The Inaugural Speech of US President Barack Hussein Obama: What it Means for the Philippines (A Take by The Jester-in-Exile) Part II

(First part of himay-himayization here.)

(Full text of speech from CNN here.)

Hokay, back now. Let's get back to talking about smelling what Barack is cookin' nyahahaha.

***
Earlier, we began with taking apart the first parts of Obama's speech, where there's not much nuance that can be said to impact directly of the Philippines. It seemed to me that the Obama was primarily concerned with calling the American people to arms, what with his allusions to the words of famous Americans in times of war, what with mentions of the words of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, and Franklin Roosevelt.

His next paragraph was consistent with the his call to arms, drawing upon America's historical perception of its victories.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

His next paragraph have created ripples through the American media community covering the Health and Human Services beat:

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Here, Obama alludes to the American systems of social security, health care, jobs and welfare progams, especially as related to government spending, as well as accountability in public spending. Quite possibly, there are probably nuances on the possibility of reducing American public debt.

Heck, it may not come as a suprise later on if Obama decides to streamline the bureaucracy and cut out the deadwood and the fat.

(That's going to piss people off, for sure.)

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

Market controls? Hmmmmm. Cocoy and Caffeine Sparks may have quite a bit to speak of these matters.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

Here Obama is even more blunt. Not only is there direct mention of leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, but it also seems that there is an allusion to reducing defense spending (yes, nukes are expensive to maintain, and if I recall correctly, nukes and ICBM defense programs cost more than an armored division does). However, Obama does not change America's commitment to fighting terrorism -- but possibly changing the approach; perhaps America will now work with partner nations towards fighting the terrorist threat?

Hmmmmm. It helps that his stepfather is Indonesian, then.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Interesting, really, how, Obama plays the specter of segregation and the color line as a strong parallel of ethnolinguistic/ religious hatreds, and how it seems that America's fight will focus quite a lot on dialogue with Muslim nations. However, what hit close to home to me was the last sentence above.

See, to my way of thinking, his words to "those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent" seem to apply quite appropriately to the Arroyo administration. I would suppose that the Palace spinmeisters are going to point to whatever lip-service programs they have in place as a way to claim that no, they weren't alluded to.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

In the above paragraph, I would interpret it as a possible policy change; instead of aid in the form of cash, but instead American aid programs may start to focus on technological transfer programs.

Shades of "teach a man to fish"? Well, perhaps not immediately -- Darfur's agriculture will probably need more -- but in so far as the Philippines are concerned, this is not going to please some folks out there who get to line their pockets.

Hmph. Tough times for Fortress Pasig?

And so we draw to Obama's close:

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

Obama juxtaposes the image of the American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan with the militia of Valley Forge, in imagery so clearly designed as a call to arms. Merging this image with an appeal to conservative values as well as finally closing the chapter on the color line, the new American president makes an appeal to the better nature of the American people.

Now to see what his first hundred days in office are like.

***
An interesting quote I saw on Plurk:

Rosa sat so Martin could walk.
Martin walked so Barack could run.
Barack ran so our kids could fly.

Hope springs eternal. Later, all.



Want to keep The Journal of The Jester-in-Exile running? Why not leave some spare change?

back



Send an email to The Jester-in-Exile!

The Inaugural Speech of US President Barack Hussein Obama: What it Means for the Philippines (A Take by The Jester-in-Exile) Part I

I liked watching the Studio 23 coverage of the Obama's swearing-in as the 44th President of the United States, where Manolo was part of the panel. It was gratifying to see that my thoughts were validated by his comments on air.

(Of course, Ces Drilon was rather irritating then, but nothing's perfect.)

Anyway, what I'm going to try to do in this post is to take apart Obama's speech and try to put some context into what this US administration will mean for the Philippines... or at least in so far as how I think it will.

(Yes, yes, it's like taking apart some other blogger's post and telling you good folks how I intepret that which I've read.)

(Yes, I've done it before.)

***
Full text of speech from CNN here. The one below has advertisements. Haha.

So. We begin.

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Obama begins with a softball pitch, where he thanks the American people for his election as president, as well as giving kudos to Dubya pro forma (later on, as he makes his policy promises, he will not shirk from criticism of Bush administration's policies, of course).

An interesting sidelight is how he uses emphasis in the same manner as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, jr. did in their speeches, also playing on the charisma similarly enjoyed by John F. Kennedy, something that a born-and-raised American would find stirring, I would guess.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

With these words, Obama sets the stage for the rest of his speech. His task is quite obviously not going to be an easy one, as America is right now reeling from the effects of the global financial crisis, the problem of American oil needs and matters related to that end, the aftermath of two unpopular conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan) and perhaps conflicts yet to arise (Somalia? Pakistan?). Obama perhaps wants his words to be the speech to rouse the American people to a war footing -- an attempt to galvanize public opinion to his standard.

Shades of Shakespeare's "Saint Crispian's Day", I'm inclined to think.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Obama names the America's battlefield and America's enemies. In the first paragraph above, he gives credence to the problem of global terrorism. Next, he alludes to the failing US economy. Third, he mentions the American problem of the decline in health and human services. Fourth, he speaks of oil in relation to states supporting terrorism as well as of global warming (something I don't think has been recognized in the past eight years in the Bush administration).

The second paragraph is his phrasing of his recognition of a concept that many have been espousing for quite some time now: that the fall of Rome is near.

His next three paragraphs are reminiscent of Franklin D. Roosevelt's call to arms during the Great Depression of the 1920s:

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

Then, Obama takes a dip into the psychic link that born-and-bred Americans have with the Bible, the Mayflower Compact, the War of Independence and wars on foreign soil, the pioneers of the Midwest, the slaves in the cotton fields of the South, beginning with a juxtaposition of scripture and the Declaration of Independence:

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor — who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again, these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

Pretty stirring stuff for an American, I would venture to guess.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

In those two paragraphs not only has Obama telegraphed to the world his intentions with regard to the economy in so far as American products and services are concerned (yes, I would guess that he is making clear to the world that he will market the "Buy American" brand), but he has also turned the "on" switch on policies that rather influential sectors in American society have kept at "off" for the longest time. Here are a few I can guess at from his words:

- Domestic infrastructure

- Communications infrastructure (hey, after all, the internet was a big help to his campaign)

- Medical research (like maybe stem cell research, genetic engineering, and whatnot) opposed by the Bible Belt and other such folks

- High energy physics (the Superconducting Supercollider was opposed in principle by some lobbyists identified with the religious right, if I recall correctly)

- Renewable energy (solar, wind, biofuels) as well as the downstream consequences of emission standards, vehicle and power plant fuel efficiency, the Kyoto protocol and others

- Methods and content of instruction in schools (yes, to this day there are still some oppositors who contest the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools, saying that only creationism should be taught), as well as perhaps a revamp of the US' K-12 programs and methods; maybe there will be programs to encourage and support Americans' availing of higher education (I read somewhere that graduate programs are have been more or less the province of foreign students than before, while American grad student populations are lessening)

Interestingly, he alludes to creating new jobs and new growth opportunities. The local outsourcing sector must be letting out a collective sigh of relief, in that the jobs our local call center agents and IT specialists have taken away from Americans won't be lost because Obama's going to take them back to give back to Americans. Well, maybe.

More later. I'm getting too sleepy for deep thinking.

(To be continued, of course.)



Want to keep The Journal of The Jester-in-Exile running? Why not leave some spare change?

back



Send an email to The Jester-in-Exile!

Nothing of Importance. *shrugs*

No news today.

Well, maybe not "no news", just not much news of interest to me personally, except this little announcement that today is Day 97, Paradiso Standard Time.

That isn't really much in the grand scheme of things, I suppose. Heh. Maybe tomorrow we'll have something more substantial to write about.

***
God grant us the wisdom to see the right, the will to choose it, and the strength to make it endure. - Sean Connery, First Knight.

Amen.

Later, all.



Want to keep The Journal of The Jester-in-Exile running? Why not leave some spare change?

back



Send an email to The Jester-in-Exile!

The Right to Bitch, Bitching About Things, and Nonsensical Ramblings. Or Not. Heh.

It's been an interesting start-of-year, hasn't it, folks?

Quite a lot of flames have been fanned over the past few days, and while there are no indications that they'll get worse, I'm more or less convinced that it won't get any better. The headlines and top stories will continue to banner, well, more of the same, I think. There's very little that will true rouse the public into feeling a true sense of righteous indignation, let alone move the public to suiting actions to words.

In a way, I think it's a pity that the situation is so.

Thus, here's me offering yet another post on matters that could very well be of no consequence in the grand scheme of things.

(What can I say? I belong to the faceless sea of humanity, after all.)

And yes, my mood today is foul. Mostly because I'm working through a case of writer's block. Heh. So pardon the messy -- yet again -- post.

Or not. Whatever.

***
So the news has it that Bambee dela Paz has just been sued for libel. Well, why not? After all, the law is flexible enough to allow for such a possibility.

The erudite blawgger (law blogger, just so you know) The Warrior Lawyer has posted his take on the issue, and I've found it to be an engaging read. Of course, I'd nitpick that dela Paz is not the first blogger to have been sued for the contents of a post and will argue that the PCIJ blog owns that distinction (they were sued for libel by Jonathan Tiongco, if memory serves). I'm sure, however, that The Warrior Lawyer probably meant that the dela Paz suit is the first against a blogger who is a private individual and a non-journalist -- okay, that's a guess on my part that he meant that, but I think it's a fair guess.

Reading all those posts about libel vis-a-vis blog posts, I think that perhaps some folks have forgotten about one of the defenses against libel -- the right to reply. Here I'll talk a little about that.

See, one of the defenses of any publication is that they provide space for aggrieved parties to refute the contents of any story, via Letters to the Editor spaces or similar. Providing such a space ensures that news reports and opinion columns can and have been corrected and contradicted by ordinary people, involved or otherwise, about whatever has been published.

In so far as the blogosphere is concerned, it seems to me that the existence of the right to reply is inherent to the medium. There is no way that anyone can say that he has read something on the Internet and was denied his right to reply to that cyberspace-published something.

First, as far as blogs are concerned -- look to the bottom of almost any post, in almost any blog, and one will find a means to react. Yes, the comment thread below any post is in and of itself a manifestation that the right to reply exists on practically anything published in cyberspace. If one disagrees with something published, the one has the option -- or even, perhaps, the responsibility -- to leave a comment saying so.

Not leaving a comment expressing one's disapprovval or disagreement can and should be construed as a waiver of one's right to reply.

Second, in the broader view of cyberspace, anyone who is able to read a blog post, a forum thread, or a website online is likewise equipped with the capability to start his own blog, forum thread, or website refuting the contents the said person disagrees with. It is the height of idiocy to say that one can read a blog post and claim that he could not put up a reply online.

Not publishing a blog post contradicting that which has been published should also be construed as a waiver of one's right to reply.

It's of a nature analoguous to a radio station having aired a story once, and the same radio station, or even another station within the same broadcast range, airing a reply of the other party involved.

Of course, neither should the comment nor blog post contradicting the previously-published content be likewise libelous; else, I would suppose that doing so would weaken the stand of the person making the complaint. One also could then have opened himself to a counter suit. To use the previous analogy, someone complaining about Howard Stern should therefore refrain from using Howard Stern-ish language. Simple as that.

Furthermore, local jurisprudence and that of persuasive jurisdictions like the California Supreme Court have held that the reply must be of similar and judicious weight and nature; to continue to browbeat someone for more times than is necessary to have replied has been ruled to be harassment, carrying with it the ease in defending one's stand and making certain that the person or persons replying will end up being the ones ruled against; in quite a number of cases, even penalized severely.

To again use the radio station analogy, had the person complaining continue to air his complaints and comments incessantly and long after the airing of the content being complained, the person making such comments opens himself to the possibility of a harassment suit. The amount of evidence isn't even difficult to collect; when it is established that there have been multiple replies aired in response to a single airing, when the first reply is sufficient, gives ground for the complainer to be charged with harassment -- even more so, of course, when the replies and comments are no longer germane to the original issue.

Bottomline, therefore, is that I think that in the libel case involving the dela Paz blog, a defense that can be raised is that the Pangandamans waived their right to reply, by firstly, not making a reply comment refuting the blog post's contents in a timely manner, and second, by not putting up their own version of events online as soon as the issue went viral.

I believe that had the Pangandamans demonstrated that they had exercised their right to reply in a timely manner, their libel case would be strong and very difficult to assail. As it stands, the judge could very well say, "What took you so long to react?" and the libel case could be construed as merely a means of harassment.

We'll see. There are as yet no SCRA cases on online libel -- but from the looks of things this could change quickly.

***
Oh, and do read Ding's take. At the end of the day he points out that the whole deal could have been avoided if both parties played nice; also, he points out that not only are public officials held to a higher standard of behavior than the rest of us, public officials should live up to the standards that we hold them.

Lead by example, so to speak.

***
Recently, a number of bloggers and I were invited to meet with Senator Mar Roxas, in an informal meet-up to exchange views and ask the senator questions.

This wasn't my first time to speak with the senator for longer than ten seconds; after meeting with him that first time last year at Annabel's, then during the 2008 Philippine Blog Awards (where the senator recognized me -- I still find that fact amazing; maybe it was just the floppy hat? Haha!), then this third time. The senator, to my mind, has been consistent in the manner that he has presented himself; he has come across, at least to me, and to a certain degree, a persuasive man of no mean intellectual gifts.

However, having been in this informal session, I have developed further opinions as to the senator. Maybe some time I'll let you know what they are.

Anyway, back to the story -- it was an interesting evening. I got the impression that the senator was stretching his patience when Dean, in his characteristic fashion, leveled his intellectual guns; I must say, that despite the impatience that was barely hidden below the surface, the senator comported himself fairly well. Ding did a bit of probing, but he didn't really push the envelope as much as Dean had. Perhaps Noemi at that time was observing and forming an even clearer picture? I would think that her post on the matter would be persuasive.

Now to fast forward a little bit. Some time later and over Plurk, I opined to Caffeine Sparks that her rather biting criticism of the senator could very well have sparked (pun unintentional) not a few comments among Senator Mar Roxas's staff (but of course!).

(It's a fine, fine thing to take a strong stand when one does stand for something, I believe. On the other hand, Pat has his own take on Sparks' post; but let's leave that for later.)

The thing is, whether or not Sparks has valid points in her criticism of the senator (and I will not deny that she does), I cannot still go as far as saying as I will reject Senator Mar Roxas' presidential candidacy -- assuming, of course, he will run, which he has neither confirmed nor denied (something I can understand the rationale for, but not necessarily agreeing with). Here's how I see things (having told Sparks and Marocharim as much later than night): perhaps Roxas may not be the best person to become president, but he is the best available choice (or at least, the best available possible choice, as far as we know)... and therein lies the problem.

See, it is not as if there is a dearth of people qualified to lead -- the problem is that objective realities get in the way of getting to the helm. I do not doubt that there are probably better choices out there to become our Chief Executive, but I doubt if these better choices will be made available to us come 2010 (and assuming we have elections, of course). This is why, and I said as much to the senator, "unfortunately, you are the best choice thus far available."

Stress on the word "unfortunately." Then again, this is only because for the average reasonable Filipino the opportunities for political advancement are few and far between (it will be difficult to find an Obama-esque story locally), and that because we have limited choices we are forced to contrast the likes of Senator Roxas with, say, the likes of Bayani Fernando, Jejomar Binay, and the like.

No contest. Unfortunately.

That said, I am glad that the senator has extended such an invitation, and that I am fairly impressed with the way he navigated through the multiple Scylla/Charybdis questioning we bloggers threw his way that evening. He was a fairly good sport; the fact that he extended such an invitation, that he answered questions gamely (whether his answers were candid or not is an issue I will leave to others), and that he mentioned -- polite phrasing or not -- that he would enjoy another such sparring session gives me hope that there may be hope for the evolution of Philippine politics to something better than we have today. Heck, I'd like to see if the likes of potential presidentiables Chiz Escudero, Manny Villar, Ping Lacson, or whoever, would be likewise as game to fielding questions from ordinary folks.

Will I endorse Mar Roxas' possible candidacy at this point? I don't know yet; I have insufficient data to make such a judgment. I'd agree with Noemi that I'd love to pick the brains of other candidates, to be better equipped to make such a judgment.

Will I accept another invitation to discuss issues with Senator Roxas? Yes, of course -- contingent on time and circumstances, naturally. Having data available is better than not having it; next time, of course, I don't think we bloggers should cut him any slack (I said as much to the senator that night; I'm not sure if he was surprised that the bloggers did cut him slack that night, or if he was amused by it, but he seemed to be a good enough sport to welcome the challenge).

Will I accept a similar invitation to discuss issues with some other candidate? Naturally. Data gathering is data gathering. Heck, perhaps some hypothetical candidate will persuade me that he or she is a better choice than Senator Roxas is, who knows?

Let's see how this will play out.

(On another note -- how many bloggers out there get dating advice from a senator, eh, Marocharim? Nyaha.)

***
Let's stop here, folks. I'm sorry, but I'm just not in the mood to write tonight. Must be that nice full moon.

Later, all.



Want to keep The Journal of The Jester-in-Exile running? Why not leave some spare change?

back



Send an email to The Jester-in-Exile!

Lazy Start-Up Commentating for 2009, Part II: The Pangandaman/ Dela Paz Issue -- some more thoughts on it

In the previous post (written rather messily, having been under the influence of drowsiness), I tried to tie together some thoughts (and admittedly, very messily) on the issue of the still-hot Delpazandaman golfing/mauling incident.

To a certain degree, it seems that the issue is beginning to die down in cyberspace. It looks as if the blogosphere is now paying more attention to other matters.

Shades of ningas-cogon? I don't know... although I'm certain that other bloggers have decided to do so in keeping with their own personal preferences.

That said, I'm going to ramble a bit more on the Delapazandaman issue, in terms of things I've observed, read, and heard.

***
On quite a number of blog post comments and forum threads, there's been some who have taken a rather racist point of view. Consider this comment found in a Filipino Voices post:

Culture yan ng mga Maranao, pati na ng mga Maguindanao at Tausug, talagang marahas sila. Laging may baril at patayan ang labanan. Bakit ba di umaasenso ang Mindanao? Kasi naman mga corrupt mga politicians dyan. At talaga namang puro sila kunsintidor. Matatapang lang naman dahil santambak ang bodyguards na puro may baril pa.

The racism is not one-sided, however. Here's another comment found in another post:

It is not a surprise the way muslim in the Philippines act. Normal sa Mindanao yan and if you cross their path. Patay ka. That is the way life is in the philippines and sila pa yung victim. hooraayyy filipino muslim!!!

In this issue, I've taken the position that the ethnicity and religious belief of the parties are irrelevant, and thus was pissed off by both these parties. Thinking a bit more about it later, I wondered -- could it be that ethnocentric biases be part of the fuel in this fire?

Perhaps there could be. Even among those I've known personally for years, I've heard people quite unashamedly express their dislike for people who are of the Muslim faith or are of Mindanaoan descent, taking the view that such people are naturally, well, bad. Conversely, I've heard people who call themselves Muslims say rather derogatory stuff about people who do not belong to their faith and community, simply because these people are not members of their faith and community; more than that, there seems to be an automatic assumption that such people do not like Muslims, and that quite a number of them believe that one automatically distrusts and dislikes Muslim Filipinos simply because one is a non-Muslim Filipino.

There's the bias on one side, and there's the bias and defensive attitude on the other. Rather unfortunate, I'm sure many will agree.

However, I am glad that very few people in the blogs I've read encourage these behaviors; more to the point, I am very happy that there are a lot of bloggers who are likewise angry at folks who do. Here's a comment on another Filipino Voices post:

This is not an issue between Muslims and Christians, but it was becoming due to irresponsible comments from others. Kawawa talaga Pinoy, imbes na makatulong nakakagulo pa lalo. Why don’t we just pray for justice be serve(d) to those who deserve the verdict, and our country be in peace. Humility should prevail not only during EID or CHRISTMAS seasons.

Don't we wish. Well, if wishes were bicycles, we wouldn't need a Clean Air Act.

If anything, I hope that bloggers learn to help fight the negativity of the biases and prejudices reflected in and propagated by such comments.

Yes, fellow members of the Pinoy niche of cyberspace, this is something we should watch out for.

***
But on to the cases themselves. Now that the both parties have filed their cases in court, how will the cases go?

Here's how I think it will all boil down to (opinion of someone interested in law but not practicing, of course):

- Whether or not the Dela Pazes instigated the fight, the Pangandamans used too much force to repel the alleged attack, so that the legal defense of self-defense will probably not be appreciated.

- Having beaten up a minor (and with all evidence unequivocal), the Pangandamans will have to face child abuse charges. The charge of child abuse against the Dela Pazes will be harder to prove.

- The charges of threats by both sides would be a matter for each to try and prove, but yet again with the Pangandamans being men in power as well as having bodyguards, it will be less difficult on the part of the Dela Pazes.

At the end of the day, of course, we will continue to wonder whether or not the administration will exert some influence such that the cases will be won in one form or another by the Pangandamans.

Sucker bet? Mm-hm.

***
Related on the court battle and the war for public opinion, in his post entitled Impunity, Manolo predicted this scenario:

So we have here a clear clash of civilizations: between the entitlement and warlord culture of the provinces, which compels obedience by force, and which doesn’t hesitate to use that force to compel submission by anyone who isn’t part of the ruling clan’s pecking order of enforcers; and the national capital culture which expects self-control of officialdom, which doesn’t think twice about standing up to official bullying; which, even if beaten to a pulp thinks it’s possible to rally support from like-minded people who actually believe in justice and notions of equality -because there are more decent people than the bad.

Still another irony is that People Power is now being mobilized -its first stirrings being the sharing of officially embarrassing news, the stoking of popular outrage, the expression of public opinion, the coming together of a constituency mobilized by shared values- among the sort of people who’d shrugged off so many other acts of official impunity. There is a lesson here somewhere: and it’s a simple one. Impunity eventually sows the seeds of its own destruction. There will always come a time when a line will be crossed, and it’s a line too far.

Which is not to say that this incident will cause a revolution; but it is proof of how reality will always intrude into even the politest of conversations.

The coming year is going to be a showdown, of sorts, between the exponents of the culture of impunity, from the President to her allies on the official and local level. It is a showdown between those who furiously resent a political culture where public opinion matters, where impunity is challenged, and where privilege is supposed to be something subjected to questioning.

...

My point is we see this impunity all the time, in small ways, and shrug it off -oddly enough, in the same manner we shrug off the big, spectacular, cases of impunity, too- when we ought to start tying it all together.

And their project next year is to basically abolish public opinion; to reduce it to its component local parts, where public opinion has been muted, and where it can be treated in such a way and such a manner as to be beyond questioning, court cases, heckling, letters to the editor or blog entries demanding resignations: because the trump card of an official when it comes to the provinces is the message every bodyguard represents: you can run, but you can’t hide.

Whether or not the the ending of the court cases will be predictable -- in so far as the Pangandamans having access to the rarefied corridors of power -- public opinion is something that they no longer will be able to harness. Public opinion, that is, in the realm of the urban and connected.

Having been able to harness early on the blogosphere, the Dela Pazes have enjoyed the high ground, with the Pangandamans sufficiently beaten down. With the Dela Pazes having some understanding of the vagaries of the blogosphere, and with the Pangandamans relying on the old methods of attempting to shape public opinion, the result was a flat-out rejection of the Pangandamans, even after some rather damaging "evidence" was brought out against the Dela Pazes' account.

In his column, veteran journalist Amado Doronila puts forward a decidedly insightful take on it, one even more insightful coming from one who is quite possibly less techie than the current crop of mainstream media practitioners today:

The force that has intervened to influence public opinion on the side of powerless victims of violence and injustice is a new element feeding on the swiftness and untrammeled flow of information facilitated by the Internet. It cannot be censored by authorities just as the Xerox machine could not be censored by dictatorial regimes of the 1970s who felt challenged by the duplicating machines and not by the bulky printing presses used by independent papers to denounce regimes and their abuses.

Media studies have identified the blog, a creature of the Internet, as an instrument of what is called “interactive journalism” or “citizens’ journalism,” in which eyewitnesses of events write their own reports without formal accreditation as members of the institutionalized media organizations. This is what media studies call grassroots journalism with basic citizen participation, feeding the votaries of information with a variety of sources and perspectives. This approach has superseded the structured reports of the traditional reporter and news story seeking to describe all angles under the two-witness corroboration rule. This is the approach and the elemental dynamic of Internet-based journalism that the Pangandamans and people in public authority are contending with. It has been harnessed by the bloggers.

Harnessed, yes, but there was no concerted effort to do so -- it just happened that way. This is why I'd venture to caution Carlos Conde's call to action, where he says:

Now, for Bambee and her supporters, the inevitable question arises: Is this it? We have demonstrated that we have so much power as bloggers, and is this it? What next?

The thing about blogging is that it is so personal that whatever you post on your blog naturally flows from your experiences. So one moment you raise hell about the arrogance of those in power and, the next, you wonder aloud why the lip gloss you just bought doesn’t seem to have enough sheen. Truth be told, movements like Bambee’s are few and far between. Much of the blogosphere is inundated with stuff that are irrelevant, inconsequential and, well, personal. Then again, as I pointed out above, that is the original nature of blogging.

The key word is “original” because, as we’ve seen, blogging is evolving. Blogging today is much different from blogging four or five years ago. Five years ago, blogs are like Twitter today: the medium is there and you’re still figuring out how to use it, so you publish just about anything, such as the crappy movie you and your girlfriend are watching or the hot chick you are ogling at the supermarket counter. These tell a thing or two about you or what you are doing but, in the larger scheme of things, they are meaningless and irrelevant. But is this all that we can do with a medium so evidently powerful?

Today, blogging, apart from being both a narcissistic and cathartic exercise of self-expression among millions, is a potent information tool. News organizations use it to complement their journalism (take note: complement, not supplant). Activists use it to promote their cause. Victims use it to right a wrong.

I guess what I’m saying is that bloggers like Bambee can – and should – use their newfound power and influence to right the wrongs done on other people. And, by God, there is so much injustice being committed out there! Yet, except in the circles of activists and human-rights advocates, I have not seen the same level of outrage in the blogosphere over the disappearance of Jonas Burgos, of Karen Empeno and Sherlyn Cadapan, of the atrocity done to Remegio Saladero Jr. and the hundreds of human-rights victims in the Philippines as we have witnessed in the Pangandaman incident.

A post thanking your multitude of supporters is nice but not quite enough. Bloggers who benefited from the power of blogging to correct the injustice done to them have a duty, I believe, to pay society back. And the only way I can think of is for them to raise hell, too, about the injustice done to other people, particularly the oppressed ones – those who are too poor and marginalized to even own a computer, let alone know that there is such a thing as a blog.

with his own words, Conde must have been able to recognize what is probably the primary reason why these and other similar issues have not been top-of-mind for the average blogger (I say this, of course, hoping for slack from folks like Shari, the Filipino Voices crew, Noemi, among others, who have written about similar stuff).

Conde said this: "Blogging is, by its very nature, a personal medium. This is why bloggers tend to write much more forcefully about an injustice if it hits them on a personal level, as it did the dela Pazes." This is quite possibly why the issues Conde mentioned have yet to be top of mind.

For the issue and condemnation of an injustice to become viral in the blogosphere, because of the nature of cyberspace, I would guess that it should have the following characteristics:

- The issue must be something that the general online public can readily identify with; more or less the immediate belief that "that could've been me."

- The issue must be something that the general online public can readily empathize with, along the lines of "yeah, I'd probably have done the same thing, if it were me."

- The issue must be something that strikes the general online public on an emotional, even visceral, level. It must be something that they FEEL, as having to THINK it over gives pause, and that pause can and does eventually lead to the blogger writing about something else.

- The initial posts must be SEO and SERPS-friendly, as well as link and copy-paste friendly. There is no getting around the technical nature of the blogosphere. No matter how strong is the political or social nature of the stand you take, objective conditions are at work that can prevent your posts going viral.

Not that Conde is wrong, of course. We as bloggers do have some sort of responsibility to the general online public and our readership to disseminate information that mainstream media cannot or does not cover or continue to cover. I would guess that this responsibility is tempered by our personal beliefs and principles.

Or, more cynically, our personal levels of interest in such matters. Even bloggers can get tired of writing in support of causes -- it's sad, yes, but it's human nature. Remember how the Cris Mendez killing issue petered out eventually, even in the blogosphere?

Just like that. 'Nuff said.

***
Later, folks. I've other stuff to deal with today.



Want to keep The Journal of The Jester-in-Exile running? Why not leave some spare change?

back



Send an email to The Jester-in-Exile!

Lazy Start-Up Commentating for 2009, Part I: The Pangandaman/ Dela Paz Issue (or at least the beginning of the commentary on it)

My first blog post after returning to chaos central? A wrap-up of the jester-in-exile's 2008 highlights.

Not.

I figured that I've been missing out on quite a number of discussions that have been making the rounds in the blogosphere these past few weeks, so here I will be talking about each of them in this post that'll be longer than usual.

I'm thinking of making something that Marcelle calls a "megapost" -- a "too long; didn't read" TLDR post. More accurately, this little thing is several posts cobbled into one.

Or maybe not -- I still have stuff to do. We'll see where we'll stop.

Here we go.

***
Some Thoughts on the Dela Paz-Pangandaman Issue

Much has been said in the blogosphere since Bambee dela Paz first spoke of the altercation between her father Delfin and her brother Bino, with the two having been beaten up by Masui, Lanao del Sur mayor Nasser Pangandaman, jr, son of Department of Agrarian Reform secretary Nasser Pangandaman, and the Pagdangaman's golf flightmates Paysal Abdulaa, Mohammed Hussein, Abdan Pacasuna, Rene Maglaque, Arnel Astacio (the names from the mainstream media story), and these folks' bodyguards. If anything, I think the still-ongoing Delapazandaman issue may have created an even greater buzz than the Malu Fernandez/ OFW brouhaha of 2007 (perhaps even more viral than the Brian Gorell/ Gucci Gang dust-up of early 2008), which also grabbed mainstream media attention back then.

Having visited a number of posts and forum pages that have been introduced via blog posts and Plurk pages that I've visited lately, it seems to me that there is much to we can glean as developments have progressed.

Let's start with the "their word vs. that of the others' issue.

When Bambee's blog post first came out, the news went viral, as this Technorati chart illustrates (the chart, of course, does not include the numbers of forwarded emails, forum threads, and non-blog-format websites):

Posts that contain Pangandaman Dela Paz per day for the last 30 days.

Current image of Technorati results 17:43 MNL 01052009

Quite a number of reasons why the story propagated so quickly in the blogosphere were offered by bloggers to explain the phenomenon. Some bloggers and commenters in various blogs took the position that the news spread so fast because of the Filipino's apparent proclivity for being an usisero and chismoso; a number of bloggers were especially angry as to the mauling of a minor (and this seems to be even more true among parents who blog).

I'm more inclined to believe that it is The Warrior Lawyer's insightful post Why the Pangandaman Issue Refuses to Die or At Least Abate speaking of a deep-seated cultural resentment against the stereotype of the powerful politician that best explains why the public's hackles were raised. Excerpt:

The middle-class outrage over the Pangandamans’ alleged bullying of the De la Paz family has been expounded upon in other articles and blog posts and needs no repeating here. But it may be pointed out that the image we have of the abusive politician is a Philippine cultural icon. The “abusado” local political boss, government official or warlord, and his twin, the cruel landlord, is a stock character, and has been so for many decades, in countless Philippine komiks and movies. These are the bad guys who inevitably get their comeuppance at the hands of FPJ, Ramon Revilla, Sr., et. al. Respected actors like Eddie Garcia, Subas Herrero and others have made a good living playing this role, in one incarnation or another, for their entire careers.

...

Thus, it must have been a shock to many Filipinos, weaned, consciously or not, on FPJ movies and Mars Ravelo stories and later, Carlo J. Caparas, to find that such people actually exist in the flesh. From the published accounts, the Pangandamans behaved in a way that seemed to almost parody the popular idea of the arrogant politico. Even up to the bad dialogue. “Hindi mo ba ko kilala ?” and so forth. Hence, the outcry.

So the Pangandamans are not up against the bloggers, as they seem to believe, but a cultural conception that has been with us for decades, if not centuries. That’s a tough nut to crack.

It seems to me that the Panganadaman's beating up of the dela Pazes was a public lightning rod that every person who's suffered some form of oppression or discomfiture by government -- tong asked by a cop, "SOP" asked by an LTO officer, cut in traffic by a number 8 plate, or whatever -- felt sympathy for the dela Pazes, quite almost automatically assuming that the Pangandamans being the politicians that they are were at fault. The public readily accepted that the angle that it was the Pangandamans who were pushing their weight around. Call it the influence of art into belief, but it must have seemed to the public that life was mirrored by art in this case.

Later, with more information coming to light, such as unofficial statements by unidentifiable commenters on various blogs (which nonetheless seemed official after the radio, TV and newspaper interviews of Pangandaman Sr.), as well as Ding's scoop of the incident report of the Valley Golf's security and some unnamed forum commenter who seems to be in the know, some of those who had vehemently denounced the Pangandaman's became quiet. However, it still seemed that the blogosphere was still generally condemnatory. Once more, it seems that The Warrior Lawyer has a good enough starting explanation for why the blogosphere did not yet completely move away from their anger:

Furthermore, the Pangandamans lost the war for public sympathy from the onset, the circumstances of the event being what it is. Setting aside the question of who gave provocation, it’s clear from the versions of both sides that the De la Paz family were at the losing end of the encounter. There was the father, no spring chicken, and his 14-year old son and college-age daughter, against able-bodied young men, powerful and influential people at that, and their armed bodyguards. Who’s being bullied here ? Pinoys will always sympathize with the underdog.

And if the rumors are to be believed, the Pangandaman camp have little idea of how the blogosphere operates. They have allegedly tried to find out and “profile” the persons behind the blogs attacking them to find ways to counteract such efforts. If true, then they betray a total lack of understanding of the viral nature of the beast. It’s not the individual blogs that dictate the agenda (not that there is even one) of the blogosphere but the medium itself: the immediacy and rapid dissemination of news and opinion among community members numbering in the tens of thousands. Issues take on a life of their own in the internet, by reason of the sheer momentum generated by information speedily passing from one person to another through blogs, social networking sites and the like. The only way to deal with it is on its own terms, by battling it out in the democratic space provided by the internet.

Moreover, the blogosphere is not a universe unto itself. Bloggers are, like it or not, part of the world at large. They are not immune from political and societal forces and will not be restrained from, at the very least, commenting on the issues of the day. They simply won’t keep quiet and anyone who tries to make them shut up would be like King Canute commanding the tides of the sea to roll back.

I think the final paragraph was given even more emphasis when Nasser Pangandaman, Sr. made an appeal to the bloggers. Relevant to this would be Regnard's post How Do You Weather a Blogging Storm? -- excerpt:

Mr. Pangandaman has spent the last week diffusing this issue and there are little indications that he is making progress. So how does he contain it?

The short answer: he can’t.

I read somewhere before that trying to get back something put online is like trying to get the pee out of a swimming pool– it’s practically impossible with the means readily available. In the case of Mr. Pangandaman, he’s practically in a pool full of piss (pardon the analogy).

Let’s look at what he’s dealing with: The blogging community (at least the people I’ve interacted with) is really just normal people who rarely have an agenda. But the incident struck a chord that most people, not just bloggers, are against and that idea of people who are supposed to help us being the tormentors.

If you think about it, a golfing incident is really something most people don’t care about much, but once you put a 56-year old man and his 14-year old son being brutally clubbed by a notable politician and his henchmen, it puts things on a different light. In my opinion, when the daughter of the victim blogged about it in a very honest and earnest way, bloggers were able to empathize with her because that victim could be them– people who don’t stan a chance against a wealthy and influential person. I think that’s when the storm started, and perhaps Mr. Pangandaman’s political career may have ended.

So how does one deal with this? What Mr. Pangandaman has done so far is pretty much useless (denial, charm offensive, etc.) to reverse the tide in his favor. What he could pray for is a group of bloggers share his side and get critical mass to whip up his own blog storm. With this approach, he can dillute the blogosphere with posts in his favor and put bloggers at odds with one another.

Antother thing he can do is get a notable blogger or blogging personality to openly vouch for him. This will put the heat on the blogger and not on him and practically discredit the whole blogging community. This is more of a “sheild strategy” than to stop the whole issue.

Finally, he can cut his losses and admit his wrongdoing. Most of the bloggers will be off his back, and try to rebuild his image from the rubble.

Mr. Pangandaman is working inneffectively on different fronts to maintain his reputation and has relied on traditional media to fight this battle, which is being fought on the blogging battlefield. No wonder he is losing.

I'd also venture that it may be too late for the Pangandamans to switch tactics with regard to soothing the blogosphere -- especially since that they've filed countersuits to match the Dela Pazes' charges.

An interesting point of view was presented by Ellen in her post , where she writes:

Although not yet in the scale that blogs in the United States and South Korea influence national issues, the emerging power of blogs in the Philippines got affirmation in the appeal of Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser Pangandaman to the public, “especially the bloggers” to stop vilifying his family over the Valley Golf Glub.

...

Since most of the mainstream media were on holidays, the vacuum of informing the public about what many considered a despicable incident was taken up by blogs. Since many of those blogs were by people not covered by the journalism rules such as accuracy check and fairness there was no effort to get the side of the Pangandamans.

I'm somehow glad that Ellen seems to recognize that the blogosphere did serve as a source of information to the public as perhaps complementarily to mainstream media, as well as recognizing the limitations and constraints of bloggers (of which some commenters did not recognize, it also seemed), but my pleasure at seeing mainstream media and new media working hand in hand was doused with cold water after reading the Inquirer.net editorial Clawless opinion, which mentions Ding, but not his blog's URL nor the URL where the information is located.

Wow. Mainstream media, you know that non-attribution is bad, right? More than that, your online version's people have just been, well, bastos -- netiquette pretty much teaches us to link back to people we're talking about or we're getting data from.

Hmph, I think I'll stop here for now... I much too zonked to go into deep thinking. There's still much to discuss -- like implications of the event as related to the blogosphere as a source of information and as a means to influence, like what are the merits of the Pangandamans' and Dela Pazes' cases, and the sociopolitical implications of the whole enchilada.

***
Talk to you later, folks. Need to depressurize.

Maybe even get some sleep.

Heh heh.




Want to keep The Journal of The Jester-in-Exile running? Why not leave some spare change?

back



Send an email to The Jester-in-Exile!