Sure. If you thought Marcos was decent.

He has the markings of it all: his anti-crime stand can really fool people because a lot of people justify his corruption because he "only kills the bad guys". Right. THEN, he takes over their businesses, so whoppee, he gets rich by taking out the competition.

Mere speculation? Well, three hundred Chinese kidnapping victims pointing at Lacson can't all be Wong.

Roco sounds good. Too good. Why do I say so? He was a Marcos boy, but unlike Ramos or Enrile, he chose to erase his association. Which means he has something to hide. Well, come to think of it, so does everyone else...

By the way, the excerpts I posted of Eddie Gil's interview are real, if a little misquoted. They're part of the video clips on this website. Pretty good website if you'd like to catch those Bio Data episodes you've missed:

http://ruby.inq7.net/specialfeatures/eleks...o&art=index.htm

Anyone else hear the rumour that Clinton may be the running mate for Kerry?

Seems a bit far fetched to me but stranger things have happened. I with that someone could have persuaded Edwards to run with him. Not only would it give him the experience in politics he so badly needs (given that it was widely reported that this was the main reason for him not getting the nomination) but also it's the ticket that has the best chance of overturning Bush. I read that some polls are showing that a potential Kerry Edwards team already has a lead over Bush.

Not to mention how much I would love to see Edwards absolutely rinse Cheney is any kind of debate. The poor b*stard wouldn't stand a chance :laugh:

I kinda liked Marcos, except for his thirst for power and his power-tripping ways.

my elders and the books say Marcos was pretty good during his first term. the second however was full of "croniness". especially his wife, damn her! :angryfire:

anyway,i just watched FPJ ion TV and this is what i can say about him

he bangs his hands on the table and shouts a lot. and i mean a lot

i think his entire speech consisted of banging and shouting :sweatface: .

the people listening of course, banged and shouted with him :sweatface: .

kind of makes me ashamed i live in the same country as him :bawling:

Don't think either Clinton will be in this election. Most of the political analysts I've listened to, on both sides of the political spectrum, are speculating that Hillary will either run in 2008 or 2012. I don't think Bill would be Kerry's running mate because he's not one of those people who wants to be second fiddle.

As for the election itself, I'll be voting for Bush. It's not like I really like the man and what he's done, but Kerry would be a disaster for my country. Not only is the guy is an uber-hypocrite - flip-flopping on the issues when convenient - he's about the worst canidate for Commander in Chief. Yes the guy has an admirable combat record, but he has consistently voted against crucial weapons systems (i.e. the Apache helicopter which provides important fire support for ground units) and for gutting the US intelligence community. I'd rather have mediocrity than Kerry

my thoughts on the US presidentiables:
i actually thought bush was better than clinton. i just think the press likes to mention his blunders more than clinton's because of his father and other issues, etc. etc. i think bush does what he says... as in foreign policies. in clinton's day, the philippines got little aid for our cooperation, and clinton talks a lot about giving them and we received little. the bush administration never denied protecting their own interests in any territory but at least they gave the philippine armed forces lots of aid including training and equipment.

and i think that despite whatever you tell the guy, he does have a point about iraq and bin laden. and i also like how the US is protecting their interest in israel at this time.

on the philippine presidentiables:
:rolleyes: fpj... laughing stock internationally.

links on brother eddie that my sister gave:
his platform
his biodata

i dunno who to vote for yet but i'm giving you the links so at least you have an informed choice. better that than apathy.

Politician in hypocracy shocker! :biggrin:

Seriously though, it's not as if Bush has always practiced what he preaches either.

More importantly with regards to 'crucial' weapons systems, the major problem is having personel trained well enough to use them correctly. Not only that but the demands of being the guy in charge would steel a person into making different decisions not to mention the effect of the administration around the singular leader.

Even then, I would never describe weapon systems as crucial. In comparison to the oponents in modern warfare, the technology of the west is far superior anyway. Plus harsh as it may sound, having casulties in war is important. It makes us realise how it is a last resort. Were we to be so superior to our 'enemies' that the casualties on our side were negligible then certain hawks would think nothing of wading into war at a moments notice to protect the oh so important national securtity. This would be worse than loosing the lives of a few of our boys.

As for the inteligence community, whilst they are a very important set of institutions throughout the world, it worries me that due to the necesairy level of autonomy they need to maintain, they often act unaccountably and without taking into acount anything but the needs formed by they lopsided view on the world. Since they live in a world of perpetual fear and distrust they can no longer see the world in it's true sense.

Ok so I may be exagerating but I feel that inteligence has gone a little to far, and hey, I'm pretty much a pacifist (well one tries) so I'm never going to be republican in leaning.

Just wait for my essay entitled "how real is realism" lets see if I can keep up my average :biggrin:

whew! this is a rather hot topic. :sweatface: i haven't read all the posts, but i'd like to give my 2 cents worth in this topic.



i just want to comment on this earlier post. i respect the person's opinion on this statement, but for a woman like me (oh shizz...i just admitted i'm a woman :laugh: ), it didn't sit quite well with me. but talking about feminism gibberish requires another topic altogether, so i'd leave it like that. i just couldn't help getting :eek: after reading that.

anyway, i've been trying to convince people to vote this coming may. as most of my friends are younger than i am (god, i feel so old! :sweatface: ), their pessimism about politics is quite baffling. for most of them who just turned 18, i'm quite surprised at how jaded they've become when it concerns about the fate of this (godforsaken) country. it's kinda hard convincing them to vote if they don't believe in it, but thankfully i heard some of them are going to vote...anything, just to save the country from the likes of fpj.

on a personal note, i'm rooting for roco. but honestly, i wish the man would shut his trap once in a while. his political headbashing irritates me. the way he criticizes his adversaries implies like he's way better than the rest of them. i mean, come on man...you're losing more votes with that yakking of yours. can't he just talk about something else like his platform details for one?

regarding roco's personal issues as education secretary, i've read about him a lot. the alleged accusations of roco using department funds for his purpose has not been proven. he resigned out of "delicadeza" (courtesy) and faced the issues without his aforementioned title. reports tagging his corruption activities was never proven.

on the other hand, roco mad a difference in the DepEd, specially with regards to the issue of transparency (book bidding, reducing taxes on teachers, benefits, etc). i personally believe in his ideal of transforming the bureacracy and there's no other guy i can see doing that but him.

i've been looking into eddie villanueva as well. actually i can't believe that i'm actually thinking of voting for him. morality is a subjective idea to begin with and ramming a particular set of moral issues down people's throats is not going to be easy. but then again, villanueva remains unblemished with all this political mudslinging. i give him that credit at least.

for those of you who are interested, here's fpj's platform. and it's about time.

A few points on this.

The first is a bit purile but...

Bush is in no way better than Clinton. Bush is an idiot pure and simple, Clinton is not an idiot. This being said, there could be argument to whose administration was/is better. Sorry but I had to get that out of the way.

Secondly, Bush doing what he says is irrelavant to me. It's meaningless if he carries out bad policies. If he said he wanted to drop nukes on Russia and carried it out then it would be a bad thing. Fair enough the point is extreme (let alone unlikely) but it outlines the point.

Also, whilst I admit that I have little to no knowledge on the specifics, I also don't see why arming other nations is a good thing. Giving aid? maybe, arming? I'm less so sure. Again, this being said, I'll already admit that I may well be missing a shortcoming in this matter from the Clinton administration.

Thirdly, what is his point about Iraq and Bin Laden? Who, incidently, have no conection to each other. So Iraq has a despotic leader, so do lots of places, I don't see the US leaping to remove those 'regimes' (eep don't temp the neocons) . Plus, and I realise this is a wider US foreign policy point but when will the more hawkish administrations realise that prepetuating such short terms policies will bring nothing but ill. Remember who instigated Hussein's regime, armed Bin Laden and many more that would merit mentioning but for boredoms sake (not to mention my lack of impetus to ensure validity :sweatface: ). This is surely a warning to pay more attention to long term foreign policy issues.

As for Bin Laden specifically, it made no difference who had the reigns in this instance. The responce is pretty much standard and even then, it's never the best way forward. Prevention is better than cure anyone (i.e. remove the desire to bomb, not the means to bomb).

As for the US protecting its interests in Israel. They're doing a good job at helping a bunch of radical religious fanatics persecute their enemies. I think the 4 odd billion a year that goes to Israel to fuel their missiles and attack helicopters would be better spent on medicare (or is it medicaid I forget, oh and please correct me if my estimate of the 4 billion is incorrect).

To pre-empt a defense of this dangerously right wing government. I think the palistinians actions are justified. For the Israeli administration to call the Palistinians terrorists is abject hypocracy. I personally think it would be more terrifing to see tanks roll into the refugee camp where I had been forced to live. Also is sending a missile to kill a mere 2 viable targets (the military leader of hamas and another hamas member) in a heavilly populated residential area any better than a suicide attack. I believe it to be worse as they had no security checks to try to secure their safety, unlike the counter terrorism techniques that are viable to the Israeli security forces.

I must stress however that I in no way condone the actions of any suicide bomber or indeed anyone who commits terrorist attacks of any kind

The main thing I am trying to get across is that if you give people no reason to live, terrorist organisations will have no trouble finding recruits.

I also must point out that I have no problems with Jewish people. I am certainly not an anti semite and would take great offence to the accusation.

I could go on (and on and on) about my views on the Palistine/ Israel conflict but I've soapboxed long enough and I was actually going to make some points about JFK ( :biggrin: 'cause you know that's gonna get used :biggrin: ). Those I'll save for later.

Except for you know that he's got Europe's vote. Bush can quote from the Bible as much as he likes, I prefer Kerry's quotes from Pablo Neruda.

Hmmm ... did he actually write all that? Sounds much too pat. :sweatface:

I have no strong leanings towards any of the presidentiables myself. Too many choices (why is that, I wonder? :rolleyes: ) and none of them really convincing as a future leader.

Don't get me wrong, I'll be voting this May. But for whom, I haven't decided. (One thing's for sure, though -- I'm not choosing FPJ.)

i doubt if he wrote that. i mean...come on. he must've hired a damned good writer to do that, or prolly just handed the job to loren.

it's ok if you're still undecided. nothing's final until the day itself. there's still a lot to happen from this day up till may 10. decisions might change.

hmm...i hope they could push through that presidential debate. personally i think its important to know the candidates' detailed plans on running this country and not to pit them against each other (like in a cockfighting arena), as what others think it would lead to.

:laugh: i remember something about loren saying that if there's going to be a presidential debate, there should be a similar event for the vice president hopefuls. the funny (and utterly irritating) thing about her statement was that she proposed to do a "tandem" for the debates.

bwahahahahahhaha! like yeah right... :rolleyes: and save the so-called "king" from getting humiliated? puh-lease.

I think we need someone who exercises his/her authority. Like Marcos, but no Imelda and power tripping. Lacson is like that and if you like salvages and drugs, vote for him :sweatface: . Personally, I don't like Ping. Everytime he gets the mic, he is always trash talking GMA. Sure GMA is not that good, but I don't like trash talkers who talks trash before proving their worth.

power can tempt even the most righteous man. i dunno if that will happen to eddie villanueva, but that's a reality. lacson on the other hand has power when he was the PNP chief and senator. trash talking is already a given in the elections. heck, even roco does that all the time. it can get really irritating if they always do stupid stuff like these instead of laying out the specific details of their platforms.

Him, personally? Of course not. It would be written by a professional writer from the campaign's PR team. I get the impression he's one of the primary candidates. Anyone but a fringe candidate is gonna have a campaign manager in charge of managing the campaign team, a PR manager either managing a PR team, or else with a contract with a PR firm, a volunteer coordinator (all campaigns make extensive use of volunteers), and probably a policy/platform manager as well. The platform would be developed by the policy manager/team, and then written by the PR team.

i think the problem in this country is corruption. not resources.
we are the sick man of asia because of it. we are second in the continent. we lose PHP 500M everyday because of it.

for example, the taxes i pay a month pays for the salary of 2 government minimum wage employees. add the VAT. add the income i pay the government for services such as the simple xerox of my passport. multiply that to the population in metro manila alone.

and where does it all go?

didn't we put an economist as the president? was she successful? didn't we surround ourselves with brilliant people in NEDA who took their MBAs in economics abroad?

no matter how many brilliant people you put in there who can outline an action plan on how we can boost our exports or triple our production, if we dun stop people from pocketing all that income, we will never get the money rolling.

so ask yourself which presidentiable addresses that.

economics are easy. rilly. the land in this country is so rich. we have oil deposits and mineral deposits in our seas. that part is way easy.

so dun do this --> :rolleyes: when one candidate says this country is evil. it is. whether you believe in evil or not... it's costing us money.

true. i hate to say it, but corruption has become intertwined with the filipino culture in as much as crab mentality is included. although it helps that the presidential candidates have their own plans to address this sickness in the government, i just wish they'd give specific details to it. addressing something as intangible as culture is not an easy task. like what firesenshi said, we don't need an economist to get things straight (its not a do all and be all) but rather someone who would prioritize this concern as something of utmost importance. but realistically speaking, nobody can fully eliminate corruption in a 6 year term, but laying the groundwork is a big difference.

I know I'm not voting this year, but I guess I have to agree with this sentiment and impute myself all the same...

If you can vote, and you did not, then you have no right to complain about who's in power because you didn't do anything about it.

Any thoughts on this, I haven't got a mark back for it yet but we'll see how it goes.

1. How realistic is realism?

In order to answer this question a number of terms must first be defined. These will be outlined as follows. Firstly Realism is the overriding term for the theories in International Relations (IR) including classical realism, neoclassical realism, neorealism and strategic realism. Jackson and Sorenson state the basic realist ideas as:

“(1) a pessimistic view of human nature; (2) a conviction that international relations are necessarily conflictual and that international conflict are ultimately resolved by war; (3) a high regard for the values of national security and state survival; (4) a basic scepticism that there can be progress in international politics that is comparable to that in domestic political life.” (Jackson, Robert and Sorensen, Georg 1999)

Secondly the term ‘real’. This, for the purposes of this essay will be taken to mean what happens in real life, i.e. in actuality. To elaborate, realism is certainly real in that it exists but is it real in the sense that it adequately explains how IR occur in actuality.

Whilst it is clear that the tenets of Realism must be outlined in order to determine whether they are accurate predictors of actuality, space dictates that each theory cannot be explained fully. Instead I seek to outline a unified from of realism containing all the aspects of the differing theories and from that, see how ‘real’ each aspect is.

Realism dictates that the main, if not the only, actor in IR is the state. I.e. the state is a unitary actor and those within it do not act independently. The states themselves operate in a ‘sea of anarchy’ and the determining factor that dictates how states interact is power. Realism also dictates that states will always act rationally in accordance with the balance of power. This is summed up by the thoughts of the classical realist Thucydides “the strong have the power to do what they can and the weak accept what they have to accept”

With the main aspects of Realism set out, it can now be determined how close these aspects are to the actual conduct of states in actuality.

Firstly, the assumption that states themselves are the main actor in the international system. This assumption is far too simplistic. There exist many other actors that have enough of an influence on inter-state conduct, especially in the case of how states act rationally with regards to the balance of power, to warrant specific inclusion.

The first of these are premiers. Being, in most cases at least, the most important person within a state since he or she is the final decision maker, a premier has a specific influence on the interactions of the state. If this person always evaluates every situation in accordance to Realistic doctrine and carries out whatever conclusions that thus arise, then Realism is preserved. This however is plainly not the case. Some of the main influences on decision making that affect premiers are outlined below.

Advice. Each premier has a number of institutions in place to aid them in decision making be it parliament, a cabinet or a specific intelligence group. If the advice of these institutions is heeded as is almost certainly the case, then it could be argued that for the state to act in a Realistic manner, the advice given must follow the tenets of realism. There are many examples where this is not the case one of which is outlined below.

In deciding whether or not to go to war with Argentina in the Falklands crisis, The UK premier Margaret Thatcher called upon the advice of the MoD specifically the head of the Navy. The advice given was to go to war but the reasoning behind it was probably due more to the impending budget cuts towards the navy, and not purely the balance of power.

State of mind: If a state is to act in a purely Realistic way its premier must be able to analyse situations correctly. It could easily be envisioned that a premier might not be of sound mind and this could cause a state to act irrationally. To give examples to this, it is widely documented that, Boris Yeltsin, the premier of Russia was an alcoholic. This surely means that his ability to make decisions rationally was impaired. Equally John F Kennedy was known to be addicted to morphine at the time of the Cuban missile crisis which again must have impaired his ability to be rational.

Re-election: It can be taken that every premier desires to have control over how their state acts and therefore wishes to retain that control. This gives rise to a specific influence on their decision making at the time of re-election. Since certain actions have major ramifications on the popularity of premiers and their parties e.g. wartime decisions, the rationality behind those decisions may change if an election is looming. E.g. It is clear that President Bush desires to pull out the American troops from Iraq. What is unclear is the reason behind that decision. It certainly seems like the decision to pull out has been rushed. This gives rise to the thought that the reason is due to the forthcoming presidential elections and not based rationally on what is best for national security. Basically the President is willing to undermine national security, the most important factor of realism, to facilitate his re-election. This shows that his actions are not always based on the doctrine of Realism.

Another assumption that Realism makes is the selfish mentality of states be it from the basis of human nature or the action of the anarchic international system. Either way this selfish mentality does not have to be the case. The Hobbesian assumption of an utterly competitive ‘state of nature’ has flaws. His conclusion that people bond together in communities because they are forced to by the harsh realities of life is incorrect. It is much more likely that there is a simple desire from humans as social animals to bond in such a way. People desire friendship for its own sake; in fact it is a component part of the eudaimon life prescribed by Aristotle. The other angle from which the selfishness of states is attributed is the anarchic international system. Whilst this system surely does cause states to act selfishly towards their own advancement and national security, could this not be because the Realistic doctrine that has been the keystone of IR for the last sixty years has created the phenomena rather than the other way around? If the main IR theory had been a liberal one, entrenching thoughts of international co-operation rather than competition the international system would look pointedly less anarchic? Indeed such organisations as the UN and the EU have shown that mutual co-operation can work. Europe, in a relatively small space of time has gone from one of the worlds battlegrounds to an area of almost complete peace. (at least in Western Europe).

Another actor that has influence over the conduct of the state is that of non governmental organisations specifically special interest groups. In many cases a premier may owe certain groups for helping to secure his or her election. An example of this would be the American Israeli Political Action Committee. This group is so important in determining votes for congress that in turn for securing said votes, it receives a massive influence in determining policy. Given the nature of this group this influence is manifested in the aid which is given to Israel which almost certainly is more than would be given in a purely Realistic rationality. The existence of these NGO’s gives rise to another argument against state rationality. Since these groups are competing for political time and influence a conflict is created internally within the state for how it should act externally. This is directly opposed to the Realistic assumption that the state is unitary. I.e. since the internal factors of a state help to determine its actions then more than just the external factors acting on a state need to be known before its response can be deduced.

Whilst the initial examples seek to illustrate how a state that considers itself a Realist one may in fact act in a way that is not Realistic, there is another angle from which to argue that IR operate in a way other than the one determined by Realism, this is as follows.

It is known that other theories exist to explain IR, for example Liberalism and the ‘English School’. It is also known that some states operate according to these theories e.g. the current Labour government ascribes itself to a form of Liberalism and certainly would not call itself a Realist government. As this is the case these governments surely do not act in way that can be predicted by a Realist theory. If these governments seek to have their actions determined in some part by internal factors such as outlined above then it is certain that a purely Realistic theory will be inadequate in predicting their actions.

The final example of why Realism is an ‘unreal’ theory of IR is the failure to predict the end of the cold war. The cold war presented the world with what realists would describe as a stable Bi-polar state. The clear superpowers of the US and the USSR along with their possession of nuclear weapons created a world that, whilst ostensibly always on the brink of war, was never at war. Since this was the desired state surely it should have remained so.

History has shown this not to be the case and in doing so has outlined for us some of the major flaws of realism. Firstly, it focuses too much on military power, to the detriment of factors such as economics and ideology. In the USSR during the cold war, the drain of maintaining a state of readiness caused a major drain on the economy. This in turn caused a problem for the state to provide for its own people. This precipitated down causing a shift in ideology from one of war to one of peace. The premier at the time Mikhael Gorbachev realised that the state of bipolar stability was an impossible one to maintain and therefore, as a consequence of internal forces, put in place new policies to end the war.

In conclusion, the above factors show that whilst Realism is an important theory in IR, it is only ‘real’ in that it is a self fulfilling prophecy. Futures studies in IR should focus on not only explaining the interactions of states, but also manipulating them for the benefit of the people.
Words = 1761.
Bibliography.

Doyle, Matthew ‘A liberal view: preserving and expanding the liberal pacific union’: International Order and the Future of World Politics, (Eds) Hall, John and Paul T.V., Cambridge University Press 1999

Dunne, Tim ‘Liberalism’: The Globalisation of World Politics, (Eds) Baylis, John and Smith, Steve. Oxford University Press 2001

Goldstein, Joshua: International Relations, New York Longman 2003

Jackson, Robert and Sorensen, Georg: Introduction to International Relations, Oxford University Press 1999

Am I the only one happy about this? Eddie Gil is GONE! He's out of the presidential race!

Nah, I don't think I'm alone on this...

Na na na na... na na na na... Hey hey hey... GOODBYE!!! :wave:

There goes our comic relief ... :buck:

I was watching him in Unang Hirit this morning, and I kinda feel sorry for the guy. He almost got into an argument with one of the hosts when he was asked what he thought about people who were saying that he was vague and confusing in defense of himself--his platform, his actions, etc...and he replied as if the host was the one thinking that of him. :sweatface: He really does look pathetic...and even sorrier when he was labelled as a liar, and a tall-tale teller ( :buck: ) on air by one of the COMELEC representatives (he--Eddie Gil--was also listening). Because before that, he claimed that COMELEC was being corrupt because he said they (COMELEC) were demanding money from him which was not a prerequisite to running.

Such a pity he had 2 go, his hair piece always cracks me up. :laugh: Y'd the hell did they allow him to run in the first place if he's such a freak?... :rolleyes: *rethinks*... I mean, i thought he signed up for the right club? :eek:

As expected, FPJ's platform held no controversial landmines -- of course, everyone says that s/he is against prostitution and abortion and gambling and would want better education for our children.

But to address the pork barrel issue when he gets elected is just too much -- to make a stand against it now would risk him the support of hundreds of congressmen. Should we believe that he'll do it when he's in office? Let the local projects be the responsibility of the local government. Appropriate pork barrel funds somewhere else. But yeah, if only things were that simple.

Firesenshi is right. If all intelligent voters in the Philippines thought like me ("Why waste my day on voting when we all know FPJ would win?") then FPJ will really win. For every intelligent voter that doesn't vote, the balance tips towards FPJ.


So...I've decided I'm gonna vote. But like KnM, I'm at a loss as to who's it gonna be. As long as it isn't FPJ or Ping.

Mebbe it's gonna be GMA since she already started programs that I'd like to see finished. That and it seems she's the only one who can defeat FPJ.

I'm also thinking of this Bro. Eddie (not Eddie Gil). But I have to see their platforms.

.
.
.
.

Speaking of Platforms...

The senshi's Vice Governor uncle who's running for Governor...I think it's too late to put his website up now unless Deathsenshi gives me the CD on time so I can make a clean page. Even if it's just a one-pager, and so I can paste that site on my sig.

Deathsenshi!!! Stop lurking and send me something! Uhm...and you too, Sugarsenshi.

Someone called it an "empanada toupee". How appropriate. :rofl:

I'm in the same boat. I'm leaning more into voting for GMA, but I'm also thinking about Bro. Eddie. Which reminds me...my Religion professor claims that Bro. Eddie Villanueva is filthy rich because of JIL. Can anyone shed more light into this? I have my own thoughts about this one, but I'd like to hear yours.

It's not so far-fetched. Brother Mike is filthy rich himself because of El Shaddai. I would say innocent until proven guilty, but it also makes you realize why he's capable of launching a full campaign.

and yes... religious groups have no taxes to worry about, so diverting all his assets there could make him save quite a bundle, indeed...

Still, he has a decent platform. It's just that he doesn't have much political experience, either.

i think the comparison you made is pretty unfair. :sweatface: what works for bro. mike does not always apply to all religious leaders.

eddie villanueva has no politcal machinery and is not living on any income right now as he resigned from JIL. he did that because it's biblical, "thou shalt not serve two masters." now whether you can go :rolleyes: on that, it's up to you. :biggrin: i give points to presidentiables who are tight on their convictions.

as for launching a full campaign, i observed that of all the presidentiables, he doesn't have any kind of campaign at all. all the rest are backed by political machinery and connections. there aren't even enough posters of him nor enough political advertisements on television. if you look at his campaign closely, he relies on being invited to debates on television and radio stations, as well as invitations to speak in universities. his rally in luneta was done by 'word of mouth' given that he has a big following in the JIL.

as for his income, i think that with the size of JIL, he should be given an income big enough to handle it. he has a full time job handling various congregations worldwide. in effect, he is a leader of leaders. if CEOs are compensated by leading that big a number, why not him? he's like a religious CEO. saying that he doesn't do it for income is argumentative. CEOs get profits through dividends in stocks but there is NO monetary profit sharing in a religious organization. you get a fixed salary. if you ask me if he's given a salary of 100,000 a month or more... i'd say it's okeh given the size of the responsibility.

plus his organization does not exact fees for rites anyway. these are kept to send missionaries worldwide. if you're talking about taxes, i think the JIL would gladly pay taxes if that is the mandate of the government. it's biblical. "pay to caesar what is caesar's." it's our law that exempts them, including the catholic church, from not doing so. i have no problem with the law at all. if you have problems with it then change the law, but don't penalize all churches for not paying taxes simply because they enjoy the privileges of the law. :sweatface:

i actually find it unfair to just put down eddie villanueva as candidate just because he's a "religious" leader. :sweatface: i actually think it's HARDER to handle a religious organization than a business organization. plus of all presidentiables, this guy stands to lose more than anybody else.

what could be his motive for running? you said he has no political experience. so why will he run? won't it better to stay in the JIL where he supposedly has more money than run for president? won't he have better influence as JIL leader than president? (he actually has... geez... all presidents attend JIL rallies!)

I'm only posting possibilities, madame fire. I'd just like to point that out. :)

I for one believe that Eddie Villanueva is a sensible choice, truth be told. Sure, he's not as popular as Roco or GMA, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, I can believe that he has good intentions of running. He has no political experience, and you're right: what is his motivation for running, then? I would say that he may have the idealistic desire to run because he wishes to lead.

The taxes bit was a possibility I threw around. I have no ill will for Bro. Eddie, but since I've encountered Bro. Mike's shenanigans first-hand, then there's no love lost for THAT jabroni. In any case, you're right: my analogy is non sequitur (It doesn't follow.). Still, I'd like to think I was just throwing around the possibility.

Lastly, I'm not putting Eddie Villanueva down. If anything, had I been able to register in time, I would've SERIOUSLY considered voting him, "wasted votes" be damned.

People often run in order to bring a particular issue or set of issues to the table, or to address the concerns of a certain SIG, and not necessarily even with the intention of winning. I've been involved in campaigns like that. Sometimes they end up winning anyway. Since he's keeping a low profile and apparently not raising issues (at least from what I gather from the above posts), though, it seems like that may not be the case here--but it's a possibility. But he certainly does represent a SIG, and it could be he's seeking strong representation for his SIG.

It was the same analogy my religion professor made. :sweatface:

On another note, I think it's just sad the way my peers around me think. I'm one of the very few who actually registered. I'm the only one interested in voting. They all took the annoying pessimistic note of this country's going to the dogs anyhow, so why take the bother? I can't stand the apathy. And these are people who are much more concerned about their academics than I am. But something as big as this, they turn their backs and look the other way. I don't know how to talk to them without sounding like lecturing. They think it's like getting into a regligious debate with me. They don't like it when they can't answer my questions and would rather leave it simple and label me a heretic and anti-God (which is not true).

Oh damn. This should be in the rants place. Gomen. :laugh:

Again, I'd like to campaign for the removal of the concept of "wasted votes" in all voters' mindsets! :D No vote is wasted as long as you are true to yourself and vote as you believe you want to vote. At the end, there is more inner comfort in knowing that you voted based on your principles and convictions... whether your candidate wins or not. :wink: :peace:

Update on my stance: Still leaning on voting Roco, but Bro. Eddie is a strong secondary choice. I'm really looking forward to the debate. In particular, I'd like to know strongly what the candidates' stand on the parliamentary system and reforms in education.

dun worry. i'm not saying you're unfair. you're entitled to your own opinions and i'm glad you're having an informed choice. i'm just trying to address a general sentiment. :)

just wanted to bring up eddie villanueva. it's hard to research on him. easier to know about GMA and the other candidates since they're always in the news.


me too. it's in my sig. :biggrin:

the reason i said that was because people here in the office, for example, think they'll just migrate to the US or somewhere. simple selfish thought... i suppose they're entitled to that. to me, that just shows a defeatist (aka loser) attitude. :sweatface:

to our friends in the US, i would appreciate if you would vote for a good candidate too.

forgive me for being biased, but based on my research... if it were to come between bush and john kerry, i am inclined to push for bush better.

kerry supports partial birth abortions which bush banned.

partial birth abortions allows women to carry a baby even to term (this is already a fetus), make it go out via breech position leaving its head inside, and using a metal tube to suck out its brains.

frankly, it reminds me of the frog i killed in bio class in high school... cos that's exactly what i did.

I'm not religious. I'm normally pro-choice (heck, I'd prolly have a baby aborted if it came to it). But this...is not only murder... it's cruelty.


Going back to our politics... for those who are registered from long ago, I urge you to vote. You know how it is in the Philippines. To quote SC: "Dead people vote." Don't let other people use your votes.

*chiming in*...

do you peeps know who it is i REALLY hate? betcha you'll guess wrong!...





it's panfilo lacson. why? not just because this guy embodies a lot of things i hate, it's his principles. know why he's running? it's not because he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. he will not win. HE knows he can't... he WON'T win. he's in it for all the campaign contributions from filipino chinese. that's it. money. he doesnt give a damn about the country, who ends up winning, the fact that he's drawing precious votes away from arroyo, the only other person who can win. in fact ill bet you a grand he leaves the country within a month of the election proper.

he's a lousy, evil, rotten to the core lump of ca ca.

I usually dun discuss politics coz basically, some people probably cant accept the fact that I have different opinions on certain things and blah-blah-blah :rant: end up arguing stuff later on.
Anyhoo....I havent been able to be online yesterday and most time on Saturday due to 1 political reason(...okay,actually 3 reasons,one political and the other 2 are basically 2 PS2 game titles that goes by the name Disgaea and Champions of Norrath:Realms of Everquest :sweatface: ) ; the Malaysian 2004 elections.
Yeah, Bluemaxx has his first taste of casting his vote....... and the party I am rooting for won the elections by a landslide of 195-16 (thats like more than 92% rate....way past the 2/3rds majority required).

5 years ago in 1999, I hated the party that i am voting this year,BN/Barisan Nasional(National Coalition) because of one simple reason; the unjust prosecution of former DPM Anwar Ibrahim.Back then as you may or may not know, BN was under the 'Good Doctor' of Malaysia,PM Dr. Mahathir Mohammed, and you have no idea how much I loathe him at the time during the Anwar case. I admit he did a lot to make Malaysia progress well but the way the ex-DPM case was handled and all the BS that filled the evening news and papers abt Anwar just made me sick to the core.(You can search stuff on this on the Net if u have the time....CNN even did a special some years back abt it too....)
Anyways, that was 5 years ago and the thing that made me became a BN supporter back is because of the simple fact that Dr.M is no longer the head of the BN.(I would be lying if I didnt say that the main reason why BN didnt get a strong support from the Malay votes especially in the Eastern Pennisular was because that a lot of people hate him.Now that he's gone.....BN is getting loads of the Malay majority PAS and keADILan members)
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi ( Dr. M's DPM and now) the newly sworn-in PM of Malaysia(he was PM before the election but he's being sworn in today) is a person whom I can be proud of to call the leader of Malaysia.I like the way he carries himself(humble in Malaysian PM standards IMHO) and unlike most of the people in BN's top, he's very religious(he's from a long lineage of Ulamas; Muslim clerics or people who're knowledgable in the Islamic religion)......heck, maybe he's even as equally religious as Nik Aziz(PAS President, leading religious Malay opposition party leader.I visited Mr. Nik Aziz before while I was in Kelantan for a sporting event in 2002.Very nice guy and maintains an old traditional 'kampong'* open door policy which means anyone can see him.His house is built within a school compound and he stays near his students.....which is why,most malaysians call him "Tok Guru". That's The Master/Teacher in English.....Sifu in Chinese....Sensei in Japanese...etc.).
I dunno why i'm posting so much and sounding so hyper-like..... like this.Maybe part of me is rejoicing about the new post-Mahathir BN party..... :buck:
or maybe....part of me is ultra happy that i've finally be part of the democratic system (vote!vote!vote!^^).I didnt know that voting can be such a great deal to me desu..... I feel changed!!! :blush:

ps:I am also happy to know that Dr. Wan Azizah, one of the opposition leaders(keADILan* party) was able to maintain her area of Permatang Pauh(after a recount).I am with BN(for now anyways)......but Wan Azizah is a great leader(I like her better than Rafidah Aziz or Shahrizat....2 female BN candidates whom I detest....a lot :devil: ).Oh yeah....she's also the wife of the jailed ex-DPM ,Anwar Ibrahim.

*kampung=village
*keADILan=party set up by Anwar Ibrahim before his arrest in 1998.Now led by his wife Dr. Wan Azizah. KeADILan kicked some arse in the 1999 elections when they made up the Alternative Front with DAP(Democratic Action Party) and PAS(Parti Islam Malaysia/Malaysian Islamic Party).BN won by 2/3rds though but only by 148-42.The state of Terengganu fell to PAS that year.Oh yeah...keADILan means 'justice' in Malay and one of the main goals of keADILan is of course...to free Anwar Ibrahim.(which i strongly feel and think should be freed....)

This is an article written by a friend of mine. For his privacy (and safety), I won't reveal his real name, just his initials. For me, its a good article and an eye-opener too. I'm very well, very impressed by this one that I want to share it with you guys. Hope you guys don't mind about me posting another article here. :sweatface:

Anyway, here it is. Hope you read it til the end and take this seriously.

NEXT PICTURE: POLITICS... THE MOVIE
MLJM

PLOT
Politics... it is now our new source of entertainment. It is no longer a serious topic that is discussed only by people in the know. It has become a complete package of action, suspense, comedy and drama.

ACTION: Coup attempts and war in the southern part of our country provide us the adrenaline rush.

SUSPENSE: The result of each impeachment case, the announcements of presidential and vice-presidential candidates of each political party, the next move of the opposition to topple the government... all these create suspense.

COMEDY: A group of people urging an actor to run as president and a journalist asking the president of the Republic of the Philippines about her sex life tickle our funny bones.

DRAMA: The president's visit to the urban poor, the rescue of hostages and the ousting of a former president are indeed touching scenes.

INTRIGUES: Let's add another ingredient that will ensure box office success-intrigues: the two Jose's- Velarde and Pidal fill the requirements.

CHARACTERS:
The characters are changing. It is getting worst. Before, the people running for public office knew what they were entering into. They knew the law. They were good leaders. Now... anyone can run. Popularity is the new criterion in choosing a leader... from a basketball player to an actor. If you want to enter politics, you should be famous first. It is okay even if you don't know anything about the law or how to run a country as long as you are popular. Better still, you join showbiz first.

We are about to reach the climax of our movie... the ELECTION. Everybody is running... everyone aadvertises his good deeds. But I have one question: Why does everyone want to be president? Is it because everyone wants to serve the many and earn little or to abuse the many and earn everything?

CLIMAX:
The climax will make our movie a blockbuster, but it has adverse effects on our country. We may have a total economic breakdown. Many people will suffer. Banks predict a Php.70-$1 exchange rate if this continues. More professionals will migrate to other countries and will therefore result to brain drain in our country. The future of our country depends on this serious issue that is being treated as a mere source of entertainment by many people.

DENOUEMENT:
The ballots each one of us will cast this May election will dictate the ending of this movie. This is a movie wherein the people of the Philippines MUST BE the director. Our decision will not only affect us now but our future. If we want this movie to have a happy ending, we must vote wisely. If you ask: "Will one ballot make a difference?" the answer is "YES, it will." As proved in the past, a single envelope changed the life of a president. How much more a powerful ballot!

Let me just say that the "shades of Marcos" argument doesn't apply only to Ping, but to GMA as well.

Her sweetheart deal with the Lopezes over Maynilad is simply something Marcos pulled off decades ago, and given a choice between stupidity and shrewdness, I have to say stupidity. Thank goodness it's not just GMA vs. FPJ, then.

It's only 18 days until the Philippine elections. Everyone got their candidates in yet? :)

Our office held a mock election. And I was slightly pleased by the results, even though Roco didn't come out on top. Of course, I work in an audit firm that may not be representative of the "masa" thought. It's a heartening thought, nonetheless.



******

And some political humor:

(For the benefit of our non-Filipino OB'ers, I've added some literal translations. This is mostly a joke on Poe's perceived lack of voice and lack of knowledge in foreign affairs.

If you still didn't get it, let's just say it's a Filipino thing. ;)

WARNING: Excessive Poe bashing. Not for pro-Poe people.)

the scary thing is that this might just happen.

Nah, "might just happen" isn't the right phrase..Its more like "This is the sad reality of what is to come"... :(

*sigh* haven't our peopled learned yet?

the Philippines could probly rule the world if it weren't for the big joke that is our government. well... that and our inherent gulang-ness (what's the best way to translate gulang?).

but then gulang is also something we've got going for us. if it were a fighting style (actually, it sort of already is), it'd beat any other style out there.

Rule the world, I think big George would have a thing or two to say about that. Anyway for a country to rule the world you need to have a godawful foreign policy and really unethical trade rules coupled with overly moral domestic policy.

Or is it just me that noticed that. :biggrin:

gulang would be able to get around that.

I should try and get that word translated properly. the closest I can think of is overall sneakiness and affinity for dirty tactics.

gulang or is it diskarte(wit)? cuz they kinda sound the same accdg to your definition :sweatface:
one thing I regret is failing to register for the may elections :sad: . ganbatte to the voters! :ok:


since when? ??? Philippine politics has been corrupt since the Spanish era...that's why Jose Rizal has pointed it out as the "cancer" of the society. what the country needs is a reform of the society itself. the government can do no more. even if you put Pope John Paull II (or somebody as "untainted" like him) on the highest seat of power in the government, he'll just end up getting murdered...and it's not a joke...


not until self-conviction has spread throughout the grassroot level...many Filipinos still don't know their rights...that's what makes corrupt politicians strong...unfortunately...

a difference between the two would be diskarte taking advantage of an opportunity and gulang making sure such an opportunity showed up.

wait a minute... this discussion is for a different column. oh well. back to something relevant.

politics is never clean as crystal whether it's government, business, etc. but there was a time when philippine politics was not this corrupt -- that was during the 1950s - 1970s when the philippines was only second to japan's economy in asia.

putting JP II in th highest seat of government will just get him murdered? ??? how is that? :eek: didn't we lead 2 peaceful revolutions lauded by the world -- a revolution which failed in the tianamen square for instance? weren't those two presidents live up to their ripe, old corrupt age even when they deserved jail time when south korea even jailed their president for corruption? (rightly so, i might add)

this is a too sad and too pessimist a view. our history doesn't even support it. it's easy to say that we should have a reform of the society, but we're only pointing out the problem. most filipinos are too fond of that. they're too overly critical. all they do is complain when what we need our solutions.

it's like telling a filipino street kid that he's there cos our society is corrupt and he's there cos his parents are too... yah... like he'll listen to you. :rolleyes:

true...but Philippines was second to Japan only during Marcos' term...1950-66 was a poor period in the Philippines, we were yet to recover from WWII...corruption doesn't entail only economic depression...during such times(Marcos) media was supressed and there was militarization...there were more murders than we had during the Spanish era...but I was asking since when did the politicians knew what they were getting into and were "good"(too ambigous term) leaders? if they were, why is politics going backwards? what have they bequeathed to the next generation of leaders? can it be corruption and dirty politicking? hmm?

yes it is sad...but of course they never wrote it on elementary and highschool history textbooks (even Japan hides their participation during the WWII from their youth). try reading underground literature and renato constantino's books, you'll find them there...and also Ibon foundation's surveys...I'll get to the links later...

with all due respect sempai, EDSA I wasn't peaceful, if you remember your history right. Many died before that revolution happened, and during and after that many are still missing, presumed dead. and what "revolution" did happen? after EDSA II, did the Philippines change for the better? JP II may survive, sure, but it's not impossible that paid assassins would soon be out to get him (and besides its a metaphor...). how many politicians have you heard were murdered when the local campaigns started? countless...di ba? politicians protect one another's asses not for the more profound purpose of it...the truth behind every incident as such that we see on tv are being glossed out, too...I can't discuss every detail as to why or how because I reckon this isn't the right forum...but if anybody's interested to further this discussion, I'm willing to comply.

No, street kids are there and remain to roam the streets because many Filipinos still DON"T CARE. Why? How many employees do you think work to make other people's lives better? Do they say "I work so that street kids can eat."? I don't think so. And you can't blame them, because they themselves cannot eat adequately. But moreso, those bigwigs get all the benefits while they hardly lift a finger for manual labor. Is 285php enough to feed a family of four in one day? Yes, but not substantially. And many laborers of this country receive less than that for their daily wages. We don't need that kind of reform like Shishio had suggested in Rurouni Kenshin (survival of the fittest? gimme a break!), like I mentioned in my previous post, corruption would lessen (I fogot to mention that it can't be anihilated of course) until Filipinos(of hopefully, 85% of our population, the masses) believe that they deserve more in this life. until we are fully aware and conscious of our rights. Until we believe that staying in this country to work is better than going overseas. Until we can fight for the assurance that working here is something worth staying for. and something we deserve, this is our country for crying out loud! why must we be oppressed in our own counrty, ask yourself that.

I'd like to claim that I'm simply being a cynic, but all these sad, gruesome stuff I said are real...and no, I'm not just complaining. I've already been branded an "amazona"(female npa) by a certain politician because of all these insights (and what I work for with my peers)...I apologize for being this tackless...I just can't help sharing my views in such a blunt manner...75% of the Philippine population would more likely tell you the same "hopelessness" in the same way...atashi ga atashi rashiku atashi de aru tame ni--I'll just do what I do to be myself...I'm not flaming anyone...we all do have the right to our own opinion.