I think you still can register till the 30th this month. :)


TRP:

Upon all the rumored person who are running for President I will still definitely choose Macapagal. Why?! She's a strong willed person and she had been through a lot. And also, I dont want our country to be governed by a former leader of the Kuratong Baleleng gang. :buck: It's just like you are re-electing Estrada. FPJ, wahh!!! another actor again?! Isn't one enough?! :rant: Roco, although many young people like him, he was the one who had a big scam regarding the teachers in DECS. They also say that Couangco is running for president... what can he do?!

I am infavor of the LAKAS party. :) Sigh.. call me a puppet who follows his master.

*im not campaining here* :sweatface:

i can?! is there a way to register if you're out of the country. i would really love to vote. :biggrin:

trp:

i wish arnold would really do what he promises to do.

I can't see why Roco is getting so much flak for allegations that have even less evidence than the Jose Pidal issue... considering how he has been conducting himself immensely, I see that his bid for presidency is indeed the so-called "lesser evil".

GMA has gone back twice on her word in a span of five days. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, but I still feel Roco is the better choice.


What can Danding Cojuangco do? For one, he can pick up from where Marcos left off and rip the oc*ntry off even more...

Yah, that was pretty obvious. I remember my dad writing a letter/article in Philippine Daily Inquirer that Erap was gonna be ousted and that Macapagal was gonna take his place. This was just after the elections. EDSA II was a couple of years away.

Which means, the business sector saw this coming but they let it because it's easier to remove him when he's already seated. There are no chances of him ever running again that way.

I'd probably vote for either GMA or Danding Cojuangco.

I'm going to be honest here: I won't want to risk having anyone else as president. As it is I think GMA's the safest choice because we have at least an idea of how she runs things as the Philippines' top gun. I'd hate to see what Lacson or Legarda would do...

As for Danding: He's a good manager and I think that's what we need for now.

I don't claim to be infallible on this, these are just my opinions.

i might go for GMA if i'm allowed to vote. just for the continuity reasons. that's one thing i've noticed here in US, they are very concerned about continuity, althoguh its harder in the philippines because its a multiparty system. even arnold said he'd make the turnover as smooth as possible hoping that the process is still continuous.

what happens in our country is every president not even party, every president has thier own sense of what is important so when they leave, the next one would do a completely different project instead of just finishing what was left by the last president then start his/her own project.

GMA had the worst timing in becoming a president for the past three years because all the calamities happened in her time. most of it, we couldn't prevent (except for the coup de etat :rolleyes: ).

This is going to be a shameless plug, but it's serious and we need support for the Chief Justice.

Support the Chief Justice!

Please sign the guestbook. Don't mind the F4 pic. That was my mother's insane idea. :p

I kinda doubt that bit about the F4 pic ... :laugh:

But I signed your GB already.

At least your country hasn't been labelled as anti-semites. Won't say any more.

Speaking of the the APEC summit, one thing that struck in my mind was one thing my Aussie friend told me:

Australia's Prime Minister Howard really has bushy eyebrows. :shock::laugh:

Err...Do you guys mind if i ask about Hilario Davide?I saw the demo against him in the news.It looks like his problem are getting bigger and bigger...

Kamisama, the disease afflicting our country right now is everyone seems to forget four simple, simple words:

Innocent until proven guilty.

'Nuf said.

That's coz in this country, "media circus" is redundant.

I'm leaving the country the moment FPJ becomes the president.

Coz' chances are......all hell is gonna break loose!

you've got me following behind you...sheesh!he's really going to run.does he know that he's likened to Erap?! :eek:

i got this from a text message:

When FPJ had the chance to meet Pres. Bush of the USA:
Bush: What pollutants do you have here in the Philippines?
FPJ: We have many. Sisig, kilawen, plapla, chicharon,mani!
Erap: Nadale mo, pare!Ganun din sagot ko!---(Translation: You're in for it, man. That was also my answer!-->not quite exact but sorry im not that good in translating tagalog to english)

really...CORNY!

hah...

that tv-patrol report on the pro and anti FPJ made me laugh my butt off

but it also made sick!



anyway, the FPJ-Loren future tandem is more sickening

I supported Loren back then when she was being accused by Ador Mawanay

but now, I believe her real purpose is politics and becoming a country leader
coz of this.


Game Over for us

for those who are registered voters (pinoys of course)

vote wisely!!!

FPJ is running, and he admits that he will depend on a stellar cabinet to make up for his shortcomings as a leader.

If that be the bloody case, why not elect his "stellar" cabinet into government instead of him, neh?

Doesn't that make him a figurehead and nothing more, regardless of my giving him the benefit of the doubt on his integrity?

:rant: hah, that's why i don't like him

I forgot to mention the statement of a pro-FPJ woman in the tv patrol issue i mentioned

she said:

"puro na lang marurunong, bakit hindi natin subukan yung hindi marunong, yung mga walang alam!"

*they are all knowledgeable people who are leading us, why don't we try and elect someone who is not that knowledgeable in that field!*


please don't let them show that in other countries (that knows Filipino)

Ironically, there's a shred of logic in that, if you add the word "corrupt" to the end of each clause...

"They're all knowledgeable in corruption. Why don't we give a chance to someone who's not knowledgeable in corruption?"

Sadly, one's IQ does not dictate one's incapability of corruption.

Sorry I thought I'd hijack this post rather than start a new one that'll end after about three posts.

Anywho has anyone got the time to have a quick read of a 2000 word political philosophy essay I've just banged out, I'm worried that one of the points might be complete fabrication straight out of the sleepless nights and the fantastic coffee thats been causing them.

Anyway if someone has a bit of time with nothing better to do, I'll pm it over.

Ya know, I think Erap and FPJ had good intentions. It's just that they're so easy to manipulate. Everyone's corrupt. Those with the good and the bad intentions are all equally corrupt.

But the stupid ones that are easy to manipulate don't hide their corruption as well as the intelligent ones.

Uh...actually, the senshi are related to Noli de Castro (Legarda's rival to the VP post). We were kinda ashamed to admit that before. (We were more proud of our other relatives like Teodoro Agoncillo and Vice Gov. Thaddeus Venturanza...heck, even beautician extraordinaire Ricky Reyes!) ^^;;; I mean, being related to Noli isn't as nice as Mainime being Davide's granddaughter.

But if I were to vote, my vote would go to de Castro. I hate Legarda. Such an ambitious opportunist and she doesn't even bother to hide it.


@malk
Just post it here so people can pipe in their opinions. PMing might be too tedious for you. ^_^

Cheers Sky I'll whack it in here. I just thought it might annoy people to clog up the board with my work. Anyway enjoy

Freedom, Power and Democracy

5. Compare and contrast positive and negative conceptions of liberty.

Liberality is a topic close to the heart of political thinkers. It is the concept that can enrich our lives and help us to achieve our potential both personally and within society. There is however a major division within the liberal ideology and it is this that is the scope of this essay.

The split in liberal ideologies is in the conceptions of positive and negative liberty. The difference between the two has drawn much attention from some very important political theorists. Notably Isaiah Berlin who’s “Two Concepts of Liberty” is essential reading on the subject. From this text it can be decided that negative liberty is concerned with ‘freedoms from’ and positive liberty is concerned with ‘freedoms to’ In this essay I will first try to explain and elaborate on what these two ‘freedoms’ are and then whether the two conceptions are quite the polar opposites they seem to be at first glance.

The two conceptions of liberty are concerned with personal freedom. Whether or not we can live autonomously. Autonomy can be restricted in two ways, by external restraints, and by internal restraints and this forms an initial distinction between positive and negative liberty.

The ‘freedom from’ of negative liberty is concerned with the removal of restriction of personal freedom. To an autonomous person this would entail them having no external restraints on their actions. An example of this would be a person in prison. They could not leave the prison if they desired to and therefore would have had their negative liberty infringed upon. It is important at this point to explain slightly about the usage of liberty contained here. This essay concerns what Berlin calls “political liberty”. That is the liberty from humanly created obstacles. This is important as it differs from liberty as seen by Hobbes who would include non-human factors is his assessment of liberty. For example, his account of liberty would mean that a hurricane stopping him from crossing the ocean would infringe his negative liberty. For the purposes of this essay, I discount this view and allude only to the aforementioned “political liberty”.

The ‘freedom to’ of positive liberty requires that the internal restraints that can limit our autonomy are also taken into consideration. For example a drug addict may have no external restraints on him. I.e. no one is stopping him from doing what he wants. However, he cannot actually do what he wants because his addiction coerces him to do otherwise. Positive liberty also concerns itself with a form of external restriction that is left alone by negative liberty. These are non-deliberate external obstacles. Whilst a person may be perfectly free in the negative sense, if they do not have the resources to act out their desires, they are being restricted albeit not by a particular person.

The two conceptions obviously give rise to two different schools of thought on how a government should act. Classic liberals follow the negative conception and think the government should be little more that, as Robert Nozick put it “a protection agency”. I.e. to protect the individual liberty of those it governs. This involves entering into a social contract where some concessions are made to negative liberty to ensure the survival of the rest. Modern liberals following the positive conception call for governmental intervention. They attach values to freedoms i.e. some freedoms are more valuable than others. These values can also differ depending on circumstance. They argue that a poor, unemployed person would put no value on his ‘freedom’ to buy an expensive watch whereas he would put great value on state aid.

Positive libertarians also think that a person’s interests are divided into two categories. That of the real self and that of the actual self. The actual self has desires dependant on present circumstances. To use the example of the drug addict the actual self would desire its next hit so to speak. The real self desires what is actually good for the person. Again to use the previous example the real self would want the addict to give up his vice. If one is to divide people thus, one must again make judgments on what is ‘good’. The above example makes the assumption that drug addiction is bad and hence the real self does not desire it. Berlin attacks this most clearly in the case of paternalism. He argues that instead of making you more autonomous, by stopping you making yourself less autonomous, paternalism imposes the views of the state on you and infringes quite grievously your liberty. Berlin, as a dedicated pluralist, takes a distasteful view of this course of action and much of his rejection of positive liberty rests on his rejection of its monistic beginnings.

All of the above outlines the considerable differences between positive and negative liberty. However they do have their similarities and it can be argued that one is the extension of the other.

Since both conceptions contain some form of negative liberty, many positive libertarians argue that positive liberty is the extension of negative liberty. They argue that it is the skeleton of negative liberty, i.e. that of freedom from external restrictions, fleshed out with safeguards against internal restrictions and non-deliberate external restrictions. For someone of monistic leanings this seems entirely plausible but, as I will attempt to explain later, monism and pluralism are not firmly entrenched in their respective camps. Before being drawn back into Berlin’s first rejection of positive liberty as an extension of positive liberty, there is also the Triadic analysis of positive and negative liberty forwarded by Gerald MacCallum Jr. which I will explain below.

MacCallum disputes the ‘freedom from’ freedom to’ distinction. He ascertains that whenever the freedom of an agent is in question, it is always “of something, (an agent or agents), from something, to something, to do, not do, become, or not to become something.” This rather confusing passage can thankfully be shown as follows:

Taking X as the agent(s), Y as the obstacle(s) and Z as the objective(s)

X is (free/not free) from Y to (do/ not do) Z.

This has been called a triadic analysis of freedom. MacCallum uses this to move the political discussion away from the negative positive argument and over to one on how different theories affect the three components of his triadic analysis.

Berlin has countered this argument by stating “A man struggling against his chains or a people against enslavement need not consciously aim at any definite further state. A man need not know how he will use his freedom; he just wants to remove the yoke.” This seems to be a good argument as, whist MacCallum's triadic analysis is certainly correct, the two differing conceptions of liberty to tend to emphasise different aspects of the whole argument. Positive on how correct the governmental interventions are, negative on how obstructive the level of intervention is.

Even with Berlin’s counter, MacCallum shows how there are similarities between the two conceptions even though Berlin’s point about emphasis holds. There are still positive libertarians who have some concern about the level of intervention, i.e. too little or too much, and negative libertarians are concerned with if the concessions they make in the social contract are the correct ones.

Quite apart from MacCallum’s questioning of the distinction, there is another approach to reconciling positive and negative liberty.

Take the following example: (based on a different example from “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill.)

A man chooses to walk across a field. The field happens to be a minefield but the man is unaware of the fact. You are aware of the minefield and are near enough to the man to stop him.

If you were to stop the man from walking into the minefield (where for the purposes of the example he would surely tread on a mine) you could argue that you were infringing his liberty on negative grounds, i.e. he desires to cross the field and you stop him. It is reasonable to assume however that since the actual choice the man makes is not ‘cross field or not cross field’ but ‘walk onto a mine or not cross field’ you, in the act of stopping him, have not impeded his desired action as that action had already been rendered impossible. What you actually do is stop an undesired action, which doesn’t constitute an infringement of positive liberty. With this in mind, consider the following argument.

In society we give up certain negative liberties to ensure that the majority of our liberty remains intact, i.e. to protect the rest of our liberty. For example stopping someone who desired to kill everyone would infringe his liberty but in doing so you prevent the infringement of the liberty of others, not to mention facilitating the survival of the society. Because of this we give our government a mandate to protect our liberty. However, this gives rise to the view that some liberties are more important than others or else why would we remove some and not others? There can be two conclusions drawn from this:

1. That it is a necessary evil to concede some liberty to ensure the survival of the rest, or,
2. Some ‘liberties’ are not beneficial to society and are undesirable.

If the first conclusion is true the best option is to concede as little as possible for a functional society. However, should the second be true then it would be desirable, even from a negative libertarian point of view, to stop such ‘liberties’. It follows logically then, that all undesirable liberties should be prohibited. But where does one draw the line?

Berlin insinuates that a pluralistic point of view leads to a negative conception of liberty whilst a monistic view leads to a positive one. This may be true but the possibility exists for the converse to occur. I.e. a monistic negative libertarian and a pluralistic negative libertarian. These two entities, without breaking their conceptions of liberty, could actually seem more like their opposite conception. That is to say a monistic negative libertarian would seem like a traditional positive libertarian and vice versa. To explain take an extreme case of each as an example. Firstly the monistic negative libertarian.

This person would lead something akin to an Aristotelian eudaimon life and would therefore know what the correct course of action was in every situation they encountered (and therefore has their first order and second order desires in correct harmony). If this was the case then all undesirable liberties would be known and then might as well be prohibited. Therefore if this perfect monistic view is correct and implemented in a perfect manner the end result would seem to be a traditional positive libertarian state.

Secondly the pluralistic positive libertarian:

To be perfectly pluralistic would be that there were as many correct (or valid) views as people could imagine, maybe akin to some form of extreme relativism and possibly like the “nasty, brutish and short” state of nature from Hobbes’ Lethiathan. If all views are equally valid, or even equally true, there would be no need to impose any restrictions or ‘freedoms to’ on a society, as every action would be correct. You may not like the actions but this would not affect heir validity.

The conclusion drawn from these, albeit unlikely, circumstances, is that positive and negative liberty are not opposed per se and this conclusion is important when looking at more likely real world scenarios. From this I would agree with MacCallum in that the argument may well benefit from moving from the positive/ negative argument over to one where more emphasis is placed on the effects on the components of his triadic analysis.

In conclusion the two conceptions of liberty are inextricably linked and whilst there are many differences between the two, the reasons behind those differences may lie in factors external to them.

Bibliography.
Gray, John and Pelczynski, Zbigniew: Conceptions of Liberty in Political Philosophy, (London Althone Press 1984)
Knowles, Dudley: Political Philosophy, (London Routledge 2001)
Swift, Adam: Political Philosophy, (London Blackwell Publishers 2001)
Warburton, Nigel: Freedom, (London Routlegde 2000)

Whoaa........(*thinks*.....that's longer that my article...)



Have you heard of Pasig's Cariño taking office just 2 weeks before the electoral recess (is that what you call it).

I mean, he should've won but Lanot (the loser, I might add) took office for 3 years and got his share of the pork and projects.

And it took 3 years for Comelec to re-count the votes of Pasig (a small city) and declare Cariño the winner, only weeks before the break.

The next prez should REVAMP the Comelec cause they are all...i don't wanna say it



and have you seen FPJ's lineup for senatoriables..............

one word...........jokers (they've got to be kidding)

With elections being the hot topic as they decide Poe's candidacy, here's a good article on some relevant political questions and how the six candidates answered them:

http://ruby.inq7.net/specialfeatures/eleks...ssues/index.htm

My thoughts:
- Ping Lacson was surprisingly specific in his answers. It gave the impression of someone with specific and time-bounded plans for his Presidency should he win.
- I was a bit disappointed with Roco's answers to some questions. In particular, his answer to the military, Erap, and Marcos issues were too general. I wish he had given more specific action plans.
- Poe and Gil didn't answer any questions. :rolleyes: Of course, someone could push the conspiracy theory that Inquirer is decidedly anti-Poe...
- Bro. Eddie Villanueva seems to temper his religious leanings, which kind of makes me wonder if those were his real answers.

Of course, most, if not all, of the answers there were prepared and written by professional speechwriters/copywriters to best sell the candidates, but at least it gives one an idea of what the candidate stands for in terms of specific issues/questions and hopefully, we can hold them accountable for these comments when they are in office.

Unfortunately, we can't hold someone accountable for his statements if all he answered was "no answer given..."

EDIT: It sometimes scares me that I am thinking too much like Conrado de Quiros, an Inquirer columnist. When I read this article, I wonder how much influence he already has in my way of thinking since I wrote about some of the exact same points a few months back regarding the "wasted vote".

The 'Wasted Vote'

Some excerpts:

After reading MarkPoa's post and links within, some thoughts:

Eddie Gil plans on using personal wealth to pay off the nation's debts. ;) ...I'm wondering who he had to pay off to get past the Comelec. !@#!
I'm sure Ping Lacson can't follow his overly-strict schedule. It reminds me of Erap's bogus promises and demands. I'm impressed with his anti-drug campaign and plans to end graft and corruption, but scared with his plans to abolish red tape.
I thought Roco answered the Erap and Marcos OK, those questions were, after all, more targetted to Lacson and Poe. and I was more interested in what Gil's stand was.
Though it's not in the article posted, Gil's grand plan to defeat crime is "aggressive moral ascendancy". funny!

BTW, I'm rabidly anti- both Poe and Macapagal-Arroyo. :)
and I think Conrado de Quiros is cool, but he made little sense in that specific article. I have more to share about it if you want (just not right now). :p

as a saying goes, 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'

i'm still undecided between two presidential candidates. it's pretty disappointing that i can't choose someone i can really look up to as a president. it's also disappointing how our electorate seems so immature (even though our country is a relatively new 'democractic' one.)

i just hope things will turn out for the better.

i think it's funny for me because it's so idealistic.

but i agree that our leaders should have moral ascendancy (but not some slave morality as discussed by nietzsche). it's hard for me to follow someone who doesn't do what he/she preaches. if we have leaders who are virtuous (i'm not saying priests or some other stereotype), there will be less corruption and our laws will be properly implemented. and people will realize that it's within themselves to change for the better.

i think i'm trying hard to be funny.

Eddie Gil? Moral ascendancy? Big talk for someone who was calling himself "BROTHER Eddie Gil" to confuse voters who might want to vote for Bro. Eddie Villanueva. I am not a fan of either candidate, but it only goes to show how the small fry duke it out the way they do.

And this is the same man who promised EVERY Filipino will be richer by 1 million pesos if he gets elected. Oh, sure. Tell that to the Marines.

oh god! big mistake! I meant Villanueva! Heehee. that's bad. I'm sure Bro. Eddie Villanueva and his supporters are thrilled that I commited that mistake.. and maybe I'm a step closer to knowing why the COMELEC allowed Gil to run for president. :buck:

sorry again, guys. I watched it in GMA7's "Paninindigan" (or a synonym), which shows the presidential candidates' stands on various issues.

BTW, good viewing: GMA7's special TV program which featured a different presidential candidate every week - Bio Data. it's up on (low-res, but fast) video!

kill the crab for misinformation! j/k!

i thought so. only villanueva say that among the candidates. hehe.

See? Eddie Gil's plan is WORKING! He's confusing us already!

hahaha!!! down with eddie gil!!! (unless he does give me 1M. not!)

i'm voting for GMA.

if FPJ was not in the running, i'd vote anyone i like. but this is FPJ and i dun want the intelligent vote to be divided.

btw... i have friends who said they'd rather not vote given that the country is in big mess, especially that FPJ is running. i think that's a big mistake. not voting means one more vote for FPJ. so vote.

I don't like everyones campaigns, they all trash talk their rivals. But I gotta vote, so I'll vote those with less insults thown.

well... just now since my sister called me, i'm beginning to reconsider my vote. so now, i'm back to zero until... well... the campaigning is over.

but evaluating the candidates for a second... eddie villanueva came to my attention. why?

well, for one, the man has a distinct platform more than the rest. before we laugh about moral ascendancy, let's think about it for one second. we NEED it. the philippines ranked as top 2 in asia in terms of graft and corruption where we lose P2billion a year, and we're laughing about a candidate who actually talks about doing something about it? :sweatface:

researching the background on eddie villanueva, he was a former communist and a former professor at PUP. he has a doctorate. a leader of leaders, heading his group as well.

as for separation of church and state, he has resigned from the JIL already, moving into the presidentiable race without any political machinery. yet despite that, you can see how his campaigning is doing well. he is not like the other presidentiable who targets the marketplaces or the streets first. he targets the filipinos overseas (who have the power to vote thanks to absentee voting) as well as universities.

has any president done that? american presidentiables usually do, not philippine presidentiables who go to the jeepney stands first to please the masses.

my sister thinks she shouldn't vote for GMA just because she is number 2 in the surveys. i got to thinking about de venecia in the last elections. he was number 2 in the surveys with a steady machinery as well yet emerged number 4 in the race because two weeks before, his supporters transferred to erap's camp. (as in filipino balimbing tradition.)

as for roco... i have no problems with him. except that i think he is more of a legislative person than executive. his track record at DepEd was a bit questionable. the man is brilliant, no questions asked. but is he a doer? if you're brilliant at making laws, you can best be at legislative position. but an action man needs to be in the executive position -- one who has experience in successfully drawing people to DO what you delegate them.

so as of this point, i'm still thinking about it. definitely not FPJ.
i just urge you guys to VOTE. and listen to the DEBATE. the debate on television will tell you which one walks the walk and talks the talk, an opportunity for those who have no political machinery to be heard. see if public perception changes after this. it definitely will! then make your decision. don't let it be colored with any rumors about the person's character. look at what they've done. they will speak for who they are.

how critical is this?
our peso is in danger of being 150 pesos to a dollar. that will make the minimum wage like peanuts. now, you may think that you can just easily leave this country (sounds rilly defeatist, if you think that). i think i have all the resources to leave now if i want to.

but while you're here waiting for the visa to be approved, can't you vote at least? it will change the destiny of this country... and a good president always makes a difference. s/he can make those people at the DFA extend operating hours till 12 midnight, and cut operating time to just 1 hour to process your visa.

Not quite the most optimistic incentive to give, Fire, but good point there. :sweatface:

I've always wanted to convince people to just vote for who you believe in. I don't have any problem with people voting for GMA, FPJ, Lacson, or even--myGodwhyisheevenhere--Eddie Gil as long as it is backed by logic, belief in their policies/platforms

But, of course, I'm on an "Anyone but GMA and Poe" kick lately, so I tend to avoid conversations with supporters of both and just try to convince the undecideds to vote for *someone* who is not just "winnable". :sweatface:

Personally, I'm going for Roco, but I also think Lacson and Villanueva are solid candidates.

Never believed in the predictability of Philippine elections anyway. Look at what believing in surveys did to Defensor Santiago. :sweatface:

i agree with you on that. but seriously... FPJ has NO platform.

just him being mentioned as a presidentiable... meaning the possibility is right there in my face... it makes me want to cry.

sorry... but him and eddie gil, i cannot go objective on these people!

she was cheated by ramos in the presidential elections! she should've won that one. :sweatface: (not a fan of santiago and ramos.)

personally, i'd vote for gma. why? winnability against fpj. i agree with fire in this regard.

if there are three presidentiables i can tolerate, they would be gma, roco and villanueva. personally, i like villanueva because he wants a leadership with moral ascendancy. (i saw him on tv with could-have-been-the greatest-president jovito salonga and former sec. chairman yasay - two outstanding people i know.)

the three other people aren't worthy: fpj, gil and lacson. why not lacson? drugs, man. :buck:

we all know ramos is corrupt. (who isn't?) but he was a good president. have to give him credit for that.

as for him cheating santiago. i dun think so. pangasinan is a huge and influential area. that was solely ramos's. surprisingly, parts of mindanao went to him as well.

the survey at that time was predominantly metro manila anyway.

but you're right. ramos is a good example of winnability against surveys. our political history has proven it many times over. this is why i urge you to see the debates!

Some businessmen want to vote for Lacson because "if they'll vote for someone corrupt, may as well be someone scary, too".

Weird logic of getting a corrupt leader with an iron fist for president, really... I mean, where have we seen this pattern before? Right. Marcos.

Unfortunately, that's why he is a good candidate in the eyes of businessmen. Most of the Chinese people I've talked to would harken to the days of Marcos when "at least, people were law-abiding and you're left alone if you follow the rules".

Believe me, sometimes the argument that "You wouldn't say that if the other stuff happened to you." doesn't always work. :sweatface:

(Yep, I'm living in a house with mostly pro-Lacson supporters. :sweatface:)

Slightly off topic but I figured this was the best place for it so gomen if I disrupt the flow of things.

I read in the Independant (Englands best broadsheet) that you guys provide a large proportion of the overseas medical staff that England is crying out for.

I also read that since qualilified medical staff are in short supply accross the globe many western nations have been accused of poaching them countries that could really do with them themselves.

Is this reported on all in your press, or indeed is it even a problem? (to be fair I think it's mostly African nations that get the short straw here). It's very interesting for me as I'm in constant need of ammunition to attack the moronic right wing idiots that rant against anyone "stealing our jobs" when it's blatantly obvious our NHS would be in ruin without them.

Anyway, once again, sorry if this gets in the way.

I'm not sure if by "medical staff" you include nurses and caregivers or are limiting it to doctors, but there *is* a sudden increase in people here getting training for nurse and caregiver positions overseas.

While this is a temporary boon to the economy and all (a lot of schools that offer lessons in caregiving and nursing opened up and dollar remittances from these overseas workers are being sent here), there is the negative side that our young professionals are going overseas instead of using their talents locally. On an individual note, it's nice to hear that people are earning more than they do here... but it's saddening to think that full-licensed DOCTORS are studying to be nurses and going abroad.

But, I fear, like the IT professional trend (with all those AMA and STI branches mushrooming everywhere) a few years back, this might serve to be only temporary...

no problem, malk. :)
this topic is about ALL kinds of political talks over the world. :)

to topic:
i'm sorry i just hate apathy. :sweatface:
i mean, i hate people who say, "i'm not going to vote cos this country is going to the dogs and i'm leaving this country once i graduate or finish this stint at this company anyway."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

trust me... nobody's stopping you. wishing you the best of luck. but while you're here, please dun waste space by not doing anything except whine.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, it's just that the Philipines send a lot of nurses but people tend to get jobs in what their qualified in.

FPJ's record is clean.

So clean in fact that nothing is written on his data like achievements and political background etc. (no, he's has been a mayor and barangay captain, only in his movies though :sweatface: )

Sorry if some don't like what I just posted, just feel like i want to get this thing out.

A friend sent me this (translations mine):

Excerpts from GMA's Bio-Data (a show highlighting each of the Philippine presidential candidates:
> Vicky Morales (VM): Ano po ang isang normal na araw sa inyo?
> Eddie Gil (EG): Sabado.
>

VM: What's a normal day for you?
EG: Saturday.

> --------
> VM: Ano'ng pangalan ng tatay niyo?
> EG: Ay, nde ko pedeng sabihin.
> VM: Bakit naman?
> EG: Masyadong sentimental. Pag binanggit ko yun, mawawala lahat ng
> nasaisip
> ko.
> VM: Pero patay na siya?
> EG: Oo, pero nakikita ko pa. Pag gusto ko siyang makita, nakikitako. Saka
> nagbibigay din siya ng instructions sa akin, para sa mgaginagawa ko.
> VM: Ha, paano? Sa panaginip?
> EG: Oo, sa panaginip. Minsan, isinusulat din niya sa blackboard.

VM: What's your father's name?
EG: Ay! I can't say it.
VM: Why?
EG: It's too sentimental. If I say his name, I'll lose my train of thought.
VM: But he's dead?
EG: Yes, but I can still see him. If I want to, I can see him. And he also gives me instructions on the things I do.
VM: Ha? How? Through dreams?
EG: Yes, in dreams. Sometimes, he even writes it on a blackboard.

> -----
>
> VM: Magkano ang net worth nyo?
> EG: Yun nga, papaunlarin natin ang Pilipinas.
> VM: Hmm, yung net worth nyo po. Magkano?
> EG: Yun nga yung una kong gagawin, aayusin ang Pilipinas.
> VM: Yung net worth po.
> EG: Ano'ng net worth?
> VM (nanlumo sa sagot): Hmm.. yung halaga po ninyo, yung halaga ng
> mgaari-arian nyo?
> EG: Ah, hindi ko masasabi kung magkano ang halaga ko.

VM: What's your net worth?
EG: That's it! I'll make the Philippines successful/wealthy.
VM: Hmmm... your net worth, sir. How much is it?
EG: That's the first thing I'll do: fix the Philippines.
VM: Your net worth, sir?
EG: What net worth?
VM: Hmmm... your worth, sir. The total worth of your assets?
EG: Ah, I can't say my price.

> -----
>
> VM: Isa po sa plano nyo yung gawin dollar ang currency ng Pilipinas.
> EG: Oo, gagawin nating Philippine dollar. Bakit yung ibang bansa,dollar
> ang
> gamit. Ang Korea, may Korean dollar. Ang China, CHinesedollar.
> VM (confused na): Dollar ba ang gamit ng Korea, hindi
> ba Won? Saka angChina, Yuan di ba?
> EG: Dollar din yun.

VM: One of your plans is to make the dollar the currency in the Philippines.
EG: Yes, we'll change it the Philippine dollar. How come the other countries uses the dollar? Korea has the Korean dollar. China has Chinese dollar.
VM (confused): Does Korea use the dollar? Isn't it the Won? And China, isn't it the Yuan?
EG: That's still dollar.


Oh, man, funniest thing I read in weeks.

It's pathetic though. :sweatface:

And that Guy (Eddie Gil) is running for president! :rofl: Good lord. No way he's gonna win. Why is he even running?

Me, well I'm not going to be here come elections time. But if I was going to vote, I think I'll pick Lacson. He seems like the most decent candidate.

Heh...almost as bad as Dan Quayle...

Seems he's employing the Bush technique, I've got a clipping from the Independant on my wall with some of his classics such as:

"Our nation is reliant on big foreign oil, more and more of our imports are coming from overseas"

"I'm certain that man and fish can co-exist peacefully"

and

"Nigeria is an important continent"

Imbues you with so much confidence...

Go Kerry! Well go Dean first but that didn't happen so... Go Edwards :sweatface: meh, Kerry'll do.