Mocha Uson is not the problem


Not the problem. Not the target audience. [Photo credit: Inquirer]

By Joe America

We have sorted the Philippine population into three groups to help make sense of things:

  1. The entitled, or class of impunity, that takes care of its own, is fundamentally amoral (lying is a tool, murder a campaign), and is not committed to the principles of democracy and human rights. Most legislators are in this group, and almost all of the Duterte cabinet.
  2. The educated elite who believe in the principles of democracy, laws, and human rights. A few legislators belong to this group, as does Vice President Robredo. Interestingly enough, so does arch-leftist Waldon Bello.
  3. The needful masses who may be poor or just stuck in traffic or otherwise angry that their lot in life is so small or troubled.

Mocha Uson belongs to the class of impunity and speaks to the needful. She does not speak to the elite and only concerns herself with them if they pose a threat to the Duterte agenda. Vice President Robredo is viewed as a threat and is now in the spotlight to be diminished.

Mocha Uson is highly skilled at what she does.

The elite are busy mainly talking to themselves whilst trying to lecture or convert the entitled to better values by appealing to their conscience or reason. They have no organization and are basically ineffective at speaking to the needful. So they aren’t making a lot of progress at influencing policies or decisions. The international press probably have a greater impact.

The idea that the elite could impose a conscience on Mocha Uson, or others of the entitled class, is rather futile I think. I don’t know why they spend so much time worrying about her, and others like her. They should be busy ignoring her to the best of their ability, and speaking to the needful.

The needful are not a rational bunch, in the main, but an emotional bunch, and I suspect that endless appeals to conscience, to sense, and to principles miss the mark. The emotional foundation of the needful is not rational. I don’t know if it is mass insanity or mass need, but it is typical to see the needful get upset about dogs killed for a movie but not Filipinos killed for drugs. It is common to see the Duterte Administration given a free pass for bad traffic, its position on SS hikes and pork, giving away sea resources, being rude to the US, and other acts for which President Aquino would have been excoriated.

  • ex·co·ri·ateikˈskôrēˌāt, ekˈskôrēˌāt, verb, censure or criticize severely, “the papers that had been excoriating him were now lauding him”

This is not an argument to be won on reason.

It is an argument to be won on emotions and taking care of people who have tremendous needs and no easy way out of their condition.

I suspect Senator De Lima calling DOJ Secretary Aguirre a “lying bastard” is better communication than Vice President Robredo extolling the importance of human rights.

Come to think of it, the elite are confined by their good manners. Good manners don’t impress the needful. Good manners make the needful angry. Needful values are crab values . . . inside out. Upside down. Ambition is bad, it shows “us” up. Success is bad, it makes us feel bad. Goodie goodie is weak and pretending to have higher values is offensive.

The needful need strength. They need tough. They need blood in the streets.

They need things their emotions (not brains) can relate to.

As long as the elite adhere to good manners, they will be ineffective. As long as they keep speaking to the deaf ears of the entitled, babbling amongst themselves, or lording it over the needful . . . they will be ineffective.

  • If they are worrying about Mocha Uson, they are on the defensive.
  • If they are trying to insult those of no conscience, they are beating dead horses.
  • If they are talking about human rights, they have put their target audience to sleep.
  • If they have no organization, they are just noise.

I was thinking about proposing how to avoid these pitfalls, but I am foreigner. Not my job.

You can discuss it freely amongst yourselves, however, and I’d guess you would come up with something like:

  • Put an organization in place (let Waldon Bello head it to get rid of the LP stigma).
  • Develop a very simple set of goals. End EJKs and death culture, real sovereignty, more jobs, uplift the nation.
  • Decide on an overarching message (“Defend democracy and the honor of Filipinos”).
  • Develop a troll army to disseminate content that resonates (De Lima’s “Aguirre is a lying bastard” or Bello’s recent comment that supporters of Duterte are either ignorant or crazy).

Those are not proposals, just idea starters. I leave the discussion to you at this point.


265 Responses to “Mocha Uson is not the problem”
  1. methersgate says:

    That makes a lot of sense.

  2. Bill In Oz says:

    Joe, you have hit the bloody big nail right into the wood. Congratulations !

    • Get a monkey typing for a long enough time and he will eventually type something that makes sense. 🙂

      • NHerrera says:

        That monkey has just dug himself a gold mine Joe. And I believe this article will bring forth — as it has already done — gold nuggets galore.

        You hit the mark with the buzz items: Bello, Mocha and a suggestion for a strategy that will resonate with the needful and perhaps cause them to act, given such a strategy is realized.

        Indeed, if instead of “blasting them to smithereens,” one used a strategy for an appeal to sit down and reason, would that have been more effective with IS in Irag /Syria, to resolve the problem there?

      • Bill In Oz says:

        That monkey could takes many, many decades or more.. You’ve got there in 6 months…So clearly it’s more than luck or chance.. Good thinking always helps.

  3. andrewlim8 says:

    You beat me to this topic, Joe, as I was composing in my head a related piece on this subject.

    But my take on her appointment to MTRCB is this: it is a step towards censorship of movies, tv shows, etc that would take critical views of government.

    The recent success of the MMFF, which broadened the film landscape and gave a platform for independent films that did not consider commercial success as the primary goal is a case in point.

    I don’t know if others noticed it, but an underlying theme of the festival, specially the film I watched (Babae sa Septic Tank 2) was subversion. Not in direct form, but in a subtle and philosophical way.

    The MMFF films (both in content and how they were made ) speak of challenging cliches and , conventions. Babae sa Septic Tank 2 for example asks: why keep using theme songs and hugot lines, sunsets and chasing around the park for love stories? why not resort to tried and tested formulas even if the film loses its soul?

    Kabisera dealt with EJKs though not in a confrontational manner. Oro was about mining interests and how power groups throttle the rest of us. It could lead to more films that would even be more critical in the future.

    Why keep eating junk food when you can have delicious and nutritious food, the MMFF is telling us. Why not do something for your soul instead of just consuming content in the usual manner?

    That notion of challenging the status quo could lead the most critical and enlightened of us to ask: why should we accept things the way they are?

    I was actually going to propose in this essay that future MMFF films ought to depict how fake news is made and how it manipulates the masses; a satire on how dogs now have more valuable than humans; a comedic war movie where Filipino soldiers have a difficult time adjusting to Chinese or Soviet weaponry; etc.

    Artists who are true to themselves and have integrity will always use their craft to reflect on the truth. There is a limit to satisfying commercial motives.

    And that is dangerous to the Duterte administration. Their answer: deploy the purveyor of lies and fake news, And censure them before they become a threat.

    • Could be. I don’t watch PH TV much, and think the tele-dramas already distort values. The journalists all pant for drama and don’t really dig. Artists will do art and rebels will be rebels. I think the PH is already a truth wasteland.

    • Interesting points. However, my view seems to be somewhat the opposite.

      From what I see, it seems that the current admin is actually urging the people to speak up. To participate. To step-up. Hence all these moves like the 8888, 911, e-FOI, the recent MMFF etc. Heck, there is even an EO about an Office of Participatory Government which will facilitate citizen empowerment. So if it isn’t already apparent, the current admin seems to be hell-bent on challenging the status quo. And they really seem to want the people to spearhead it with them.

      As said many times before, people need adversity before they’ll step up. So they had been bringing up adversity ever since they got there. And mind you, they are not generating it themselves, but rather, they are just bringing to light these already existing problems. And because of these, people are now on their toes, no?

      Even with regards to these drug problem? I won’t be surprised if community-based rehabilitation will be the buzz in the coming months. And this will probably be the proof of citizen empowerment. This will be my fearless forecast for this year. haha

      As for censorship though? Leaning towards unlikely. Why? As a point of an unconventional reflection, try comparing the previous administrations to the current administration. Which is more transparent? As for a few criteria:

      Where the previous admins less prone to criticism because they were making fewer mistakes or was it because they were just less transparent about these things?

      Now following a similar line of reasoning for the current admin:
      Is the current admin more prone to criticism because they are making more mistakes or is it because they are just more transparent about these things?

      It could actually be both? Hmm…

      • andrewlim8 says:


        1. I will only agree with your point on the FOI if it indeed results in approved requests, not just because its EO was issued. So far most have been denied. And they didn’t even have any private media outlets at all when it was announced!

        2. Re your last point on transparency, the credit does not go to the government, but the nature of the 24/7, internet fueled newsmaking these days. That is very hard to repress on a large scale ala Marcos, but doable if you go “low-intensity conflict” style like cyber-tokhang, shutting down Facebook accts, bullying, etc.

        By the way, how many times have Duterte and Panelo et al tested the waters regarding repressive measures on civil liberties, etc? And don’t tell me Kilusang Pagbabago is citizen empowerment. C’mon.

        We will see. When I get to meet with creatives, I will assess if they are planning to do films and shows that will be critical of the present administration. And then let’s watch what Uson et al will do.

        • That’s why I said I’m only leaning towards unlikely. IMO, the current admin is, first and foremost, pragmatic. So if they can accomplish something easily and the people won’t mind, well, that would be swell. They are only adhocratic second. Still, a feedback mechanism is probably something very important to them as this is actually what keeps them from sinking. So they are now closing the open loops to make feedbacks easier. But if this is for the purpose of easily controlling the flow of information? Can’t really tell for now.

          However, government response time seems to have really increased dramatically. And you really can’t do that without raising transparency and accountability first. Though that is just based on my own account. I’ll let you judge for yourself.

          As for a film criticizing the current admin, that really is a must see. I wonder what would happen? As for Uson et al, they’d probably just scream that there was a total lack of context if their nuances are not addressed. But censored? Probably no. Because for another thing, they don’t censor per se by blacking out info? They seem to just rationalize it. I don’t know if that is better or worse but it does only work on the irrational…

          But as you’ve said, we will see. We are deep in uncharted waters and we really are all in the dark. Not really sure if we are heading towards paradiso or inferno but the ride is surely bumpy as hell.

  4. Vicara says:

    Although I often disagree with his policy views, and am impatient with his recent disparaging remarks regarding Robredo, I ALWAYS would vote for Bello, if only because as a legislator he outclasses pretty much everyone else in terms of intellectual rigor, breadth of vision, commitment to democratic values and depth of political acumen. As demonstrated in his recent think piece:

    A month after Duterte’s election, I heard him at a forum make this sober assessment: the opposition was essentially gutted. In other countries, the answer would be to gather disparate groups into a coalition that would counterbalance the Duterte administration. But could we do this without the endless self-seeking, posturing and re-splintering that has always plagued our politics? (Possibly from pre-Hispanic times?)

    As a citizen volunteer, I would support Bello as head of this coalition. But could he work with Robredo and, say, people with ties to the military? And would they work with him? I mean REALLY work, in terms of pooling resources, taking concrete action, and hammering out a joint agenda that everyone will stick to, despite intimidation from the Duterte machine? If nothing else, the Duterte presidency is driving us to stand up for our most fundamental values, ,and to get past the more petty differences. Principles in action, not principles in the form of anti-Duterte slogans.

    Ironically, such political coalitions do best in a parliamentary form of government. Which Duterte and his Mindanao/Visayas proponents seem to have put on the back burner for now.

    • The forming of a coalition in the PH would be difficult for anyone because of the “100%” syndrome that says “I must be 100% right”, so no one can brook a compromise. But if the masses have been mind conditioned to (erroneously) see LP as the cause of their problems, then it is rather difficult to lead a coalition with LP driving it. Too easy for Mocha et al to sell against.

      • Vicara says:

        It’s more a case of never compromising amor propio (palabas to be preserved at all costs) or one’s slice of the pork pie. (“I must have 100% of all kickbacks.”) But on matters of principle, there is nothing BUT compromise in traditional Philippine politics. I actually wasn’t thinking much of the LP. I don’t think of them at all, if I can help it, having seen hamster colonies that are better than the LP at displaying courage, decency and group loyalty.

        People from their ranks, and their more principled supporters, would most likely join the coalition, but as individuals. And maybe even as new parties. Why not? It’s time to bring in new blood and introduce fresh currents of air into our political system. Change has come. Let’s bring in more, for the better.

  5. Gemino H. Abad says:

    I think the needful, the poorest of the poor, have deep down in their consciousness a sense of honor. Your “idea starters” make great sense! Now, how in the concrete, do we appeal to, affirm by what we say and do, that inborn sense of honor?

    • I for sure think the Duterte Admin has failings in the honor department, and agree with you that most of the needful do have pride and honor, of the good kind. So there seems to me to be a vulnerability.

  6. Cris Tee Em says:

    I’ve always hated seeing FB posts about Uson, even if they are shared by friends and I don’t intend to feed her ego by sharing them further. Your ideas are on spot but what is needed is a cohesive, concerted and deliberate move by all the people whose voices matter led by someone who is “untainted”. VP Robredo always measure and digest her words before speaking, but I think she is in the right track in reaching out to the needy by responding to what would please them most like visibility and empathy. She might lack the necessary resources but she can harness her charm in seeking grants and donations. Could someone from TSM initiate?

    • I can’t tell what damage the current campaign to discredit Vice President Robredo is having. Her satisfaction ratings recently showed decline. The opposition needs a forceful organization because noise enough is not enough to counter such damaging attacks.

      • Bill In Oz says:

        Joe do you remember back in back in December 2015, there was a discussion of Leni Robredo..I remember posting a statement she made then which is relevant now. It began ” Listen to the people…….” But I cannot remember the rest of it..But still it echoes in my memory as important, crucial to the Philippines escaping from the current situation…

        Maybe Karl the Librarian can find it again

  7. So don’t use reason to convince an unreasonable person? That made me chuckle. haha

    But on a serious note though, it is true. Well, partly.

    It’s not that they are unreasonable, but rather, it’s all about the approach. You say that good manners make the ‘needful’ angry? Sorry, but no. As was made apparent by many things happening around the globe, “decent” (Disente) manners make them angry.

    To elaborate on that, if there is anything pushing them away, it is probably the perceived condescending attitude that many people exhibit. Because for many ‘good’ intentions being made, there is always some sort of ‘pailalim na banat’ (passive-aggressive retort) when people with similar stances as yours are airing their points. I’m not sure if people are doing it consciously or unconsciously, but people are really perceiving something. You are then just seen as hypocrites as your only goal is to undermine them. And no, not educate them. Just undermine. This is why these ‘needful’ people are always on the defensive. You’re never seen as someone wanting to help. Rather, you people are only seen as someone only wanting to put them down. Sure you may say that it is otherwise, however, this is probably what is happening.

    Because to be frank, it really isn’t unfounded. Just look at the comments on Mr. Joe’s FB page. Heck, even try to reflect and examine the comments that you are making every now and then. How do you suppose do these ‘needful’ people perceive it?

    But this article has actually pointed out the how. But for the more important question: What about the WHY? If you really want to approach these people and be successful with you intentions, then you have to answer this first.

    And you seem to suggest that we fight fire against fire?

    • I think you have to speak to your audience in terms they understand. So one should speak to the right audience (the entitled are deaf and talking to the elite is talking to oneself), and understand that lecturing people is indeed not going to work. And it is not that the needful are unreasonable, but their reason is couched in context that we have not yet begun to understand. You come closer to it than most.

      • And that is another thing. You don’t have to speak to them if that is the case. If anything, people of your stature have had that privilege for a long time already. What you need to do as of now is to let them do the talking and listen.

        However, please do understand that it was just as of recent that they had learned how to ‘speak’. So when I say that you don’t have to speak, what I mean is that you don’t have to impose your values on them as of now. Give them the floor and have them and yourself understand their stance in its entirety. Because when you say that you don’t fully understand them? Well, even they themselves don’t fully understand it also.

        So from what I can see, try to make yourself as an empty vessel. Tabula rasa for these people.

        Because what you may be criticizing is their stance, as a sum of its parts, as you already have the foresight and wisdom to infer these kinds of things. As for them? They are just seeing a part of it as of present. And just to point it out, this part that they see is actually good by itself. So by dismissing the stance as a whole, you are also dismissing this ‘good’ part, which is what they only currently know, and it isn’t actually entirely wrong.

        And they probably won’t take it lightly also. Like telling a child that their dearly held discovery, by their own effort, is wrong for reasons that they can’t seem to grasp as of now..

        So help them realize it. Don’t force them to change their stance. Be patient. Guide them through it. It’ll take a bit of work, but… Isn’t that really suppose to be the case when it comes to educating people?

        • Huh? Criticiaing their stance? Them being the needful masses? I am not criticizing them at all. In the article, I say that I am not. I am criticizing the elite for failing to speak to them in terms they understand.

          As for deploying a “tabla rasa”, that would be great if the Administration were not filling the needful’s tabla rasa with propaganda that promotes bad thinking and callous, bad values. So it seems to me, if I am reading you right, you are suggesting that the elite just let the Admin have free rein to shape ideas and values, and the elite should just “deal with it”.

          • Do note that the reply was written for people of your stature in mind. As you’ve referred to them: The elite. (I should probably put a note next time when I’m replying with a general audience in mind. Will do next time.) So when you say that you are criticizing the elite for failing to speak in terms that they understand, I really do agree with it wholeheartedly. So for what I elaborated above, I just pointed out how the elite fails to speak to the needful masses because they tend to completely shut down the needful masses’ ‘ supposed entire stance immediately. And that just pushes them [the needful masses] away more as I’ve mentioned in the original reply.

            As for suggesting that we give the admin free rein and that the elite should just deal with it? Well, no. Absolutely not. What I’m trying to say is that the elite should calibrate their responses much more. The elite is supposed to be a beacon of idealism. However, one can’t just go shining their ideals full blast. The target audience has been in the dark for a long time already so you’ll just be blinding them and then they’ll just hiss at you and run away if you’re not careful. So again, calibrate your response. Or in short, be pragmatic also. Concede your points and put aside some of your values for now. Go down from the platform and establish some middle ground first. Give them time to adjust and only then will you be able to correct them. Think of it as one step backward, two steps forward? And to be blunt, If it isn’t still already apparent, preaching from some high ground really doesn’t seem to work.

            Also, as uht said below, the Socratic method seems to be the best course of action. It may take a while and it may be a bit of a hassle, but… That’s the thing with education? No shortcuts?

            We can’t just demonize the opposition. It really just won’t work. (Seems familiar?)

        • karlgarcia says:

          I find your comments to be lecturing and full of suggestions and guidelines.
          I am not saying it is a bad thing,but isn’t it ironic that you suggest not to impose your values to others, but that is how I perceive what you are doing.

          As to Mocha Uson, I am still in the dark, maybe I should grope so, I could feel what I can not see,but nah. Let me see her first initiative to advice the president to be lessen the cussing, if not ask the networks to bleep every invective and rate every presidential appearance rated SPG for language.
          If she can’t do that,then I guess the MTRCB to be abolished,

          • To be honest, that also crossed my mind as I typed those replies. haha

            A bit ironic and hypocritical of me indeed. But it still does seem to make a point. Why? Again, it’s all about the audience.

            Try doing this to the so-called needful and what do you think will happen? If I were to simulate it in my head, I’ll just be seen as an elitist asshole and what I’ve said will be ‘blacklisted’ as sound information. Forever ‘bias’ and ‘bayaran’.

            They then clam up. Nothing new learned. A huge loss and a waste of effort.

            But to you guys? I’m pretty confident that you could take these things on the chin. You’ll probably also examine what I’ve said closely and try to break it into its parts, making use of anything with value while discarding those that do not make any sense.

            Given this, I’d have to acknowledge that what I may be saying here is indeed somewhat raw . Could be wrong, could be right. But still, there is probably something that can be gained? Hmm… That’ll probably depend on the person.

            And I don’t remember if I had already said it before but putting it out: I’m mostly here as this seems to be a place where I can offer and gather perspectives. And you guys really haven’t disappointed still. So there’s also that. 😉

            • karlgarcia says:

              Yeah weather its gold dust, gold nuggets or gold bars, it is valuable.
              Even BS can make lands green again.

          • karlgarcia says:

            But this would be overdoing it.

          • If I’m not mistaken , karl, ip is a college student no?

            I’m assuming he’s just asking questions for the sake of sharpening ideas, and not so much for the preaching. I’m closer to preaching, but as Joe’s stated before i’m preaching a sort of amoral morality… I’m just not a big fan of others “knowing better” especially when it comes to ethics/morals. technical expertise, professional, etc. sure. But when religious folks or censorship boards talk about what others ought to do, usually this is a bad idea. it’s why I’m a libertarian (with a lower case L).

            Let’s give ip a lot of leeway, for one, he backs his ideas, unlike jameboy.

            (sorry, for not commenting back lately, karl, but looks like Joe’s uncuffed me once again, so I’ll be commenting more now, especially with i7 back, LOL!)

            • karlgarcia says:

              Francis is the college student,I guess.

              • karlgarcia says:

                btw, that would be 20 questions vs Pinoy Henyo.( you and sharp)

                Pinoy henyo is the local version of the 20 questions game.
                Pinoy henyo means Pinoy Genius.

  8. uht says:

    I suspect the key thing that needs to be done here is to start shifting the discussion to one based on arguments, rather than emotions. I have opined before that Mocha is not the most challenging of Duterte’s supporters—the honor would go to Thinking Pinoy (do you know him, sir Joe?) In many respects he is an isomer of the Society, if you would—his arguments often start with rationality and references, but he still has many demagogue tendencies, stuff that I do not see here in the Society.

    In any case, I think @intuitiveperceiving above me is correct, we do need a way to oppose them without sounding condescending. And this, I think, probably requires liberal use of a very old technique in philosophy: the Socratic method. Just like in Socrates’ time, a lot of the trolls today are rather sophist in terms of the way they argue, just this time, they are mass-produced.

    And the arguments we need to apply this method to are, like in Socrates’ time, the arguments that matter most not to us, but to the people we are arguing with: things like drugs, Western intervention, the roles that China and Russia should play in our affairs, traffic, corruption and criminality. When everyone is convinced to apply rational thought to our matters, they will be more likely to listen to the issues that matter to us at the moment, like extrajudicial killings and the due process of law.

    It will take a long and difficult process to fight back, but we have the same tools on our side that the trolls have: the Internet. They may be numerous and may be smart tacticians—but so are we, as well. 😀

    • Ah yes. The Socratic method is really one of the best options. But still, it really is all about sincerity. If you really seriously sincerely do want to learn about their stance, you won’t have a problem. Be an innocent inquirer rather than an aggressive attacker and all will be well. Assuming you don’t get background checked and be pre-judged though.

      In addition to this, it is also why I try to avoid tagging them as amoral as many of them are, to be blunt, really sincerely ignorant to some extent. So if you lead them along to develop their own stances, chances are, they will shoot their own foot with time.

      But if I may suggest, rather than go macro, people should actually go micro so that they can avoid cop outs via contextualizing. A topic that comes to mind is the EJKs. But rather than outright condemn that EJKs are totally wrong and ask them to defend themselves and why they supposedly condone it, well, you probably already know their answers to that. So why not just appeal to their nuances and at least learn something new?

      “So you say that EJKs are perpetrated by the drug syndicates themselves and the cops that are killing excessively are scalawags that had previously benefited from the drug trade… Well… Why are they not being investigated then or put under strict supervision? Why are they still on service? Or if what I said was wrong, what is the progress? Why does it seem like nothing is happening?”

      So be very concise and detailed while using context that they also use and understand. Slowly cover all bases and show that you actually understand their stance. And of course, while also avoiding condescension. And with this, just give them the floor and let them talk. Ask them to clarify and keep your own assumptions at bay for now. Chances are, you’ll also learn something yourself while they themselves, also as well.

      And if you feel that you have successfully infiltrated their stance, you can then even destroy it from within, making them ‘convince’ themselves. Manipulative? Well, I’m really sincere of learning about everyone’s stance. It just so happened that one was more reasonable. Heh.

      As for TP, well I actually go to his page every now and then and also PM him about certain things. And mind you, he does reply and he really is hardworking about his ‘advocacy’. However, you really do have to be wary on how you approach him though. As I mentioned above, they really are on the defensive. Probably because of reasons that I’ve stated above.

      And do try to imagine this: He really is a magnet for a lot of people. Especially some of the ‘passionate/fanatical’ people from both sides. That page is pretty much no holds barred. He also has to be wary of keeping his core supporters (The ‘Masa’) engaged. So again, try to imagine this ‘toxicity’ and you are in the middle of it. Every single day. (Same with Sass Sasot?) Well, the end justifies the means. One also needs to keep all the support that he can get. (Which is for the shift to a Federal-Parliamentary government with relaxed FDI restrictions and a dismantling of the drug trade? And PDuts is probably needed for that.)

      But still, he is convinceable nonetheless based on my own experience. Would share a conversation requesting him to post an erratum (which he did) but that would probably be compromising privacy. Mine and TP’s.

      Oh. And if there is another thing, avoid confronting them publicly especially if it is somewhat a gray area. It’ll just become a flaming shitstorm. But if you find yourself as the one being confronted? Defuse the situation first and concede any point that may have caused the confrontation. Establishing middle ground is very important before pulling someone to a higher ground. And if you see yourself as the one on the higher ground, you won’t lose anything if you concede, no? So what’s to be afraid of?

      **[1] This is for people that show some semblance of rationality. For the common ‘masa’, just innocently ask them and let them build it up themselves. Avoid injecting details that they may not understand. They may turn hostile and just clam up. If they do clam up, they will need time to cool down and try again later.

      Well, if you haven’t been tagged as ‘bayaran’ or ‘dilawan’ yet. You’ve been blacklisted. Don’t know what to do about that.

      • uht says:

        Hmmm, I agree in many respects. The primary advantage of using the Socratic method is that it allows an approach based solely on what the opponent knows, but this is also a double-edged sword. If the approach succeeds, the opponent, full well knowing that he was defeated with nothing else other than his argument, may feel that it is condescending; this is what led to Socrates’ death in his time, and this is NOT what we want to pull off here.

        I also agree with the “micro” approach here. A lot of trolls and Duterte supporters I have heard have decided to back the President’s actions wholesale based not on the state of our society as a whole, but on their own experiences. This is like looking at one tree and judging its state as the state of the entire forest. It is critical that people see the forest in light of the trees and vice versa, so we do need to talk about their nuances.

        Thanks for the insight regarding TP—I am still considering how to approach him given his penchant for writing long dialectics about people who oppose him, repeatedly playing red herring cards against them (much like the President himself does against his opponents). He has said before that he does not do this against common people, but I do not want to take any chances (and he might not consider me a “common person” anyway, for reasons I would not like to disclose in public).

        I don’t have a penchant for confrontations, but still, thanks for the insight with dealing with the others, too. I think that we tend to always forget about our own learning journey when we are helping others with theirs. Isn’t the first step of learning about a truth you don’t particularly like always difficult? This IMO has been a persisting problem in society, but now that we have the Internet, it is now out in the open—and we don’t have an idea how to solve it. Most of us probably never thought the problem was that big. But we can solve this. This is very similar to the times in ancient Greece leading up to Socrates’ death, but this time it is played out on a global scale. We need to adapt, and survive.

      • karlgarcia says:

        TP usually sites Manila Times, but this time Manila Times cites TP as the source of the latest oust duterte article.

        • So you’re aware of the whole LeniLeaks thing?

          But damn… Huge shitstorm again indeed.

          It seems that both camps are just afraid of each other’s shadows.

          1.) Some people are calling to unseat Duterte ASAP before they manage to unseat Robredo.
          2.) Some people are calling to unseat Robredo ASAP before they manage to unseat Duterte.

          But still, both sides are probably guilty of these accusations. The only difference is one is rich in money and machinery, while the other is rich in people. As for who is correct? Not really sure.

          The only thing I’m sure of is that both sides are fighting for what they think is ‘right’. But both sides are actually wrong on some things to some extent.

          I’ll just leave you with this excerpt from some article:

          “The presidential election saw two sides utterly immersed in their own perspective, each refusing to acknowledge any validity in the opposing view…. But if we really are living in Nietzsche’s post-truth times, we can’t rest within our own perspective, assured that, in the absence of an objective truth, our truth will do.

          Listening to the other side and taking it into account – seeing the world through as many eyes as possible – is now more important than ever.”


          • karlgarcia says:

            If Lance is amoral, are you apolitical?

            But, I just happened to have read that “Leni leaks”when I read the only broad sheet available at the resto I where I had breakfast.

            What is with this oust conspiracies?

            Randy David even got accused by his former avid fan of being a conspirator, just because he was a recepient of an email.

            Darn! on fb, it is just being tagged, the one being tagged may like it or not.

            • The surreality of social media is bizarre in the extreme. I get added by others to Facebook groups, mostly partisan, and unroll myself relentlessly for the same reason. The actions of others can define me, in the eyes of the superficial and gullible and ignorant. Once a reputation is established it is hard to change, especially when the scurrilous are at work pounding out dirt.

            • Karl, I will neither confirm nor deny that. lol

              But to be honest, I’m not exactly sure. I seem to share much of Lance’s views. The difference being that I try to avoid being overly pushy. haha

              As I advocated above, I prefer a more neutral approach to avoid making people go on the defensive. I see this as more conducive to discussions as it seems to yield more ‘untainted’ perspectives.

              I also do this with both sides as they can’t seem to engage each other directly without resulting to a shouting war, dismissing each other totally.

              So I also try to take it upon myself to bridge the gap by mish-mashing these different views that I’ve gathered, presenting it to both camps, hoping that they could acknowledge some of each other’s points. Albeit somewhat sloppily, I’m really not sure if this has resulted to anything.

              (And since this is out, I hope I won’t end up like Socrates. =| )

              • karlgarcia says:

                Just avoid.

              • karlgarcia says:

                Sherlock Hemlock was the first character that came to
                mind when I learned about Socrates when I was a kid.
                Did you know if his platonic relationship?

              • Didn’t get the reference but reading the comments though, the “I believe I was” seems to be something significant to the Muppets run? Still did not get what to avoid though. Sorry.

                I’m a 90’s kid. Almost millenial, but not quite. And yes, I’m giving away a range for my age. 😉

                As for Socrates’ platonic relationship? Uhm… they were the relationship?


                I think I see what you did there. haha

              • karlgarcia says:

                you are just a bit older than Francis.( the one who still in College)

                Pardon my kakornihan.

          • I think one has to distinguish the supporters from the politician they aupport. I have never seen Vice President Robredo make unwarranted accusations or demonstrate that she is afraid of anything. If there are examples, I’d welcome seeing them. I have seen rude and crude and fly-by-night criticisms, san facts, from the President himself and his closest ‘professional’ staff. I also have been lectured regularly by “yellows” as to the importance of not descending to the level of the trolls, but get endless nonsense from the Duterte army.

            I think one needs to take care not to be unduly balanced when being balanced presents an untrue picture of what is going on. Being balanced becomes a lie.

            • It is probably the perceived silence? People seem to see her statements as formulaic with no supposed backing? But as your other reply above has pointed out: Reputation once established is indeed really hard to change. Not to mention the people surrounding you? Given this, it really is a hard situation.

              In Tagalog, we have a saying for that: “Sala sa init. Sala sa lamig.”
              Translated literally: (“Guilty in heat. Guilty on cold.”)
              Translated to common English saying: “Damned if you do; damned if you don’t.”

              Hmm… But how do you suppose does one overcome it? Is it really impossible?

              As for your last statement, if a certain stance paints an untrue pricture, wouldn’t that mean that it wasn’t even balanced in the first place?

              But when it comes to ‘real’ balance, it does seem to beg the question: If given that a ‘balanced’ state is probably already close to the middle of the spectrum, total gray areas if you will, well, who decides if it is untrue or not?

              (This seems to be something that Lance will ask… Do give me a warning if I’m pushing too much? haha)

              • I find reading your commentary equally unhelpful to that of LCX. It seems a mass of equivocation that lacks conviction, paints no new awareness, and slops paint all over the discussion without even a landscape to show for it. I personally have you in the category of a troll (as is LCX), but editorially find nothing to object to, so readers can take you or leave you on their own.

  9. edgar lores says:

    1. It’s the fifth day of the new year, and Duterte, the fentanyl devil, has dropped a doozy of cow manure. A serial murderer has appointed a serial groper to guard the gates of decency.

    2. My reaction was one of incredulous amusement. How low can we get?

    3. “If they go low, we go… high?” Low? Lower? Sideways? Oblique?

    4. The dilemma of the elite is whether to partially oppose or fully oppose the regime. The current stance is partial opposition: support the good initiatives and criticize the bad.

    5. Is there a red line that will tip opposition to the full level? What will it take for the needful masses to follow suit? Ten thousand deaths? The ascension of Bongbong?

    5.1. For the dictator Marcos, it was one assassination. But even then it took 4 years. And it was ultimately a military solution.

    6. If these were biblical times, we might call on the angels of the Lord to strike the entitled and the needful masses with blindness. But is it much of a punishment to smite the blind with blindness?

    7. What about another military solution (which Bello has rejected)? What about fire and brimstone? The atomic solution?

    8. I believe the needful masses will awaken — eventually. It may not be within the next five and a half years.

    • Juana Pilipinas says:

      1. I understand your frustration. This is another habit that we need to break. We must stop letting a fox guard the henhouse. DPWH to a Villar is another one that sticks in my craw.

      2. Another habit to break: the application of the “Limbo Rock” principles in the selection of foxes.

      8. I am more optimistic in the awakening of the comatose soonish.

    • NHerrera says:


      In the end — considering promises against performance and notwithstanding Presidential Monologues back-dropped by the armed forces and as interpreted or re-interpreted by the Admin Communication Group; the fantasies of Mocha; and the colorful language of the hyper-active trolls — the red line is the gut issue: “it’s the economy, stupid.”

      Pronouncements, fantasies, and colorful language can only do so much; it cannot put food in the gut. Perhaps a Roman-type circus is needed to distract — such as feeding De Lima and Trillanes to the lions, once more.

      • madlanglupa says:

        > Perhaps a Roman-type circus is needed to distract — such as feeding De Lima and Trillanes to the lions, once more.

        Considering today’s events, they’ll be asking for bigger targets, which will give more entertainment value and to satisfy the desire of some asking for revenge.

      • edgar lores says:


        If the red line is the economy, I suspect we will not have another EDSA… unless conditions become as dire as what is happening in Venezuela.

        Of the three causes of upheavals — political, economic, social — I tend to think the first is most likely. EDSA was political. I may very well be wrong and you right, maestro.

        Or there may be no sudden upheaval at all, just a leisurely coasting to damnation.

      • karlgarcia says:

        Well many are still satisfied.
        Few undecides and not satisfied.

        pls do your analysis and interpretation Manong.

        • chemrock says:

          I have said it repeatedly that given the fear environment, no respondent is going to answer YES to a pollster if asked : Do you favour the President Duterte?

          In the run up to the US election, a pollster called Trafalgar Group did some study and they came to the conclusion that if they ask certain segments of the population, especially the women and collegeeducated folks, the question “Who are you going to vote fo?” they are likely to get no answers or wrong answers. The reason being a direct question will draw an erroneous answer. Why? Because people just felt they have made a commitment and commitments are scary because you need to honor it. Secondly, people feel the now open themselves to judgement by the pollster, and that’s uncomfortable. Trafalgar group found that if they ask an indirect question, they are bound to get a more correct answer. So they frame the question differently “Who do you think your neighbour will vote?” which seems to draw the respondents’ real answers.

          2 days before the election, Trafalgar Group made the correct prediction- Trump the winner.

          • karlgarcia says:

            Yes chemrock, I remember that.Thanks.

            If it is worth it🤑, the pollsters may do that. Who will your neighbors vote for a,b c…..

      • NHerrera says:


        If we take away the matter of morality in EJKs, the foreign policy initiatives re China and Russia, and all that; and viewing it as immediate “value” or payoff, as in a game,

        * We have at the rate of 35 deaths by EJKs per day, continued for 6 years a number of 77,000. This applies mostly to the druggies — whether pushers or addicts.

        * But assuming this applies to the mass of 103m Filipinos, this 77,000 which has not yet been reached, but for CONSERVATISM in the arithmetic let us say it has already been reached.

        * This gives a ratio of about 7.5 deaths per 10,000 or roughly 1 death in 1000. Now if one compares that to the deaths that may come from vehicular accidents and other causes, and imputing the positive aspect of less rape-deaths and street crimes being lessened because of the campaign against illegal drug, then there is probably a SUBCONSCIOUS weighing of this by the survey respondents and we may not be surprised by the result. It may also be a case of the subconscious rationalization: it happens to mostly to the bad guys and a few collaterals, but not me — and based on the number above, assuming it applies to all — it is like a 1000 sided die, and only 1 comes out unlucky in a throw of the die.

        * The influence of the social media army of the pro-Admin of course cannot be discounted.

        * This may not be a good explanation of the survey result, karl, but I tried to give a numbers-handle to the matter.


        You almost always have a good way at looking at the whole contents of the basket — in this case: political, economic, social. It makes sense that view of yours. But perhaps after or in conjunction with the gut issue. The politically-minded analyst or initiator may then be heated-up enough to say the red line has been crossed and “sobra na, tama na.”


        You may be right. De Lima and Trillanes may seem like small stock to feed the lions.

        • karlgarcia says:

          Many thanks Manong NH. 👍🏻

        • josephivo says:

          The common argument of all populists is: “It is me or the end of the world”, “My solution or total chaos”. For them it is very important to avoid sensible alternatives. Only my killing can stop crime, there are no other solutions. My killings have some collateral damage in a few innocent victims, but the alternative is the end of the nation. Who cares about the planting of some evidence to make our country great again?

          What about only shooting the knee? What about an arrest and a working judicial system? What about copying working methods of other countries? What about the collateral damage of rogue police man using the killings to extend their turf? What about the enormous depreciation of the value of life? “Children, the end always justifies the means”. “Children, don’t look for smart solutions if some violence can solve the problem”.

          We get lured so easily into their narrow reasoning, A or B. Forgetting that there is a B heavy and a B light, forgetting the smarter C, D, E and F. Forgetting to ask for the arguments, the details: “What do you mean with A, based on what evidence?”, “Can you explain B, what is your risk mitigation plan?”

          No, only the running statistics of the 70,000 deads and the assumption/perception that the overall violence will be down and lasting and no negative side effects.

          • josephivo,

            I read this awhile back, re-reading it now, you kinda realize that the bigger concept isn’t really peace & order, but population control, I fear the Philippines is jumping the gun here, but world leaders I think are definitely pondering this option as serious policy at an int’l scale, how to make the general population stomach it is the trick:

            On Feb. 15, Yellowstone National Park began its annual bison cull, and it’s one of the largest in the park’s history. Through both slaughter and hunting, officials are reducing Yellowstone’s 5,000-animal herd by nearly 1,000. Critics are predictably furious. Close to 135,000 people signed an online petition to stop the cull. The New York Times published an op-ed claiming that politics, not science, drive the yearly event, while the advocacy organization Buffalo Field Campaign told Montana Public Radio there’s “zero reason for any culling whatsoever.”

            Much of the opposition is because the most commonly cited reason for reducing bison numbers — a disease called brucellosis (change that to shabu) — doesn’t hold water. Roughly half the bison in Yellowstone are carriers of brucellosis, and when they wander outside park boundaries they can transmit the disease to domestic cattle, causing cattle to abort their calves. Bison advocates argue that there’s never been a single instance of bison transmitting brucellosis to cattle, and the culls are thus misguided and cruel.


            • It’s hard to justify culling via science and numbers, but this stuff happens in nature (many will say it’s what nature does, period) though I’m talking about stuff like rats and hamsters eat their own to ensure population control,

              lemmings jump off cliffs, etc.

              Has the idea of population control ever been floated in Philippine media? I know I’ve written about the Soylent Green idea here, but that was more voluntary.

              • karlgarcia says:

                I heard soylent green from Irineo and mercedez way before your first comment,but pop control was discussed daily when the Reproductive Health Law was still a bill, the catholics,the absentee law makers were the number one suspects on why it took years to finally pass. Cha,made an article about Legarda and Sotto slashing the contraceptive budget.

              • karlgarcia says:

                Buut if you are saying that the killings are nature’s way of reducing population.
                I might cuss again.But I will keep it to my self.

              • karl,

                I’m not for this of course, but my amoral proclivities, leads me to say, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm if by killing some, you’ll save more (or prevent total annihilation) then we can definitely place this idea under the moral list.

                But the world would have to be in such dire predicament. But see this word “dire” is also subjective.

                My point though, is that maybe DU30 is thinking in terms of population control, and he’s just packaging it up as peace & order. I know they did something similar to street children in Brazil.

              • Strange argument from someone who opposes drones.

              • Joe,

                My opposition with Obama’s drone policy is that he’s keeping it secret, and also that it’s not proportional, militarily speaking (ie. it’s meant to be a scalpel, but used bluntly). Because this power was left unchecked the next Administration can use it willy-nilly.

                Population control to save humanity represents another type of murder. Whether or not it’s moral, I’ll lean both ways for now, so no I’ve not really made an argument. Though a discussion on this I’d very much welcome,

                vis-a-vis DU30’s killing fields though it’s actually urban strategy.

              • The drone program is hardly secret, and the intent is preservation of life. Killing 6,000 innocents (EJK) is hardly proportional, and very few investigations have been undertaken. Thus, highly secret.

              • Joe,

                You’ve just equated both Obama’s drone program and DU30 EJKs perfectly!!!

                If it’s not secret, how much do you know about Obama’s drone program? Where are drones piloted from, how are targets identified, how’s use of deadly force justified, who are the eyes on the ground ordering/confirming these attacks, who does the oversight? How many deaths?

                See, not so open now is it? 😉

              • I just the other day was watching a TV show detailing the vetting list for targets and citing the civilian kills. Also the Aby Sayaf and Taliban leaders killed. The info can be found for inquiring minds. The locations and numbers of drones are of course secret, as any good military man would understand. You don’t tell the enemy where you are, or how many men you have, as you sneak up on him. It will also be interesting to see how your man Trump deals with the program.

              • The drone program kills terrorists. The EJK program kills poor stoned citizens. Amazing to see them equated. That’s the trouble that arises when you adjust the facts to support a conclusion.

              • Joe,

                The point I’m making about where these drones are operating from and where the choosers of targets are, is the disconnect between the person pulling the trigger and the person deciding who needs to be killed… that’s a very important distinction, because all those weddings and funeral gatherings that were bombed during the height of the Obama drones wars were ordered by Afghans (who we trusted), and the trigger pulled half-way a world away.

                Essentially folks living in the stone age, had access to American power, and they used it predictively, Joe!

                “The drone program kills terrorists. The EJK program kills poor stoned citizens.”

                That’s kinda the issue here , Joe, they weren’t. The drones were being used to kill local competition, Hatfields vs. McCoys kinda bs, it took the Obama administration so long to figure it out, since there was no oversight, Title 10/Title 50 of covert stuff being invoked.

                “It will also be interesting to see how your man Trump deals with the program.”

                Flynn and McChrystal were the two generals that went against Obama’s used of drones (Flynn , now nat’l security advisor to Trump, was essentially McChrystal’s number 2). Obama fired the two after this particular disagreement, Flynn was more over Obama/Clinton’s ISIS/Arab Spring strategy.

                But still I would’ve liked the drone program brought to the light, than kept in the dark, Trump or no Trump.

              • chemrock says:

                Lance, terrorists done tell you where they are going to strike. At least we know how Obama looks like, terrorists don’t show their faces. Obama and friends had to spend time and effort to determine who Jihadi John was, whilst those times JJ spent on determining whose throat to slit next.

        • edgar lores says:


          Indeed for many, the red line has been crossed.

  10. Nani Banaticla says:

    They’re really good in psywar. First was the announcement of Aguirre on who’s behind the stabbing of Jayvee Sebastian. Now, it’s the appointment of that woman in MTRCB. So, what’s the trending now in social media at highlighted in the mainstream? Issues on broken promises are now gone.
    I think there’s still a 3rd coming. It’s a 1-2-3 punch.

  11. madlanglupa says:

    By putting her into a position where freedom of expression and the contents of media are determined even by a whim of a single person, it confirms what I was suspecting all along even before he won.

    It means she has political power to even control private broadcasters and their news articles.

    No need to cut out the Internet. No need to burn down something like the Reichstag (but instead a historic building in UP, burning down in flames along with some vital historical records kept by its professors). No need for roaming hooligans in uniform, questioning anyone who is for the party or who is “yellow”.

    Instead, we are now witnessing a creation of what Bello described as a “fascist original”, a grand experiment where even the socialists are asked to participate in a playground also dominated by their traditional enemies, with the blanket goal of this schizophrenic regime to act as peacemaker in the name of “change”.

    • Uson is being given authority by the present administration so she can acquire power and legitimacy. Vis-a-vis the rollout of their communication programs this month – PRD’s app, radio and TV program, this is looking like buttresses are being put in place by appointing a likeminded person in a position of authority.

      TRIVIA: The MTRCB was created under PD 1986 by Marcos.

      • madlanglupa says:

        Yep. History repeats itself. Here comes the impending demise of freedom of expression.

        I bet that she’ll attempt to vet news programs for their content, see if they comply with this administration’s views or else.

        And at the same time her social media work will be seen as having the Malacañang stamp of authority. Yes, I am told now that she is effectively the female Goebbels, though that honor should go to a certain Nic Gabunada.

  12. Francis says:

    On point. A lot of thought bunnies going through my head:

    1. I think that there is too much focus on the emotionalism in the “needful” part of population and that this excessive focus may lead us to miss or forget two things. One–that Filipinos are no less significantly prone to emotional appeal as any other people in the world; demagogues and populists are everywhere. Two–and more importantly: that the “needful” Filipinos are still, in essence, being rational actors. Now–their superstitions, fallacies and instinctual thinking aside–it is key to note that they are operating according to a certain (if flawed) logic given their circumstances. And these circumstances are not just “shallow” circumstances like their current (note: current) state of poverty–but rather the result of “deep” circumstances such as historical and social factors; in particular–the lack of a strong republican tradition rooted in the citizenry, manifesting in the form of all the evils we all are too familiar with: lack of rule of law, dynastic politics, etc.

    I prefer the term “pre-republican” or “pre-national” rather than “needful” in my opinion. Poverty is only part of the answer, a (albeit significant) reinforcing factor rather than a primary cause in my opinion. What is the difference between a Filipino who sees no difference in being silent on EJKs and claiming that democracy is more awesome than ever versus an American whose love for constitution goes to what extraordinary (some might say obsessive and fanatical) extent? One was raised with democratic/liberal/republican values and the sacredness of rights and opportunity and the other was raised to live in a zero-sum world of clans and getting ahead of other clans by putting your pamilya first.

    A close relative of mine comes to mind. This relative of mine is a Filipino success story. Rose from poverty in the province to become a med rep. Work ethic, unquestionable. Personally disciplined, responsible and driven. Used to even run a business, even. Solidly middle class.Yet I’ve seen how this relative of mine’s values clash with that of this relative of mine’s (raised from birth as middle-class) son. The son holds it as intuitive to exactly follow the “proper way of doing things” and the rules and so on. Little things like following the line or following the traffic rules–there is tension.

    Yet, one memorable anecdote comes to mind: the son and this relative of mine went abroad to a major city of first world country and saw one those people with “Free Hugs” signs going around. Their differing responses were very being meaningful. The son had a response that I wasn’t surprised with–he was reasonably suspicious of the guy as a dude who wanted to go chancing or something. This close relative of mine however, had an answer that I won’t be able to forget. This relative of mine’s answer, paraphrased was: “He’ll probably ask for money. There is nothing free in this world.” How zero-sum.

    This relative of mine used to own a business. Used to own a business because this relative of mine quit long ago. Not just because of the sheer difficulty of running a business, but other things. Like being attacked by criminals. Or being harassed by the BIR. Why are Filipinos so irrational and don’t like following the rules? Why do Filipinos put their families ahead above their fellow countrymen in constant zero-sum faction games? Because they’ve never been raised to believe in playing by the rules. Because when they (or at least, those successful enough to afford it) did play by the rules, they got cynical. I agree that Mocha Uson isn’t the problem. Hell, I would even say that Duterte isn’t the problem. Or Sass or TP or Evasco or Andanar.

    The problem that needs solving–if one wants to see a Philippines of Free Filipinos with human rights and a government for and by them–is transforming these clannish “pre-nationals” into citizens, making them love the bansa as much as the bayan.

    2. Given #1, I think it worth echoing the words the Bello, “There is no going back to EDSA.” One shouldn’t overcome Duterte the same way Marcos was overcome. Indeed–I think it is necessary that there should be reflection not only on the merits but also on the flaws of EDSA. EDSA was good. EDSA brought us one of the most vigorous civil societies (what Tocqueville praised when he went to America) in the world; a civil society institutionalized in our very 1987 constitution. This civil society gave momentum for some considerable (i.e. RH Bill, Agrarian Reform, FOI, etc.) reforms. This civil society helped catapult reformers into government itself. EDSA was good for ingraining democracy/liberalism/republican values nationally. Nationally. Like the Democrats were pretty good at LGBT rights and fighting for minority rights. Nationally.

    And like the Democrats, if there is anything that should set apart any attempt to turn back the madness upon us from EDSA, it should a movement centered locally rather than nationally. Because it is true. No amount of Leni Robredo’s words (much less that of a Bishop or whatsoever) could ever ingrain human rights, democracy and freedom in the Filipino people…as much as a school of democracy; a barangay, municipality, city or state with a public actively participating in governance is worth a thousand Lenis.

    The people don’t see democracy now. It’s too hidden in the engines of governance. They don’t see how EDSA made it possible for activists and earnest folk to invade the boardroom and bring about things like FOI. They just see Duterte and his “tough and real talk” and they see that as more concrete than months and years of working within (which again, EDSA made largely possible) the system. But when they see their local courts working for their best interest, local government offices working for their best interest, and clearly see that as arising from their place as free citizens in a democratic local community in a democratic society–they will abandon their old zero-sum logic of clan against clan, for an everyone-wins logic of opportunity for all.

    Build in the barangays. Build in the cities. Build in the (for now, in the future) federal states. As the Bible says: build on stone and not on sand. A lesson in this should be PDP-Laban; it used to look good, back then. Any reformer would (and should) do well to build bailiwicks. It is the current lack of such bailiwicks that make any broad reformist coalition either dissolve into bickering (demonstrating why the Americans opted for a federation and not a confederation) or get easily co-opted by trapos (because they have bailiwicks and ergo the leverage, unlike the poor reformist) eager to take advantage.

    3. If freedom was all subservient and worth less compared to this thing they called “disiplina” then why do so many professional white collar South Koreans want to go to America?

    The best argument for democracy I’ve seen ever. Proof that money doesn’t buy everything.

    • i7sharp says:

      Thanks, Francis.

      For “deeper knowledge,” let me add chemrock’s
      “I wish every barangay is filled with Holy Halleluyah in 2017”
      to Cohen’s
      “the figure of the man [Jesus] has touched me.”
      to your
      Build in the barangays. Build in the cities. Build in the (for now, in the future) federal states. As the Bible says: build on stone …

      How about “baranganize” (from the word barangay) to connote building, promoting, nursing something.
      (The opposite, if you will, of “balkanize” … which connotes destroying, tama ba?)

      Francis, aside from mentioning the Bible, you mentioned of “freedom” two times.
      I would like to bring these two up:
      1. “filled with the Holy Ghost” – mentioned 8 times in the Bible (AKJB).
      2. “… the truth shall make you free” – John 8:32

      Speaking of free, may I recommend the use of a free software about which one can learn here?:
      Think of “av” as “authorized version” of the Bible.
      I use the software a lot. No, I am not part of the group that created or promotes it.


      • i7sharp says:

        is from more than two years ago.
        Joe wrote:
        … Your idea to link the barangays is FANTASTIC. Exactly the kind of thing that could be done for superior disaster preparedness and recovery, or lessons on civic responsibility and health care, or preparing for elections. So simple. So seemingly undoable hereabouts. …

        Now that Mrs. Leni Robredo is now VP, perhaps it is worth discussing again?



        • karlgarcia says:

          Just to update you, as of right now The VP was removed from her cabinet position.
          But we could talk about it, I invite to read my article about the barangay. You can comment there and I will look for it.

          • karlgarcia says:

            The link to my article, I asked you to take a look at.


            • i7sharp says:



              I had saved a copy of your article (to a place I will tell you about later hehehe) when it had only 7 comments yet – before they grew to 129.

              Re-reading those 7 comments, I found something interesting … because it is personally interesting to you.

              Looking for more info about that interesting place, I came to this:
              (I created this shortcut to it just now)

              It seems I last updated it in 2012 (before Yahoo! Groups suddenly changed to their “neo” format which screwed up the formatting). I will try to make at least some cosmetic changes to it and it should look better by tomorrow – or about 24 hours.

              I will continue reading your article and hope to be able to soon give another feedback (that is more related to the current article – Mocha Uson).


      • karlgarcia says:

        opposite, if you will, of “balkanize” … which connotes destroying, tama ba?)-i7sharp

        When you balcanize, you fix a flat tire, how can that connote destroying?

        • i7sharp says:


          I was thinking of this:

          and here’s the definition I had in mind:
          … (often lowercase) to divide (groups, areas, etc.)
          into contending and usually ineffectual factions:
          a movement to balkanize minority voters.

          In my mind, “baranganized” places would be
          fitly joined together – Ephesians 4:16
          fitly framed together – Ephesians 2:21
          perfectfly joined together – 1 Corinthians 1:10

          “From whom the whole body fitly joined together
          and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,
          according to the effectual working
          in the measure of every part,
          maketh increase of the body
          unto the edifying of itself in love.”


    • If my article creates thought bunnies, yours generates jumpin’ jack rabbits, and I thank you for that. I use ‘needful’ to distinguish from needy, which is pejorative. Needful is not meant to be. We are all needful, but the citizens who voice support for the EJK campaign seem to have some kind of needs that warrant understanding if the elite hope to speak clearly to them. “Pre-national” is not judgmental except that it presumes people are on a developmental path rather than a regressive one. I think the entitled are doing all they can do to regress, for their personal benefit.

      To some extent, you bounce of your own ideas, clarifying, recognizing the polar opposition, correcting, and bouncing off that. So I actually think you see the complexities better than most.

      I agree democracy has little relevance to most people, either here or increasingly in the US. A relentless “build” strategy at the local level is actually the path the Aquino Admin, with Roxas as DILG Sec, was on, and I agree it is an excellent approach. I don’t think the Admin’s federalism proposal is meant to do that, however. It is meant to seal local areas off from national so they can reign and plunder at will without interference from people with malicious ideas like human rights.

      • i7sharp says:

        Joe/TSH wrote:
        … It is meant to seal local areas off from national

        Perhaps this could be of some relevance?: (a relatively large PDF file)
        Singsing Vol. 2 No. 2

        “Around 1909-1910, he [Luther Parker] conceived of the idea of each municipality in the archipelago compiling its own local history, and he took that scheme to James A. Robertson, then head of the Philippine Library. Robertson liked the project and convinced Governor W. Cameron Forbes to issue an executive order enacting Parker’s plan.”

        About Luther Parker:
        …. He arrived in the Philippines in 1901 and served in the Bureau of Education for twenty-five years in different capacities, the last 7 years as division superintendent of schools.


        • I have so missed you , i7sharp!

          I’m still not clicking on all these abbreviated links, I know not what they are, but I will click on the actual links, ie. .gov’s and .com’s etc.

          But know that i pay attention to all your posts, my eccentric KJV-loving friend!

          I think you’re what Ted Nelson has envisioned all this time, WordPress does not do your thoughts justice, but IMHO some sort of 3-D graphic rendering of your thoughts would be a sight to see indeed, but that technology is not yet upon us,

          though you are here and all is well, if Ireneo and Wil have taught me tons about Filipino culture, you i7sharp have taught me how to think in all sorts of tangents, 4-D to 5 to 6-Dimensional thinking.

          You embody concurrently these two seemingly opposing thoughts:

          “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”


          “If at first you don’t succeed, Try, try, try again.”

          I see you,

  13. Below is an article that is pertinent to the subject matter we are trying to dissect here. The mention of the DAMned Alliance (Duterte, Arroyo and Marcos) as the real force to oppose has a resounding ring to it. I also like Mila Aguilar’s line of attack:

    “What we have to do is to break the Duterte binary narrative making the Yellows the enemy of the people, thereby deflecting ire from his own person and deeds. Because in truth they are not. He is, and his DAMned Alliance is. THEY – the Duterte-Arroyo-Marcos axis – represent the epitome of greed and impunity, no one else.

    That is “the way to rally people, regardless of the color of their banner, against this brutal false savior.””

    • madlanglupa says:

      I can only imagine the goose-step of marching soldiers, their boots making a loud sound on the street. But we have yet to tell if they are loyal to the President or they’re prepared to remove him from office.

  14. “The needful are not a rational bunch, in the main, but an emotional bunch, and I suspect that endless appeals to conscience, to sense, and to principles miss the mark.”


    Although I totally agree that you guys need to start addressing and listening to the masses (listening to figure out what works to move them this way or that way, ie. the way Trump studied how to move the Right during the election… if you’re keeping up with US news, my readings of Trump have been consistent thus far 😉 ), ie. clouds vs. ground debate,

    we of course part ways with Mocha Uson and MTCRB. You already know how I feel about censorship, which essentially is the purpose of MTCRB in the Philippines.

    Now I can understand Vice (criminal matters, ie. porn, prostitution, massage, etc.) But MTCRB is more about censoring forms of expressions, ie. art, films, music, etc. not really Vice but more the idea of what Virtue should be… therein is where I take issue.

    Granted we (in the US) did have a very powerful censorship regime , which was related to the rise of Prohibition in the early 1900s. Then the 60-70s changed all that stuff, granting more artistic license; then came Pres. Clinton, his cigar and dress stains in the 90s… and now on cable TV Trump’s full quote of “grab them by the pu**y” can be uttered over and over again, since you can now say words like ‘pu**y’ on cable TV (it’s been normalize).

    I totally appreciate that this is a spectrum, or a pendulum if you will, and we in the West have swung to one end, while say folks in the Middle East (Muslims) or Utah (Mormons) or Iowa (Evangelicals) have swung the opposite end.

    I know the Philippines is a Catholic country, with seemingly conservative values, but as far as imposing Virtue on to society, where exactly does MTCRB fall in this spectrum, are they like the Hai’a (or Mutaw’een) in the Muslim world, or are their powers limited at best.

    Because if their powers are limited to powers of suggestion, makes one wonder what exactly is the useful purpose of the MTCRB, right? If your argument is that the MTCRB is a serious gov’t body and must be sustained, then yeah I’d agree that Mocha Uson is the wrong person for this job,

    the best person being the most prude and saintly (yet moralizing) person the Philippines has to offer.

    But, Joe, if we both agree, that the essence of the MTCRB is ludicrous, even harming to society (the ratings I’m fine with, it’s essentially public service announcements, this movie’s good for watching with kids, this one’s not so good 😉 like “Game of Thrones” or the 1st episode of “the OA”, LOL!), then

    Mocha Uson is the best person to head this gov’t office, base on her background she’d be the least prude and moralizing person for the job, which means less censorship, not more— in my estimation , Joe.

    I don’t agree that she belongs to group 1 (the entitled), though I agree with your groups 1-3, but from my experience group 1 tend to be the high borns (to use another “Game of Thrones” expression), Uson is not. And from my quick Wiki’ing of her, her parents, Uson is more amongst the elites (group 2), only her views on ethics and morals will differ (group 2 shouldn’t be homogenous, it’s not) , I assure you most in this elite/educated class, have visited ‘buy-me-drinkie’ bars, many losing their virginity to girls from these establishments (if guys), if girls, many participating in the money for sex industry over there themselves (which we know Mocha Uson has, probably still will).

    Which means Mocho Uson would be presentative of the values held by younger Filipino elites,

    so by virtue of her loose morals and shared values, she then would be the best person for heading the MTCRB, correct? If DU30 took the MTCRB as a serious bureaucracy, he’d appoint a serious person (someone God-fearing, yet also one who enjoys shoving his/her morals down people’s throats), DU30 obviously thinks lowly of the MTCRB, hence Mocha Uson.

    My last Socratic question here is,

    is the MTCRB really that important to the Philippines? karl gets all my “Game of Thrones” references thus far, so obviously the MTCRB isn’t doing it’s job, no? Or is it that karl is missing all the good parts of “Game of Thrones”. if karl is missing all the good parts, then the MTCRB is doing more harm than I thought !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pls. tell me you’re seeing all the good parts of GoT, karl. 😉 If not, I’m sure you’ll find ways to pirate copies (from Badjaos no less, LOL!)…

    So based on this little circular thought experiment, I’m sure karl would then be happy to have Mocha Uson heading the MTCRB.

    edgar, can you re-check my reasoning here, and see if it adds up. Thanks.

    Group 3, I would liken to robots in HBO’s new “Westworld” , there for the pleasure of Groups 1 & 2,

    • In the US, broadcasters use public airwaves and the FCC has guidelines for content which broadcast operators interpret to properly balance ‘moral’ content, artistic expression, and commercial interests. I worked with the Broadcast Standards Department at CBS for my MA thesis and have an appreciation both of the good intentions of the FCC (banning sex and language at a time when young people might be watching unsupervised) and the challenges of implementing them. So we do not agree. Standards have a role, in my opinion. At CBS, the people holding the position were educated in the field, had worked in it, and understood the principles behind ‘censorship’ guidelines. I don’t think Mocha Uson has the educational or experiential background to properly do the oversight job in an ‘elegant’ way, but maybe she will learn OJT. I am more concerned with the decisions that flow forth than her character.

      • “At CBS, the people holding the position were educated in the field, had worked in it, and understood the principles behind ‘censorship’ guidelines.”

        CBS is still pretty family friendly, ABC/Disney used to be , but the shows they’re coming up with now, these days, i’m surprised they’ve been able to show ’em primetime.

        But I’m curious what field of education these guys study, and how these guys come to understand this stuff, these “principles”… because as I’ve stated, these “principles” were different at the turn of the century America, it was different in the 50s, and different today.

        How do these guys study this, and be able to say that they possess “the educational or experiential background to properly do the oversight job in an ‘elegant’ way” , and what’s the ‘elegant’ way of doing this? Writing little disclaimers after movies reminding Group 3 that crime doesn’t pay? Whilst there’s crime all around perpetrated by Groups 1 & 2?!!!

        Do you study Psychology, Anthropology, Philosophy, Ethics? Or does going to church a lot qualify by itself? What in Mocha Uson’s educational/experiential background tells us she’s not qualified? if we do some predictive analysis, based on her background, won’t she be against censorship? Isn’t that a good thing?

        Does the Philippines need more, or need less, censorship? To quote Hamlet:

        re Mocha Uson, that is the question, Joe.

        • Hey, Joe, that last comment went thru w/out the moderation warning, does this mean I’m off moderation mode now? 😉

            • Joe, you haven’t given a reason for this latest moderation stint… I understand my questioning became a bit repetitive, but there was a reason for that, ie. uht & ip’s Socratic method, and I did expose a lack of personal stories.

              So I think it depends on you, Joe, I will continue to ask probing questions. I ‘ll stop when you say times up, but my way is to ask pointed questions. Just like i7’s is to keep posting abbreviated links and getting all cryptic.

              Every time you’ve asked me to let it go, i’ve always done so, no? My “elegance” may differ from your “elegance” but I’ve always been respectful of people here and of your powers to censor.

              • i7sharp says:

                … Just like i7’s is to keep posting abbreviated links and getting all cryptic.

                Am not taking sides.

                Please give an example of what you mean by “cryptic.”


              • Perhaps this could be of some relevance?:
       (a relatively large PDF file)
                Singsing Vol. 2 No. 2

                I have no idea if that abbreviated link will lead me to some Chinese website!

              • i7sharp says:

                I have no idea if that abbreviated link will lead me to some Chinese website!

                Lance (may I call you Lance for short?),

                Doesn’t context give you an idea?
                Didn’t the context of the shortcut indicate it is not Chinese?
                I try to make my shortcuts …umm, … short.
                Guess what shortcut I would use for “Singsing Vol. 4 No. 1?
                Perhaps ?
                – Guess what you would get if you replace 41 with 51?

                I hope this helps.

                Nice to see you again, by way … Lance.

              • Lance is fine, i7… we’ve been this road re abbreviating links before, let’s move on to KJV stuff, of course you gotta connect it to Mocha and/or censorship and communicating to Group 3 in the Philippines (so as not to invite fire and brimstone from Joe 😉 ).

              • The socratic method is used for teaching. You have a tendency to use it for advocacy to the point of badgering or sly disparagement of your discussion adversary. The purpose of the blog is to teach and learn. I’d suggest you refine your teachnique to teach rather than win the argument and all will be better off.

              • Joe,

                I can’t help how other people feel when I’m done chewing up their opinions or ideas or worldview. I’m not intending to make it personal, though some points have to be personalized, in order to make the point, but if you noticed after each round, we (me and karl, me and edgar, me and chemp, me and i7, etc.) dust ourselves up and continue on, karl cussed me out in Tagalog , forchrissakes, LOL! sure the heat and passion is in the moment, but we all continue on… maybe you’re focused too much on the friction generated, that you’re failing to see the camp fire ?

                But I promise when you say it’s closing time, I’ll pay my tab and leave w/out damage… then come back for another round the next day. But I am learning tons here, Joe.

              • My goal is to run a blog that diminishes personal angst in favor of teaching, learning, and having good intellectual humor. People who are out to win and prove their exceptionality are trolls. They are playing games. Their value set is different. It is up to me to discern who is in and who is out, to keep the conversation genuine. It is sometimes not easy. You often make it hard. But it is my blog, not yours, and I’ll continue to strive for wholesome, genuine dialogue.

        • I don’t have their resumes. Many universities have journalism, broadcast, and film schools that study appropriate subjects. Little censorship is done these days. Most is the discipline sponsors apply by leaving an offensive show. I don’t find Uson to be a particularly deep thinker. Who knows what she’ll do? I suspect there are a lot of capable people ‘cheated’ out of a decent job opportunity, but, as I say in the article, I’m not focused on Uson at all.

          • “Most is the discipline sponsors apply by leaving an offensive show. “

            EXACTLY, Joe!!! Censorship boards are obsolete, I don’t know when you did your work with CBS, was it local CBS or the national CBS channel? But times have changed, I seriously doubt they have censorship boards any longer,

            TV and film these days are so focus on pleasing sponsors and viewers, that they’ll cater to them , instead of playing the “I know best” game.

            So Mocha Uson IMHO represents a nail in a coffin of this old idea, this notion that others know better , and some how trained to be more ethical or moral, and can dictate what decency is, based on their “education” and “training”.

            “but, as I say in the article, I’m not focused on Uson at all.”

            I know you’re not focused on Mocha Uson at all, and I’m simply piggy backing on yours and ip’s conversation above on how to better talk to Group 3 , and pointing out that this whole notion of “I know better”, ie. “because of my experience and background”, this type of thinking is the very definition of “elitist”, and is also a big part of the problem.

            I know this comes as second nature to Filipinos with college degrees , who tend to think themselves automatically superior to heavy machine operators, carpenters, mechanics, etc. over there.

            Over here, that notion of the farmer and pioneer, fur trapper, is still respected, I know maybe in Silicon Valley and /or Hollywood where these values may be forgotten, but in the rest of the US, it’s still very much part and parcel.

            Fix that concept of elite first, then move on to how to better communicate with the masses, IMHO.

            • “If she can’t do that,then I guess the MTRCB to be abolished,”


              Mocha Uson’s appointment is MTCRB’s abolishment, her very appointment render’s MTCRB’s mission now moot, unless she becomes some sort of religious fanatic and starts banning shows and movies outright… which base on reading her background is very unlikely.

              That she won’t be censoring anything, IMHO is the point of her appointment.

              Mocha is essentially Trump’s Omarosa:

              • karlgarcia says:

              • i7sharp says:

                Mocha is essentially Trump’s Omarosa:

                Lance, my two cents:
                I tend to agree with Joe’s
                … I suspect there are a lot of capable people ‘cheated’ out of a decent job opportunity …
                with which I tend to agree as of now – after having read more (albeit not very much) about Mocha here and elsewhere. I did not know anything about Mocha until I saw her name here.

                I read about Omarosa just now:
                … I have to say that they underestimate the power of God’s ability to transform a person’s life.”[48]

                Lance, what do you know about Mocha’s beliefs or religious practices – vis-a-vis Omarosa’s?


              • karlgarcia says:

                Sharp, it says here that she is an open minded Catholic. What ever that means.


              • ” I did not know anything about Mocha until I saw her name here.”

                Same here, i7sharp! Though I remember Ireneo mentioning her a lot vis-a-vis DU30.

                “Lance, what do you know about Mocha’s beliefs or religious practices – vis-a-vis Omarosa’s?”

                I really know nothing more about her, man. Except that her dad was assassinated, which I suspect had something to do with shabu, hence her support of DU30. If he was hotter I’d probably google more pics of her, alas she’s not. 😦

                Like Joe suggested, I don’t really think this Mocha Uson’s life is worth my time Googling, i’d rather look up stuff like induction cooking via solar panel energy stored in these new batteries they’re coming up with.

                My point was simply to question the worth of gov’t agencies like MTCRB, and censorship in general. On the side, I questioned edgar’s label of “immorality” on her, same as our ground vs. clouds argument (which I think you weren’t here for?).

                When someone’s throwing around the word “immorality”, usually the notion of someone more moral surfaces, when we get into the who’s more moral game, which tends to be within the purview of say religious fanatics and televangelists… hence my suspicions of this practice in general… though I can appreciate edgar’s philosophical bent here.

                But when people use the term “immoral” it usually isn’t about ethics, but Us vs. Them, we’re good, they’re not bs. Which almost invariably open the doors to more violence.

                Though I know what a moral person ought to be , I have yet to see one in a position of power, especially in the third world, moral types tend to shy away. So I’m a skeptic, but edgar seems to believe these individuals exist in positions of power in the Philippines,

                but I guess what I’m focusing on here is MTCRB, and it’s purpose in the Philippines, if it has none, does it matter really if someone like Mocha Uson or Mother Theresa run it? If we agree that MTCRB’s purpose is to censor, then someone the likes of Mother Theresa would probably wield the powers of censorship more irresponsibly, than someone who’s “immoral”, right? too moral + power = more censorship , not less.

                Hence not too moral is the perfect formula when it comes to censorship boards.

            • You are right about the networks getting out of the censorship business. Still, there are ratings boards and the FCC and lots and lots of lawyers.

              My engagement was at the national studios in Los Angeles, on Fairfax near Farmer’s Market.

            • It is difficult for the elite to become non-elite because they cannot undo their knowledge, which is the primary reason for a different set of values. However, they can decide to understand the needful better, stop judging, and start tending to their needs better.

    • edgar lores says:


      That woman:

      1. does not belong to the elite.
      2. does not belong to the MTRCB.

      As far as the reasoning goes on her effect on MTRCB, I suspect you are right. And so is Andrew.

      • edgar,

        1. What’s the definition of the elite in the Philippines? If Walden Bello can represent one side of this spectrum, why can’t Mocha Uson? Won’t her direct exposure/experience to the night industry of the Philippines allow her a deeper insight than say Walden Bello and VP Robredo combined? Didn’t Mocha Uson graduate from one of the fancy universities there? Her mom was a doctor; her dad a judge assassinated (I’m assuming here by drug dealers?) hence maybe her staunch support of DU30.

        She’s not high born, she doesn’t have the last name that gets her things in the Philippines, hence I don’t think she belongs to the entitled class, DU30 would be part of that entitled class by way of his governor father (ie. he tasted power early in life, and as such treated Group 3 according to tradition, like the robots of HBO’s “Westworld”).

        Mocha is not Group 3 either, having had a judge and doctor for parents;

        but I suspect she learned of Group 3 working the night industry of Manila. Precisely because she wasn’t Group 3 , she was able to rise above her predicament (otherwise it’ll eat you up alive), maybe via her UST education, values from her parents, or the lessons she learned from the night industry (the school of hardknocks), or some self worth—– so although you might not recognize her morals, they are morals nonetheless, edgar , which means she fits into Group 2… just not the same old same old Group 2 type that’s been around for generations,

        I think Mocha represents Group 2 type that’s had personal study in the night industry of the Philippines, one that can play Group 1 and Group 2 deftly. Ironically, it’s the Group 2 that you guys have been searching for, but don’t seem to recognize its value. 😉

        (just an aside, this is what I saw in the Philippines… Group 1 and Group 2 treating Group 3 like animals, but if you’ve spent closing time say in EDSA Entertainment complex; clubs in Angeles; clubs in Cebu, there’s usually a bunch of street kids, through out the day these street kids usually get yelled at or kicked, but the ones I’ve seen consistently give money to these kids at night were sex-workers from bars or houses … there’s a sense that we’re in this same shitty predicament together, I’ve earned some of this, I’ll share… that IMHO is the value that Mocha would ‘ve learned on the streets; not in some fancy university there, or here.)

        2. As for MTCRB,

        “Government propaganda will be available in radio and TV soon, starring PRD. “ — jp

        jp just wrote that below, which I’m now confuse about;

        Are we equating MTCRB as some propaganda mechanism? or is MTCRB plainly a censoring regime for TV, radio and film there? Though I can see censorship as a kind of propaganda, ie. the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Iran, the way I understand the MTCRB there is that they simply judge in-coming films, radio shows, TV shows, as presented, they don’t get to add, only subtract (with maybe a quick note at the end of movies reminding Filipinos that crime doesn’t pay, LOL!)

        Like Trump’s Omarosa , are we assuming here that Mocha will turn her MTCRB into an Office of Public Liaison? If so, then that picture of Omarosa I posted above is more apt than I realized, LOL!… But realistically though, I think the Philippines, like in the US, is used to the concept of censorship being eroded , not strengthened, so I foresee the MTCRB losing its influence not gaining.

        As for Mocha’s appointment, whether or not she belongs there… edgar, if my reading of her is correct that she represents a new type of Group 2, then she belongs perfectly, just like Gina Lopez in DENR; and Briones in Education, they have direct knowledge, personal experience; If the MTCRB is tasked to censor entertainment and societal values for the nation, then someone who’s worked the night industry and entertainment industry of Manila is the perfect candidate, not some guy with a PhD in Ethics, with no on the ground experience.

        • edgar lores says:


          1. Within context, I am using JoeAm’s definition of “elite”.

          2. The rule for me is: A purveyor of immorality can never be a guardian of public morality.

          2.1. Kindly research the extent of that woman’s activities to discern her “immorality.” I am not only referring to her sexual entertainment proclivities. If you do not agree these activities are immoral — or that certain standards must be upheld — then our minds will never meet.

          • edgar,

            1. But Joe’s entitled class are the high borns, correct? Those who act with impunity because of their names and status? Maybe within Group 2, Joe needs to break it up further? Group 2a, 2b and 2c?

            2. Are we talking about just sexual stuff, or has she done EJKs herself, or eaten babies? If simply sexual stuff, then we already know my stance, ie. de Lima, assuming she video taped herself and/or was accomplice to it, and that she wasn’t blackmailed, sex stuff is simply human nature.

            Again, my assumption here is that those who go around saying they are moral are most certainly not, ie. Televangelists, the Hai’a in Saudi Arabia, etc. with skeletons in the closet, like de Lima , so the fact the Mocha’s skeletons are already there for all to see , all we need is to see how she will

            perform (again results based), but unless you have more than just the sex stuff, I personally don’t see her as “immoral”, at least no less or no more than others in positions of power over there.

            • The entitled are not high borns, necessarily. They are within the circle of power and favor.

              Edgar has said it is not about sex. It is about honesty and sincerity, I think. Fake news and attempts to damage others, for personal gain, represent the ‘immorality’ in my own value standards.

              As Edgar has said, if you don’t share these values, then there is no way to find agreement, so why push it? Agree that your standards accept fake news and attempts to damage innocent people and move on. This is a case where you are pushing an argument that need not be pushed.

              • “Fake news and attempts to damage others, for personal gain, represent the ‘immorality’ in my own value standards.”

                Fake news is also a problem here, Joe.

                I’ve seen good intentioned people share fake news, so unless Mocha herself was generating fake news, with the sole intention of libel/slander sure, it’s an immoral act; but libel/slander in the age anonymity is on par with internet values, unless someone’s actually getting physically hurt, I’m on the fence; like your discussion with caliphman re Grace Poe, you too have done damage to others, maybe unintentional and w/out personal gain, but this business of writing opinions (blogs)

                have unintended consequences, I’m sure I’m guilty of this too, though I doubt I have fans waiting for me to comment. Remember every time you point a finger, 3 fingers are pointing back at you, maybe 4 if you’re thumb’s really flexible. But you guys are in fact at war , yeah sure war of words, war of opinions, but war nonetheless,

                My point here is simply, that labeling people “immoral” (aside from philosophical discussions) is part of war, you’re essentially making someone else’s value less in the eyes of others. Hence my eating babies comment inserted above.

                You’re right and yeah I’m not gonna pursue this any further, I don’t really care about Mocha Uson, just that censorship is not good (MTCRB) and labeling folks “immoral” is ironically , immoral (Mocha Uson).

              • Everyone is a moralist. Some work to build, and others to tear down. Mocha Uson tears down good people, and if you won’t take our word for it, and don’t care to look it up yourself to confirm, yet challenge our view, what is the purpose of the discussion? Censorship standards usually define what the community considers acceptable, considering that there are young people in the audience, or what community (religious) values say is good for the community, and pose no problem most of the time. So I don’t see how the act of assuring content meets community standards (‘censorshipo’) can be considered bad. It is no different than highway speed limits being agreed community standards to make life safe, in the eyes of those accountable for that safety. To say that Uson’s manipulatios are okay because censorship is bad seems to be stretching arguments in ways that I can’t comprehend.

              • “Censorship standards usually define what the community considers acceptable, considering that there are young people in the audience, or what community (religious) values say is good for the community, and pose no problem most of the time. “

                When I think censorship, I ‘m thinking of book burning, religious intolerance and violence towards the “other”, and forced ignorance, ie. North Korea. I’m totally cool with Parental Guidance, Joe.

                Sure if it’s dictated by the community, it’s cool, but more often than not, it’s dictated by the few on the many, or by the powerful upon the weak. Hence, bad.

              • I’d have to see research that confirms your last line. I don’t see it that way.

              • Afterthought. Propaganda is essentially censorship in that facts are replaced with an assertive bleep that recasts those facts in support of a given objective. Mocha Uson is a censor of the most diabolical intent and method. The powerful controlling the gullible.

              • “Mocha Uson is a censor of the most diabolical intent and method.”

                Now you’ve piqued my interest , Joe!!!

                How is she doing this, and why hasn’t your elites done it? What’s Mocha’s methods? If it’s simply showing her bulaklak with every blog or news she shares, then that’s not so diabolical, it’s called being a woman, LOL!!!

                But seriously, what are her methods, why can this Med school drop out gone EDSA Entertainment Complex run circles around the “The educated elite who believe in the principles of democracy, laws, and human rights. “ We should be studying her methods, not whether or not she’s immoral and unqualified (the fact that she was able to insert herself in the game, means she is 😉 )

              • Morality is always worth discussing. It is wrong to be saying it is wrong to discuss it. The elite are not doing what she is doing, which is easy to understand, because they agree with you and Boom B. that we should not do evil to correct evil.

              • I’m not saying it’s wrong to discuss. I’m saying rendering someone as “immoral” is wrong. Now from an Ethics point, it is interesting. But we both know especially in the Philippines how the word “immoral” gets thrown around, it’s usually with a sneer. That is what I disagree with, Joe, because that sneer usually justifies other more heinous acts.

                Discussing Ethics I’m totally a big fan of, I can go on and on about it. 😉

              • You are arguing in circles again, ever adjusting, twisting arguments, putting words in other people’s mouths, pushing evermore for information that you could gather yourself. Please gather it and write an article that says something that makes sense. p.s. When you say rendering someone as immoral is wrong, you are rendering someone as immoral. lol

              • edgar lores says:

                That’s begging the question: Why is it wrong (or immoral) to use the word immoral?

              • “The elite are not doing what she is doing, which is easy to understand, because they agree with you and Boom B. that we should not do evil to correct evil.”

                Let’s dissect what exactly she is doing then, Joe!

                An , I’m sure she is not, Joe. Let’s examine her messaging and find out ways to counter them. Figure out where your elites are failing, isn’t that the point of your article? Sneering at her, will do no one any good.

                What exactly is she doing, and how is she doing it?

              • “When you say rendering someone as immoral is wrong, you are rendering someone as immoral. lol”


                But I’m not the one espousing morality here. 😉

              • edgar lores says:


              • Right. Which is why I put you back in the moderation bucket. Amoral wisdom is not wisdom. It is convenience, expedience. The PH has quite enough of the stuff already.

              • edgar,

                It’s not just the word immoral, it’s rending a person less or unworthy, or god forbid, “not like us”. The same way those Filipina house wives who go to mass often, yet sneer at their servants and husband’s prostitutes, the poor. they essentially are rendering them immoral.

              • edgar lores says:

                The error in that thinking is comparing the immoral person with one’s self.

                This error lies in the presumption that one is making a subjective judgment and not an objective one.

                Start with the definition: “Immoral” means “not morally good or right.

                And “morals” are the “principles we follow that help us know the difference between right and wrong.”

                So when I render judgment and say that a person is immoral, I am not comparing that person to myself. I am comparing him against those principles that are generally accepted as moral.

                Therefore, I am not saying that I am a better person than the person whom I have adjudged. I am saying this person has breached the moral code and is, therefore, morally wrong.

                What is wrong with saying that Duterte is immoral? Nothing.

                The moral code we use in his case is the Constitution.

              • edgar,

                You’re arguing Ethics here (which I’ve already said, I can appreciate) and I’m arguing

                how the label “immoral” gets translated by regular people on the ground, ie. baby eaters, less than human, depraved , slut, homo, etc. etc. That’s what I’m calling immoral.

                The Scarlet Letter -type scenario is my concern , which I believe is the same game being played by the other side, no? …. So,

                2 Wrongs don’t make a right is my point, edgar. Consistent with boom’s and Ireneo’s points below, if read in that light I’m sure you’d agree with what I’m saying here,

              • edgar lores says:

                So what is the difference between ethics and morality?

                Practically, there is no difference. The first is just the philosophy of the second. And the second is just a specific code of the first.

                Basically, we are talking of standards of right and wrong.

                You are using a subjective interpretation of morality. You seem to be only concerned with political correctness. You have not addressed the dictionary definition of morality. Nor have you addressed the need for standards.

                If one does not dare to use the word “immoral,” the implication is that one does not have standards of right and wrong.

                Do you think Duterte is immoral or not?

              • “You are using a subjective interpretation of morality.”

                That’s sort of the amoral stance, edgar— that all this is indeed subjective.

                “You seem to be only concerned with political correctness.”

                No, political correctness is when you cussed (in English , not Tagalog 😉 ) me out for simply posing a What if … re Bangladeshi bank heist. Because it was ‘racist’?

                “You have not addressed the dictionary definition of morality.”

                Again my point isn’t to talk Ethics, though we can… but we’d just be re-hashing our clouds vs. group debate.

                “Nor have you addressed the need for standards.”

                Hows about NOT speaking ill of others? That’s a standard right?

                “Do you think Duterte is immoral or not?”

                He’s neither.

                Again, re our clouds vs. ground debate, I’m not in the habit of going around calling people like karl or Joe, or ip, or sonny or jp, Ireneo, or you, “immoral” . Or people I know in real life, much less public figures I don’t know in a personal capacity. if you notice, I tend to judge actions and results.

                Is DU30 immoral, or Hitler? Is like saying Mother Theresa and Pres. Obama immoral? It’s a moot point, because there’ll be people that will say yes and no for each of these people.

                Hitler was a vegetarian forchrissakes! If you’re asthmatic you’d probably think DU30’s anti-smoking stance is very moral. If you judge on how many orphans Mother Theresa actually got college trained, you’d probably conclude she was immoral, ie. created more poor people. Same with Pres. Obama, either moral or immoral, you’ll have both.

                Many think the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral, I look at the result, it saved thousands of American lives. The standards you speak of isn’t black and white, edgar… though you insist they are.

                Televangelists, religious fanatics, can play this game. I’d rather look at results and specific actions, and steer clear away from labeling people immoral, because more than not, edgar, this conscious act of rendering others less than you, or Evil (that’s another word of immorality is it not, edgar?) tends to do more harm than good.

                That’s the historical perspective there I’m sure you’d agree with, but it’s also based on personal experience, mine.

                Hence my call to dissect Mocha Uson’s (and others of her ilk) methods. Let’s talk actions and results. Bring it back down to something we can chew on, away from abstract concepts.

                Joe’s mentioned sharing fakes news and attacking competition, are there other acts that Mocha Uson is guilty of? You said her sexxxiness wasn’t it, what else are we talking about immorality here? Has she slapped around or kicked street children? It’s very easy to throw a blanket statement like she’s immoral, and he’s moral, but w/out a list of specific actions and results, very difficult to get a full estimation of one’s character.

                So let’s dissect her methods and compare them to Ireneo’s list below… that’s probably the most moral thing to do here 😉

              • edgar lores says:


                Duterte, 6K deaths. Not immoral.

                Hitler, 6M Jewish deaths. Not immoral.


                There is no use talking with someone with no standards.

            • edgar lores says:


              1. No, elite is more high-mind than high-born: “The educated elite who believe in the principles of democracy, laws, and human rights. A few legislators belong to this group, as does Vice President Robredo. Interestingly enough, so does arch-leftist Waldon Bello.

              2. Kindly research what other things that woman does. Until you cure your ignorance, your opinion will be in question.

              • “your opinion will be in question.”


                2. Not necessarily, remember I’m the amoral guy here; I’m a fan of immoral acts that produce moral results, ie. A-bombs in Japan, ie. less of us had to die, etc. etc. So to me an immoral person can totally produce moral results, so no I don’t have to get into the nitty-gritty of Mocha’s life (though I concede my ignorance, so unless you want to post specifics 😉 for discussion… ) , my point is that immorality and morality is more a circle, ie. at the end of something immoral can easily be something moral, and my view is in the middle, amoral.

        • madlanglupa says:

          > Are we equating MTCRB as some propaganda mechanism? or is MTCRB plainly a censoring regime for TV, radio and film there?

          In 1985, through PD 1986, Marcos originally created the agency as a successor to earlier offices. The original PD included provisions for which to deal with content that is inimical to government and/or public interests and morals, such as depiction of crime or anti-government content.

      • Based on Joe’s category, Mocha Uson is part of the entitled class. Her labors in being a Duterte warrior had won her a seat with the entitled ruling class. Her appointment to the MTRCB formally cemented her membership to that class.

        • edgar lores says:

          Indeed. Goes to Irineo’s question: How do you teach some people…?

          • Juana Pilipinas says:

            Filipinos need role models as teachers.

            The entitled class has the capacity and capability to be more reflective of their personal narratives and be change agents. They can strive to discharge their duties in a professional manner. They have the ability to question their motives in pursuing public service and must have the honor to change career if their goals do not coincide with the commonweal. If they want to be rich, they need to seek employment in lucrative businesses. I assign the bulk of the responsibility of role modeling to the entitled class because the Filipino culture gives a lot of credence to those in position of authority. If someone could change the negative cultural narrative fast, it is this class. (I hear you – when pigs fly, right?)

            It can happen if the elite and the masa stand united in taking the entitled to the task of governing effectively and efficiently. They need to change the narrative that they are at the mercy of the entitled to “we pay your salaries and you need listen to what we need and want.” The entitled can only lord over the elite and the masa if THEY let them. The two classes need to come together to empower each other and check those running the government. It does not need to be an opposition. It does not need to oust the entitled. It only need to make the entitled do the duties and responsibilities attached to the positions that they sought. (I hear you – easier said than done, right ? But IT CAN BE DONE)

            Your turn…

            • edgar lores says:

              Juana, I believe you and Irineo are right.

              The central notion of democracy is equality. This means the entitled should not feel entitled, the elite should not feel superior, and the masses should not feel inferior.

              In PNoy we had the perfect role model with his paradigms of “you are my boss” and “no wang-wang mentality.”

              This model of selfless service would have continued with Mar… but not with Binay or Poe.

              The tragedy of the people is that the notion of true equality has not passed the threshold of their consciousness. This is true of the entitled and the needful masses. Ironically, it is only the elite who appreciate the notion of equality.

              So we are back to an atavist who declares and shows in no uncertain terms that “I am the boss.”

              The roots of inequality are entrenched so deeply in our hierarchical and patriarchal society. You see it in the honorifics of “kuya” and “ate”, in the roles of the sexes, and in the master/slave relationships in the households, in society and in politics.

              • “you are my boss” – there are columnists who wrote that saying this was Pnoys biggest mistake, given the Filipino mentality. Of course they excoriated (c) Joe him.

                Isn’t that was a boss does in the Philippines, push those who serve him around, punyeta?

                But somehow, certain Asian cultures which also have hierarchic aspects manage to get efficient democracies running: Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, even Indonesia and Malaysia to some extent. So what exactly are they doing right that Filipinos are not?

              • edgar lores says:

                There is a multiplicity of factors to explain the social cohesion and inhibition present in those other Asian countries.

                o Japan – a royal family; an organic religion; ancestor worship; a period of internal war that fostered discipline and respect; a culture of arts and beauty; a culture that respects knowledge to produce Nobel Prize winners in science and literature; a culture of innovation and manufacturing that produces world-class cars, TVs, game consoles, smartphones, cameras and watches; a culture of honor that commits seppuku; and four seasons.

                o South Korea – a history of royalty; a culture of arts and beauty; a culture that respects knowledge to be the largest spender in R&D per GDP; a culture of innovation and manufacturing that produces world class cars, TVs, white goods, and smartphones; one Nobel Prize winner in Peace; an ever-present external enemy; a culture of seppuku, mostly for the elderly who do not wish to be a burden; and four seasons. Massive and continuing military support from the US.

                o Singapore – Lee Kuan Yew

                o Taiwan – a history of martial law imposed by Chiang Kai Chek that lasted for 38 years and, while repressive, introduced political stability and economic growth; an ever-present external enemy; a culture of innovation and manufacturing and high technology; one Nobel Prize laureate in Chemistry. Massive and continuing military support from the US.

                o Philippines – no royalty; imported religions that are not truly practiced; a history of martial law that resulted in a debt-ridden country; a culture of little arts and beauty; a culture of little innovation and little manufacturing; a culture of consumerism; a culture that does not respect knowledge and accepts lies as truths; many ever-present internal enemies; a culture of no social inhibitions that makes social media comments such as “ma-rape ka sana!” and “adik ka? papatayin ka!”; a culture of violence that strikes outward rather than inward; no Nobel Prize winners; a hot and wet season.

              • “a culture of little arts and beauty; a culture of little innovation and little manufacturing; a culture of consumerism” the culture of consumerism killed whatever native arts and ingenuity were there, as finished goods were seen as more “modern”.. if one looks at the arrested development of native handicrafts, or boatmaking which regressed during colonial times… my take on this:

                “a culture that does not respect knowledge and accepts lies as truths;” education used to be respected I think even up to the 1950s, but at some point it became important just to get a degree in order to earn more money and buy consumer goods – that again.

                “a culture of no social inhibitions” – I wonder how it developed to be that way, as the traditional culture DID emphasize respect and deference. But even in the 1970s some though courtesy is only for lower-ranking people, discourtesy a sign of being important.

              • edgar lores says:

                On the first, I agree with your article that we are fast in adopting foreign gadgets and trends but poor in planning and maintenance. I believe, as an IT professional, we are poor in design as well.

                On the last, I was going to say the advent of social media made us lose our inhibitions. Well, it certainly exacerbated it, but the roots may be found in the bomba comics and films prior to martial law. They became rife during martial law — to distract the populace?

            • NHerrera says:

              edgar, Juana, Irineo:

              Enlightening thread here; thanks.

    • karlgarcia says:

      Emilia Clarke did not use body doubles last year. hehe
      I am excited for the penultimate season.
      The ending is still being written, maybe Danny will reign supreme.

      • Melisandre turning into an old hag, ruined it all for me, karl. It was her that I looked forward to watching GoT!

        • karlgarcia says:

          Just rubbing it in.

          • NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That was worst than any abbreviated links i7sharp could have ever shared, karl. You’ve crossed a line, my friend. 😉

            • karlgarcia says:

              Speaking of crossing lines, I hope you cross the finish line fast in most of your arguments that aint going anywhere.

              You said you do not agree with agreeing to disagree, maybe that is the problem.

              You said your intention is to probe, but you used expose in the same sentence, not the same difference bro.

              Just my humble suggestion. We live, we learn.

  15. gerverg1885 says:

    It could be that most of the commenters on this blog are hopeless believers about the news re this administration’s 98% approval rating but I know that it was part of the propaganda that his team envisioned long before the election results became official and they were sure that Duterte will win. They very well knew the effect of the continued lies on the minds of most people who does not bother to read or hear news as they were being told by honest writers and newscasters.

    I talk to “needful” people about the current happenings and I always hear from most of them in the provinces and even in the remotest of barangays that they simply do not want this ongoing killing spree and the endless promises that remain unfulfilled and the lies upon lies that this leader spews out from his dirty mouth.

    I could relate to them easily because I belong to this breed who do not have access to social media and are only relying on what they hear from the radio and TV.

    • “I could relate to them easily because I belong to this breed who do not have access to social media and are only relying on what they hear from the radio and TV.”

      The days of this breed are numbered. Government propaganda will be available in radio and TV soon, starring PRD. When that happen, would this segment of the society “eat up” what the present administration will be serving?

    • madlanglupa says:

      Unfortunately, smartphones and data packages are becoming accessible even in the provinces (save for the most remote rural areas), and young generations are having it, which means what they cannot obtain from (limited) TV and radio, they’re getting more content through the phone… and worse, Facebook is accessible for free as a news source.

      The Empire Strikes Back, 30 years later.

      • It is sad but you are right. I am appalled that for some Filipinos, Facebook is their only news source as observed by the author of the article below.

        The PH opposition need to gather white hat volunteers to eclipse the social media trolls and post truthful/real news on Facebook. I think that is more feasible in reaching and informing the masa.

        • karlgarcia says:

          FB groups account like Silent no More get suspended for some reason.

          That guy who petitioned (i forgot what about, was it about Mocha?) something to the Fb admin got his account suspended instead.

          In mycase, I only comment political stuff here because in fb, my inlaws,some relatives,friends and aquaintances are hardline pro admin.

          I also sometimes post political opinions in The “secret” group where some TSH commenters converge.

          • i7sharp says:


            By “secret” group, do you mean a Facebook Group whose Privacy Setting is set to “Secret” instead of “Closed” or “Public”?

            I am not implying I want to be “in.” I am just curious because I am thinking of using FB Groups in addition to Yahoo! Groups.

            By the way, I was able to make cosmetic changes to the simple Mulanay site
            I had referred to yesterday. It is your dad’s hometown, right?
            In the site you can click on a link to Quezon province.

            I wonder if Mocha would be interested in such sites, as Mulanay’s – to, say, police them if things in them get awry. I don’t know the limit of her responsibility or jurisdiction.


            • karlgarcia says:

              Yeah, secret privacy settings.
              I will click on it later because I know it wont lead me to a chinese website. 😜

              • LOL! Don’t do it, karl!

              • i7sharp says:

                Perhaps Mulan

                can entice you to click on this now?:

              • i7sharp says:

                Are you there, Mulan?

                If she does not show up, don’t worry. I won’t force her.
                I will have to brush up on using HTML here.

              • Be strong, karl. Don’t. Do. it.

              • i7sharp says:


                Your recent responses (to me) make me wonder:
                1. What or Who is LCpl_X?
                2. How much, if any, does he care about the welfare of Filipinos?

                Let me stop at two.
                Feel free to ask about me (regarding the Philippines).

                btw, can you relate these two?:


              • i7sharp,

                “What or Who is LCpl_X?”

                I ask myself that every day. 😉

                “How much, if any, does he care about the welfare of Filipinos?”

                I guess as much as Joe, minus retirement and family connections. Which means I’m more concerned about how American policies are being interpreted over there. I have no skin in the game, nor dog in the fight, so I have the luxury of being more objective than Joe here.

                As for welfare, it’s the same care I have for Syrians, Egyptians, Indonesians, etc. specifically, but if you’ve tracked my writings here, my thrust has always been humanity as a whole. Similar to edgar, but without the moral underpinnings, hence my amoral bent tend to oppose edgar’s worldview.

                My worldview tend to mesh with Ireneo’s more than anyone here.

                And unless you link the full addresses, instead of abbreviating them, no I will not click on them, sorry.

                I think your views of the Philippines is historically represented by millenarian groups that have always been around over there, i7sharp. You would be consistent with folks I met there inserting sacred stones amulets into their skins, praying to sacred clothing with Latin inscriptions, super natural stuff… how you translate the magical/super-natural into the digital realm

                is personally very interesting to me. For that I thank you, i7sharp.

              • Just link the original url , so I can see the website and weigh if it’s legit (ie. a newspaper, youtube, or blog, etc.) , give us a chance to discern whether or not your linked url’s are worthy of clicking. But as it stands, as personally (by you) abbreviated urls, I’m not clicking. And hope karl won’t either, LOL! 😉 Don’t do it, karl!

              • i7sharp says:


                I am listening.

                Please feel free to keep going … until, I hope, you feel like addressing these:

                After that, I will try to relate the two to the “needful” masses which I posit are found in all 42,036 barangays including Forbes Park, Bel-Air, etc.



              • karlgarcia says:

                Sharp try posting the jpg link, and not the google search results link. I learned that from Chemrock and Lance.

          • sonny says:

            Nephew, this may or may not be off-track. My good friend in our high-rise building comes from Mulanay. Sometimes we talk animatedly about Mulanay: in his college days, his classmates used to eagerly wait to go for summer with him to Mulanay because the trip to from Mulanay was an adventure by itself, e.g. they would get off their bus at Lucena then take a boat ride to Mulanay. Repeat the same mode going home back to Manila. My friend also said from Mulanay one could see the islands of Romblon. As one vacations in Mulanay there are places of intense interest to be found in the municipality. He also said Sec Aguirre comes from Mulanay and that the Secretary is in FB network of my neighbor.


            • karlgarcia says:

              I was amazed on how clean the river is.
              Yeah sec Aguirre, did not mention him when sharp posted that Mulanay link because I am quite avoiding talking about him,I have said many things against him and he is supposed to be a friend of my dad and uncle; and he got me out of trouble once.
              Good thing he plans to run for congress or whatever in the mid-term elections, but I am not holding my breath on who will replace him in the DOJ.

              By the way,I mentioned before that my late aunt was based in Chicago, She went there at the same time you migrated to the US, but in the 70s,she was already Chicago based.

              She was Catholic probably you crossed paths.I already asked you about them before, but it was a needle in a haystack type of question.

              • sonny says:

                Neph, if your aunt left a family in Chicago, I can trace them since there are many common friends and acquaintances in Chicagoland. You can email me through “tito” JoeAm or me anytime. The Law class of Sec Aguirre & Sec Tugade & PDu30 are a few years junior to my batch (HS) who took Law (Yr 1967) in San Beda. Growing up my family had connections via close almost-relatives from Infanta & Sariaya, and now friends from Tiaong, Pitogo & Mulanay. 🙂 I’m still hopeful the good senses of Aguirre, Tugade and Dominguez will prevail together with others among the friendlies and the opposition.

              • karlgarcia says:

                I have your email addy before through Irineo. I will look for it and email you.

              • sonny says:

                Sounds good, Karl.

              • sonny says:

                Neph, just got your em. If my reply does not display at your Inbox, do a search on my addy. Pls confirm if your Inbox displays my addy.

              • karlgarcia says:

                Got it. TY very much,Unc.

            • i7sharp says:

              As one vacations in Mulanay there are places of intense interest to be found in the municipality.
              Sonny, I do not doubt that … and I respectfully submit that this is the case in all of
              18 regions,
              81 provinces,
              144 cities,
              1,490 municipalties, and
              42,036 barangays.

              What I have recently discovered about my own hometown is … ummm,
              Perhaps 20i7 will be a banner year for Bacolor, Pampanga!
              She has her own Shakespeare:
              (Note to LCpl_X: “fbc” = Facebook Crissot”)


              • i7sharp says:

                Make that
                145 cities
                1,489 municipalities.

                “The only thing permanent is change.”
                Totoy Bato?


          • Juana Pilipinas says:

            Sounds like the gestapo is tracking FB groups suspected to be an opposition group. Tinutokhang ang mga groups. 🙂

  16. boom buencamino says:

    Be careful not to become evil yourself when you fight evil

  17. To convince the target audience of the needful, one has to engage – indirectly or directly – the malicious stuff that the other side is spreading implicitly or directly, which I have identified as:

    1. Human rights, democracy etc. are simply “Western hypocrisy”. Easy to tell to poor Filipinos who have never lived in the West, or working class OFWs in Southeast Asia or the Middle East, yes even working class OFWs in Italy or Spain who aren’t that high on the social food chain.

    2. Human rights, democracy etc. are “un-Filipino ideas”. The right thing for Filipinos is to OBEY – SOMONOD KAYO is what the Duterte manifesto says. Western liberal ideas area for spoiled, entitled konyos, rich kids who might be taking drugs. Similar to some Marcosian ideology.

    3. The elite as defined by Joe are the enemy, as they are “not real Filipinos”. While the entitled are, in fact they are the rightful ruling class while the elite are proxies of “Western colonialism”. The Philippines will be “free” when it is free of the elite, and the entitled rule over the needful.

    Defuse these three assumptions and you have already half-won. Only, how can it be done?

    • Exactly, Ireneo!!!

      1. I can totally picture some poor farmer in Mindanao, asking American missionaries, int’l aid “workers” , but can we eat “human rights”, “democracy”, these darn “morals”???? LOL!

      2. I’d add that they are un-American ideas as well (at least in practice), Ireneo, remember slavery, the Indian Wars, which extended to the Philippines , it requires a certain level of comfort to be able to talk about these things as constants, and not as blips in time.

      3. I think Joe’s (and edgar) pretty much idealized the elite according to their own views of morals, principles , etc. I personally think Mocha Uson, belongs to this “elite”, the same way Nur Misuari/Salemat belonged, whilst the traditional ‘datus’ in Mindanao watched idly by—– maybe I’m seeing Philippine elite and entitled class wrong, but I’m glad you’ve confirmed my views, man.

      “The Philippines will be “free” when it is free of the elite, and the entitled rule over the needful.”

      It remains to be seen whether or not Mocha Uson will or can do this, but so far we’ve seen she can talk to the masses and they respond. Whether she’s an evil genius or her ears are simply open , she’s doing something many aren’t.

      • chemrock says:

        “…so far we’ve seen she can talk to the masses and they respond.”

        Lance, you are dead wrong here. Yes, she has a sizeable following on her FB and you are equating that to the massa. She talks only to those who came to listen to what they want to hear, that’s all.

        • chemp, Like I said I’m not familiar with her,

          so I’m kinda equating her popularity to DU30’s, and DU30’s confidence in her as his rep, means she’s got some clout . But the fact that since even the campaign period you guys (Ireneo mostly and Joe talked about her, some others here I’m sure) you guys were paying attention to her til now and her shenanigans means to me she’s communicating (getting her message out there), I just assumed her popularity meant she was communicating with the masses, maybe you’re right, maybe she’s just communicating with the “elite”, and the “elite” responds to her, hence the popularity.

          Like i7sharp, I have no idea who this Mocha is, chemp, but you guys (the “elites”, both Filipino and non) seem to respond to her. I’ll defer to your reading that she’s not so popular among the masses, you’re closer to the ground than I am. But DU30 is, correct?

    • Perfect statement of the facts, as promoted by the current Admin.

    • josephivo says:

      As per definition you cannot convince the needed by arguments. Other means will have to be used: Celebrities to convey you message, fear mongering, appeal on superstitions, pictures-songs-movies-satire… Ask Putin, he certainly has more tricks in his sleeves.

  18. gerverg1885 says:

    This army of trolls thinks it will eventually bring the needful to their level and win on their turf but anger and hatred and other such negative emotions do not last long because each individual’s main goal in life is joy and peace.

    So I am telling friends and relatives that:

    Angry people are sad people
    Hateful people are sad people
    Vengeful people are sad people
    Unforgiving people are sad people
    Impatient people are sad people
    Ungrateful people are sad people
    Lying people are sad people
    Envious people are sad people

    And nobody could be joyful and peaceful while in a constant state of anger, hatred, revenge, unforgiveness, impatience, ungratefulness, lies and envy.

  19. NHerrera says:


    To the Russians: “Be our protector.”


    – There goes independent foreign policy.
    – Protector against what?
    – Against China for encroaching on Philippine economic zone?
    – Against the US for supposedly fomenting a Coup?
    – Against the Filipinos for later rising up in protest: “sobra na, tama na.”
    – Pathetic.

  20. For some background on the ‘LeniLeaks’ to the other guys here, it pretty much started with this:

    Basically, prominent pro-Duterte supporters have stumbled upon the yahoo groups of the Global Filipino Diaspora Council (GFDC). This is headed by Loida Nicolas-Lewis, a prominent LP supporter. Surprisingly, all their discussions were originally set to public so people pretty much had open access to ALL their discussions. It has been fixed as of recent, but archives of some of the messages still exist.

    This pretty much generated buzz because their conversations about coordinating different pro-Robredo communities to prop her image up, while also calling for a discrediting of the other camps was made public as well. Not to mention that people from the Office of the Vice-President (OVP) were mainly involved.

    In addition to this, there is even an email calling for the resignation of Duterte. Though that was old news already as Loida never did hide this, it, of course, didn’t fail to generate more buzz. Dunning–Kruger effect and all that.


    For my take on it, this is an excerpt from something I’ve written with regards to another topic: Trump’s win.

    { Do you know why the ‘decent’ candidates lose? Here are some random points that I can think of:

    – Because they don’t let them become viable candidates. *cough* Sanders *cough*

    – Those that do get to become a candidate usually carry very heavy political baggage given by previous activities and connections.

    – No matter if they say that they mean well, the people can’t seem to just ignore these kinds of things anymore.

    – Given the political baggage, they could’ve reduced the weight by simply addressing it. You know, acknowledging it, laying all the cards on the table, and then telling the people what they’ll do about it? However, probably not gonna happen as they seem to think that it will be detrimental as well. Or if they do, probably was too late.

    – But the things with that is: This actually just makes the political baggage all the more heavier. Inaction just makes the contents of the baggage seem all the much worse as it’ll continue to fester underneath. }

    So if anything, what probably needs to be done is to just address it? No pretensions and just own it up? If she doesn’t have anything to hide, what’s to lose? This pretty much continues to blow up because of the continued silence from their camp and it just makes all the rumors grow all the much bigger. **

    So rather than ignore these things, she really does need to speak up against these issues. However, she really must avoid all the motherhood statements or other formulaic replies. In addition to that, she really should consider the nuances of these people and understand where they are coming from. (In short, with empathy. As was already discussed on another reply above.)

    Addressing this with a “carefully” prepared one-time press con will unlikely be able to solve much. As is probably obvious, there will surely be some resistance towards her answers. It is to be expected. So given that, what is probably needed is a continuous dialogue between both camps.

    As long as none will do that, the people will forever be stuck in a cycle of attack and defend.

    **To humor also some of the pro-Duterte’s logic, they seem to perceive a media blackout with regards to the issue. No word yet on any prominent mainstream media entities about it as of recent. One that seems to get some huge flak is Rappler. Other than the established prejudice against them from these people, it was made worse after they covered the Mocha-BBM check issue and the suspension of some anti-Duterte entities on FB, all within 24 hours. This also happened just a few days ago [Jan, 4-5, 2017].

    Note that the TP’s article was published on the morning of Jan 6, 2017. Was actually browsing the groups as well before it was taken down later that evening.

    • By “she” you mean Loida Nicolas-Lewis? I know Vice President Robredo has flatly denied any involvement with ouster plans. Of course, she does not have social media pounding her messages across the Philippines, so one has to follow her on social media to know. I think it is dangerous to make presumptions so easily about people. One tends to join the gullible by promoting like thinking, that we should act on suspicions rather than confirmed facts.

      How wild it is when everyone is making real conclusions in a world of mistruths, lies, and social media buzz. This is certain to promote angers and bad deeds and bad decisions. And bad policy. I think it is wiser to search for knowledge rather than bow to the winds and whims of the dirt throwers.

      • Who do I mean by ‘she’? Uhm… Applicable to both?

        Dangerous to make presumptions so easily about people? True indeed. But as from what is probably already apparent, a lot of people will still do anyways.

        Gullible by promoting thinking that we should act on suspicions rather than confirmed facts? Given the prior, waiting for the suspicions to become confirmed fact could become a problem if not assessed properly. Dismiss a small spark and it could grow to become an uncontrollable wildfire with all these kindling.

        How wild it is when everyone is making real conclusions in a world of mistruths, lies, and social media buzz? Well, the other side also seems to share your view. But it is their side making the real conclusions — in a world of mistruths, lies, and social media buzz.

        It is wiser to search for knowledge rather than bow to the winds and whims of the dirt thrower? Well, is there no knowledge to be gained by bowing to the winds and whims of the dirt thrower?

        Lastly, chalk it up to political baggage.

        • karlgarcia says:

          Yeah, if you do not bow low enough,you will have mud on your face, a big disgrace……

          • Kickin’ your can all over the place… Singin’… We will rock you!

            • Do your circular reasoning and fence sitting help you come to a conclusion? Intuition and Perception, is that what you value most? Both words connote “sensing,” in our native language, “haka-haka.” Are you really interested in truth and knowledge or are you here to stir the pot?

              • jp,

                There’s a corollary to the Dunning-Kruger effect that ip mentioned above, I don’t know if there’s a name for it, maybe the Kruger-Dunning effect? But ip seems to exhibit the opposite of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which IMHO is good, eventually he’ll have to pull the trigger, not necessarily here in the commentaries, but in the real world, in the Philippines.

                At least allow him to weigh all aspects now, and don’t denigrate him for it.

                ip, you’re on the right track, buddy, just remember this:

              • i7sharp says:

                Not meaning any disrespect of Gen. Patton but …
                “A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied 10 minutes later.”???

                A good solution would be a “band-aid” compared to a far more lasting (nay, permanent) perfect solution.

                Anyway, I just want to share, fwiw, what I came across a few days ago:
                You see I had been reading Arthur Herman’s “Douglas MacArthur: American Warrior” and this quotation got kind of etched in my mind:
                “It seems inevitable that the Empire and the Republic are destined to meet in Asia”
                I will leave it up to the reader to take time to read the context.

                For now, I just want to say that I noticed that Mocha Uson’s facebook page
                features a quotation of Proverbs 31:8-9 from the NIV (New International Verson).
                From what I have observed, Sen. Pacquiao (still) also uses the NIV.
                I pray he will soon see the light regarding the corruptions in the NIV.
                No offense meant, but I can clarify what I said if necessary.

                by the way, …
                Ronald Reagan used the AKJB only, afaik.
                “… Gen. Douglas MacArthur was King James bible fan.”

                Worth nothing, IMO:
                The first three occurrences of “Bible” in the aforementioned book say

                1. “… to take nothing except his .45 pistol, his dog tags, and a small Bible….”
                2. “… Then he picked up his mother’s Bible, read a chapter or two, and prayed.”
                3. “Mine eyes have seen MacArthur with a Bible on his knee.”


              • “A good solution would be a “band-aid” compared to a far more lasting (nay, permanent) perfect solution.”

                It depends how much time you have, i7sharp. The underlying factor here is time, if you have that luxury you can do pretty much anything perfect or permanent. 😉

                “It seems inevitable that the Empire and the Republic are destined to meet in Asia”

                Are you familiar with this guy?

                “Ellis believed that US acquiescence to Japan’s South Pacific Mandate, which allowed Japan to occupy islands that had previously been controlled by Germany, would enable Japan to operate behind a defensive screen to expand its territory and influence without being observed. Convinced that this course would eventually lead to war between Japan and the United States,

                Ellis determined to carry out intelligence gathering activities to obtain details on Japan’s activities.

                On April 9, 1921, Ellis submitted a pro forma request to the Commandant to conduct a clandestine reconnaissance mission to the Central Pacific to examine the Marshall and Caroline Islands. His requested indicated that he expected to travel as a civilian and to provide an undated resignation that would enable the Marine Corps to deny knowledge of his actions if necessary.”


                “… Gen. Douglas MacArthur was King James bible fan.”

                Well you and sonny have already discussed why the KJV is sub-par compared to newer iterations of the Bible (that took the new discoveries of the Greek NT in account in the 1800s), but I do agree with you that the KJV reads more like Shakespeare , I always feel like I’m reading something important when there’s “thy”s and “thou”s 😉

              • i7sharp says:

                No, Lance, I am not familiar with [Earl Hancock] Ellis. But I read about him just now in Wikipedia: “… depression and alcoholism …”

                Well you and sonny have already discussed why the KJV is sub-par compared to newer iterations of the Bible

                Sorry, Lance, Sonny, I don’t quite remember that.
                “new discoveries of the Greek NT in account in the 1800s” must be about Westcott and Hort’s 1881:
                (James White, one of the best known critics of the KJV is mentioned near the beginning of the article.)

                But watch James White (no relation to King James, I think) make a fool of himself on his “understanding” of a three-letter word: “ado


              • “… depression and alcoholism …”

                It’s tradition.

              • sonny says:

                (WordPress went down before this reply could be loaded; I wrote this before Lance’s reply)

                JP, comment lang, your avatar matches your reply. 🙂 The shoe fits me, i.e. i do a lot of circular reasoning & fence-sitting; sometimes they help to a decision. Of course the goodness or badness of the decision is a whole different issue altogether… tra la la

              • @Manong sonny

                I can respect circular reasoning and fence sitting as a tool of decision making. Best decisions are often made by assessing the pluses and minuses or pros and cons of a scenario. I am truly curious about what IP is trying to do. No denigration involved just want him to finally put a “wakas” to his “itutuloy.” Urong-sulong is confusing. I want to see him commit to an idea and expound on it.

              • edgar lores says:

                “I want to see him commit to an idea and expound on it.”

                That will be the day! 🙂

              • sonny says:

                Yes, circular reasoning and fence-sitting must be cut short when recognized and proceed to a truly Socratic (new info) progressive give-and-take. Intuition and perception are necessary by-products of the process.

                re: the Nicolas sisters were known to Manila sectarian student circles (NUS, SCA, Sodality) and presumably outside of Davao socio-academic radar. They antedated PDu30 by a few years. FM’s martial law years found the sisters in the US: Loida as an Immigration lawyer and met/married R. Lewis the multimillionaire CEO of Beatrice Intl (Food et al). Also at this time Loida was one of many anti-Marcos expatriates of NY.

              • Okay. First, to acknowledge what you are trying to imply Ms. Juana, sir Edgar had a very simple yet fine assessment of my stance from before: “Indecisive at worst, a peacemaker at best.”

                Does it help? I’ll answer that in a few.

                As for what you say I value most, well, you could say that I do value those things. But to be more specific, what I value most when coming to a conclusion is the perspectives of the people involved/affected, and, the current context of the situation and how it may develop with time. Do note also that people’s perspectives seldom changes. It is usually context that shakes things up and it does happen quite frequently.

                Given this, it is actually a continuous process. And with this, the conclusion also continuously develops, hence, also continuously made. Nonetheless, the conclusion as a whole doesn’t drastically change as some things have already settled down and ‘concretize’, so to speak. These are the things that I consider foundational and ideal. Well, until something very big will shake this foundation. It is then up for re-assessment.

                But with regards to context, many people can’t seem to appreciate this as they are usually too caught up in their own ‘ideals’. Not that it’s bad or wrong, but as already discussed on the other replies way above, they usually come off as too idealistic/moralizing and what happens is that their conclusions, though personally agreed that it is ideally sound, seldom translate to results given the context. And if doesn’t translate to results, wouldn’t it be time to question why it did not? Rather than just keep saying that it is the only one correct?

                Also, ‘haka-haka’ or ‘sabi-sabi’ seems to connote ‘hearsay’ in English. So it’s a negative connotation at that and it seems to be unfair as one could surely assess its veracity. And to frank, many people have a penchant for denying ‘hearsay’ outright, especially if it isn’t part of the worldview that they espouse so dearly. The different ones are also dismissed as ignorant, incorrect, or have the sole purpose of undermining their view. And it happens without usually trying to understand where it comes from. But if it agrees? Much more leeway will be given. And with this attitude, many are wondering why there is a widening divide? Might as well just deny people of their own experiences already. They just don’t know better, no?

                As for your last question? Well, you seem to present it as something that is mutually exclusive. So, is it actually? How about I ask you this question: Are you really interested in truth and knowledge or are you here to reinforce your echo chamber?

                May that question echo in the mind every time a view is dismissed passively, aggressively or passive-aggressively.

                I’ve actually written this yesterday but I fear that it is a bit too imposing. But given Mr. Joe’s recent post, I’ll take a more assertive stance for this and I’m gonna call it out just this once. I had edited the original reply a little to incorporate the new info, however, it seems that challenging someone’s objectivity is somewhat of a personal offense. I can’t promise to get around that so I would like to apologize in advance. And can I request that I be warned if I offend anyone?

                I just read you reply JP as I was about to post this. I write during my commute (A good 3-4 hours back and forth) and this is how I usually utilize it. Haha So what do you specifically want to know? Even when responding to specific questions, I give generalized responses as I still write with no specific audience in mind. I also tend to go from macro to micro. So do guide me accordingly? When I said on the other replies above that I discuss to learn and sharpen ideas, it really is just that. =)

              • I find the term ‘echo chamber’ is usually used to suggest people are close-minded and have no tolerance for opposing views. It is used to disparage, in the main. On the other hand, it is natural for people of like values to congregate, for why does one want to spend time with those he does not like or respect? I’d say the people who congregate here are incredibly open-minded, well-read, curious, and principled. A wide range of ideas is expressed. Arguments are waged, and waged respectfully. To suggest that it is an echo chamber is one of those sneaky moralisms meant to shape and censor ideas, to undermine integrity, and to denigrate. I don’t like the term much, and it defines the person using it more than this forum.

              • Well, as you’ve defined ‘echo chamber’, it is then indeed a good contrast since it is used in the context of the term ‘to stir the pot’. That term is usually used to suggest that someone is just bringing up opposing view points just to proliferate tension and drama.

                I don’t know if I just misunderstood Ms. Juana’s jab as it is the first time that I am interacting with her personally, but to use your phrasing:

                “To suggest that it is an echo chamber [‘stirring of the pot’] is one of those sneaky moralisms meant to shape and censor ideas, to undermine integrity, and to denigrate”

                And lastly, Mr. Joe, nice jab at the end also. However, I can understand that it is probably a warranted reaction being the owner of this popular blog.

                Lot’s of people had probably legitimately ‘stirred the pot’ way before I got here. But again, do know that it is not my intention.

                So am I in the wrong here?

              • That’s for you to figure out based on what people here are saying.

              • Juana Pilipinas says:

                I have not engaged you before because I get lost about what you are trying to express. There are just too many ideas in your post that it is hard to follow you line of argument. I am guessing you are a young person who is exploring possibilities . I want to know what you think about a certain subject matter. If it is EJK, are you for it or against it? If you are against it, buttress your line of argument with knowledge and truth as you see them. Then we can offer a rebuttal or augment your argument. That’s all.

              • sonny says:

                A point and a reminder from Joe that are well to take heed of.

                Because of the diversity of participants in THS, a polemic attitude can be unknowingly brought in. I speak for myself mainly. I have to consciously leave the attitude outside of the threads because polemics means offense/defense statements frame the resulting conversations.

              • Juana Pilipinas says:

                Hahaha! I have lived in a lot of places longer than PH that my appreciation for directness has eclipsed false modesty. I guess this is why people from my adopted country are often seen as rude. I need to temper my directness. I have explained here before that in the West , confrontation has a positive connotation because it clears the air. People are given the time and attention to say what they mean which leads to a better understanding of the person’s thought processes and their stance while in the East, it calls for defense. This conversation actually gave me an idea why PRD gets defensive when confronted. He takes it as an offense instead of an opportunity or prelude to a productive conversation. Thanks, Manong.

              • @Sir Sonny, how ironic that I actually pointed it out in a comment above, yet fell for it myself later on. Your reply is duly noted. =)


                Hmm… So I if the people who are usually very conscious of what they write are swayed by these polemics (New word for me by the way. Thanks!), what more of those people who are not really conscious of it? Because from what I can see, many people who support the current administration are those that had just found their voices for the first time. So again, it is probably something to really consider and take into account in the future?

              • sonny says:

                JoeAm somewhere tends to think you are trolling; Karl has asked whether you are amoral and/or apolitical; JP, me & you came at “circular reasoning” and “fence-sitting.” After reading some backthreads, I think you are somewhat all of the above; you come across as non-committal, wait-and-see, sometimes holier-than-thou, in Tagalog – parang palos. I suggest that you ante-up a little bit more for clearer give-and-take to add more weight to your assessments of the other side and your assessments of THS. Judicious use of expressions like “echo chamber” is for always. Peace.

              • ip: ” I had edited the original reply a little to incorporate the new info, however, it seems that challenging someone’s objectivity is somewhat of a personal offense. “

                I think he’s still calibrating his response, sonny… for fear of ending up in the dog-house 😉 (ie. moderation mode), like me.

                ip, being placed under moderation just means your posts don’t get published right way. So type way, be professional and polite though (no bad words , LOL! 😉 ). You’ll not be banned, Joe does appreciate conflict of ideas, he’s just not a fan of monopolizing the commentary thread, which I’ve been guilty of.

              • I’d recommend you pick one or two discussions to carry on. Right now, you are engaging everybone and dominating the most recent thread. I can’t hear others for all the noise you are making. I speculate that you are testing my methods, and certainly dedicating a lot of brain power to it. But kindly don’t dominate the blog. Go fishing or drinking now and then.

              • “I speculate that you are testing my methods, and certainly dedicating a lot of brain power to it. “

                LOL! Yeah, I know. Sorry. It’s actually just one too many cups coffee this morning, Joe 😉 (nothing nefarious) But yeah, I’ll ease up. I think we’ve come to the end re morality/immorality/amorality ;
                was hoping cha obliges me with the “civilization” discussion (that’s actually the most interesting for me), otherwise I’ll wait for the next blog.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: