏻
      You have a blog lined up? You have your own blog?
      Or do you mean comment?

      • R.Hiro says:

        Blog. Trumps elections has opened the door to a universe of possibilities.

        • You might drop off a link so people can easily click over.

          • R.Hiro says:

            I shall do so and thank you for your graciousness.

          • R.Hiro says:

            https://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2016/09/29/building-collaboration-without-crisis/

            With your permission, when the IMF-WB itself calls for reforming both the U.N. and the IMF-WB itself after seventy years of U.S. domination, Duterte whose mouth is connected to the lower levels of his brain and Trump who loves to throw tantrums with Twitter, we realize on the importance of governmental institutions both domestic and international.

            Great responsibilities require even greater accountabilities. The 20th century was the bloodiest in human history.

            • R.Hiro says:

              When I read the comments of Mr. Ibay I am even more sure of my decision to write a blog. Trump is still a capitalist and his policies will surely benefit his own class. He will heighten the contradiction.

              For example – he extols Truman’s nuking the Japs. However history taught us that the U.S. forces had never faced the ferocious defense of the Japanese homeland as the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

              The commitment of no surrender and fighting for every inch of real estate. Plus the Kamikaze force that caused almost intolerable casualties.

              Plus the fact that the Russians were getting ready to invade a severely weakened Japan from the North. The U.S. had already seen Russia’s seizing of most of Eastern Europe and parts of Germany.

              Question: Why did Truman fire MacArthur after he suggested the nuking of the Chinese across the Yalu river. Off course when your adversary has nukes you become a little more circumspect. The Korean War till this day is not over. What about Vietnam when the U.S. once again faced a committed peoples fighting for national liberation? What about the Philippine insurgency that lasted years after the Americans took over here. When Hizbollah bombed the marine barracks in Beirut causing the greatest marine casualties since Iwo Jima, Regan turned tail and ran. Eisenhower started Americas alliances with Islamic religious groups in Egypt vs Nasser a secular nationalist. Then Americas alliances with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

              What about Americas alliances with the the Sunni based Arabs led by S.Arabia. The home of Wahabbi/Salaffi version of Islam that is the ideological base of the ongoing Sunni insurgency vs the West, primarily France, U.K. and the U.S.

              When the homeland is threatened like when the Russians were going to place strategic nukes in Cuba, Kennedy drew the line. U.S. would not have had first strike advantage since the distance was too close. He risked nuclear war with Russia.

              Power relations then are not the same as the power relations today.

              Trump drew the correct political line that got him the critical votes where he needed.

              The vast army of unemployed/underemployed further agitated by the lie about race and gender privilege gave Trump the razor thin margin in the de-industrialized states to give him the prize.

              However his political line will have to translated into official policy as the institutions require.

              Creating a populist movement requires agitation, organizing, mobilizing then working within the institutional framework existing.

              But he cannot escape his class stature. Will he betray his class and work to push a New New Deal to deal with the new realities of capitalism, i.e., digitization and artificial intelligence. Political turmoil followed the first two stages of the industrial revolution. What we are witnessing is the repeat of the rapid changes in technology that is driving capitalism and creating instability in the private and public sector.

              That is the basic idea about representative government. You compete with popular issues
              that can be translated into policies and programs. Even Hitler knew that.

              For followers of the Marxist line of analysis and not Marxism the road forward is clear.
              Ethno -nationalism that Trump has unleashed will be used to hide the fact that we are seeing once again a severe crisis of capitalism in an era of differing power relations in the 21st century.

              • R.Hiro says:

                For anyone interested type in google the name Tom Barrack and read all about a man who says he understand how Trump thinks.

                Institutions count. That is how we keep the barbarians at the gate. I wish someone would tell that to DU30

              • R.Hiro says:

                Some close friends and I came put with a thesis that Trump was challenging the old elite in the U.S. on behalf of the new elite which he is part of.

                The organizing line about saving white workers was merely part of the Big Lie… Trump simply used outrageous statements as “click bait” on social media that regular media picked up and spread..Trump after all is a master marketeer.

                http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-adviser-suggests-us-should-embrace-china-backed-infrastructure-bank-2016-11-10

                In line with recognizing Chinas new role in global geo-politics the former head of the CIA tells it like it is.

                Looks like DU30 was on right track but he should do something about his mouth..

              • karlgarcia says:

                Will the AIIB replace WB,IMF and ADB?
                In the meantime are they willing to co-finance with the three and are the three willing to co-finance projects with AIIB?

              • chemrock says:

                Rhiro

                The Philippines was a tentative participant in the AIIP durin Pnoy admin pending a property study. It was left to the current admin to ratify it.

                You are in favour of this. Can you tell me is it for ROI or for political purposes. If ROI do you know what is the return of World Bank, just for comparatives.

                AIIP is supposed to be apolitical, as compared to what many see as too much US influence over the World Bank. On the other hand, AIIB is a Chinese initiative, the hidden agenda is to provide funding to the huge IPs involved in the New Silk Road projs. Philippines is off the New Silk Road thus no direct benefit. What are the chances of a Philippines IP having access to AIIB funding?

                Sometime in 2013 or 2014, the idea of a Philippines sovereign wealth fund was broached, consequence of the improved fiscal situation of the govt. Do you think a SWF is a better alternative in that it is 100% Philippines controlled, and given that the admin has proclaimed this a golden IP era?

  37. R.Hiro says:

    Allow me to respond to Karl and Chemrock.

    The WB which is for long term projects had already expressed their intention to offer technical expertise to the AIIB. The WB today funds countries that undertake the policy prescriptions they suggest. No more funding of large infra projects. What we are witnessing is the realignment of power relations in the international sphere to make room for the rising power by the dominant power.

    The Philippines was not asked to join the G-20 group.. We are still at the lower band of middle income countries almost fully dependent on foreign inflows. Our reserves are still measly low. Most of it will have to be kept in highly liquid low yield sovereign treasuries. Investing in equities and commodities are risky given the volume of the reserves.

    It would wiser for the government to increase its stake in the monopolies in power, communications and infra here similar to Singapore. But that requires an effective state apparatus in place that is part of the state led development plan.
    taxes will be a major problem since the tax base is small.

    Domestic infra will be given a boost as long as the economy can produce the revenue required through the nominal growth of 7-8%. Our domestic borrowings are sure to rise and unfortunately with Trumps presidency U.S. bond yields are rising. Bond prices are collapsing.

    China is part of the largest land mass, Eurasia. She is developing both land and sea routes to the M.E. and Europe.

    A lot of challenges still exist regarding the dollar as the premier international payment regime. this has to change and hopefully it happens without too much shock to the system.

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