Open Discussion #4: What do people think when a life is rolled away?


There is no joy on the mean streets of Manila. What do you think the bystanders in this photograph are thinking? Feeling? I ask knowing that the answers reflect more the thoughts and emotions of you the reader than the people watching the departed soul roll away, never to be accounted for, never to have a nation care.

What do you think Senator Poe thinks and feels upon seeing such a photo? Senator Binay? Senator Recto? Senator Escudero? Senator Angara? Do you think there is anger or shame or the thought “I wish this would stop.” Or the thought “This is not right and it is my responsibility to do something about it!”

It seems to me they don’t get to that last thought, or if they do, figure out a reason to do very little. Perhaps they think no one will notice that they are complacent, and complicit for it. Or maybe they figure they will lose some money or opportunity if they displease President Duterte. Or perhaps they fear they will end up like Senator De Lima.

Well, there is no great passion among the people to free Senator De Lima, so we are all complacent, I suppose, and complicit for it.

I think the killings have re-defined the Philippines. The Philippines is a nation, in its amalgamated sum, of no shame, no sense of passion tied to freedom and fairness, and no heroes.

Below are links to The New York Times visual works on the Philippines. You can run, and you can hide. You can claim ‘destabilization’ or ask that the photographers ‘tone it down’ so tourists don’t get the wrong picture. But the fact is, the Philippines has become a scrapheap for throw-away lives, and we all stand complicit for allowing them to be erased so easily.

Except for Senator De Lima, the Commission on Human Rights, and Senator Trillanes. They are angry or dismayed or at least motivated to DO something. They will not be complicit with the idea that the dead can just be carried off in the dark, with an uncaring nation slouched against the wall tapping off cute Facebook messages.

New York Times

* * * * * * *

During open discussion, any subject may be raised. There is no such thing as ‘off topic”. However, respectful discussion is always in order. Rude language or crude photos are not appropriate, as this is a public space. Teaching and learning from original commentary, with relevant reference to outside resources . . . that’s what we aspire toward . . .

285 Responses to “Open Discussion #4: What do people think when a life is rolled away?”
  1. NHerrera says:

    Most, if not all of us, upon seeing such a photo, I believe, as you do that

    * there is anger or shame; or the thought
    * “I wish this would stop,”
    * “This is not right,”

    but the last one — “it is my responsibility to do something about it!” — except for the very few like Senator De Lima, the Commission on Human Rights,Senator Trillanes, and the Catholic Church, is something we hide from for fear if not to displease President Duterte and worse to profit from not taking responsibility to do something about it.

    • parengtony says:

      Worse than your typical terrorist, he uses law enforcers to murder the downtrodden by the thousands.

      • NHerrera says:

        My wife and I go to the Mall once a week on weekends to buy groceries and do some pasyal and stretching of our geriatric legs in the comfort of an air-conditioned space. When I see PNP fellows in their uniform there is some unease that I feel. Probably the poor feels this more (I am not rich, myself).

        • parengtony says:

          Inquirer Photo Journalist Raffy Lerma: “I am for the drug war; I want drugs to stop. But I am against the killings.”
          My kumpare said: “That the PNP was made in charge of the execution of this so called war on drugs betrays the true agenda behind the killings. And it seems that part of the master plan is to create a situation where the only resistance option is to play this high stakes game.”
          Someone please tell me that my kumpare is all wet.

          • karlgarcia says:

            I would be all wet too, because I said the same thing.
            I said I am not against the drugwar only EJK.

            Now, I already know that all wars lead to death.

            • karlgarcia says:

              This war on poverty and over population by this government thinks that killing the poor is a solution.

    • The first 3, sir NH, are the normal reactions of those who did not vote for the current president. True, the last one is something we hide or ignore or even deny for multiple reasons, one of which is the shameful preoccupation of most with social media – FB twitters, TV and movie star gazing and other self centered quest for instant gratification – endless weekend parties or “inuman”, etc.

      Those who voted for Du30, those who express their trust and approval for him in various polls, the enablers and sycophants – they justify these EJKs, and attack ordinary critics by saying since they sympathize with the drug addicts who commit heinous crimes, rape, and steal, they should be shamed, raped, killed or robbed.

      Public figures like Sen De Lima who criticize are dealt with by DOJ, Congress, shamed as well by trolls, silenced and ejected from committee hearings (by that S.O.B. Gordon) and jailed by spineless justices/cohorts bent on revenge, the rest of the public figures tempering their reactions, “choosing their battles,survive and fight another day outside of detention”.

      Joe’s last phrase “with an uncaring nation slouched against the wall tapping off cute Facebook messages” resonates with me, Our youth and even the not so young citizens have become willing victims of propaganda of DAM (Duterte, Arroyo, Marcos) group.

      Hope Ninoy’s belief that “the Filipinos are worth dying for” is still true.

      • NHerrera says:

        Hope so too, Mary. Take car of the BP.

      • popoy says:

        The Eche Bucheche of Anger

        Pray tell me how right is the thought
        which country’s people was given
        alas a worth to die for by whom?
        where being served and protected
        are only for those tasked by law
        to serve and protect the people
        who give them livelihood.

        Pray tell me which country has
        three branches equal in check and balance
        equal in power and authority
        in looting people’s money and the country’s wealth?

        Pray tell me which country where there is no law
        in reality no rule of law
        against abuses by those who enact the laws
        against lawlessnes by those who enforce the laws
        against profitable indolence by those
        overworked, who interpret the laws.

        Pray tell me it is not so only 20 percent who
        have the law and religion to live and grow
        while 80 percent crawl and live by
        their failed religion without the law.

        Pray tell me God did not create habitat
        there is no such paradise of a desert
        in this middle earth land of Tolkien’s Hobbits.

        May 8, 2017

  2. Maria says:

    It’s a real tragedy when a Senator’s latest stupid remark about “na ano”, coming from someone from whom no one expects any kind of profound thinking to come from to begin with, seemingly elicits more outrage among the citizens of this country than Senator de Lima’s unjust jailing by a State willing to use all its power to silence a fearless critic (yes, that is why hers is no ordinary criminal case and is a clear case of violence against women as well that these same people reacted so strongly against in that attempt at levity by a brainless Senator they elected) and based solely on the testimonies of convicted felons dependent on the State to grant them some favors in exchange, and EJKs or, even for those who still believe they aren’t EJKs, the unresolved but factual existence of DUIs based on the categorization of the police thenselves. Perhaps people have come to accept the killings and the thinly-disguised move to authoritarianism as the new “normal” because they are afraid. They know that if Senator de Lima can be jailed on the whim of certain higher ups, what chance do ordinary, thinking citizens have of escaping a worse fate, even death?

  3. josephivo says:

    Seeing DU30 always “excellent” approval rating and as an advocate of the devil:

    As a bystander: “Nice, one less villain. Keep cleaning up our neighborhoods. Well done.”

    As a senator: “The last thing I will do is upset 80% of the Filipinos by blaming a popular president for collateral damage.”

  4. Oldmaninla says:

    Blog like this SOH should present the positive and negative aspect of the current administration for the well being benefit of the Filipino People…….

    • NHerrera says:


      Just a suggestion — this blog is titled, “What do people think when a life is rolled away?” You may give the positive side of that and, I believe, our host will not object, unless the post is outside his blog guidelines.

      • Right you are, NH. My job is not to represent the views of all, but to put a topic on the table so readers can bounce off it. It would be ‘Zero Discussion’ if I did all the thinking, and I for sure feel no obligation to portray the administration as positive if I can’t get past loss of due proocess for an entire nation, and death for thousands and deep grief for tens of thousands. If the Old Man can get past the slaughter, then he is free to paint good cheer for all of us. I may smirk, but he is free to opine and anyone is free to react.

        • Oldmaninla says:

          A balance blog discussion is healthy mental exercise, while too much negative opinion blog destroys the main objective well being of the Filipino people. The significance of balance is a gift of reality……without balance of positive and negative results to natural sufferings………

          • Balance away. Don’t limit yourself to the negative aspects of the blog.

          • Oldmaninla says:

            In the course of nation building or in life, King Solomon famous passage is the time of changes.
            There is a time for everything,
    and a season for every activity under the heavens:

                a time to be born and a time to die,
    a time to plant and a time to uproot,

                a time to kill and a time to heal,
    a time to tear down and a time to build,

            Europe, America, China have undergone changes, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore also undergone changes……….nothing is new under the sun.

            After the dark fearsome storm, comes the bright sunshine and new life……

            • chemrock says:

              You might want to read the PCIJ report link I left in the Is China Aid an Entrapment article. I don’t seen sunshine but more debts and screwed infras. Railways to nowhere and bridges with no connecting roads.

              • karlgarcia says:

                In fairness, there are connecting roads to their bridge plans, my problem is too many unsolicited overlapping proposals like the delpan to markina hiighway overlapping with manila to taguig highway. South west and south manila multi-modal terminal conflicting with their BRT plans.

                NEDA ,DOTr and DPWH are over stretched.

                About my querry about Hybrid PPP, they made another clarification that construction will still be bidded out, then what is the difference with plain vanilla PPP?

              • chemrock says:

                PPP will be bidded out. Hybrid – no idea. Chinese funded — no bids. Thats was emergency powers needed.

                PCJ mentioned at least one bridge but no roads connected.

              • The first set of questions involves the state of public procurement under the Duterte administration. Were these firms properly vetted? Is the Duterte government willing, or even able, to exercise the due diligence necessary for these deals? Can it be trusted to run negotiated procurements and restricted auctions under the emergency powers that it seeks?

                The second set of questions deals with the Duterte administration’s relationship with China. To what extent can Duterte’s actions—from his geopolitical realignment with China’s “flow,” to his regulatory stances on foreign ownership, to mining—truly be “independent,” when very real material interests are at play? What role do Filipino firms with extensive interests in Chinese demand, or have significant levels of Chinese investment and management, play in his decision-making?

                A final question deals with the Duterte administration’s relationship with the public: As a public, could we have done a better job at following up on these claims of investments and jobs, at scrutinizing the parties to the deals, or at calling out repackaged press releases for what they are?

                News, as observed by the fictitious Nixon portrayed in the opera Nixon in China, has a kind of mystery. In the case of Duterte in China, the mythmaking was helped along by the reliance by the media on Malacañang’s press releases, and the eagerness of thought leaders to cheer the prospect of billions of fresh investments and the millions of new jobs.

                As a consequence, we may not have done a good enough job at following up on these claims of investments and jobs, at scrutinizing the parties to the deals, or at calling out repackaged press releases for what they are.

                Except we should: Not only are these press releases almost always incomplete, but by presenting these deals as superhuman feats of whirlwind negotiation, they feed into a dangerously messianic view of the president’s roles and capabilities. By obscuring the role played by power brokers and vested interests, they also prevent us from being a meaningful check on bad deals done in our name, and with our money. – With additional research by Karol Ilagan, PCIJ, May 2017

                from the author,

                *KENNETH CARDENAS is a PhD candidate in Geography at York University in Toronto, Canada. To write this piece, he used corporate filings with the SEC’s online database as a starting point, and then cross-referenced names and addresses against news stories, Google maps, and publicly-available corporate profiles, as well as had additional research support from PCIJ.


              • karlgarcia says:

                Ok, I will read the PCIJ report in depth.

              • karlgarcia says:

                If Felino Palafiox had his way, he would connect the whole Philippines with tunnels and bridges.


            • Zen says:

              Did you mean Ecclesiastes?

              • sonny says:

                Zen, I don’t know what OMinLA means. From my source, it seems some scholars associate Ecclesiastes “style” to Solomon. I’m not a Scripture scholar. This is what I found.

                My source on Ecclesiastes:


                Hope this helps. 🙂

              • Oldmaninla says:

                Yes Zen, its in Ecclesiastes 3:1-3, these statements describe reality observation. Another good example of reality of these statements is night and day in 24 hour day. When a person only see the dark night with no bright day, he is blind. All he perceive is the dark side……….

                Allow me what I see the situations in the Philippines today………
                President DU30 was elected president, over 70-80 percent see him can do a good job to change the Philippines situation. View the situations in macro-view or broad understanding.
                Yes, You see hardships, but behind the hardships, there is hope for a better tomorrow.

                Corruptions, drugs, crime need to be changed……..will president DU30 succeed?
                Only history will tell.

                After the dark night, a new day will come!

                Another reality metaphor, planting bounty rice harvest.
                Your break the soil, flood the ground, step pound the field,
                Then plant, and wait until the rice come for bounty harvest.
                There is season for everything……king Solomon said.

          • popoy says:

            In my youth, ALAK LANG ANG WALANG KATAPAT. Was the advert blurb by Tanduay Rhum or was it White Castle Whiskey with a lady (ala Godiva) straddling a white horse ? Alin ang walang katapat? Yung Bebot o yung kabayo? Which has no equal the Beauty or the Beast?

            Anyway, the point might be that negatives and positives ILLUMINE an issue until the issue cancels itself out. Which is like saying CHANGE is NOT really the only permanent thing in this world because it is PERMANENCE that gives life to CHANGE.

            Sorry JoeAm panggulo, nakakagulo ako eh.

    • popoy says:

      Thanks Karl, I like and appreciate such Ivanka link. More than many reporters who earn their living by their words, I see lucidity, succinctness and sincerity. By her vocabulary, I see lower plasticity content than most people in print media. In her case, beauty can de-objecitify and make subjective the envious beholder.

  5. parengtony says:

    Inquirer Photo Journalist Raffy Lerma: “I am for the drug war; I want drugs to stop. But I am against the killings.”

    My kumpare said: “That the PNP was made in charge of the execution of this so called war on drugs betrays the true agenda behind the killings. And it seems that part of the master plan is to create a situation where the only resistance option is to play this high stakes game.”

    Someone please tell that my kumpare is all wet.

  6. karlgarcia says:

    I don’t know if the respective committee chairs will bite.

  7. karlgarcia says:

    Teddy Boy Locsin thanks Callamard because the ICC case is now dead because of her.
    My Gosh, he is our rep to the UN? Oh,brother!

    • Bernard Ong


      The boy who keeps crying wolf in between praising the dead Hitler and the live wannabe-Hitler is dead wrong.

      He tweeted: “Thank you, Agnes. The ICC case is dead. Trust me on this. Dead as a door nail.”

      He claims Callamard abused her position with her unofficial visit to the Philippines, disqualifying her from any further official role in a UN investigation. As icing on the cake, Teddy called Callamard a “conceited fool and totally ignorant of the drug problem”.

      Here you go Teddy. Just the basics to avoid overload:

      1. Callamard is Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions.

      2. Callamard does not report to any court. She reports to the UN High Commission for Human Rights and the UN General Assembly

      3. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur includes “examining situations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in all circumstances for whatever reason; and to submit her findings annually to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.”

      4. The ICC case will be handled by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Her name is Fatou Bom Bensouda née Nyang.

      5. The duties of the ICC Prosecutor include investigating and prosecuting crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes & aggression.

      6. ICC case is independent of UN Special Rapporteur’s investigations.

      While Callamard can only investigate, recommend & report, Bensouda can go farther. ICC Prosecutor can investigate, indict, prosecute, ultimately cause arrest if the suspect is convicted. She can, and is required, to conduct her own investigations.

      Bensouda is the one to fear. She can send tyrants to jail.

      Now you know, little boy. Go tell your daddy.

      Two friendly pieces of advise.
      1. Don’t start tweeting Fatou Bensouda
      2. Don’t call her a fool

  8. Poe?

    She is almost always seeking a safe, populist advocacy. Will I see her focusing her fierce eyes on Du30 once the polls results show the president’s approval rating is going down, down, down?

    Right now, she is concentrating on her pet peeve, – Abaya.

  9. Francis says:

    The hopes run high still.

    I think it is important to distinguish supporters of the administration. There are the political opportunists who join more for tactical reasons and less than a common ideological stance—on a higher level: the trapos and the communists; on a lower level: the bandwagoners on social media. And then there are the “disciplinists” whose world-view—to a certain extent—coheres with that of the administration; that the solution to the nation’s problem seems lies in “discipline” among the citizenry, that the root of all problems in society rests in too much freedom and rights—or as they would probably put it: too much entitlement. And then there are the tired hopeful cynics or cynical hopefuls who are damned tired of the oligarchs (even the reformist ones) and who are damned tired of how the system has failed to bring change over and over again; they’ve seen the system up close and have found it sickening—and to the Crisostomos (which they probably were once) they find their compromise with the system a sign of corruption. They are Simouns who vow to dismantle the system—the damned, putrid oligarchs—at all and any cost. Even if it means making a deal with the devil.

    I wonder whether they realize the irony. How similar they are to the “Crisostomos” they now so bitterly condemn. I wonder—the difference only being in the “trapo” faction they back. And they call it “Change” right?

    Right now—the genuine supporters (the ones who aren’t political opportunists) don’t see it. They see “Build! Build! Build!” and exclaim at the grandeur at it all. Of course it seems grand. We haven’t signed the papers, yet—that’s the polite way of putting it; in a more vernacular manner: our dear leaders haven’t decided who gets which cut, yet. Oh. Wait. Wait. Wait. ‘Till they merrily decide the cuts—and the pockets bloom like California’s deserts nowadays.

    Duterte admits that even he couldn’t counter the “lobbying” against Gina Lopez. And you expect him to go against short woman and the northern son? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t be so confident.

    Filipinos may not give a shit about rights. But we don’t like crooks. And we like our economy strong. If Filipinos see bare coffers—and Chinese debt terms that will make us bleed in exchange for the poisonous fruit of infrastructure—well….

    To cut the long story short: a kid won’t know that putting his pinky in the socket is bad until he gets electrocuted.

  10. Crab mentality over load…grabe ang galit ng MAD (MarcosArroyoDuterte) kay VP Leni. When one is a scholar at Harvard, does it mean the tuition/accommodation/other fees are free?

  11. madlanglupa says:

    The slums are divided over those deaths: Those who are in favor of the state, they justify it as necessary to cleanse what they call evil and decadence, to set an example, for the sake of discipline so as to usher in supposed prosperity and security.

    Otherwise people in the slums have become more scared, unsure of the future, and wonder if this strongman leadership would even bother about helping the common man place a cooked meal on the table, or find him truly decent .employment.

  12. edgar lores says:

    1. There are 7 bystanders in the photo. Strangely enough most are not looking at the blue body bag. Most are looking off to the right. Except for the girl in the yellow dress, who has her eyes closed, and the guy in the blue sleeveless shirt, who is looking down but may be looking at the bag from the corner of his eyes. There appears to be a pool of blood in the gutter behind the leg of the second man pushing the body trolley.

    1.1. The scene is typical ghetto. There is an ad on the electric post. It says:

    [An indecipherable last line]

    1.2. The ad could be the perfect caption for the scene. Pozo-Negro, of course, is a cesspool, a septic tank.

    1.3. One cannot tell why the bystanders are looking to the right. There must be something of interest happening there. Or they could be in denial of the scene unfolding before them: there is Death here but he is just passing by. . Their expressions are somber and impassive.

    1.4. Most of them stand with one hand loose at their side and the other akimbo on the hip or in the pocket or behind the back. The one-hand akimbo stance suggests discomfort or anxiety. The one-hand behind the back suggests a degree of self-deception.

    1.5. What are the bystanders thinking? Impossible to say. My thought would be, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”

    2. I have read the news items on the anti-drug war and seen the photos. The documentation by Patricia Evangelista and her team at Rappler are searing. My reaction has been a deep sense of disquiet at the items and horror at the photos. As if unlawful death were not enough, there is the desecration, the dehumanization, of the pools of blood, the masking tapes, the cardboards, and the planted evidence.

    2.1. The worst image for me was that of a body lying in a narrow alleyway being casually stepped over by two female passersby. This indicated to me that the people have become inured to the horror, no longer keeping their respectful distance from death, but accepting it and casually avoiding it like a piece of refuse on the pathway, a piece of dogshit.

    3. My protest at this savage turn of events in our lives has been – like so many others — to sublimate the murderous impulse into writing. Nevertheless, there is a sense of impotence because words are not actions. Both words and actions communicate but, of course, actions speak louder than words.

    3.1. The consolation is that words capture thoughts, and good thoughts influence good actions that can end the nightmare we are living through and bring about the reality of a kinder world that we seek and deserve.

    • NHerrera says:

      There is a habit or routine loop here,

      trigger >> routine >> resignation or acceptance >> back to the next such trigger.

      To the real-life viewer of the incident as captured in the blog photo, the routine or habit is one of discomfort or even less like the daily fighting for transport service and traffic on the way to and from work, if there such work, unless the body in the bag is a close relative.

      To express anger or some such will just invite consequence one does not want to add to the day’s rat-like existence.

      • NHerrera says:

        I hope, the reader will understand, but it is difficult for me to give a balance or “sunshine” to my post above, right now — unless the thought of “I am glad it is not me, my father, or brother in that bag” is positive enough.

      • edgar lores says:

        The routine of habit may be a diversion and a comfort. It forces the mind to focus away from the dreadful shock of untimely death and focus instead towards the daily grind of survival.

        The first untimely death is a shocker. The next death not so much. And each succeeding untimely death invokes less and less horror until we become entirely desensitized.

        As Dylan Thomas put it, “after the first death there is no other.”

        But desensitization carries its own prize or, rather, penalty I should say. It is true each succeeding trigger becomes less stressful but it is untrue there is less effect.

        The accumulation of stressful triggers, when repressed (unconscious) or suppressed (conscious), causes trauma that will break out in one form of craziness or another.

        Nightmares. Fewer inhibitions. More deviant behavior.

        • NHerrera says:

          Venturing into psychology matters I am no expert here: the unconscious indeed can do things we cannot control until surprising things surface later.

          Take the case of the bible-quoting lawyer Cayetano. His unconscious will most probably do damage to him worse than the less educated and intelligent, naive Pacquiao. I am probably wrong here too, Cayetano’s conscious self must be giving him conflicting voices already. Poor guy. With his material possessions and his perceived political standing, I would not like to be in his shoes. In relative sense I would rather be in the shoes of the politician and ex-mutineer Trillanes. How the relative values of these two guys have changed since the Binay Investigation days.

        • My feelings exactly sir Edgar…

          Others who are actively posting to express disgust over this hypocrite government are challenging those keyboard warriors to walk their talk, participate in rallies and meetings of various groups with the same advocacy…I feel so helpless, so impotent. My little bit of posting and sharing feels so puny and ineffective. I dream of joining rallies like I used to, of once more participating even in a wheelchair, but the fear of being a burden to fellow protestors puts a break to this dream. How I envy Will, Sir Ed Viloria, and the others who combine their articulate and fiery posting with their physical presence in various protest rallies. I don’t even have the gift of words like them, like Ninoy and Rizal so at least I could provide inspiration for others to take action. I could PRAY, though. God, Father Almighty, please guide and protect all the righteous people in this fight for our dear country, may You open the eyes and hearts of those still asleep, confused and led astray, please bless our country in Jesus Mighty Name.

    • chemrock says:

      and the coca-cola sign board tells you this is the real thing, not fake.

  13. What you see is not what you get in PH. Transparence is not possible for most Pinoys. There are several layers of veneers to every reaction and pronouncement.

    Will we ever be free enough to really express how we feel? No more “what will the neighbors say” doubts, no more “can’t fight city hall” cringes, no more “deferment to the moneyed and powerful” anxieties, no more fear and safety concerns…

    “Ang aking adhika, makita kang sakdal laya…”

  14. Gilda Rodriguez Dela Cruz says:

    During the campaign, Duterte was explicit about how one cannot be President if he is afraid to kill. He added that to be a leader, you have to govern with fear in your followers. He, at one time, even likened himself to Satan. i never read in anywhere or heard anyone saying he is Satan incarnate. I thought that basically, no one, even the most ruthless men in our history,would want to call himself Satan. So I thought this was just a ploy to emphasize Mar Roxas’ weakness whom he called “bayot” many times. Until now, I really don’t know what exactly that means and if it is a tagalog word or of some dialect. But he proved himself and he is now the most feared man on the universe. Feared by all, the poor, the rich, the middle class, the government officials, even by his own men. So he was serious after all. My thoughts were more on the aftermath of a Duterte presidency rather than on the present. One, whether one is a Christian or not, we all somehow know that life has a way of settling scores. I wondered if that ever crossed his mind, though he implied he didn’t really care. Like what happened to Muamar Gaddafi of Libya. He was a ruthless tyrant, killed thousands of men for more than 20 years, It was his tough luck that the people, particularly those who opposed and hated him, caught him even before he could escape. Alone and cornered by his enemies, he was tortured, humiliated, dragged, sodomized with the barrel of a rifle, until he died, all uploaded on youtube for the world to see.Saddam Hussein was hanged in public, Mussolini and his mistress were caught just when they were running for their lives and here hanged in public upside down. Hitler made sure he was dead even before they reached his quarters because he knew his enemies were going to get him, he knew he was responsible, by taking a cyanide pill and shooting himself. History shows no tyrant really got away free. Maybe he doesn’t really care what happened to him after his presidency. But what about the other effects of his drug war? The long term effects and the cost of this war that the people will still carry even when he is dead? Fathers and mothers were killed in front of their young children. Is it not a concern for him that he is breeding a nation of dysfunctional people his grandchildren may hang around with, or even marry in the future? Isn’t he worried about its effects to the police have become so addicted to killing the police literally see us as prey that even when Duterte is no longer president, the kiillings will continue? He said he read history books, then he’d surely know what happened to the SS soldiers of Hitler when they were shooting the Jews by the hundreds and fell dead right in the hole the Jews themselves were told to dig. or to the Amercian soldiers during the Vietnam war. History shows us no man has, no matter how evil, can be oblivious to death.Isn’t he worried that our country, in 20 years will be protected by a police force addicted to killing? To address the title of your blog on what do people think, everyone has become inured to death – both the killers and the killed

  15. NHerrera says:


    The Poor
    * Trigger = See the druggies dead either in real life or in pictures
    * Routine = Resignation/ Acceptance
    * Reward = Avoid adding negatives to their already miserable existence

    Mocha Uson and Followers Types
    * Trigger = See the druggies dead either in real life or in pictures
    * Routine = Echo variations of guru Mocha Uson troll-like comments
    * Reward = Feel good at being one with the group, possibly rewarded

    Alvarez, Gordon, Cayetano, Aguirre Types
    * Trigger = See the druggies dead either in real life or in pictures
    * Routine = Does not register anymore; replaced by concerns to enhance political standing, making hay while the sun shines
    * Reward = Feel very good at pleasing The Leader

    * Trigger = See the druggies dead either in real life or in pictures
    * Routine = Does not register anymore; replaced by concerns to enhance their businesses
    * Reward = Feel very good at the increase of their assets

    Critical Thinking Types
    * Trigger = See the druggies dead either in real life or in pictures
    * Routine = Voice disgust orally and in writing; others take positive action
    * Reward = Feel good in doing what they believe are morally and legally right.

    • edgar lores says:

      NHerrera, I see what you are getting at.

      I would classify the “Routines” as a coping mechanism, a defense mechanism, or an offense mechanism.

      o The first (the poor) is neither Coping nor Defending. It is what it is — resignation.
      o The second (Mocha and followers) is an Offense mechanism.
      o The third and fourth are Defense mechanisms in that they are avoidance strategies.
      o The fifth (critical thinkers) is either a coping mechanism (voicing disgust) or an offense mechanism (taking positive action).

      Coping and Offense are conscious processes while Defense is largely an unconscious process.

  16. Zen says:

    I was never for the ‘war on drugs’ at the onset. Cebuanos knew of the Davao Death Squad through rumours at the time Richard King was killed. Why would anyone say he is for this war when he knew what the war would entail – it’s operation and consequences. The trouble with Filipinos ( including CBCP) is they always justify their stand halfheartedly and only few ones would say outrightly that ‘ It is not acceptable’ and must never happen. I came from a Batch ’69 High School graduates and out of 20 of us who are in touch with each other, only two follow Duterte timidly (so hey those surveys are rather doubtful). I doubt that what even Duterte fanatics say out loud is what is in their hearts, it is up to us to let them hear it – that it is outrageous, unchristian, barbaric, senseless and immoral.

    • edgar lores says:

      In my article “The Anatomy of Fascism in Duterte’s World” published here in January 2016, a few months before the election, I wrote in a comment:

      “There is no doubt Duterte will use violence — an instrument of fascism — to accomplish his avowed purpose of eliminating the criminal class without due process. He has said so.

      In the process and in the end, we will have a fascistic society where the people are cowed into submission and there is nothing… but the silence of the lambs.”

  17. Sup says:

    Is he a masochist? Likes to make decent people angry? This time by giving an new job to Macha…

    Mocha Uson appointed as PCOO assistant secretary

  18. NHerrera says:

    It seems the tension in the Korean Peninsula will be relaxed somewhat with Moon Jae-in expected to win South Korea’s Presidential Election, getting 41.4% against his closest rival with 23.3% at the exit polls.

    Moon was a strong proponent of the “Sunshine Policy,” an attempt to improve relations between the two Koreas from 1998 to 2008, and served as chief of staff to former South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun.

    This development was probably expected, hence the softened rhetoric and moves by Trump relative to NK in the days before the election.

  19. gerverg1885 says:

    I heard this conversation on a jeepney wherein a man said that, “those people who were killed in this drug war are mostly the ones who voted Duterte into office, “and another one in front of him quipped that, “it’s as if they asked for their deaths.”

    Nothing could be farther than the truth that this man who ordered this killings do not think of any gratitude towards those who elected him because it is his ego and arrogance that is most important to him. Those lives lost in this mindless war do not matter anyway because they are insignificant lives anyway.

  20. madlanglupa says:

    Offtopic (?): I think their all-out support suddenly boomeranged on them. Awaiting for English version.

  21. “There is no joy on the mean streets of Manila. What do you think the bystanders in this photograph are thinking? Feeling?”


    I’m noticing with this heroin/opioid epidemic happening over here , that there’s a lot more empathy. There’s a bunch of shows now featuring story’s of heroin addicts, in the suburbs or the country, of say college students or high school athletes, who were injured, then prescribed opioids to manage their pain—- then as soon as their doctor or love ones notice their addiction they are taken off opioids,

    and their downward spiral begins, first they are scrounging or scoring the same opioids they were on, illegal market of these pills run each capsule or tablet from $20-60 bucks each, eventually as in any economic model the cream rises to the top, and those who can afford keep up with opioid pills, those who can’t settle for

    street heroin, 4 rolled up balloons = $20 , averaging the heroin addict like $20-60 a day. So illegal heroin from Mexico is by default (though some supply chain in the east coast come direct from Afghanistan, but usually much of the stuff from the Golden Triangle and Afghanistan region goes to Europe, making Mexican heroin) the cost effective choice.

    So the American public , I think for the first time ever (you guys remember Prohibition, crack, etc.) gets this really sympathetic view of the world of addiction, which I don’t think has a parallel in our history since. A lot of this I think is because now the drug addicts look like most of the American public, unlike alcoholics or crack, which were more urban addictions. Heroin is also the drug of choice of actors here,

    so we’re seeing our favorite actors and actresses succumb to heroin before our eyes, and pulls our heart strings.

    But I think people being people, seeing this injustice still want to pursue violence upon certain individuals (unlike edgar, I don’t think violence is a tool of fascism , as humanity has been employing violence regardless of organizational systems used), only difference is the American public are now embracing addicts (mostly because they look like them now, homogeneity trumps here as in anything) , this connects to the whole anti-immigration feeling iMHO though with the heroin stuff, more specific…

    it’s the Mexican cartels and their central American runned supply chain (MS 13 and 18 Street, both from the downtown LA area). Mexican cartels are now undermining Mexico. But these lowly street gangs not much is knowned. So here’s some background, L.A. was Mexico before, plenty of Mexicans stayed after the US annexed Southern California (Mexico controlled San Fran to San Diego , the coast they colonized); so in 1920s more from the east coast comes to the coasts of CA, many due to the TB epidemic then, where they felt California had “cleaner” air, less population i’m sure.

    So then Mexicans were pushed aside, at the higher level (ie. politics, haciendas & ranchos, etc.), what remained was street and neighborhood level gangs, Zoot suit riots of LA, these Mexican gangs were very insular, you had to get invited to join and hand picked, like the Masons. Well in the 80s at the height of the crack epidemic, when the whole Contra-Sandanista stuff was coming to a close, essentially refugees from the wars in Central America came in droves to LA, and two street gangs (2-3 miles apart from each other, 18 street being closer to USC campus; while MS 13 closer to Korea town, Joe)

    upended how street gangs were recruiting in LA, this time, both gangs essentially too a non-exclusivity approach and deemed everyone getting off the bus as their members— go out there and sell coke and crack (from Colombia, south America, no coke from Mexico yet), and into the 90s MS and 18 ST became a real issue in California, so a mass deportation was set for anyone in these gangs, they were all returned to Nicaragua and El Salvador and Honduras; what happened was that they metastasized in central America.

    As soon as Colombia dropped out, and Mexico picked up the cocaine business, these guys started spreading out again, this generation isn’t from LA but born in central America. Their success being their loosely connected heirarchy, remember they were baptised as members just for setting foot near USC campus or towards Korea town.

    Fastforward to now, and the cartels found a market in heroin, and dropped the price so far down, they muscled the Russians over here out of this market. with Chinese fentanyl, the sky’s the limit.

    For the purposes of the Philippines IMHO the lessons learned would be that time when MS and 18 ST were metastasizing in Central America (now they’ve essentially merged into one). And I think that’s the picture I’m seeing above there, but unlike the Central American countries which took ’em so long to react (they were thinking in terms of Central American power plays, when these gangs were thinking in terms of expansion, like any LA gang does, they had to important local Socal police just to understand what was going on), the PNP is reacting, albeit in a very violent and less controlled way.

    The lessons the Philippines can learn from the American side of all this, is that homogeneity preceeds empathy. ie,,, if I don’t look like those folks in the photo, say if I’m Korina Sanchez looking at that photo, I won’t have any connection (unless there’s some political angle to be played. Like I said homogeneity there would be in the form of dress, or for those Filipinos (the ultra rich) who can still trace their genetic lines to Spain directly or to China, similar to Mexico where there are still Mexicans that look European, mostly in Jalisco, then they’ll have to wait for a similar photo but where the victim looks like them (which I doubt will ever come).

    So unless the media there starts showing the dead with dead fancy toy dogs next to them who thought they were humans 😉 , or dead inside fancy SUVs or cars, or classmates of rich students in fancy schools, etc. you look at that photo above Joe’s article and it’ll always be Us vs. Them.

    My point here is two… 1) the potential for chaos is serious; and 2) homogeneity & empathy act as positive loop.

    • Hence the clamour now to employ violence upon those guys above pictured, and not these heroin addicts below, pharmaceutical or street or otherwise,

      the justification of violence is arbitrary, whether in the 1st world or 2nd or 3rd world, you can wrap it around the veneer of Rule of Law or “morality” or whatever, but blood spilled is blood spilled. It’s when a nation or group decides that it’s time to kill (which happens time and again throughout human history, its a pattern).

      IMHO in the election of DU30, Filipinos (majority? many?) decided it was time to kill. Hence his favourability polling still. Focus on 2) above for any turn of this, but also think about 1) above to make a fair assessment of where the drug trade/epidemic was before and now during DU30.

    • edgar lores says:

      On the illogic of the counterpoint about fascism and violence:

      Most everyone will use a hammer in his/her lifetime. This does not preclude the fact that a hammer is a special tool of a carpenter.

      • So too can it be used for murder (ie., if you travel back in time pre Stone Age, pre wheel, even pre-fire, any “person” with opposable thumb, will use it EXACTLY for that, having never heard of carpentry );

        Same same with a rifle and pistol, for killing game to survive (to survive, to nourish the body to eat meat); but so too can firearms be used for murder… independent of whether immoral, moral or amoral, or defense or offense, whatever the rationale.

        Violence like air or water is just that, until someone, or people, give it meaning, it’s just violence (ie. PART OF NATURE)—- whether one or many killed or injured. That’s my point. It’s arbitrary in that sense, edgar…

        nothing specific to say fascism, since violence too can be employed by “democracy”, or the most “well-intentioned” among us, ie. “Would you kill a baby to cure cancer— thus saving thousands more babies?” type of questions.

        • edgar lores says:

          I understand your point. Do you understand mine?

          Violence in fascism is not arbitrary. It is intentional.

          • I get your point, edgar… I’m simply saying maybe it’s not fascism but the “well-intentioned” or even democratic kind (he was elected by 40% after all, hence a mandate of sorts, ie. the Filipinos thought it was time to kill——– and he’s simply delivering).

            Kinda like we over here also thought it was time to kill after 9/11, though that was more implied, whereas DU30 and those who elected him were more explicit… but same-same, still the use of violence, whether implied or explicit, no matter how you cut it.

            So where you’re already calling a duck a duck, I’m with Oldmanila above, in that I’m saying, it could still grow to be a swan. That’s my point. 😉

            • edgar lores says:

              Thank you for acknowledging my point.

              As to Oldmaninla, his thinking is riddled with fallacies and, therefore, dangerous.

              1. He uses the Bible to justify immorality and irrationality. This is the “appeal to authority” fallacy.

              2. He sees things as cyclic and pre-deterministic. Post hoc.

              3. He accepts the majority is right. Argumentum ad populum.

              4. Killing is like breaking the soil in planting rice. False analogy.

              5. Nothing is new under the sun. Well, of course, cell phones were extant in 545 BC and the Internet was invented in 480 BC.

              • You’re both engaged in predictive analysis, edgar (except you’re just more sure than he is)… As I’ve noted your fascism=violence isn’t necessarily so… furthermore, fascism takes a bit more time to gestate if we use history as our guide.

                The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio meaning a bundle of rods, ultimately from the Latin word fasces—

                It takes time to make that bundle, edgar… DU30 is simply using the system currently in place afforded to him by mandate (ie. 40% of the electorate), he hasn’t burned down the Supreme Court, or Congress, over there… so nowhere near fascism as we understand the word.

                You and Oldmanila are essentially on the same boat though different corners maybe, one equally sure of their own crystal balls (I’d say you’re more sure than he is), ie. “reason” and “Bible”.

                Predictive analysis using two different means, but unless you have a time machine, I fear both means at this point are even Steven (and you already know how i feel about the Bible, etc. 😉 ).

                I don’t know if Oldmanila’s thinking is dangerous, but I do cater to this notion first (before rendering one thought better or worst, or dangerous, or safe…)

              • edgar lores says:

                1. No, not as “we” understand the word, but as you understand the word.

                2. And what is this about “predictive analysis?” As expected, another deflection.

                2.1. I am not engaged in predictive analysis. I was. And what I said is pretty clear and bears repetition:

                “There is no doubt Duterte will use violence — an instrument of fascism — to accomplish his avowed purpose of eliminating the criminal class without due process. He has said so.

                In the process and in the end, we will have a fascistic society where the people are cowed into submission and there is nothing… but the silence of the lambs.”

                2.2. If one will forgive the hyperbole at the end, what I said has come true.

              • NHerrera says:

                Lance, edgar:

                Pardon the insertion here. This is a small matter, but my mathematical mind reacts. I abstract these portions of your posts:

                Lance: humanity has been employing violence regardless of organizational systems used.

                edgar: violence — an instrument of fascism.

                Logically and historically, I believe, there is no quarrel about those portions of the posts.

                It is when Lance expands the statement to I don’t think violence is a tool of fascism, as humanity has been employing violence regardless of organizational systems use
                when a logical debate ensues.

              • edgar lores says:

                NHerrera, Thanks for circling the point of disagreement. And I have pointed out the illogicality of LCpl_X’s counterpoint by analogy with the hammer. But, as usual, he is deflecting the issue with predictive analysis, tarot cards, and crystal balls.

              • “what I said has come true.”

                Which part exactly, edgar?

                When you say fascism, this is what we picture,

                Are you saying this has already come true, edgar? Unless you’re using the word fascism here as hyperbole, which I can totally forgive (remember Bert’s use of hyperbole?), but here I’m sure you’re not, you actually think it’s happened ,

                hence my disagreement here, edgar. you’re playing with tarot cards and crystal balls, and superimposing your knowledge of history with how you feel.

              • Edgar Lores says:

                Read the two paragraphs I quoted.

              • NH, thanks for pointing that out, I know we both edgar and I agree on violence when viewed from a wider lens, ie. 1,000,000 years from now DU30 will be a blip, insignificant.

                Center here is how fascism is being used. edgar knows this. 😉

              • ps.

                NH, those two sentences are actually consistent, the grammar might be haphazard my apologies, but I am not saying violence and fascism are exclusive. Read again in that vein.

              • “I don’t think violence is a tool of fascism” … this might be better: I don’t think violence is a tool specific to fascism.

                oooops, actually in a post above, I’ve already clarified this point , NH,

                nothing specific to say fascism, since violence too can be employed by “democracy”, or the most “well-intentioned” among us, ie. “Would you kill a baby to cure cancer— thus saving thousands more babies?” type of questions.

              • edgar lores says:

                I would accept the rephrase.

              • Can you clarify how you’re using fascism and fascistic here then, edgar? Thanks.

              • edgar lores says:

                Read again my post and ALL the comments.


              • Ah, I remember now, I found it in the comments, edgar, thanks… it’s Paxton’s definition of fascism:



                FASCIST DICTATOR — He rises from the rank and file of a spontaneous movement of large masses, which is a plebeian movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers, it springs from the petty bourgeoisie, the lumpenproletariat, (parts of the layers of the middle class) and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses;

                BONAPARTIST DICTATOR — His power is based solely on the forces of state repression. It could not sink deep roots into society. He is the military supremo. Marcos brand of dictatorship was bonapartism.



                Based on the description, Duterte is is a Bonapartist like Marcos.

                I am applying the term “fascist” not according to Trotsky’s distinctions but based on Paxton’s perceived commonalities of fascist dictators.

                A “Bonapartist” dictator is no less frightening than a “fascist” dictator.


              • karlgarcia says:

                When I hear Edgar say deflection, I imagine LCX and Edgar playing tennis. I also remember basketball broadcasters saying delection instead of shot blocks.

                In my case(commenting), Uncle Sonny called it misdirection.

              • Most of the time edgar uses the term “deflection”, I think he means misdirection too, karl.

                But in this case (violence=fascism) I’m simply saying the Philippines and DU30 are not yet on par with this scene,

                He’s free of course to predict such eventuality, as is Oldmanila, hence predictive analysis. Paxton’s or Trotsky’s definitions of fascism aside, for many it means the above picture, hence the term “fascism” is thrown around these days like its cool, ie. like Trump being fascist— invoking a specific emotion (type of propaganda).

                Maybe DU30 will turn out to be a fascist (though in the case of Trump seems to have just guaranteed his own impeachment tonight by firing FBI Dir. Comey ), but based on DU30’s age, highly improbable. More probable is DU30 ushering an actual fascist—- but again Filipino culture just doesn’t point towards that trajectory, karl…

                or maybe it’s not culture but geography ie. too many islands to cover.

              • karlgarcia says:


              • Because my point re predictive analysis was germane to fascism=violence , hence not a deflection nor misdirection, or both. The violence portion we agreed, see NH’s comment, but fascism I’m still not sure how it’s being used, but seems it is being used here to elicit a specific emotion, similar to Oldmanila’s use of Bible quotes, karl.

              • sonny says:

                🙂 🙂 Thank you, all.

                Reminds me of regressive logic-testing (my data-processing days).

              • Oldmaninla says:

                I wish to clarify my view,
                My premise at the beginning is that, SOH should present the positive and negative views to effect the collaboration of discussion for the well being benefit of the Filipino people. This was the guideline statement of SOH at the top of this blog.

                I agree to the guideline statement, I agree to the purpose.
                What I see so often are discussion how bad is the present administration without any value presentation of administration at all. The discussions were presented to the negative side discussion.

                My view is to have a balance presentation. I’m not justifying violence at all. I just enjoy a discussion of good balance analysis understanding both sides as a healthy mental stimulation.

                To illustrate a simple picture,
                We can view the earth in two platforms, one on the surface, how dirty is the earth and on the higher plain above and view the beauty of the earth, how generous life giving and sustaining is the earth.

                Planting rice process was my example. One can discuss the hardships and how dirty the soil works process, another can discuss the beauty and effects of good harvest.
                A balance presentation is beautiful discussion to the well being of the Filipino people.

                I hope you understand the old man’s mind……..hehe…


              • “I just enjoy a discussion of good balance analysis understanding both sides as a healthy mental stimulation.”

                Exactly, Oldmanila! I totally understand that point. 😉 p.s. I’m no pro-DU30 , I just want a better more nuanced read of the man than these caricatures of him being paraded as truths.

                “Reminds me of regressive logic-testing (my data-processing days).”

                Learned something new today, sonny! Thanks!!! I’ve been called a lot of things but illogical has never been one of them, I may take the scenic route though. 😉

              • sonny says:

                LC, this exchange between you and edgar is classic, IMO. Aside from my other comment about regressive testing and not to diminish the seriousness of the tragedy being discussed, the point-counterpoint both of you used reminded me of final life-death duel in the movie SCARAMOUCHE (1952). The swordfight to the death was the longest and best among swashbucklers. Yet the duelists could not kill each other. Watch the movie some way. I bookmarked the thread. ‘Twas that good. 🙂

              • I’ve never heard of that movie, sonny… checked it out on youtube, i thought it was good (swordplay), but I think our discussions are more like Inigo Montoya (self-taught, Googling) and Wesley (highly trained) in “Princess Bride”, in that it’s light but serious, and not duel to the death,

                on “deflection”…

              • edgar lores says:

                We use the Humpty Dumpty Dictionary here, and that means we get to define what a word means.

                Be that as it may, deflect means to “cause (something) to change direction; turn aside from a straight course.”

                The issue was whether fascism uses violence as a specific tool to achieve its aims. The deflection was the attempt to change the topic to predictive analysis.

                In terms of fallacies, I use “deflection” to refer to Red Herring fallacies.

                A Red Herring fallacy is an ” argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument.”

                My use of the term is precise.

                P.S. By the way, using images, fancy quotes and emojis are forms of deflection. Visuals do not add to the logical weight of an argument. It is an appeal to emotion… in the same manner that a plain girl will dress up in a Versace to impress.

              • NHerrera says:

                Sonny, I see you are fond of movies with sword fencing. I am too. (I took up foil fencing in early college.) Stewart Granger and Mel Ferrer in SCARAMOUCHE, I believe, used sabre for sword. Yes, I too loved the sword play in that movie.

              • karlgarcia says:

                En garde


              • NH, sonny… ever since I went to the Philippines, my view of swordfighting was turned upside down, so when I watch movies I now end up getting technical and overly critical.

                That “Princess Bride” scene plus others was what I grew up with, and when I came back from the Philippines, not so much a fan anymore (at least on the realism of swordfights)—– because blade culture when seen first hand is totally different.

                For example, skin is more like rubber, some have thick skin, others have thin, then there’s clothing material worn (see Stabbing).

                Easier to move like you’re walking, forward and back, but better to cultivate fast twitch leg muscles, for long range… but short range is the most probable encounter when with blade, which you can do with walking stance, ie. don’t cover too much ground; if your opponent wants to cover so much ground, let him tire himself out 😉 .

                Blood is very slippery.

                Essentially there’s only 3 ways to wield a sword, strike 1 is cross natural / (in that angle), strike 2 is backhand cross \ (in that angle) and strike 3 is the stab.

                Slash is to cut the skin and muscles (knowledge of arteries needed); Chopping motion is for where skin is closest to bone (knowledge of skeletal system); Stabbing unlike slashing and chopping, you want to do this action repeatedly since the point is to bleed a person out (knowledge of vital organs, this is where knowing how skin behaves is important also).

                Many times especially at close range that hand without the sword can play a more important role, ie. punching, grabbing, pushing, pulling, etc.

                Lastly, always have something you can render as tourniquet on hand, with windlass.

                Knives are somewhat employed differently (ie. usually hidden), but same principles as above.

                What’s interesting is the psychology involved, hence most folks who do this in the Philippines also dabble in the mystic arts; but I’ve met those who have no need for the supernatural… essentially you have to be ready to die—- there’s books by Samurais on this, even European swordfighting manuals, but I’ve only seen this psychology lived out in the Philippines, bahad was the colloquial word used, not sure how it translates though, or if my guy understood my question— but the psychology was central.

              • edgar,

                Precisely because you’re invoking an image when you use the word fascism, makes the images i’ve shared germane to the discussion.

                When you use this word you’re eliciting an emotion first, then sure you can break down to Paxton’s or Trotsky’s specifics, but fascism is of people wearing uniforms, with symbols of all sorts, flags, fires, large arenas, etc.

                now we both understand that the Philippines is not there yet,

                maybe you’ll be right and maybe not, hence my use of predictive analysis (to describe what you’re doing ), and as you’ve pointed out below, that’s exactly what you’re doing predicting, using Paxton’s and current events and drawing similarities in history, hence predictive analysis— you’re predicting and analyzing.

                when read all together, you’re making a prediction and surmising on the possibility of DU30’s fascism, whether you’re right or wrong, I do not know… but the images i’ve shared and “predictive analysis” i’ve used to shed light on your use of “fascism” vis-a-vis “violence” ,

                of course fascism uses violence, my point wasn’t that it didn’t (all human endeavors involve violence direct or indirect, i’ve been consistent on this here), my point was fascism was being introduced as “an appeal to emotion… in the same manner that a plain girl will dress up in a Versace to impress.”. 😉

                Hence, why IMHO you and Oldmanila are on even keel… both invoking an emotion (or two) to prosecute or defend DU30 or the current state in the Philippines.

              • edgar lores says:


                You have just employed the fallacy of “proof by assertion.”

                This fallacy is defined thus: “a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.”

                You highlighted in red the wrong phrase in the Imgur image. The operative words are bolded thus:

                “2.1. I am not engaged in predictive analysis. I was.

              • sonny says:

                @ NH
                Suffice to say, a big yes to being a sucker to choreographed swordfights, Hollywood-style. I have included 3 youtube examples at the TSH Contact section for reference. I hope this is within Joe’s protocol.

                @ LC
                The knife or any bladed tool as you described is obviously for deadly personal intent. No sport or choreography context at all.

              • Oh yeah, I hear ya totally different, but since… I’ve just had more of an appetite for realistic choreography like Bourne movies, sonny.

                “I have included 3 youtube examples at the TSH Contact section for reference. “

                What are you referring to here? I don’t see a contact section, can you post the videos on here?

              • sonny says:

                LC, click on “Contact Us” where “Home” is, i.e. second line at the top of the blog page.

              • NHerrera says:

                @sonny, kindly check Joe’s Contact Us section. I viewed the items with your name. The items are arranged in ascending date aren’t they. I did not see the youtube items you mentioned.

                Your latest post under Contact Us is

                sonny says:
                April 16, 2017 at 4:54 am

              • “2.1. I am not engaged in predictive analysis. I was. ”

                Forgive me, edgar. But that makes no sense at all! Has the future already come?

                When I said both you and Oldmanila are engaged in predictive analysis, how was that contradictory? How can you claim this in past tense, and deny it in present tense? Has Fascism arrived in the Philippines? Describe how or why then.

                Otherwise, that predictive analysis is apt, simply because what you purport to predict here has not yet happened. That’s sort of the whole point, unless you can prove that it’s already fascism time in the Philippines—- why i said the presence of violence in and of itself is not enough (that’s my point about the violence part).

                Your use of fascism is simply descriptive, I suspect to elicit a very specific emotion (but you’ve not come out on that yet 😉 ). Hence you’re still on predictive analysis mode, edgar… same-same with Oldmanila, nothing contradictory about that.

              • edgar lores says:

                Let me explain — gently.

                1. First sentence. There is nothing in this thread where I have made a predictive analysis concerning fascism and violence.

                2. Second sentence. The two paragraphs quoted — my predictive analysis — was written in December 2015 and published here at TSH in January 2016.

                2.1. This was 4 months before the May 2016 election that Duterte won.
                2.2. From the reference point of January 2016, the election and Duterte’s presidency up to today is future time.
                2.3. Duterte’s brand of fascism, which has been given the name “Duterismo,” has instituted police-driven violence that has brought about the deaths of thousands. Thus, my claim that my predictive analysis has come true.
                2.3.1. The estimated death toll was close to 9,000 in mid-April. (
                2.3.2. There are rumors the death toll is now 12,000.

              • “LC, click on “Contact Us” where “Home” is, i.e. second line at the top of the blog page.”

                Found ’em! Great videos. Zorro I’m sure I’ve seen a long time ago, the other two I’ve never heard of, will see if available on Netflix, or TCM’s on demand. Thanks!

              • “Thank you for acknowledging my point.

                As to Oldmaninla, his thinking is riddled with fallacies and, therefore, dangerous.”

                I understand all that, edgar.

                I introduced predictive analysis only to point out that you and Oldmanila are selling a similar bill of goods, quote above.

                “2.3. Duterte’s brand of fascism, which has been given the name “Duterismo,” has instituted police-driven violence that has brought about the deaths of thousands. Thus, my claim that my predictive analysis has come true.”

                Well, I don’t know about thousands, certainly there’s parts of this rampage attributable to rhetoric, parts official, parts extra-judicial, and most I’m sure is just your run of the mill violence I saw there a decade ago (riding on this wave of chaos, ie. drug dealers themselves cleaning house, scores being settled separate from the drug war, etc. etc.).

                As for violence of course you would’ve been correct, edgar, DU30 after all didn’t mince words during the campaign that he was going to make Manila Bay red with blood (or something to that effect).

                But as for fascism, sure you can use “Duterte’s brand of fascism” or “Duterismo”, to describe and elicit specific emotions, but you have to admit that Hitler or Mussolini, or France or Stalin, he is not, at least not yet (time will tell of course), hence still in the realm of predictive analysis, edgar.

                Again my use of predictive analysis was in comparison to your prosecution of Oldmanila’s views. That essentially you two are playing the same game.

              • edgar lores says:

                1. Still deflection — plus argumentum ad nauseam.

                2. I am not selling anything.

                3. I do not see where Oldmaninla made a predictive analysis. Quoting King Solomon is not predictive and certainly is not analysis.

              • “3. I do not see where Oldmaninla made a predictive analysis. Quoting King Solomon is not predictive and certainly is not analysis.”

                His use of history and your use, ie. invoking “fascism”, is in essence the same, hence both are predictive analysis, he’s essentially saying that change is sometimes violent (ie. plowing, turning things upside down).

                So there’s two components to this thread, actually three (though the violence portion we came to an agreement right away, mostly due to grammar… my bad). 1st is me playing Devil’s advocate, but in this case for Oldmanila, ie. Oldmanila’s advocate 😉 ,

                2nd is my defense of predictive analysis as relevant and germane, the disagreement may well be at which point your “prediction” came true—- you stop at violence; whereas I’m looking for fascism still.

              • edgar lores says:

                1. Analysis means a “detailed examination of the elements or structure of something.”

                2. There is no one definition of fascism.

                2.1. Who said I stopped at violence?

                2.2. “It is the characteristics of fascism that define the term. And these characteristics — a male chieftain, total power, police-driven peace and order, disdain for liberalism, the logic of victimization, the suppression of human rights, nationalism in the sense of bringing back into the fold the NPAs, BIFF and MILFs — would apply in Duterte’s world.


              • edgar lores says:

                … and still deflection.

              • “1. Analysis means a “detailed examination of the elements or structure of something.”

                2. There is no one definition of fascism.”

                It’s still analysis , edgar… maybe you can argue over the quality of the analysis presented (and that would be fair), but Oldmanila’s parsing together of history (albeit in general) is still analysis. But most importantly is the type of analysis, predictive in scope.

                You’re right there is no one definition of fascism, but in general people associate it with Hitler and Mussolini (it’s an Italian word forcrissakes!). It’s used specifically hence understood specifically (with all the emotions it invokes), is my point. It’s a WWII word first and foremost.

                “2.1. Who said I stopped at violence?

                2.2. “It is the characteristics of fascism that define the term. And these characteristics — a male chieftain, total power, police-driven peace and order, disdain for liberalism, the logic of victimization, the suppression of human rights, nationalism in the sense of bringing back into the fold the NPAs, BIFF and MILFs — would apply in Duterte’s world.”

                Okay, you’re introducing another piece here from your article (which is fine).

                But the original point was fascism vis-a-vis violence (where I said violence wasn’t specific to fascism). You’ve predicted violence, but not yet fascism.

                Again it’s fine (I accept your new paragraph) , so let’s break it down further:

                1. male chieftain

                2. total power

                3. police-driven peace and order

                4. disdain for liberalism

                5. logic of victimization

                6. suppression of human rights

                7. nationalism

                re predictive analysis, have you predicted 1-7, edgar? Let’s make it easy, from 1-10 (10 being 100% prediction) grade 1-7.

                Like I said, you’re in the same boat as Oldmanila, whether the Philippines will become fascist or “comes the bright sunshine and new life……” remains to be seen.

                I’m sure your quality of thinking is superior, edgar, in comparison, but the nature of predictive analysis is that the guy in the corner without an education can also play this game, like monkeys throwing darts at the Wallstreet Journal, besting experienced stock traders. 😉

              • edgar lores says:

                1. The original point was this contention of yours: “I don’t think violence is a tool of fascism” because “humanity has been employing violence regardless of organizational systems used.”

                1.1. I said your reasoning is illogical by analogy: “Most everyone will use a hammer in his/her lifetime. This does not preclude the fact that a hammer is a special tool of a carpenter.”

                1.2. And you admitted your error: ““I don’t think violence is a tool of fascism” … this might be better: I don’t think violence is a tool specific to fascism.” @ May10 12:29 pm.

                2. Then you introduced the red herring argument of “predictive analysis.”

                2.1. I said I was not engaged in predictive analysis in this thread but that I was before. You questioned this but seem to have accepted my gentle explanation in my May 12 4:10 am post.

                3. As part of your red herring argument of “predictive analysis,” you contended Oldmaninla’s King Solomon quote was “predictive analysis.” It is not per the definition of the term “analysis.” Where’s the detailed examination?

                4. As to your trick and tricky question whether I have predicted the seven characteristics of fascism, let me say this:

                4.1. The question is wrong. How can one predict a male chieftain?

                4.2. The question should be: Does Duterismo meet (or fulfill) the seven characteristics of fascism?

                4.3. I will leave that for you to research, grade and answer. Then you can tell us.

              • edgar,

                1. Non-sequitur reading of my statement. I agree it could’ve been worded better, but when read holistically whether or not I insert, the “specific to fascism” portion does not change the point of the sentence, that violence is used both in fascism, democracy, any systems of organizing. You can’t read that sentence and come out saying fascism doesn’t use violence—- I’m talking about Americans wanting to use violence against drug dealers here (thus comparing democracy’s own use of violence)

                2. “Predictive analysis” was simply in response to your comment on Oldmanila’s analysis.

                Since it was part of the continuum of the discussion, not a Red Herring, and since your quote in question (I missed that it was in fact a quote from an old blog, I simply read it as is), did contain “in the end”, that automatically makes it a prediction… on par with Oldmanila’s. It’s still within the continuum, based on the quote you’ve introduced (from an old blog of yours) , and not my reading, thus counter of said quote, in the original of this thread. So the start of this thread was actually your quote from your old blog (only I focused on fascism vis-a-vis violence in my initial post above). The moment you expand it to Oldmanila’s analysis, the entirety of your old quote comes to play… which is the predictive angle.

                The thread doesn’t start with 1. , edgar ; but with 2. “in the end” part of your statement. So again it’s germane.

                3. “It is not per the definition of the term “analysis.” Where’s the detailed examination?”

                This is actually what is key here, and why I’m playing advocate for Oldmanila. Because the assumption here is that DU30 supporters are not so smart, there is a certain arrogance with the anti-DU30 folks (intuitiveperceiving tried to hammer this point home to no avail). Whether you have a PhD or can enumerate thoughts in detail is beside the point, it’s the ability to see another’s thought process as valid. That “detailed” examination doesn’t have to be enumerated for a person to have analyzed , edgar.

                You may be able to draw from Paxton’s and enumerate more data for your analysis, but just because Oldmanila’s is less in your eyes doesn’t make his process of analysis less, edgar. My experience is different , having worked with un-educated 3rd world folks, who would’ve ran circles around 1st world PhD types. You’re exposing your arrogance in persisting that Oldmanila’s isn’t analysis. To continue Oldmanila’s use of farming analogy, a farmer who can predict weather, by feeling humidity with his skin, tasting the air, looking at tell tale signs, etc. when he says a rain is coming, and remember all the times this happened in his life, or stories of this moment told to him, and I ask him to enumerate his process, and he laughs at me,

                that doesn’t mean he just didn’t analyze, what’s key is what he says after, then the actual event rendering his analysis good or bad.

                So , edgar, just because Oldmanila hasn’t enumerated with more details doesn’t render his analysis less, it is still analysis, he’s using his age, worldview, patterns he’s seen in the past, the Bible, farming analogies, knowledge of his people, etc. etc. It’s actually more complex IMHO because it’s intuitive—- but his last post on here gives you further of his analysis.

                It is analysis, edgar.


                “4.2. The question should be: Does Duterismo meet (or fulfill) the seven characteristics of fascism?”

                No. Because no matter what model you compare him to (ie. fascism, the Mussolini and Hitler kind; or Stalin ; or Franco ) . There’s just not enough data for you to answer this; hence predictive analysis.

                And my predictive analysis on DU30 vis-a-vis fascism is simple, based on everything thus far, his age is a big factor—- you analyze the ages of those individuals associated with fascism and they’re clearly half DU30’s age when they started laying their ground work for their fascism. So, just by age alone, it’s next to impossible. But like I said, my opinion of predictive analysis is low, since I’m more in line with Dan Kahneman’s thinking on this (quote above).

                There’s possibilities and there’s probabilities. re Possibilities you and Oldmanila are on the same boat (regardless of quality of analyses), you just can’t know whether it ends pessimistically or on an optimistic note (there’s no way to no at this time); probabilities -wise you probably have a leg up on violence (since it’s currently happening), but fascism is less probable, see my own predictive analysis above 😉 .

              • edgar lores says:

                1. No, not non-sequitur. Sentences and parts of sentences have meanings.

                1.1. It’s very clear that your parenthetical aside was making a counterpoint to my point that violence is an instrument of fascism. Your introductory clause is “unlike edgar.”

                1.2. In your May 10 9:40 am post, you confirm the counterpoint: “As I’ve noted your fascism=violence isn’t necessarily so…”

                1.3. How can it be non-sequitur when you have admitted your aside can be better rephrased?

                2. In the same 9:40 am post, you first introduced “predictive analysis.” It is a deflection because

                2.1. I was not engaged in predictive analysis
                2.2. Oldmaninla’s post quoting King Solomon cannot be said to be analysis.

                3. Words have meaning.

                3.1. Again, where is the detailed examination? Analysis is not just conclusions. One has to lay the groundwork for the conclusions.

                3.2. Another fallacy and a serious one: ad hominem in accusing me of arrogance.

                3.3. Oldmaninla’s farming analogy has nothing to do with the discussion on Duterte. It has to do with a “balanced presentation.”

                4. “There’s just not enough data for you to answer this; hence predictive analysis.”

                4.1. Have you done any research on each of the 7 characteristics as I have suggested?

                4.2. If you have not, why and how have you come to the conclusion that there is not enough data?

              • 1. rephrase doesn’t mean I made a mistake, I still meant what I wrote, just making it clearer; but my contention is that even if i had not rephrased my counter to yours it would still hold when read holistically, that violence is not specific to fascism… meaning I could still leave it as is (w/out the rephrase), and it would still hold my point… are you saying that violence is specific to fascism? OK, then! hence there was agreement from the git-go.

                2. it is analysis, I will explain in detail. but let me set aside 4 first…

                4. are you using fascism as adjective? because i’m using fascism here as a noun, a system of gov’t. w/out the ground-work which is what mussolini and hitler did in the 20s and 30s, actually cobbling together a party, there ‘s just no comparison! duterte didn’t even have a party per se, he was creating a coalition ad hoc (one can argue he didn’t even create it , others created it for him).

                so just by age alone, your 1-7 already falls apart… it’s already too late for fascism!

                3. this is central here, because your understanding of analysis is very narrow.

                bacon and descartes may have ushered this idea of scientific method, where learned men (and now women) pursued knowledge in a specific way, where the order of analytical process became analysis–>synthesis ; but before that humanity was essentially doing conjecture–>analysis.

                early man saw the gazelle galloping first , then he looked at their tracks, and concluded that’s how a track of a gazelle galloping looks like (and included that in his mental model). tracking essentially was the first science, there was a method involved. though one can argue it was knowing when certain fruits, plants, were ripe or ready for eating (having a mental map) ; or that it was our recognition for hierarchy within a group (knowing one’s place, an invisible map)—- but all that may be instinctive… jury’s still out.

                but tracking definitely was science when man started getting a method for a specific endeavor, employ trial and error, then passing on findings and thus building upon existing mental models thru generations.

                analysis isn’t something learned people do, the most un-educated among us can do just the same, even better.

                the first box is what i’m basing predictive analysis on, then farther down Oldmanila goes more into detail (a late posting, but expounds his initial thought), he’s basing his analysis on history (just as you are, edgar). i’m not sure about 70–80% (is this current polling numbers?), but we do know that 40% of the electorate voted, so here he is talking about a mandate, that many filipinos want this to happen.

                throw in knowledge of his people and old man’s wisdom, ie. “this old man” reference, and you have intuition.

                like i said, edgar, you’ve written more, and i’m sure your analysis is superior, but all that is still analysis. he’s drawing on from different points, history, intuition, his age, the wisdom of old age, etc. to conclude that things will be fine———- he could be wrong of course, but

                my point is he is still engaged in the analytical process, no manner how mundane you think it to be. it is still a legit examination, no matter the level of detail, but he drew from different point of his knowledge and that in and of itself is the basis of analysis.

                whether he is wrong or youre right; or vice versa, still remains to be seen… hence predictive.

                “3.2. Another fallacy and a serious one: ad hominem in accusing me of arrogance.”

                Since you called me a ‘racist’ awhile back, let’s just call it even 😉 .

                But I am serious about this arrogance in general though, it’s what ‘s holding anti-DU30 folks from understanding what they are up against—- like owners of fancy houses over there, not taking the time to understand their servants (ie. because they’re fools). Viewed from that perspective it is arrogance.

              • edgar lores says:

                1. First point: the non-sequitur fallacy does not apply.

                1.1. You did not say “violence is not specific to fascism.” What you said was, “unlike edgar, I don’t think violence is a tool of fascism….”

                1.2. Rephrasing is an admission that a mistake was committed. If what one writes conveys exactly what one is thinking, then there is no need to rephrase.

                1.3. By insisting that what you said is consistent with what you meant, you are committing an “intentionality fallacy.”

                1.4. “…are you saying that violence is specific to fascism?” This is twisting words and a strawman fallacy. Also, another attempt at deflection and an attack as defense.

                3. I will call this argument by verbosity. But let’s look at the details.

                3.1. You cannot use the second posting to support the case of a “predictive analysis.” It was made after you used the term. And even so it is not analysis; it is meanderings from King Solomon to speculations and questions about taking chances.

                3.2. Where is the detailed examination in the first posting? The first sentence is the King Solomon quote. The second sentence essentially says that (a) change is constant and (b) there is nothing new under the sun. And the third essentially says that sunshine comes after a storm.

                Let us parse this so-called analysis:

                3.2.1. The first sentence is not an analysis.
                3.2.2. The (a) part of the second sentence simply expands the platitude that change is constant by naming continents/countries that have undergone change.
                3.2.3. The (b) part of the second sentence also comes from Ecclesiastes and is not analysis.
                3.2.4. The third sentence is a paraphrase of the first sentence.

                So I repeat the question: Where is the detailed examination?

                3.2. My exact words were: “Fuck you. You are being racist.” This was in response to your question: “What’re the chances of Filipino managers working inside Bangladesh Central Bank (or in their IT staff)?”

                Racism is discrimination against a race. And here, in this question, you are entertaining the probability that Filipino managers are responsible for the heist.

                Let me ask, why “Filipino” managers in particular? Your underlying assumption seems to be — no, is — that Filipino managers are criminals, is that not so?

                And you asked the question without a background knowledge of the set-up of people, hardware, software, and modus operandi. Let me remind you that the heist as not been solved to this date.

                As a patriot and a computer man, I have some knowledge of the set-up and it was inconceivable to me that a nation’s central bank would allow non-citizens to work on the computer side much less on the foreign exchange side. This is why I gave fair warning and said I resented your question. But you persisted.

                An ad hominem is “an argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.”

                Your question reveals your position. And that position, based on the underlying assumption, is that Filipino managers in particular, and by extension Filipinos in general, are criminals.

                The “fuck you” was verbal abuse and is an ad hominem. As a soldier, you know to what lengths men will go in defense of country and/or race.

                But the “being racist” tag was not ad hominem. It was an exact description of your position. So we are not even.

                (You may, if you wish, return the verbal abuse. 🙂 )

                4. Another deflection because you have not answered my questions 4.1 and 4.2. Also, another attack as defense.

              • 1. OK. Let’s say I didn’t bother to rephrase, edgar. How else could you have interpreted the whole paragraph? Look at the whole paragraph now, in context. How else could you have taken it?

                4. You introduced 1-7 to support your “prediction”, no? So it’s your evidence, you have to prove your own evidence— the burden of proof isn’t on me, it’s on you. My take was short and simple, based on DU30’s age fascism isn’t likely… at all!

                3.2. ‘The “fuck you” was verbal abuse and is an ad hominem.’ … Thank you! Again we’re even. 😉

                There was a Filipina implicated in the bank in the Philippines, so where there’s one there will likely be more because criminals usually work within the same ethnicity/family/affinity, ie. Mafia, Yakuza, Russian syndicate, etc. that was my thesis (but who knows now). It was a fair hunch, not necessarily racist.

                Now for the best part,

                3.2.1. Is not the Bible a source of knowledge and wisdom? Before the Age of Enlightenment, what did people use to base decisions on. Now you already know my personal take on the Bible (and all other religious doctrines), but my point is that it’s a fair source of knowledge.

                3.2.2. It’s history isn’t it? The same way you’ve drawn from WWII, fascism/Nazism, Oldmanila’s drawn similar lessons from history, though general, it is still a legitimate point to draw from.

                3.2.3. The title Ecclesiastes is a Latin transliteration of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Kohelet (meaning “Gatherer”, but traditionally translated as “Teacher” or “Preacher”). it is one of 24 books of the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible, where it is classified as one of the Ketuvim (or “Writings”). It is among the canonical Wisdom Books in the Old Testament.

                Why is Oldmanila not allowed to draw from this book, when for centuries Jews and then Christians took heavily from this its associated books, the system you enjoy is based on Judeo-Christian values is it not?

                3.2.4. This last part is basically similar to your “in the end” prediction.

                You ever seen a Yeshiva in action, edgar? Those guys yell, argue, pontificate, all within the confines of the Old Testament. Can you imagine being teleported in a Yeshiva , in the middle of various debates going on, drawing from community, then Old Testament books, then commentaries from their rabbis, etc. etc. and telling these guys, you are not analyzing, these are mere platitudes , paraphrasing , without any detailed examination, all fallacies!

                Western society is based on Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian values… the Judeo portion is actually the Yeshiva, like the Stoa of Ancient Greece. And Yeshiva is all just the Old Testament.

                Oldmanila is drawing from 3 sources: his age (ie. he’s seen all this before); his Bible (mainly Ecclesiastes); and history (the fact that all these countries have employed violence, yet survived to be better for it). I’m sure you can clobber poor Oldmanila in a debate, edgar, with all your fallacies on hand;

                But like the young would-be rabbis in Yeshiva, Oldmanila is still using analysis (I agree it might be confined, but he’s drawn conclusions from it)—- using history, his Bible, and his own experience. You can interpret it as sub-par to your own process of thought (ridicule it even), but still it is analysis, the act of drawing from a variety of sources makes it analysis.

                The ‘detail’ portion of it is qualitative (not quantitative, it’s not preponderance of data), so standards will differ, but in Oldmanila’s case 3 sources is enough to render it analysis.

              • edgar lores says:

                1. But you have rephrased.

                2. I am personally satisfied that Duterismo exhibits the 7 common characteristics of fascism. You are making the claim that the 7 have NOT been fulfilled. The onus is on you to prove your claim.

                3.2. You are most welcome. Your claim of ad hominem was me calling you a “racist.” I said that “being racist” was not the ad hominem. You have made no rebuttal.

       Where is the detailed analysis? Quoting the Bible is not analysis. So what if the Bible is a source of knowledge and wisdom? I can say “E=mc2.” Is that analysis and does that make me Einstein?
       Where is the detailed analysis? The platitude that “change is constant” does not an analysis make. The platitude may be Heraclitan, but is that analysis?
       Where is the detailed analysis? Quoting the Bible is not analysis.
       Where is the detailed analysis? Paraphrasing is not analysis. It is merely rewording.

                Now, you have gone into some depth — and analysis! — of Oldmaninla’s sources and I say, “Congratulations!”

                I imagine yeshiva sessions will have various interpretations of the Jewish traditional religious texts, and that these interpretations will feature, among other things:

                o examination of the traditional texts and elements
                o examination of the commentaries and elements
                o identifying the interrelationships of the elements of the traditional texts
                o identifying the interrelationships of the elements of the traditional texts and the commentaries
                o original thinking (insights)
                o original reasoning (logic)

                Accordingly, any analysis, worthy of the name, must contain all of the above: an examination of the elements, identification of the interrelationships, original thinking, and reasoning.

                In comparison, Oldmaninla’s post is just quotations of traditional texts, a platitude, and a paraphrase.

                I will be generous and say the elements are implicit and the interrelationships cyclic, but none of the observations are original to Oldmaninla. They belong to King Solomon and Heraclitus. More importantly, there is no original personal thinking and reasoning.

              • NHerrera says:

                @sonny, thanks for obliging by posting those three YouTube clips on the choreographed swordplay under the Contact Us section of the Blog.

              • 1. I rephrased not as an act of contrition, but politeness (for clarity). It could still be read as is, without the rephrasing, is my point.

                2. I am not making the claim that 1-7 doesn’t satisfy fascism, I’m saying you have to present your evidence, in relation to your prediction (which you have not done yet); my point of DU30 ‘s age precludes the situation from going fascism, rendering 1-7 moot— again it is your evidence of prediction, edgar, either run with it or drop the evidence.

                3. I did make a rebuttal, ie. affinity/ethnicity— you hardly ever see criminal outfits using the United Nations model or Ocean’s 11 😉 .


                “In comparison, Oldmaninla’s post is just quotations of traditional texts, a platitude, and a paraphrase.

                I will be generous and say the elements are implicit and the interrelationships cyclic, but none of the observations are original to Oldmaninla.”

                Thanks for farthering the possibility of analysis, edgar. He’s not merely quoting and paraphrasing , Oldmanila is drawing from its wisdom and knowledge (you can interpret it as such though, simply quotes); so to from history and his experience.

                He didn’t just decide one day to post quotations, edgar, in context to the blog article he is weighing in his thoughts, he has a thesis in mind, or in this case a “prediction” (same-same as you, and many of us here who’ve played this game).

                re Analysis, a toddler who burns himself one day, or sees his brother burned, or hears his mother’s warning of what fire does; the next day decides not to touch fire—- did so after analysis, if he has no brother and/or mom, drawing from his own experience alone is analysis, edgar. within that single event, and the act of remembering, it is complex.

                As for “original thought” , let’s go philosophical on that, is that even possible? From whence do you get your own thoughts, if you got them somewhere, is it then “original”?

                ps. I’m not just quoting Blake here 😉 i’m supporting my point that the complexity of something can, or many times, be hidden. hence look closer!

                (it’s the weekend now, if I don’t post again for 2-3 days, I have not surrendered, just merely absent—- I shall return! 😉 good discussion! Thanks!)

              • edgar lores says:

                1. Answered. Again: intentionality fallacy defined as “the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated.”

                2. Answered. Why do I have to? I am satisfied. And gently: why are you telling me what to do?

                3. Where?

                4. Answered. Also: before Blake, who has written “Auguries of Innocence” in its exact form and in exactly the way Blake thought? No one.

                You may return but I may not. I think we have used up more of JoeAm’s cyberspace estate than we should have.


              • I’ve enjoyed the match, more than most recent Pacquiao fights. 🙂

              • edgar lores says:


              • sonny says:

                @ NH
                You’re very welcome. I hope you enjoyed the look-back to those ‘artsy’ days. You got me beat, though. You actually took an epee or rapier to study and practice the nitty-gritty of fencing. I only got to watch a neighborhood school of fencing and listen to the instructors and trainees do their fencing thingy. 🙂

                Such fun to watch the two king rams do their verbal tussle on the precipice. Yesss!

                @ edgar & LC
                Take dat! Ha, you missed! (where are those Venn diagrams when you need them, 🙂 )

              • Sorry for the delay. I’m back.

                edgar, I agree, we’ve squeezed this orange of its juice past what would be considered decent in many circles 😉 .

                My summary is simple:

                In my defense of “predictive analysis” as a non-Red Herring , we were able to drill down the essence of this notion of analysis. Predictive analysis is one of those words mostly thrown around in think-tanks, and polling companies. When I used it was just a catchy way of saying you and Oldmanila are essentially doing the same thing (no difference in my eyes).

                The ultimate difference is that although yes “predictive analysis” is a noun; I’m using analysis here as more a verb (crawling to walking to running— w/out judging if running is better than crawling), simply a process; your insistence is that it’s a noun, ie. analysis is a product of enumerated thinking (I agree with that too),

                but IMHO once you start playing the ‘my thought process is superior to yours’ game , then (not only the arrogance of this line of thought) you again are pushing the Us vs. Them model of doing things. There’s other ways to convince someone of your ideas (actions) aside from you’re wrong , I’m right, or we’re smart , youre not—- again all this is from my experience of America’s recent wars (ie. democracy spreading, regime change, nation building, etc.)

                The debate’s over,

                but I have one more question (no need to actually answer it, take it as rhetorical), but here it is… if Oldmanila’s post was mere paraphrasing, quotes, and platitudes, why were they “dangerous”? Joe’s given me the title “Chief Troll” I think for this same reason, “dangerous”; I believe you or jp, or others have also labeled ip (welcome back , ip!!!) “dangerous” , because of his on-the-fence type thinking… how do mere platitudes become “dangerous”?

                p.s.~~~ I see your posts below let me return to it tonite, gotta go for now. I think i still have the little green booklet that came with that test.

                (Joe, sonny, et al. THANKS, for watching! Glad you enjoyed. and Joe, thanks for the long leash this time around 😉 ).

              • One of the dangers of platitudes or fence-sitting is that it legitimizes complacency, the bed that allows bad deeds to become horrors.

              • Edgar Lores says:

                It’s all laid out in my May 10 8:07 am post.

                Your inability to “see” it is due to your amoral stance. The very fact that you have to ask the question, rhetorical as it may be, indicates this.

              • OK, perfect!

                I take it that Oldmanila isn’t “dangerous” the way Jesus or Socrates was dangerous. So what’s dangerous is inaction… basically, platitudes lead to complacency and complacency leads to inaction. Kinda like Yoda’s ,

                I disagree because from my experience inaction comes from apathy. Hence my call for action consistently , in my articles, commentary and worldview, doesn’t really matter which side (this is where I’m agnostic, or amoral), just action. As an amoral, I commend Oldmanila’s post (analytic or not 😉 ) ,

                precisely because his other choice was not commenting at all. I don’t know how he voted, and I’m not sure what the voter turnout was over there last year, but if its similar to here, the bigger “danger” for me, aren’t the ones who voted for Hillary (or for Trump, me 😉 ) , but the ones who didn’t bother , or cared enough, to vote.

                Same same here. It’s hard to talk to apathy, but it is far easier to talk to someone who at the very least showed up. That’s been my point about this whole US vs. THEM thinking.

                Platitudes and complacency does not equal inaction (if anything it ‘s evidence of effort); it’s apathy that’s dangerous. I’m sure you two would agree with me that Oldmanila & ip are not apathetic—- so why not hear them out? Give their posts some credence.

                Prioritize what’s dangerous, you got viruses (apathy) and you got predators (DU30), then you have lemmings (Oldmanila & ip, though not necessarily, but since I’m addressing Joe & edgar 😉 , fellas, lemmings are cute and cuddly not dangerous ).

              • edgar lores says:

                I will not discuss this with you but: Thought must precede Action.

                Actually, we have discussed it before in a different form — that the teaching of Honor must be in the Training and not after it — and I don’t know whether the penny has dropped in your mind.

              • edgar lores says:

                Ah, no rational argument so must use a visual.

              • “I will not discuss this with you but: Thought must precede Action.


                I thought you didn’t want to discuss, hence my posting of a funny cartoon— totally germane to the question “Thought must precede Action” , which by the way is related to Joe’s current discussion topic: (i’d even go so far as to say knowledge is unknowable 😉 , but that’s for another time)

                re “Thought must precede Action” , you’re conceived thru action , your cells multiply until they specialize, to create organs, then after 9 months, you’re popped out of the vagina, that first gasp of air, is it thought or action? Everything you do for the 1st year or so, is action, then maybe after 1 year, you make your “own” decisions… so just within that baby example, Action obviously precedes Thought.

                re Honor first then Training , that’s another theory driven theory , you don’t read about Honor, you do it , either it becomes muscle memory or it doesn’t , either you run to the sounds of gun fire (or just fire burning), or you “think” about it (usually by that time it’ll be too late). So again Action must precede Thought. Of course I realise this is the chicken first or the egg scenario—- but i’d be curios of your examples where Thought must precede Action, edgar? Maybe for you Thought must precede Action; but not for everyone.

                I guess that must is what’s problematic for me. 😉

              • Edgar Lores says:

                1. When I google “define action,” the definition of action that I get is this: “the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.”

                I am using action in this sense including the “typical clause” and not in the sense of mere movement.

                2. I can see the penny has not dropped.

              • edgar,

                I have the same definition in mind, no different.

                I just cater more to this thought, than your theoretical approach, to everything 😉

              • chemrock says:

                Edgar, Lance, if I may —

                ‘Thought is action in rehearsal.’ – Sigmund Freud

                Every action is preceded by thought. There may be a delay between thought and action, Sometimes thought and action happen almost simultaneously which leads to mistaken notion that action preceded thought, which we then call an after-thought. When you automatically return fire when fired upon, or when you knock a bottle off a table but almost instinctively you reached out to catch it before it hits the ground, these are instant actions that seem to precede thought. The first eg may be a conditioned reaction, the second eg may be good reflexes which is simply your motors connect to your thought cells excellently. When an event occurs, the reaction is move forward, run, or freeze. When you freeze, it’s the thought cells having a disconnect with motor cells.

                When I do something physical which entails some danger, I use to map and envisage in my mind first what I should do if ‘A’ happens and if ‘B’ happens. In other words I precondition my mind so that I can snap to action, just like soldiers do in their training.

                With negative thoughts, we are likely to take negative actions.
                Positive thoughts,positive actions.
                And here in Philippines, there are lots of crazy thoughts, thus lwe see lots to crazy actions, like forgoing billions of pesos in EU grants.

              • “When I do something physical which entails some danger, I use to map and envisage in my mind first what I should do if ‘A’ happens and if ‘B’ happens. In other words I precondition my mind so that I can snap to action, just like soldiers do in their training.”


                I definitely agree with that and what I alluded to re muscle memory about. But the ability to visualize must first come from the doing of said action.

                But back to edgar’s point that we are not talking mere movements here but training our minds for ethics, positive thoughts, morality, all that Buddhist/Jainist stuff, etc. which in and of itself I’ll agree with,

                but again only a few amount of people do this (like edgar, and i’m sure you chemp, and many here)

                My point here (again and again) is that most people need to act first then they think.

                I have a military buddy who’s pro-Trump, though not like the way I’m pro-Trump (ie. as jumpstarting American democracy), he really bought his crap hook line and sinker, chemp…

                well one day he decided to go to a Trump protest (after the inauguration) in support of his guy, mind you he is a-political and Trump was probably his first vote ever. He’s in the protest, and he finally sees real Trump supporters, and they were a bunch of nut cases (at least the one he went to). Since then he’s been more open to watching MSNBC, CNN, and other reports on Trump. But it required an act (of going to a protest) for him to finally question some of his dogmas.

                And that’s essentially that Pascale quote above , chemp.

              • edgar lores says:

                I have said I will not discuss the topic of “Thought must precede action.” But Chemrock has not responded to your post. However, in the interest of learning:

                A. Principles

                1. Causation is a chain of events (the causal chain).
                2. The events occur in time. The events are usually represented as nodes on the line of causation.
                3. For one event, all preceding events in the chain are intermediate causes.
                4. For any one event, the immediately preceding event is called the immediate cause (or direct cause or ultimate cause).

                B. Chain of Events from the narrative:

                o Node 1: Subject goes to a Trump protest. This is Action.
                o Node 2: Subject finally sees real Trump supporters. This is perception, which is a kind of Thought. (Perception is defined as “the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.)
                o Node 3: Subject sees that the real Trump supporters are a bunch of nut cases. This is a conclusion, and definitely a Thought.
                o Node 4: Subject is open to watching MSNBC, CNN and other reports on Trump. This is Action.

            • *******

              @Lance, if I may ask, are you familiar with MBTI? If yes, I’m guessing you are an xNTP? Because as an INTP, I usually get your thought process. (And maybe vice versa also? Haha)

              However, as one of the main difference that I have observed: it is that you’re more forward and aggressive with your points probably because, hazarding a more explicit guess, your Upper stacks are Ne-Ti (more scope and breadth first then consistency and depth) [ENTP] while mine is Ti-Ne (More consistency and depth first then scope and breadth) [INTP].

              So though similar with the thought process, how we get there is usually very different. As an excerpt of some the differences:

              // ENTPs are very sure of themselves and their ideas, more so than the INTP – the INTP’s first line of thinking is “will this work?” The ENTP thinks it might work, and that’s a good enough starting point. The ENTP is active in their desire to change things, where the INTP is active in their desire to ponder changing things. For the ENTP, the excitement is in doing – for the INTP, the excitement is in the thinking. //

              Going by MBTI cognitive function stacks, the types are indeed almost similar, but still, not quite:

              [INTP] Ti-Ne-Si-Fe
              Driver: Introverted Thinking, “Accuracy” (Ti)
              Co-Pilot: Extraverted Intuition, “Exploration” (Ne)
              10 Yr Old: Introverted Sensing, “Memory” (Si)
              3 Yr Old: Extraverted Feeling, “Harmony” (Fe)

              [ENTP] Ne-Ti-Fe-Si
              Driver: Extraverted Intuition, “Exploration” (Ne)
              Co-Pilot: Introverted Thinking, “Accuracy” (Ti)
              10 Yr Old: Extraverted Feeling, “Harmony” (Fe)
              3 Yr Old: Introverted Sensing, “Memory” (Si)

              But it probably doesn’t mean that you’re absolutely an ENTP. An INTP with a very well developed ‘Exploration’ (Ne) is also a possibility?


              @Edgar, I’ve been getting some INTJ vibes with our repeated interactions. It is mostly from my interactions with other INTJs and their preference for detailed point-by-point addressing of arguments. So in addition to you having confirmed that your INTJ on a previous blog a few months ago, well, there really isn’t much that I could ask. 🙂

              But to elaborate more on the INTJ dynamic, and hoping you could confirm:

              [INTJ] Ni-Te-Fi-Se
              Driver: Introverted Intuition, “Perspectives” (Ni)
              Co-Pilot: Extraverted Thinking, “Effectiveness” (Te)
              10 Yr Old: Introverted Feeling, “Authenticity” (Fi)
              3 Yr Old: Extraverted Sensing, “Sensation” (Se)

              // For an INTJ, this dominant process is technically called Introverted Intuition [Ni], but we’ve nicknamed it “Perspectives.”

              Perspectives is a learning function (technically called a “perceiving function”), and works by watching one’s own mind form patterns. After years of use, eventually Perspectives begins to see the ‘pattern of the patterns’ and understands that what is happening inside of themselves cognitively is also happening for other people.

              Since INTJs are leading with an intuitive process there is more credence given to creative internal thought. They aren’t scanning for content that could be wrong, they’re scanning for new patterns that could be right.

              This is why INTJs must pair their Driver process with the Co-Pilot of Extraverted Thinking [Te], or “Effectiveness.” The only way to truly know if those patterns have merit is if they play out in the ‘outer world’. If they work, awesome! That was a great new pattern. If they fail, then it’s back to the internal drawing board. //


              As for the INTP Dynamic:

              //INTPs, on the other hand, lead with a process called Introverted Thinking [Ti], which we call “Accuracy.”

              Accuracy is a decision-making function (technically called a “judging function”), and works by creating a framework and then sifting through all the data within that framework, scanning for incongruities and inconsistencies. Its ultimate goal is to find things that make sense to the user, and once clarity is gained then the INTP knows the right course of action to take.

              For an INTP, the outer world isn’t where thoughts are vetted. In fact, INTPs couple their Accuracy with Extraverted Intuition [Ne], or what we call “Exploration.” The world outside of themselves is where intriguing new patterns are observed, and it’s up to them to make sense of what those possibilities could mean.

              This is why INTPs must be so ruthless with their content and data. The criteria isn’t necessarily provable to an outside observer, and so an internally consistent argument may be the best they’ve got to give credibility to their conclusions. //


              But for more info on cognitive functions stacks and the INTP-INTJ Dynamic:

              So given the above, well, @Lance and Edgar, for a post-fight assessment may I recommend the following video? Might be beneficial for future interactions. 🙂

              But if I were, to sum up the takeaways I got from the video:
              The INTJ is mostly concerned with what makes sense to paint a ‘whole’ picture.
              The INTP [or ENTP in some ways also] is mostly concerned with what NOT makes sense to paint a ‘whole’ picture.

              So given this two divergent approaches, well, again, something to note for future discussions? =D

              As for another possible dynamic:
              INTJ = Mostly Inductive, while INTP = Mostly Deductive?

              • edgar lores says:


                That sounds about right.

                1. I documented my thought process, the 5-tier model, some blogs ago.


                1.1. I would insert this bit after 6.3:

                “6.4. It is important to note that reasoning may contradict intuition. This is especially true when intuition is based on prejudice from our upbringing and conditioning. If contradiction arises, we should verify and resolve exactly where the truth lies – heart or mind — and cherish this bit of “awakening.”

                2. I strongly agree with this bit: INTJs have a “preference for detailed point-by-point addressing of arguments.”

                2.1. This is my enumeration technique.

                2.2. But sometimes I only use it when I have to, as when what is obvious to me is not obvious to others. Like in my parsing of Oldmaninla’s “predictive analysis.” This technique is “drilling down.”

                3. I disagree with this bit: “They [INTJs] aren’t scanning for content that could be wrong, they’re scanning for new patterns that could be right.”

                3.1. As I scan there are positive and negative twinges in my mind. Positive (Mm-hmm or Aha) means agreement; negative (Um or Nah ah) skepticism or disagreement.

                4. Looking at my 5-tier model, I also disagree with this bit but perhaps only in so far as I am concerned: “INTJ = Mostly Inductive, while INTP = Mostly Deductive?”

                4.1. It is true I start with intuition, which is inductive — that is, I start with a conclusion from my intuition. However, I balance it with reasoning, which is deductive — that is, starting from a premise. In other words, my initial conclusion becomes a premise for further examination by logical reasoning. Hence, my insertion of item 6.4 above is important.

                5. Important: note that MBTI is a paradigm (or a complex of personality paradigms). As such, one can use it as a basis for understanding but it has its limits. No matter what personality type we belong to, we can improve our process of reasoning by knowing logic and the different types of fallacies. Needless to say, we can also improve our empathy.

                6. Heh heh. So the xNTPs are people “in denial,” are they? Looking at you and LCpl_X, I tend to agree. I would sum your differences this way:

                6.1. You tend to look at both sides of a question but deny making a choice as to which side is right.
                6.2. LCpl_X tends to look only at his side — which is right regardless! — and denies legitimacy to the other side.

                With both of you, one can almost never arrive at a consensus.

              • edgar lores says:


                I will add this bit of analysis as I recall your comment about Mocha as it parallels with Oldmaninla.

                You said that we should try to understand Mocha by looking at her background. And LCpl_X said we should try to understand Oldmaninla by the effort he put into his predictive analysis.

                Both of you are asking us to understand what is in front of us by looking at what goes on behind the scene.

                Now, it is true when we are judging Deeds we should look both at consequences and at motivation (or intent).

                However, when we are looking at a Work Product — a news item in the case of Mocha and an opinion post in the case of Oldmaninla — we should judge the Product on its own merits. Ideally, we should do this without knowledge of the factors and the process of arriving at it. The background process is immaterial and irrelevant in so far as the quality of the work product is concerned.

                o When a food critic judges a dish objectively, he does not care how the ingredients were put together and the dish prepared. He is only interested in how the dish looks and tastes.
                o When Duterte encourages killing, we do not have to understand that he was subject to corporal punishment by his mother in order to condemn his violation of the rule of law.

                I do not deny background knowledge will influence judgment, but it should not be central to making a judgment.

                Mocha’s news item is either true or fake (false). Oldmaninla’s opinion post is either original or copied.

                (The product may be a combination of both true and fake or original and copied. But if a significant portion is fake or copied, then I would judge them to be so respectively.)

              • @Edgar

                I apologize for the really late reply. Have been overly busy as of late…

                But on determining ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, let me elaborate more on the difference of assessment:

                For your preference, you usually first determine what is right (given some standards), then everything that remains is what you’d possibly call ‘wrong’.

                For mine, I usually first determine what is wrong (given some standards), then everything that remains is what I’d possibly call ‘right’.

                It may seem like it is just nuances but there is probably an important distinction.

                // The easiest way to describe the difference between these two types would be to say that INTJs like to put things together and INTPs like to pull them apart. Given these things: An INTJ’s Ni sees how things will come together, INTP’s Ne sees how they are all currently connected.//

                As for some other dynamics:

                // To translate this into an analogy: An INTJ comes up with an argument to show an INTP. In this case we’ll use a gun to symbolise the argument. So in response to the ‘gun’, instead of pulling out a bigger one (more technical and in-depth, which is what I would imagine an INTJ response to be) the INTP would simply examine the INTJ’s gun and point out that the firing pin is missing. So no matter how big [comprehensive] the gun is, if the firing pin (the logic/principle behind the whole thing) doesn’t work, the argument falls apart, no matter how well-built the other parts are. In this way, I tend to always aim to disarm my opponent’s logic as a way to bolster my comparatively subtle point. But in some cases though, to the INTJ’s irritation, the INTP may not even have a gun of his own yet. But he does have a vast array of parts at hand collected from a vast array of sources. //

                So as for me saying that understanding where people like Mocha are coming from as important? Well:

                So before charging me with undermining morality, undermining truth, and obscurantism:

                // Jacques Derrida is a French post-structuralist, best known for his “deconstruction” method. Throughout his career, and today, he is often portrayed as a kind of boogeyman of philosophy, who claims that everything is relative, any claim is just as true as any other claim, rationality is not desirable, etc. However, no one, Derrida included, has ever taken such a position. Deconstruction is, roughly speaking, an attempt to understand how we understand and interpret different texts. So to grasp the meaning of any given text, or even any given word, you must understand the network of related words, and the history of the meaning of the word and all of the related words. So Derrida is not against “rationality”, what he is against is the belief that rationality, as a concept, has a timeless, pure, transcendent meaning, and that we can know what that meaning is. What he attempts to do is further understand the discourses of what rationality is in any given culture, giving greater clarity to the concept. //

                To elaborate using my own words: I’m not asking you to accept the context used by the likes of Mocha and her ilk as there are surely some better ones. However, I only ask that you try to really understand it so that you can actually try to take it into account thus accomplishing something with your ideals.

                And with your analogy of a food critic, well, it really couldn’t be more apt. So if I may first ask you: What is your goal then? Are you a critic seeking just to undermine or to change and educate? Sure the former could be a prerequisite for the latter, however, when have you achieved the latter? From what I’ve seen, it never happens. So why do you suppose are you not achieving it? Well, examining how their work product was created will surely give insights why. But given that you’ve said that the background process is immaterial and irrelevant: You’ll probably never really know for sure then.

                Because rather than taking their positions with a [grain] of salt, you probably take it with a [sack] of salt thus changing the flavor too much, making it completely utter crap. Well, not that it was crap before, but you probably had made it more crappier than it already is. This would probably earn you more disdain from the said people that need your ideals as they’ll be too caught up in you not understanding their stance. At worst, especially if there is no proper closure, they’ll think that you are deliberately misrepresenting their stance, leading them to go more into the defensive, thus even making it even harder for you to convince them, thus making your negative bias towards them even worse. A vicious cycle.

                So where am I going with this? Well, to quote something I’ve stumbled upon from an analysis of ‘Ghost in the Shell’ (1995) :

                // The message is to interact with the world, resolve our contradictions with it, and emerge stronger than we were before. Clinging to our beliefs, about who and what we are, will only prevent us from becoming what we can be.” //

                Given the above, this is also probably another answer why some people are deemed ‘dangerous’, as asked above by Lance. Because in a way, it not only ‘needles’ one’s viewpoints, but, by extension, it also ‘needles’ one’s identity. And given how much one invests on one’s identity? Many probably won’t choose to compromise the ‘stability’ that they had worked so hard on.

                So if I may humbly ask: When was the last time that you interacted with people from the other side? And maybe ignore Mocha for now, and let us consider those people with some ‘intellectual backbone’. Like those of Thinking Pinoy, Charles Englund, Sasot, Contreras , etc? Pretty much any person who supports Duterte that may have a semblance of intellect? But then again, there is this belief floating around in some circles that Duterte supporters and intelligence are mutually exclusive. How quaint, no?

                But still, given that I’m talking about interactions, well… From what I’ve seen, following some interactions from both sides, it basically usually just ends up as with the scenario above: Bigger guns vs Bigger guns. And even worse is, the building of walls and the avoidance of direct interactions.

                But to give credit where it is due though: I find that these Duterte supporters are more willing to cross this walls and borders. So in a way, they are more ‘open’. Well, ‘open’ in the sense that most of them don’t just block, disallow, or ignore comments about their stance. Sure, they are too aggressive at times, but this seems to have the implication that they do actually acknowledge other people’s points as they are actually giving them counterpoints.

                Though some of them may not always be logically sound, there is still the attempt to interact and that is probably what is important for now: Which is to establish some ground for conversation and discussion. And it really is just a matter of building it up from there.

                But comparing this to most anti-dutertards, there really is this sense of arrogance as they usually come off as too dismissive, with the reasoning probably being that these supporters are really just completely irrational and non-thinking. Or they are just trolling or are paid hacks. Sometimes even all of the above. But then again, how does one interact with these people if they are so overly hostile? Well, probably best to note that fighting fire with fire will usually just result in a bigger fire. Sure it’ll be a hassle, but what other options is there?

                [But for the sake of conciseness, when I refer to dutertards, well, you probably know the prominent ones. Though for anti-dutertards? Well, these are mostly those pages and people that take every event as an opportunity to overly criticize the current admin by jumping to conclusions to further one’s agendas. A good example of that would be those people that ‘rejoiced’ about the Maute-Marawi event and the recent RWM fiasco.

                Nevertheless, these two sides are actually not representative of the majority. (And no, The Silent Majority™ is not the majority.) Because from what I’ve been seeing, the ‘neutral’ block has always been the majority and it seems to be steadily growing and lots of people there are actually starting to speak up some more. And this is from both sides, mind you. Personally, I find it as a really welcome development that no other admin has ever done: Breaking apathy by forcing people to speak up and confront each other.]

                And also, Edgar, to bring some more context to this reply: I actually wrote a reply to your reply, when I ‘ranted’ on the previous blog post. But I didn’t post it yet as I seemed to have exhausted the ‘timing’, having chosen to cool off back then. But nonetheless, I shall post it with this reply as it would probably be better than keeping it buried in my notes.

                Lastly, on a closing note:
                // Dear INTJ: Do not debate the INTP on some idea you absolutely love without preparing to get emotional or look more emotional than the INTP. You naturally will be more personal and emotional than the INTP so you will be tempted to be cutting and sarcastic. Do know that it probably won’t change anything. //

                So yeah. I could actually play that game as well, however, I really do find it unnecessary.

                Because if anything, what I’m really after is to develop more the INTJ-INTP dynamic discussed above. It really is something that I’m trying to work out, because, just to share: An INTJ was one of those who really helped me develop my logic and reasoning. So when it comes to your replies, I do really look forward it as I do usually see where you are coming from.

                But as of now, given how emotionally-charged and personal the topic at hand could be, seldom had we actually reached the ideal dynamic. You probably still see me as someone missing the forest for the trees. But on the contrary, I probably see you as someone missing the trees for the forest.

                However, as I’ve said before also, do know that your attempts to make me focus, as always, is really appreciated. So to answer your point back then: Yes, I am speaking in generalities. As I always have, no? So how do you suppose can we narrow the scope? Ask me of how I see the the possible state of the trees for your forest, and I shall ask you of how you see the possible state of the forest for my trees. Keyword: Ask.

                So maybe try and forego some assumptions so that we can try to identify the contradictions and see if it would be possible to resolve them? Just ask and I shall try to answer to best of my abilities. 🙂

              • edgar lores says:

                1. ”However, I only ask that you try to really understand it so that you can actually try to take it into account thus accomplishing something with your ideals.

                2. ”What is your goal then?”

                3. ”Well, examining how their work product was created will surely give insights why. [“Why” being the reasons “your ideals” are not being accomplished.]


                4. The issue was: When we judge the quality of a work product should we consider the background process of arriving at the product? And my answer was NO.

                5. The counter arguments, from the 3 quotes above, appear to be twofold:

                5.1. What are the goals in judging the quality of a work product?
                5.2. Are not the goals greater accomplished by considering the background process of arriving at the product?

                6. This is a deflection pure and simple. It is shifting the issue from a work product as stated in item 4 to an examination of the ideals of the work product critic (5.1) and the possible accomplishment of those ideals (5.2).

                6.1. I will not respond to the new issues raised. However, I will note I included this caveat in my original post as to the importance of background factors: “I do not deny background knowledge will influence judgment, but it should not be central to making a judgment.”

                6.2. At a minimum, I will say my goal, to use the analogy of the food critic, is to judge whether a dish is tasty (true) or not (false).

                6.3. Most of the response centers on MBTI types and on methods, including deconstruction. There are many methods. But the importance of methods lies in their utility. And their utility consists in whether they lead to observable truths and not to falsities.

              • @Edgar

                For clarification, you’re referring to only one instance/iteration of the work product, no? Because looking back at our discussion of the iterated prisoner’s dilemma, I think this seems to have been the same point of contention. And to elaborate again on that, it is probably because I seem to be focused on analyzing the situation as a continuum (A cascading chain of events) while you are focused on analyzing it as a situation by itself. (The event by itself is either right or wrong and a reiteration of the said event won’t change that fact.)

                Not that I’m saying that it is mutually exclusive as both positions would probably have some merits depending on the context.

                Nevertheless, given the above, well, if I were to strictly follow your line of logic: My stance would indeed seem to be a deflection. So to address it, well, as I said above:

                // I’m not asking you to accept the context used by the likes of Mocha and her ilk as there are surely some better ones. //

                So do note that I don’t actually disagree with you when you say that the work product of issue could currently be judged by its own merits. And, for the sake of accuracy: Yes, it is indeed crap. So with that, your issue of the work product and its quality [at present]? It’s a non-issue as it is already [objectively] established.

                So what is my issue then? Well: “What are you doing about it then?”

                Because from what I can gather from your stance, you’re saying that the main goal (yours) is to objectively critique? And if they accept it? Good. If not? Probably not your problem.

                Given this, you don’t actually seek to undermine their position because, hey, hands down, you are surely more objective than these people. As you’ve said before:

                “If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem.”

                But if I may share how I may interpret that: The people who feel undermined by your critiques? They are actually undermining themselves, hence it really is not your problem as it is theirs.

                But to bring up a point on that:
                “If you are alienating people from becoming part of the solution, then wouldn’t that make you part of the problem as well?”

                Because as with your discussion above with Lance, what I gathered is: What you are aiming for is probably making the people think so that they would act.

                But before elaborating some more and run the risk of being carded with “Gish Galloping” again… Let me ask you first for your take on it: What have you accomplished given your current approach? How effective is it? Is there really no need for reassessment?

              • edgar lores says:


                1. There might be a real problem in the external world but most of the time the real problem is in our thinking.

                2. For example: “…I seem to be focused on analyzing the situation as a continuum… while you are focused on analyzing it as a situation by itself.”

                2.1. Why do you assume that I do not see or consider the continuum?

                2.2. On this point, let me paraphrase Feynman’s “If you wish to make apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe” thus:

                o To see things as a continuum, would you not have to start from the creation of the universe?

                3. Apart from the use of erroneous reasoning, I find that most Filipinos err in their thinking in two disciplines: categorization and scoping.

                3.1. By categorization, I mean classifying a problem under the proper domain. For example, Is the problem political or judicial? If judicial, is it criminal, civil, common, or statuate? In the case of criticism, I said the proper domain of criticism is the evaluation of the work product as it is.

                3.2. By scoping, I mean defining the perimeters of the problem after one has categorized it. What is in scope? And what is out of scope? In the case of the work product, I said the biographical details of the creator are out of scope. What is in scope is simply the qualities of the work product. A comparison to similar products would not be out of scope.

                3.3. So you do agree with me. Why, then, do you beat around the bush?

                4. This leads us to the bush: “If you are alienating people from becoming part of the solution, then wouldn’t that make you part of the problem as well?”

                5. Before I answer that question, let me answer this: “Well: “What are you doing about it then?”

                5.1. What is my motivation in writing? As far as I can tell, it is primarily to express my unique consciousness. But, really, why do I have to express it? Well, it is part of my elan vital. Might as well ask, “Why do birds sing?”

                5.2. Is part of my motivation to proselytize? No, not really. A secondary motive is to raise Consciousness. Whose consciousness? Primarily mine… as milestones in my intellectual and spiritual development. But, yes, also the consciousness of others as milestones of mankind’s journey to enlightenment. All consciousness is connected in ways and means that we do not yet understand.

                5.3. Am I gratified when other minds resonate to mine? Indubitably. But that is a bonus. Even so, I realize that that gratification is also ego on my part.

                5.4. So what am I doing about it? Nothing… because my primary purpose is not to sway others to my way of thinking. Yes, I want to improve the ways (methods) people think but not necessarily to my way of thinking (conclusions).

                5.4.1. I generally believe in Krishnamurti’s dictum that Truth is a pathless land, and each of us in our individual journey must find his own path.
                5.4.2. At the same time, I believe that certain paths in our collective journey are common and shared because of the intersubjective truths we have agreed upon.
                5.4.3. Our paths crisscross and that indeed, for a time, some of us may arrive at the same truths and tread the same path in our individual and collective journeys.

                5.5. Therefore, all those questions in your last paragraph about accomplishment, effectivity, and reassessment — as these relate to influencing others – are none of my primary concerns insofar as my personal journey is concerned. Insofar as our collective journey is concerned, I am engaged in upholding the values of the UDHR and the Constitution. Am I effective? Perhaps only to the extent of raising consciousness and only to the extent that others are genuinely open and receptive to absorb the points I raise.

                5.6. The error in categorization is the assumption that I am a propagandist in the pejorative sense of the term. I speak my truth, which is to say the logic of my heart and mind, but I do not do it to convince others. Only because I am moved to do so and, again, to raise the general level of consciousness. That raising consciousness influences behavior for the better is a hope but it is not a given. (Just look at the senators.)

                5.7. The founders of the great religions provided us with methods and paths, but they left it to us to choose the method and path. Looking at the world today, do we judge them to be failures?

                6. This brings us to the error of scoping in item 4.

                6.1. The fallacy in this is a sort of circular reasoning that is impossible to escape from.

                o Premise A: If one speaks out about a problem, one may be alienating others.
                o Premise B: If one alienates others, then one becomes part of the problem.

                Circular reasoning: “A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.”

                To my mind, this leads to one of two conclusions.

                o That one should not speak out at all. This is unacceptable.
                o That one should speak without alienating others. This is impossible.

                6.2. Generally, I am responsible for what I say (and do). But how others react to what I say is not my responsibility. Their reactions — because I do not control these and we are individual agents — is out of the scope of my responsibility.

                6.3. Granted there would be some responsibility on my part in my manner of speaking, like if I spoke disrespectfully, or belittled people, or called them names. There would also be some responsibility as to content, like if I spoke without defining terms or without clarity. On occasion, I may have done so. However, for the most part, I believe I have been straightforward and forthright. And honorable.

              • You have been, and are, Edgar, straightforward and forthright, and represent what the blog is supposed to be about as well as anyone. I find in IP’s ample supply of words that traditional Filipino thinking that there must be winners and losers, so all analysis is couched in those terms. No, there do not have to be winners and losers, there is only the honor of one speaking as true as he can, with whatever knowledge one has managed to collect up to this point. Having spoken, we are open to learning if we shut up now and then and seek to hear, really hear. I reflected on the ‘purpose’ of my writing this blog awhile back, and it is simply to find inspiration. Sometimes it is the inspiration that comes from learning something, sometimes it comes from someone’s expressed appreciation for what has been written here (they learn something or laugh), sometimes it comes from a peculiar alignment of words that amuses or confounds (as in, “where the hell did that come from?”).Sometimes it comes from the satisfaction of making a good political argument that I think will make the nation or people reading stronger, smarter, and more effective. Sometimes it is found in the humility of making a mistake, and owning it. Sometimes it is found in seeing the discussion that flows forth as other earnest people share what they know and think.

                Carry on, my good man, you for sure inspire me.

              • Edgar Lores says:


              • “@Lance, if I may ask, are you familiar with MBTI? If yes, I’m guessing you are an xNTP? Because as an INTP, I usually get your thought process. (And maybe vice versa also? Haha)”


                I just got a hold of my booklet on this, and I was ENFJ (E=clear ; N=moderate; F=moderate; J=slight) , I guess that means I could’ve just as easily been P. I don’t have these “MBTI cognitive function stacks” in my booklet, so I don’t know what they are.

                But seriously though, ip, I agree with edgar, psychologists tend to make a whole business for these questionaires (there’s a bunch), some like that eHarmony guy has a website going for him, but bottom line is these things billed as “team building exercises” or “getting to know you exercises”, are just great excuse for getting people to stand up and say something about themselves or their table mates.

                It’s arbitrary IMHO, I can see people sharing their astrology/zodiac signs in lieu of these tests, probably be cheaper to do too! LOL! get a date out of it.

                As for my way of postings, I think i’ve just tailored myself to edgar’s way, when talking to him; and then another way when talking to another here, ie. since edgar responds to certain way of posting styles , I use what works. Here’s a good example of another debate, (is that consistent of an ENFJ? or just some guy adjusting as he goes using Google? 😉 I think it’s the latter, but I hope you enjoy that one too!)

              • *******

                As for MBTI, to address both your points, well, there is really no argument that it is a paradigm that has its limits. However, it probably doesn’t mean that it is completely worthless as it can still be one of the tools that can be used to understand people better. Both one’s self and others.

                But with regards to logic and intuition, heck, even how we act in general, well, with age usually comes ‘balance’. And with this balance, usually also comes wisdom. And as a 20-something Filipino, when it comes to this wisdom, I think I haven’t even scratched the surface yet. I’m aware of my shortcomings at marami pa yata ako kakainin na bigas. haha

                But still, from what I see, even with this ‘balance’, people will still probably have a preference. (Especially when it comes to non-ideal situations). Though one could practice to be ambidextrous, well, if you’re in a stressful situation and I suddenly throw a ball at you, you’ll probably still fall back to one specific hand, which would probably be your preference.

                But to elaborate more on typology though: The E-I / S-N / T-F / P-J paradigm is actually more complex than what the test results show. As I’ve discussed above with the difference between INTP and INTJ, a difference of one letter could actually be a huge difference. Because when it comes to psychological typing, the underlying theory usually involves the Jungian Cognitive Functions. To give a quick run-through on that:

                // Using metaphors for names, Jung described two kinds of cognitive processes — Perception (P) and Judgment (J).

                Sensation (S) and Intuition (N) were the two kinds of perception.
                Thinking (T) and Feeling (F) were the two kinds of judgment.

                He said that every mental act consists of using at least one of these four cognitive processes. Then he described eight personality types that were characterized by using one of the processes in either the extraverted or introverted world. //

                And when it comes to Extraverted (E) and Introverted (I), rather than being social or asocial, what it actually refers to is whether you are outward looking and inward looking.

                So given the four basic cognitive processes, we can then derive the following:

                /// Intorverted Thinking (Ti) = Analyzing; categorizing; evaluating according to principles and whether something fits the framework or model; figuring out the principles on which something works; checking for inconsistencies; clarifying definitions to get more precision.

                Extraverted Thinking (Te) = Segmenting; organizing for efficiency; systematizing; applying logic; structuring; checking for consequences; monitoring for standards or specifications being met; setting boundaries, guidelines, and parameters; deciding if something is working or not.

                Introverted Feeling (Fi) = Valuing; considering importance and worth; reviewing for incongruity; evaluating something based on the truths on which it is based; clarifying values to achieve accord; deciding if something is of significance and worth standing up for.

                Extraverted Feeling (Fe) = Connecting; considering others and the group-organizing to meet their needs and honor their values and feelings; maintaining societal, organizational, or group values; adjusting to and accommodating others; deciding if something is appropriate or acceptable to others.

                Introverted iNtuition (Ni) = Foreseeing implications and likely effects without external data; realizing “what will be”; conceptualizing new ways of seeing things; envisioning transformations; getting an image of profound meaning or far-reaching symbols.

                Extraverted iNtuition (Ne) = Interpreting situations and relationships; picking up meanings and interconnections; being drawn to change “what is” for “what could possibly be”; noticing what is not said and threads of meaning emerging across multiple contexts.

                Introverted Sensing (Si) = Reviewing past experiences; “what is” evoking “what was”; seeking detailed information and links to what is known; recalling stored impressions; accumulating data; recognizing the way things have always been.

                Extraverted Sensing (Se) = Experiencing the immediate context; taking action in the physical world; noticing changes and opportunities for action; accumulating experiences; scanning for visible reactions and relevant data; recognizing “what is.” //


                So @Lance, given that you said that you are ENFJ, well, it means that your functions stacks are Fe-Ni-Se-Ti. To elaborate more on your dynamic:

                [ENFJ] Fe-Ni-Se-Ti

                Driver: Extraverted Feeling, “Harmony” (Fe)
                Co-Pilot: Introverted Intuition, “Perspectives” (Ni)
                10 Yr Old: Extraverted Sensing, “Sensation” (Se)
                3 Yr Old: Introverted Thinking, “Accuracy” (Ti)


                ENFJ = Fe-Ni-Se-Ti

                >> 1. ) Dominant Extroverted Feeling:

                As a dominant function, Fe seeks to identify what is moral by identifying what those around them value, and then to enforce those values as a measure of keeping the peace in their external environment.

                The dominant-Fe monologue: “I will make those around me feel comfortable and happy in a cohesive manner, by identifying what we are all mutually striving for.”

                >> 2.) Auxiliary Introverted Intuition:

                As an auxiliary function, Ni manifests as an understanding of how one ought to go about accomplishing his or her goals, based on a keen intuitive perception of how various courses of action are likely to unfold.

                The auxiliary-Ni monologue: “How can I use my intuitive knowledge about how things are connected in order to achieve what I want?”

                >> 3.) Tertiary Extroverted Sensing:

                As a tertiary function, extroverted sensing manifests as the user’s ability to pick up cues from their external environment and react to them with a sense of natural confidence.

                The tertiary-Se monologue: “I prefer to plan ahead, but when necessary, I can think surprisingly well on my feet, as I feel in tune with what is going on around me.”

                >> 4.) Inferior Introverted Thinking:

                As an inferior function, introverted thinking originally manifests as an excessively critical view of others, as it searches for objective (and often harsh) truths about other people.

                As Ti matures, the user will find themselves using the objective truths they pick up on about others to nurture and guide others in a positive fashion, rather than manipulating them for their own gain.

                The inferior-Ti monologue (prior to maturation): “Can I use these objective observations about others to my advantage?”


                So as a Fe-dominant, well, you do give much credence to individual nuances as I’ve seen from your posts. Maybe this is what I’ve confused with Extraverted Intuition (Ne) as Extraverted Feeling (Fe) does consider the possibilities (though Fe, from what I understand, is mostly concerned with people rather than things in general)?

                But as a word of caution, yes, the Barnum/Forer effect, [the the tendency to accept certain information as true, such as character assessments or horoscopes, even when the information is so vague as to be worthless], could also be at play.

                Nonetheless, if it can shed some light on the social dynamics at play, even if we were to use horoscopes as a paradigm, I really won’t mind as long as it could help in making people understand each other better. 😉

  22. Cha Coronel Datu says:

    If one were to look at the photo without perhaps any knowledge of the circumstances around it (i.e. that it was not a natural death, that many more scenes like this have been/ are being repeated all over a country in the grip of a so-called war on drugs etc) , then one might actually feel some sadness, even sympathy for those left behind and just plain grief at the passing of another life.

    The play of light and shadows in the photograph, the seeming aloneness of the body being carted away, the dire circumstances of both the dead and the living on display in the background – they all conjure to create a sense of bleakness that should put one in a more pensive mood.

    But alas, many of us Filipinos actually know too well the general background of these scenes that have inundated both mainstream and social media of late. And our reactions are coloured by the lenses we use in viewing them. Or as Joeam puts it in the article, our reactions reflect our thoughts and emotions. And character, I dare add.

    Some of us allow ourselves to empathise with the dead and those they leave behind. Still many of us are overcome with anger at these injustice and cruelty that we now witness on a daily basis.

    But there are also many who just distance themselves and create a wall of protection to keep them from acknowledging the disconcerting and unpleasant thoughts, feelings and emotions that these deaths can bring to the surface.

    In psychology, when people behave in certain ways to protect or defend themselves when under threat or are subjected to stressful situations , these are what are referred to as defence mechanisms.

    So you have the likes of the PNP Chief Bato in DENIAL – there are no EJKs he says, call them homicides.

    And there’s Alan Cayetano RATIONALYSING – there are EJKs but they are not state-sponsored , the President does not tolerate state-sponsored extra-judicial killings (and he has the video to prove it).

    Then there the many who are like Danton Remoto, the founder of Ladlad (LGBT rights group) who in a recent Vice-News piece on Duterte as man of the people, INTELLECTUALISING:

    “Half of the deaths are attributed not to Duterte’s police but to vigilantes, ex-policemen, or, as the police spokesman told me when I interviewed him for my show, crimes of vengeance perpetrated by common people,” he said.

    And For the less sophisticated there are the Lorraine Marie Badoys ACTING OUT , telling Dutherte’s EU critics to stick to child porn instead, A bit more imaginative and creative are the Bruce Riveras and the Trixie Cruz-Angeleses who have filed an impeachment case for an unknowing sponsoring Congressman against a VIce President who has called for a halt to all the killings.

    The Philippines at the moment is awash with all forms and manners by which too many people strive to protect and defend themselves. From coming to their senses.

    Tsk. Tsk.

    • Quite an image you conjure up, Cha, an entire nation making up excuses as to why they are heartless, and a few angry about it all.

      • Cha Coronel Datu says:

        That’s a great summary. It’s beyond disheartening, isn’t it?

        I suppose what I feel about the Philippines and many Filipinos now is captured in these lines from Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye:

        “You looked at them and wondered why they were so ugly; you looked closely and could not find the source. Then you realized that it came from conviction, their conviction. It was as though some mysterious all-knowing master had given each one a cloak of ugliness to wear, and they had each accepted it without question.”
        ― Toni Morrison, The Bluest Eye

      • sonny says:

        Rembrandt. Shadows count.

    • stpaul says:

      love this Cha. How can this situation become a swan when we have lost our soul by being complicit? As once written by Sir Joeam, these are the people who had no chance in life and even in death we denied them peace and justice. 😦 😦 😦

      • stpaul says:

        Tokhang: Kalapati

        Una ko syang nakita habang naglalakad palayo at umiiyak. Nakita nya kasi ang drawing ng kanyang bunso sa art therapy class. Nang masilayan ko ito, kalapati ang mukhang pilit na dino-drawing ng kanyang anak. Maliit ang kalapati at habang paulit-ulit nya itong binubura ay paliit din ito ng paliit.

        Sa munting bahay kubo sa isang kumbento kami nagkwentuhan:

        Maliit lang po bahay namin, 10 sqm. Pito po kaming natutulog dun. Hindi ko po alam kung papanong nagkasya yung labing-limang pulis na pumasok sa amin. Merong mga nakalabas ang mukha at may mga nakatakip.

        Dahil sumuko na po asawa ko at napangakuang mabibigyan ng trabaho sa pagsugpo ng droga sumaya siya. Nasabi ng mister ko na madadagdagan ambag nya para sa amin at hindi na ako madalas na aatakihin ng rayuma sa sobrang paglalabada. Yun po ang raket ko. Bukod sa paglalakad ng mga utos ng mga kapit-bahay.

        Sa pagod, asawa ko ang nagmamasahe sa mga kamay ko pag inaatake ako ng rayuma. Mahusay.

        Nung gabing yun, yung disinuwebe ko, humalik at nagpaalam na aalis para ihatid ang gatas sa anak niyang mag-iisang buwan.

        Isang ilaw lang ang bukas nung madaling araw na yun. Palibhasa po mainit walang pantaas yung mag-ama ko. Ako po naka bra at panty.

        Ni hindi po nila ako pinagbihis sa kabila ng paki-usap ko. Naiwan po sa itaas ang mag-ama ko.

        Dahil malapit sa bahay ang pulis outpost at mga kakilala naman namin sila, dun ako unang humingi ng saklolo. Pero pasensya na daw at di nila ako matutulungan.

        Takbo na naman ako. Paroon at parito. Para akong baliw. Humihingi ng tulong na naka panty at bra pero lahat sila walang magawa sa takot.

        Pumutok ang mga baril galing sa bahay ko. Narinig yun ng mga anak kong pinalabas ng bahay. Takbo ako pabalik ng bahay. Pero tapos na.

        Nakita ng kapitbahay kong kinakaladkad ang bangkay ng asawa ko pababa ng hagdanan nung magsabi ang isang pulis na, “Buhay pa yan, oh!” Kaya binaril pa daw ulit.

        Marami kaming nawalang gamit sa bahay. Nag-iwan pa ng mga balot ng 7 Eleven. Nagkainan pa sila pagkatapos nilang patayin mag-ama ko.

        Nung makita ko ang bangkay ng anak ko ay yakap pa niya yung gatas para sa anak niya.

        Dalawang lalaki ang inilibing ko. Paano ko ba nabuno ang malaking gastos sa paglibing? Nairaos. Pero labing-anim na araw kaming nagburol.

        Gabi-gabi, kahit araw, kahit anong pikit ng mata, nakikita ko sila. Tumigil lang nung magsampa ako ng kaso. Gusto talaga siguro nilang ipaglaban ko ang pagkamatay nila.

        Nung ipa drawing sa bunso ko ang ala-ala ng tarayniya, isang bahay at sa may bubungan, may kalapating lumilipad ang nakita ko sa papel. Napaiyak talaga ako. Nung buhay pa ang asawa ko, nagaalaga siya ng mga kalapati. Masakit. Ni hindi na kami makabalik sa bahay namin sa takot para sa buhay namin ng mga anak ko.

        Sa kabila ng lahat, magpapatuloy ang buhay namin. May awa ang Diyos.

        by:Mae JC Paner

  23. karlgarcia says:

    I try to avoid being sentimental, but allow me to share.
    This happened years ago, but this about cousins killed by police due to certain circumstances.
    One has a mental health issue and he got involved in a hostage situation where he shot his hostage out of panic, then the result was he was shot with extreme prejudice.
    I have not seen the actual event, but I can still imagine it.

    One is another cousin the brother of the cousin mentioned above, he had a past and he was abducted by armed men and dumped somewhere with a bullet in his head.
    To be fair to Duterte and Aguirre, this happenned a few months before the elections.
    The thing is Aguirre said he will look into it when he got the DOJ post because he was a provincemate, but nada.

  24. karlgarcia says:

    Everything is nice, the ship could be usedfor disasters and calamities, my only problem is Gordon is still the Philipine Red Cross Chair.
    He sponsored the Huminatiian bill for crimes against humanities because he is the chair of red cross, but his action in the senate is unbecoming of the red cross chair.

    • NHerrera says:

      My brain is playing tricks with me this morning. Somehow this thing surfaces:

      Are you still beating your wife?

      The question is not any crazier than your implied question, karl.

    • karlgarcia says:

      Press Release
      August 29, 2008

      Concerned about the continuing conflict in Mindanao, Senator Richard J. Gordon stressed the need for both the troops of the government and of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) to strictly adhere to International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

      “The conflict in Mindanao has brought much suffering and pain to our people. We hear of the agony of families torn apart and displaced due to this conflict. Civilians should not be made innocent victims of these atrocities. There is a need to educate the people on IHL and an even greater necessity to enforce it here in our country,” Gordon said.

      On several trips to Mindanao, Gordon was witness to the hardships of thousands of its inhabitants. With the latest National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) report that the death toll already reached 56, wounded victims at 69 and displaced families at 78,093, Gordon emphasized the need for both the Government and the MILF forces to act in conformity with IHL principles.

      “We have already filed a bill which seeks to punish acts committed in violation of International Humanitarian Law which include war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, among others,” Gordon said.

      He further declared, “The bill will punish all. Nobody is above the law. Our bill ensures that neither rank nor stature will serve as a shield from criminal prosecution.”

      Notably, Senate Bill No. 1446 eliminated holding a public office as a defense for violations of IHL. Even a head of State, a member of Congress or any government official exercising official functions would not be exempted from prosecution.

      The carefully crafted bill ensured compliance with IHL by military officers. It underscored command responsibility, such that a military commander or a person effectively acting as a military commander would be held liable for crimes committed by individuals under his or her effective command, control or authority, especially for acts which were committed as a result of their failure to properly exercise such command, control or authority.

      • karlgarcia says:

        Republic of the Philippines
        Congress of the Philippines
        Metro Manila

        Fourteenth Congress
        Third Regular Session

        Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-seventh day of July, two thousand nine.

        REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9851


    • edgar lores says:

      Agree, Karl. It is unfortunate that there is no law prohibiting him from holding the Red Cross chair. There ought to be a law, but there isn’t. Current law only prohibits the holding of a second office if it is part of a government instrumentality.

  25. karlgarcia says:

    Irineo B.R. Salazar
    April 22, 2017 at 07:46 · Reply

    The administration of former President Benigno Aquino III may have made gains in fighting corruption, but that doesn’t mean people have much love for the “dilawan.”

    Former Ateneo School of Government dean Tony La Viña on Thursday (April 20) explained why “dilawan” has become a derogatory term after he noted negative comments regarding a photo showing political bigwigs such as former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and President Rodrigo Duterte seated in one table at former President Joseph Estrada’s 80th birthday party.

    La Viña, who currently teaches law at the San Beda College of Law and other schools, said “dilawan” has become associated with self-righteousness.

    He said a cursory look at the photo would show that the personalities vilified by the “dilawan” actually have more supporters than them.

    “You add to them the Grace Poe supporters and you know why dilawan is such a disliked brand. It’s just insane, outright stupid, to say that all of these supporters are anti-reform and corrupt,” he said.

    La Viña said the “dilawans’” self-righteousness is baseless considering that several of the politikos who joined the Liberal Party, the ruling party during the Aquino administration, “who would not pass any integrity or good governance test.”

    For the law professor, those who tolerated the corruption in the Aquino administration are not in a position to judge Arroyo, Estrada and Duterte for supposedly being corrupt.

    A person who does, La Viña said, is “unfortunately blinded” and “will never get why dilawan is a political color that will not recover.”

    Irineo B. R. Salazar
    April 22, 2017 at 07:47 · Reply (Will)

    Yun lang ang reason mo, Mr. La Viña, kung bakit dilawan is a “hated brand” and “cannot recover”? Look at the man in the mirror. Kung dilawan ka’t hindi corrupt, papayag ka ba sa pangangatwiran mo? Hindi ba as long as malinis ka wala kang dapat ikahiya kung kinikilala mo ang sakripisyo ni Ninoy, ang sinseridad ni Cory at ang malinis na record ni Noynoy? Yan ang reasons ko kung bakit dilawan ako. Dapat bang ikahiya ang mga kadahilanang iyon?

    • I so hate labels. For me, to oppose corruption, absence of rule of law, and quest for genuine good governance as opposed to guns, goons and gold should not be limited to a certain group of people – I belong to the dilawan group but in my personal capacity, am not in government nor affiliated with anyone in LP or government official of the previous admin. I welcome anyone who shares my principle.

      I’d like those opposing the MAD (MarcosArroyoDuterte) group to unite no matter the group or color they belong to…rainbow colors united in fighting for democracy.

  26. From Sylvia Mayuga

    So where’s the justice here? Mocha Uson will get about $2500 (P100,000 +-) per month while the average wage of a licensed nurse in our country is about $275 to $300.

    @ Bill in Oz….

    no justice at all, they could not agree to raise the standard salary of the poor overworked nurses in private hospitals.

    Even the salary of soldiers in the AFP who regularly risk their lives pales in comparison to this agent of DRUMS – Disinformation, Rumors, Untruths, Myths and Smears – in short, LIES, now appointed as PCOO Asec.

    • madlanglupa says:

      Goebbels would have been laughing from the depths of hell, seeing this happening in our midst. Undoubtedly, hate speech shall have government approval.

    • Bill In Oz says:

      Ohhh bugger, there is so much pain & negativity emerging in the discussion discouraged me from reading and commenting..

      And just now I decided to come back and take a peak..And by pure coincidence the first thing I read Mary is your comment with my nom de plume in it. .citing my remarks of last year about nurse salaries in private hospitals in Manila..

      i know this may feel at our end like a ‘cop out. But we are here in Oz; we are by comparison to Manila, far safer now. And I have discovered my lady wife loves gardening like I do !

      Now that was a real lovely surprise as there was no opportunity to even think or talk or do any gardening when we were there.

      In such small things I am, for the moment, content.

      • Glad to hear that, Bill in Oz.

        We are losing efficient and capable nurses in droves. I remember when my late mother was in and out of the hospital after her debilitating stroke, we witnessed first hand how those gentle and capable hands of nurses who attended to my mother were gradually replaced by younger, newly graduate ones who were obviously not yet experienced. Our interviews with them and later, your post has opened our eyes as to why.

    • “Mocha Uson will get about $2500 (P100,000 +-) per month “

      I think her equivalent over here is

      Her role:
      Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the Office of Public Liaison , but

      during the campaign , she was Director of African-American Outreach , so very similar to Mocha Uson indeed.

  27. NHerrera says:

    It is getting ridiculous. Here’s SC Senior Associate Justice Carpio’s view on the proposal to have a Visiting Forces Agreement with China.

    Supreme Court (SC) Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio dismissed proposals for the Philippines to have a Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with China and allow Chinese troops to hold military exercises with the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

    “It’s difficult to have a VFA with a country claiming your territory and maritime zones. How can you have naval exercises in the West Philippine Sea if you are doing it with a country that’s claiming the West Philippine Sea? For me, it is common sense,” Carpio said.

    • edgar lores says:

      I think Miriam would have caught this. A Supreme Court justice is part of the Opposition.

  28. madlanglupa says:

    Today is unspeakably a day of clowns.

    * Representative Roman is among several congressmen who bolted out of LP to join the ranks of the supermajority PDP-Laban… They actually did so for the sake of, um, political survival.
    * Uson given a government position — PRRD’s idea as a means of an IOU.
    * APC made a Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Expect more embarrassments.
    * General Año appointed DILG secretary. Trillianes sees this as a good thing.
    * Napoles made state witness

  29. Bill In Oz says:

    A simple thought : I suggest that you get made and wear pin on badges saying :
    “I am innocent”
    “Ako ay Inosente”

    Why ? Simply to say you do not support callous mass murder & to say it pubiicly & openly.

    Simply an idea.

    • Sup says:

      Sure…something like this maybe?

      • Bill In Oz says:

        Suo, Six million Jews died in the holocaust in 1939-45. To compare what I suggested to the Yellow star which the Nazis forced Jews to wear, is to insult the memory of those 6 million Jewish people.

        In any event one very interesting thing happened in German occupied Denmark in 1941 when the Nazis demanded that all Danish Jewish people wear the yellow star. The King of Denmark went out in public wearing the Jewish Star on his uniformed breast. He said simply they are my people. The Nazis demand fell apart as thousands of ordinary Danes joined him n wearing the Yellow Star as well.

        Later almost the entire Jewish population of Denmark ( around 8,000 ) were warned and then smuggled out of Denmark to Sweden, when the Herman Nazis attempted to arrest them all and ship them to the concentration camps.

        Are you suggesting Sup that you lack that type of courage. ?

        • Sup says:

          My Jewish star is just to show my disgust that normal people would wear anything to tell the government that they are wrong…A government like that has no right to exist….
          Hope you get my point?

          • Bill In Oz says:

            No Sup, I do not.

            • Sup says:

              Your badge saying i am innocent is defending yourself from an abusive government
              The Jews were wearing a star ordered by a abusive government (German)
              My point is the nobody should ever wear anything against abusive governments..
              A governments task is to protect all citizen and make sure the law is being used equally to all.
              The people vote their representatives…all they have to do is their jobs correct

              • Government officials should wear a symbol that says “I represent citizens of every opinion”. Actually, many do, the unifying symbol of the flag. But they are too mentally challenged to grasp the point of what unity really means. I think your point is ‘spot on’, Sup.

              • Bill In Oz says:

                You have missed the point of my suggestion Sup. Never mind.

              • “I suggest that you get made and wear pin on badges”

                Whether it’s “I’m guilty” or “I’m innocent”, that Star of David was essentially the same thing (depending who looked at it, a fellow Jew or an SS), Bill. I think your point was to make oneself conspicuous , easy to identify. Which Sup obliged, only he took it to a different direction, but you two meet eventually since both your points follow the same circle of thought, ie. identification. Just my 2 cents.

                p.s.~ the best I.D. I know of is one’s face.

              • Bill In Oz says:

                Lance the issue is the singling out of a group of Filipinos for government sponsored/organised execution.

                I am far from the Philippines. But I sense reading TSOH, posts & comments, anger and fear and alienation. And I sense also the isolation.

                But it’s clear that many Filipinos, while acknowleging there is a drug problem, disagree with the execution campaign.

                In making the “Ako ay Inosente” badge suggestion, I was proposing a way that these people can state their view publicly and openly. It’s a way of exercising freedom of expression. And I suspect that many many people would support this. And it this becomes a way of building a base for changing this government policy.

                In 1986, people wore Yellow. But now Yellow is identified with a particular party. It does not have the same power as then.

              • Sup says:

                ”I am far from the Philippines.”
                Exactly……the pin you want us to wear will tell Dutertes fanatic crazy supporters that we don’t support his kind of war on drugs ans we create a war for our self with the lunatic devotees of this President…try to post something online criticizing this President
                Nowadays you can better be silent about politics in the streets…
                Yes, the Philippines in not the same under this regime….
                If you don’t believe me Ask Joe or Raissa…….

              • Bill In Oz says:

                Sup, thanks, you have confirmed what I sensed here: anger and fear, alienation & isolation. Much has changed in 12 months.

      • or like this?

        Personally, I don’t like this….if we can’t respect the man himself, at least respect the position he is holding.

  30. NHerrera says:


    Learned the buzz words not good optics reading about Trump’s firing of FBI Director Comey. In Pilipino, that may translate to hindi magandang tingnan. As in hindi magandang tingnan na si Mocha Uson na na-appoint na Asst Comm Secretary ang mag-papaliwanag ng news na hindi fake news.

    • NHerrera says:

      The positive aspect or balancing of that item on Mocha Uson is of course the good optics? that comes from the variant of the saying it takes a thief to catch a thief. In the current case, it takes an expert on fake news to distinguish between genuine and fake news.

      • edgar lores says:

        My two cents?

        In the idiomatic phrase “it takes a thief to catch a thief” the operative word is “catch.”

        To me, this means that the subject thief has reformed, is now a good guy, and is now using his skills to catch the object thief.

        It may be true that MS. Uson may be able to detect fake news better than anyone else. But if she has not reformed, will she be honest enough to brand fake news as such when the news works in her and her boss’s favor?

  31. karlgarcia says:

    We can not sugarcoat what is happening.
    We can not pretend that eveything is a bed of roses, on second thought, maybe it is, because a bed of roses is actually thorny.

    If you say “There, There, everything will turn out fine” You are like singing a lullabye.
    But unfortunately, “Down came my baby, cradle and all.”

    • NHerrera says:

      Karl, the pointing out of the positive aspect of a matter or the balancing of the positive and negative aspects as pointed out by OM is, I believe, a good exercise of the mind, which in a way TSH achieves by the contributors pointing out the various aspects of a blog topic.

      But in finally deciding on the significance of a topic after the mental exercise of balancing the plus and minus of the matter something may be greatly lost if all the plus and minuses of the argument is presented. If I decide to use the plus aspect and emphasize that, it is because that is the net effect on me after analysis of a situation. Let others point out the other aspects if they wish to. There are cases I believe, however, when, say, the positive aspect of a matter is extremely difficult to do. How may one, for example, paint the positive aspect of the Nazi Holocaust?

      • edgar lores says:

        To antisemites, the positive aspect is the Holocaust killed a lot of Jews.

        To Oldmaninla and those like him, the positive aspect of the drug war is that it killed a lot of drug personalities.

      • “How may one, for example, paint the positive aspect of the Nazi Holocaust?”

        NH, maybe not the holocaust per se, but those Nazis’ R&D ushered in the 21st century, same as Turing’s machine. Which goes back to the old saying all engineering is military engineering.

        Don’t forget this,

        I agree though that balance positive and balance negative will be different, sometimes drastically different, but true also is this…

    • Oldmaninla says:

      He, he, he………
      Exactly, what I expect and see like I am an wondering observer old man…….looking at the farmer plowing the field.

      Said the snakes and rats….too bad for us, we die. No mercy!
      Said the environmentalist… not change and destroy the existing nature! Stop!
      Said the assistant workman…. too hard, small pay for the day!
      Said the weatherman…. season time, time to prepare the soil for planting!
      Said the businessman….. yes, in three month will have a bounty harvest!
      Said the landowner……. I’ll take the venture, this is the right time. I’ll take the chance….

      Said the wondering observer…….. king Solomon, there is time for everything!

      In the history of nations, English colonizers took the chance in America, Mao Tze Dong took the chance in China, Lee Kwan Yeo took a chance in Singapore, Chang KaiShek took a chance in Taiwan…….now the 70-80 % Filipinos are taking the chance………

      Will the Philippines succeed? To be progressive?

      Philippines is a big national stage…everybody has a part…………..
      What is your part? Only the final will tell the conclusion of the show..

      Interesting show indeed!

      The view of the old man………

      • Here, here… Oldmanila!

        “In the history of nations, English colonizers took the chance in America, Mao Tze Dong took the chance in China, Lee Kwan Yeo took a chance in Singapore, Chang KaiShek took a chance in Taiwan…….now the 70-80 % Filipinos are taking the chance………”

        I would just add that violence (or the threat of violence) was used in all of the above— plus others.

        “Will the Philippines succeed? To be progressive?”

        No one knows the future for sure. 😉 Just be involved that way you ‘re not just a spectator.

  32. karlgarcia says:


    Light at the end of the tunnel. ( Read the comments section. My apologies to Irineo for dominating his blog

    • Thanks for putting some life into my blog… you, sonny and MRP. The discussion threads are worth a lot also as a journal for posterity or even just the next Presidential term.

      As for the discussion here, LCPL_Xs very graphic descriptions of blade fighting remind me of stuff some of the butchers (real butchers of pigs and cows) have told me, blade angle, and one crazy pig butcher who showed me a video of him killing a dozen pigs for some festivities. Of course there is the butcher in the movie Gangs of New York who says if you know how to kill a pig you know how to kill a person because the organs are in the same place – which is true. Another thing I remember is this movie about Indonesia in 1965 -The Act of Killing…

      • karlgarcia says:

        In behalf of Uncle Sonny and MRP, you are welcome!

      • That looks like an interesting film. Thanks! I didn’t find this blade culture in Indonesia and Malaysia, Ireneo. Though they used machetes and knives, but they didn’t have it down to a science the way Filipinos did, ie. Filipinos understanding of the blade is martial… like the old Samurais, Spartans, etc. I think much of it came from the Conquistadors, maybe there was already a Filipino martial/blade system, but if you look at how Moros wield their broad swords, it’s not as exact or precise as Christian Filipinos do (hence Spanish derived IMHO, from all the stuff they did in the Americas).

        There were also ex-Samurais turned pirates plying the South China seas and beyond, but no resemblance of the way they use blades with Filipinos. But since what the Conquistadors did survived, hard to know. I agree that knowledge of anatomy is an important part, but 80% is all the movements, and the actual drilling of these movements, since attack will be almost instantaneous, so everything has to be committed to muscle memory before hand, hence when I see swordplay with too much running around, that’s not really it, you have to get in, and inside is light speed, sacrificing specific parts of your limbs to ensure your arteries and important parts aren’t exposed.

        You guys have it down to a science, it’s too bad not too many people appreciate this knowledge and resource, especially young Filipinos.

        • I don’t know too much about Filipino blade techniques, the butchers I mentioned were those from over here in Munich, in my neighborhood close to the municipal slaughterhouse.

          Arnis of course even when done with bamboo sticks has very precise strike points – even just with kamagong sticks all potentially deadly. Finally it will boil down to a mixture of old Malay martial arts or “silat” and the techniques of those Filipinos who fought for the Spaniards.

          • Bamboo sticks no, kamagong or rattan sticks yes.. always two.

            without any weapons you have the style Matt Damon uses in Bourne… also effective.

            • If you look closely, he uses his forearm and fist like a stick… so strikes 1, 2, 3 still apply. Instead of one “alive” hand, you have two, hence all the grabbing and pulling and pushing and open hand strikes (I love the Bourne movies) … Filipinos prefer open hand strike and hammer punches,

              This made perfect sense to me since I would love to still be able to use my trigger finger, and operate a rifle and/or pistol, and not have any of my fingers, knuckles unnecessarily broken or sprained.

              • karlgarcia says:

                More on arnis.


                The Special forces of different nations include Filipino Martial Arts in their training regimen.

              • Wow!

                “Republic Act No. 9850 of the Congress of the Philippines, approved on December 11, 2009 declares Arnis as the national sport and martial art of the Philippines for promoting patriotism, nationalism and appreciation of the role of national heroes and symbols in the historical development of the country.”

                I didn’t know it was law there now, that’s awesome, karl! Though, I’m more familiar with bahad and eskrima, but this is probably colloquialisms. I wonder though if promoting it as sport and as PE class will water it down, instead of the backyard, small/closed group tradition, traditionally associated with this undertaking.

                I hope too it gets taught as equivalent to Samurais and Spartans and the martial arts developed and perfected by Conquistadors, all this stuff can only be found in prisons here now, the psychology and practice. But the psychology is key IMHO, if they can teach that… you’d go a long way!

          • Oh I see. I guess butchers, are also hunters, at least the folks I hunt with here (they’re the real deal, I just tag along) do their own butchering, kinda makes sense dressing meat and cutting it, piercing while still alive is in a way the same continuum—- life and death.

            As for getting straight in and sacrificing parts of your limbs, I should qualify that with if you see a knife or sword coming at you and you can, run… DO NOT get in there and sacrifice parts of limbs. I’m simply describing the offense and defense difference… I’ve seen schools and groups advertise as offence what is clearly defence, as understood by Filipinos.

          • sonny says:

            I became aware of nunchaku’s (Japanese) and Indonesia’s Pentchak Silat in college; arnis de mano I knew about when Bruce Lee’s movies were in vogue (1970-73). Errol Flynn, Tyrone Power and Basil Rathbone were the hard-core favorites of my escapist childhood. Archery was also part of my early martial enchilada. 🙂 Bourne artistry is the current standard. Mine, too.

            • Before we get dinged by Joe (editor-in-Chief), let me make this Filipino martial arts stuff relevant. What we’re seeing is violence in the Philippines, I’m still not convince as to the nature of this violence, since it was violent when I was there (nothing new, just more talk i would contend). But what I saw was the preponderance of blades (and even BBQ sticks) as weapons. One does not simply theorize violence, one has to actual feel it, to understand it. Hence the relevance of this thread.

              • Whether sport, choreography and the real thing, I make no difference because…

                What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger—- it’s one continuum, but sport and choreography only works if based on reality, otherwise it becomes a totally different art form, like modern dance or abstract art.

            • “Archery was also part of my early martial enchilada.”

              This was ubiquitous in Mindanao and Visayas, but I didn’t see much of it in Luzon, sonny… are you familiar with it, I’m sure related to the diesel piston, as these things hurt like hell, LOL!

            • sonny says:

              Believe it or not, the relative of the “diesel piston” in the picture was part of a child’s “arsenal” along with the slingshot, a bamboo bow & arrow, a top and a bag of marbles, growing up in Quezon City. It was called “sumpak,” if my memory has not failed me. 🙂

        • chemrock says:

          The malays use long daggers called kris. The curvy blade which are not flat across ensures death drom a stab wound due to punctures they cause.

  33. the AFP speaks out? I hope this FB account speaks for the whole of them, officers and foot soldiers.

  34. @LCPL_X: a close look at the hand techniques of Bourne and typical arnis make it clearer.. I moved stuff to down here for better viewing… in any case Matt Damon had a Filipino mano a mano coach.. the video below is from German arnis masters… they give a great demo of some stuff you mentioned.

  35. NHerrera says:


    Thank goodness there is such a thing as un-adulterated genuine fake news not run-of-the-mill fake news, in the sense of exaggerated, or slanted, or partial, or badly researched news. As in genuine, authentically fake item, like the Rolex watches you can buy for $10 in Bangkok.

    • edgar lores says:

      The conclusion of the article is that “fake news and biased search algorithms do not sway public opinion.”

      The reason given is that internet users “tend to be exposed to multiple media sources, to discover new information, to be skeptical of political information and to check information, such as that seen on social media, by using search.”

      Is this true in the Philippines? I am skeptical.

      Here, the polarized camps seem to expose themselves to social media — Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube — but only follow certain personalities/hashtags (Twitter), productions (YouTube), and groups/hashtags (Facebook and Twitter).

      (As you are a non-Facebook user, NHerrera and Sonny (?), I must explain to you that:

      o internet users interested in politics aggregate in several groups that are either pro-Duterte or anti-Duterte. I would call these groups “ideo-groups” or more accurately “icon-groups.”
      o There are many media producers of fake news, memes, and videos catering to the pro-Duterte groups. Mary Grace published a long list of these media producers on her page.
      o Anti-Duterte groups have posts, memes, and videos but do not produce fake news. They do not need to: true news is all they need.
      o The battleground of the political war is being fought mainly on these social media and not on blog sites such as TSH. TSH and the like are for readers who have high attention spans and, in any case, the population of these social media number into the millions. And TSH, I might add, is politically neutral.)

      So users limit themselves to their own groups and do not bother to cross-check the veracity of the info they receive… to the extent that their biases are refreshed, confirmed and reconfirmed.

      This promoted propaganda and ignorance would explain, in part, the continued high satisfaction ratings of Duterte and the sliding ratings of Robredo.

      • edgar: The conclusion of the article is that “fake news and biased search algorithms do not sway public opinion.”

        The reason given is that internet users “tend to be exposed to multiple media sources, to discover new information, to be skeptical of political information and to check information, such as that seen on social media, by using search.”

        Is this true in the Philippines? I am skeptical.


        This was sort of my point all along, edgar (back in our ‘did social media sway public opinion’ discussion).

        I’m not as skeptical, because what I know about small town and rural Philippines is that most still heavily rely on radio talk shows of all sorts (back when I was there). I’m sure by now, these radio talk programs will have fb, or twitter, and their trusted talking heads would spread via internet too (same as here with Rush Limbaugh and Democracy Now, right & left, first on radio then both radio/internet… also podcasts).

        At heart is how you perceive Filipinos particularly those who voted for DU30, are they all, or most , incapable of simple analysis. I can understand say on news stories like Korina Sanchez beating up her servants, that there’s a particular bias operating, namely if you’ve been a servant, either you yourself have been maltreated or know many who have, hence in a manner of speaking “swayed”.

        But I assure you folks in the country and small towns over there, and those from small towns and the country living in cities there, are talking and discussing finer points in their decision making process, I concede many would employ emotions to make their decisions, but this notion that they are all zombies (incapable of making their own decisions), is just not what I saw, edgar.

        After listening to these radio shows, usually commentaries on news , or policy, or scandals, etc. what usually happens there is a discussion ensues. In a group setting you’ll have loud folks monopolize the discussion, but when you take individuals aside they’ll gladly offer their 2 cents. This isn’t specific to Philippines, all over the 3rd world this happens;

        I would even add, that happens less here in the US, since most are talking about the Kardashians instead, now they’ve been politicized and active thanks to the potential threat of Trump, so this idea that these Filipinos from rural, small towns, or those from there who’ve moved to the city are somehow extra gullible is just not true, they make their decisions after weighty analyses, and can offer their reasoning when asked.

        (I’ve not read the article NH posted, it’s not loading… but will continue when I’ve done so 😉 )

        • edgar lores says:

          Let me clarify.

          1. Your point was that social media did not influence public opinion on the election to the point that it made Duterte the president.

          2. My point is that social media is influencing public opinion… to the point that Duterte’s ratings are being maintained.

          3. As to your point, I have not expressed a clear opinion before. I will do so now: I do agree with you the claim that social media decided the election does not rise to scientific certainty.

          3.1. And so does my point.

          • Totally agree, plus re DU30 and EJKs, no one was sold a bill of goods here, DU30 was very explicit about what he intended to do, hence no trickery involved; the choice was simple 1) vote for a killer; or 2) vote for a non-killer.

            And Filipinos at 40% voted for 1).

            If there was a bait and switch involved then I’d be convince of this social media playing a role theory, “insignificant” I think was my exact word used, but this was way too clear a choice, that I just don’t find social media to have played a role.

            The choice was a simple one. To kill or not to kill.

            • This comment made me pause and sit up straighter as bitter realization sinks in. 16 million Filipinos (including members of INC, JIL, Quiboloy church and let’s be realistic, millions of Catholics who are still posting Bible quotes and love of God) did choose a killer, until now they are rabidly defending this extra judicial executions. There is truly blood of their countrymen on their hands. The truth hurts, but there it is.

            • But to be fair, Lance, for those 40%: Though technically, there really was no bait and switch, well, there is probably a significant portion of them that had probably appealed to a ‘better side’ of Duterte. But if one would ask if this portion is more significant than those that condone the killings? Probably not as of the moment. Not yet.

              To share a view of it: The post asks of what do people think when life is rolled away? Well, if “people” would refer to the people in general? Most of them are surely indifferent. That is probably obvious.

              But what if say that it refers to those people directly related to the victims? Hmm… Probably still the same. For some, if not even many, ang pakiramdam pa nga siguro nila ay parang nabunutan sila ng tinik. (They probably feel like that a thorn was removed). Somewhat akin to some cases of terminally ill patients? Probably already entertained the notion before that their ‘loved’ ones would have been better off dying?

              However, there is a lot of shame to that kind of thinking so seldom will you actually see and hear that from them. But still, given that there is this external force that does it for them? They’d probably then tend to compartmentalize to avoid these mixed feelings of grief, shame, and relief. And given also the ‘religiosity’ of some people, well: “If god wills it, so let it be.”

              Other than poverty, this is probably some reasons why there are many unclaimed bodies.

              Nangyari na eh, anong point? Alam na nga na ganun ang sitwasyon, pero di pa rin tumigil. Labas na ako diyan.

              (It already happened, so what’s the point? They already knew that this is the situation, but they still didn’t stop. I’m already out of it.)

              Nevertheless, as macabre as it sounds, could it be far from the truth? As Mary Grace said: The truth hurts, but there it is.

              • karlgarcia says:

                I have to thumb down your comment, due to insensitivity and bereft of empathy.

              • karlgarcia says:

                Losing a family member will never feel like a thorn pulled from any body part.
                I have mentioned above, that I had a relative killed, no matter how I say that maybe he had it coming, I will never feel relief. I am only a cousin, what more the mother of the fellow.

              • karlgarcia says:

                You hit a nerve, you sanama…….

              • Sometimes, an individual can only take so much. I know of a mother, thin and emaciated to the point that it looks her skin is just covering her bones sticking from her ribs, clavicle, her arms and legs seem incapable of holding anything even her lightweight body. She eats like a bird, has no interest in cooking for her family, just wants to sleep to forget that her children doesn’t care for her, fight with her (and hurt each other physically). That is extreme poverty doing its best to conquer their minds and bodies. She no longer cares that her children have lost their way, when there’s money and food, she eats, when there’s none, she sleeps.

                At first she visits her first born in jail (arrested for using shabu and tortured to the point that he was forced to admit that he is a pusher, too, even if he’s not…he owns his tricycle and earns money for his young family, his young wife is employed in a nearby mall) to bring meals, later she stopped even if if we advised her that veggies (like young jack-fruits cooked in coconut milk – all homegrown and free, plus dried fish will do if nothing else is available). She wants relatives to pay for her son’s freedom but the rich relatives are saying he’s better of in jail as surely he will be killed outside of it. Donation fatigue?… not sure, but then who can blame them…funds had been provided so that they could learn how to fish instead of just giving them fish all the time – but nothing came of it, the funds were consumed and flushed down the toilet. She wants to find interested people to adopt her youngest daughter to the disgust of immediate relatives. The daughter is pretty, but she has cerebral palsy and a ngongo (speak nasally or in a muffled way) to boot…her maintenance meds seem to make her violent so the mother seems to give up on her.

                It takes a village to raise a child, the saying goes. When parents seem to give up, should neighbors and countrymen do so likewise? If the poor folks don’t have the energy or inclination to fight back, can the rest of those around them afford to be indifferent, or instead take up the cudgels for those who cannot?

                Have we been reduced to the law of the jungle, survival of the each his own?

    • Great article, NH… this is worth mulling over,

  36. Fake news do influence public opinion.

    Not everyone bothers to check if the FB posts he receives on his timeline is fake or not; not everyone even has an iota of inclination to try and discern whether it’s propaganda or not.

    They accept them as truth and click the share button a second after reading it. Their friends do the same and before you can blink your eyes, the rumor that the VP is involved in a colleague, or she is involved in drugs or corruption to finance her daughter’s graduate study in Harvard, or that she is indeed a corrupt lugaw queen is already spreading like wild fire. Mocha’s tirade against her has earned her a suspension from MBC’s DZRH program and an appointment in Malacañang office and a more than a hundred grand a month in compensation paid by our taxes.

    And then, Leni’s rating in the surveys has gone down another 15 points.


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 )

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: