Change.

Think about it. Is change an individual effort that we should "change from within"? Or, are we the type of people driven by our leaders, our society, our culture? Is change, considering these factors of leadership, society and culture, a collective effort? Should we be willing to change ourselves or should there be a driving force for us to change? Or, both?

They say, real change starts from within. Does it, really? Do we simply decide that we change for the better? Or, do we decide to change because it's what our leaders, our society, and culture demand from us? Or, is it simply demanded by these changing times? 

Do we drive change? Or, are we driven by change? Are we the type of people who choose to follow? Or, are we a society of leaders? Are Filipinos the "change from within" type of people? Or, are we "leadership by example" kind of people? Do we follow our leaders because we want to? Or, do we follow our leaders because we need to? Want, need, or both?

Change, change, change.

"We want change." The most overused "battle cry" during elections.

Change. What is it, really? From whom? For whom?

The Buzzing Bees!

Oh, just some random thoughts on Philippine politics and current events.

On "truths", the rule of law & the accused.

+ Bombard people with unbelievable figures, some, especially the noisy ones, will accept the figures and the implications as truthful facts. So, next time you go accuse someone of corruption or wrongdoing, make sure the amount/accusation is so shocking and unbelievable that it would make people believe it. Shock makes unbelievable facts as truths. The more shocking it is, the truer it becomes. So, yeah. Let's all ignore the law and the rights of the accused 'cause you know, what they allegedly did was soooo shocking and horrifying that not believing it is never an option. In the Philippines, being accused of something is the worst thing that could ever happen to you. Accusation has become proof. Thus, accusation means your guilty. Sad reality. Exaggerated? Oh, yes. Still, reality.

On "Panama Papers", the Yellow Media & Journalism

+ "Using information/documentation unlawfully obtained is a crime."

Ah, the media does not care. Not many people actually care. It's been decided by the media: the goal is to paint all world leaders on the list as corrupt at all cost. The rule of law is inferior to their truth. The assumption is all global leaders on the list are corrupt. The non-global leaders are tax evaders. All these assumptions even when the list does not actually say they are.

So much for fair and balanced media.

+ In the Philippines, tax avoidance and tax evasion are not synonymous. Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is illegal.

+ Lionel Messi and Jackie Chan are on the list. I dare you to call them tax evaders. If we follow your "condemning without hearing" logic, you wouldn't spare them. Issues based on personality should stop. Don't jump into conclusions just because you don't like a person.

+ So, what happened to "objective, impartial and balanced presentation of facts"? It took a click-bait headline on bits of information from a certain "Panama Papers" to ignore this. Lucky enough if they actually even bothered reading it in full. What a way to shame the people you already hate, huh? Leaving out other familiar names in your headlines, no? The SYs are on the list (You know SM), Ramon Ongsiako Cojuangco, Jr. and Miguel Ongsiako Cojuangco are on it too (related to your beloved Conjuangco family). Oh, of course, our media will leave them out. The focus will always be the surnames "Marcos", "Ejercito" or just simply connected to that family. Instant headline-worthy.

Some people will take everything as facts. Worse, they'll take it as if they already did something wrong even if nothing has been proven yet.

HIGHLIGHT THIS: "There are legitimate uses for offshore companies and trusts. We do not intend to suggest or imply that any persons, companies or other entities included in the ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database have broken the law or otherwise acted improperly."

Next time you ask for an objective, impartial and balanced presentation of facts, make sure you can stand by it. Hindi siya for political convenience lang, media.

On Philippine Elections & Change.

+ Next time, vote for a candidate (running for the highest office) who desires to give public service with no political ambition. Wait, what "next time"? Filipinos have been doing that for years!!! Tapos, sasabihin nila, "WE WANT CHANGE". Let's effin' vote for him/her because he/she is soooooo simple. He/she's sooooo mabait. He/she is sooooo madasalin. He/she is soooooooo walang ambisyon maging Presidente. Sa inyo na yang "change" na yan. Gasgas na gasgas na gasgas na gasgas na yan. Dalawang dekada ko na narinig at nabasa iyan. It's probably why I stopped advocating for it. Simplistic. Repetitive. Uninspiring.

On Kidapawan & the Yellow Silence.

+ Now, Jim Paredes cares about the facts, huh? You hypocrite you! If we follow your logic on Martial Law, you'd actually blame PNOY for the Kidapawan massacre. But, NO! You're blinded by your "yellow" love. You are outraged by the Mar Roxas memes, but not the Kidapawan massacre. You demand facts. You demand facts? You demand objective analysis? Facts you did not even care about during Martial Law. Objective analysis you have often dismissed when it comes to Martial Law. Oh, yes I will make that connection. He hates Martial Law and the Marcoses and loves yellow so much "to the point of insanity"! Let's not make this about politics my foot! You being concerned about the Mar Roxas memes is not politics, huh?

+ "We want a balanced presentation of facts." Add: "ONLY when convenient to our cause." Yup. Only when it fits their narrative. It's been their formula for 30 years, people! If you truly want a balanced presentation of facts, apply it equally to all. Huwag yung "ngayon lang".

An Objective Analysis of History

Is that too much to ask for? Aren't historians supposed to objectively analyze historical events? To at least have an unbiased way of presenting history.

I did not live through Martial Law. I know people who did and their stories vary. I lived through Agoncillo and Zaide though, especially Zaide. There's the anti-Marcos media, too. The kind of media that still exist up to this day. So, I take offense when the anti-Marcos crowd label us who support Bongbong Marcos (or, have a balanced view on Martial Law or the allegations of corruption, or even the Marcoses as a family) as "ignorant", "stupid", or "having no sense of history". Is that how simplistic these anti-Marcos people are?

Asking for an objective analysis of history especially the controversial ones, does that make me stupid? Does that make me a loyalist? Does that make me a blind follower? Does that make me a revisionist?

I don't think so.

When I say an objective analysis of history, I speak of Philippine History in general. It's not a specific time, date, event or person. A history not written by the victors, but one which has been thoroughly studied and analyzed by objective and non-partisan historians. Isn't that what historians are for? To have an objective analysis of our history.

Imagine if our historians did just that. We wouldn't have considered Emilio Aguinaldo a hero, right? Or, maybe we still would. You simply have to consider everything--the time, the laws, the circumstances, the existing ideologies, world events, the two sides of the story. It's easy to ignore facts when it wouldn't fit your narrative. This is exactly what are "historians" did. They have made up their minds. This is how they thought history should be presented. Their way.

It is only now that more and more people have actually realized that our history as it is written have not been telling us the whole story. For years! Half-truths. Half-lies. This is why we have never really learned anything as a nation. And now, we demand an objective analysis of our history and the anti-Marcos crowd call it revisionism?

Facts, backed up not only by documents but also by existing realities, want to be known. Stories by people who also lived during those times want to be told. The victors chose to ignore these facts and these stories. And now, it's coming back to life--haunting them.

I believe Mulder when he said,

"...the truth will out and that no one lie can live forever. I believe it still. Much as you try to bury it, the truth is out there. Greater than your lies, the truth wants to be known. You will know it. It'll come to you, as it's come to me faster than the speed of light."

History is neither black nor white.  So, it is truly wise to keep an open mind.

I hope they have it in them.

‘We can do better.’

The Newsroom (TNR) is one of those shows that just hits you. It challenges the way people think, the realities of life, human nature, their principles, morals, and beliefs, the media, the news itself, and the ‘self’. Best of all, it challenges us to be better. The pilot episode says it all. Will McAvoy’s rant/speech is simply powerful, inspiring and honest. Aaron Sorkin just gave us the reason why this show is worth watching. There, I said it. Boom!

The Newsroom Clip via YT user Larry Fritzlan

Current controversies triggered The Newsroom reference. In fact, entries re: politics have been scarce on my blog heh. I am definitely not disinterested. I am just too tired to dedicate a blog about my political views/rants. I’ll settle with 140 characters, for now.

I have yet express or openly share my opinion on Napoles, the ‘Pork Barrel Scam’, the alleged lawmakers involved or how it’s being handled. I’m not playing safe. It’s just that I am trying to see and understand the whole picture. I’m being cautious. I’m staying true to what I have been fighting against—the public is out for blood for the sake of it all—condemning people without knowing the whole story. That is my position.

It’s the “been there, done that” kind of thing. And, this is actually a media thing. Hence, the TNR reference.

A lot of you would say that everything about the world would still depend on the person. True. For me, however, it’s not entirely true. Deny is as much as you want, the media is a powerful tool that influences people. It always has been. Information is power. Power is information. You can’t make an informed decision when the information you are getting has been twisted/fixed to satisfy your taste, and vice versa. Apparently, the media has been guilty of this. They try not to, but they can’t seem to.

They have seen this before and even recognized the fact that they have done it before to the detriment of another (case in point ‘Juan Dela Cruz’, Hubert Webb, Paco Larrañaga, etc. etc.), but they continue to do it today—again, and again. This, for me, is unacceptable.

It’s nice that people are involved. We should be. Sometimes people just need to learn how to hold their horses. We are dealing with people who have rights too. We have the rule of law. Hindi lahat ng taong inaakusahan, naaakusahan, kinasuhan o nakakasuhan ay guilty na agad. Hinay-hinay lang din naman po tayo. (Not everyone who has been accused or charged of a wrongdoing is already guilty. Hold your horses, people.)

Let’s all take the high road. Be fair. Be vigilant.

With these, all I can say is, it’s not impossible.

5% more of anything makes a difference. | Clip via YT user pesman5

Idealistic as this may appear. This is reality in itself. We can do better.

Malacañang is not making sense at all!

Sec. Lacierda is at it again--not making sense at all. This Impeachment Trial drama has been really disappointing. The Prosecution is simply fishing and Malacañang making stupid challenges. They are not making sense at all.

So sick and tired of the "if he's not hiding anything" logic crap. There is no logic in it. What are the legal remedies for, then? Just because a person is exercising his right to defend himself from these people's persecution does not mean he is hiding something. And, to say that the Supreme Court has no power of review or jurisdiction over the Impeachment court? Wow. Is he rewriting the 1987 Philippine Constitution?

Come on, if people were to choose between Fr. Bernas and Sec. Lacierda as to the interpretation of the Constitution, Fr. Bernas will win hands down. No question. No contest.

End this madness! Break this yellow spell!

The truth will come to you, sooner than you think.

Stick that on your power cord!

What are you impeaching him as?

Impeachment, as provided by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, is the process of removing from office the President, the Vice President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman  for culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

The Articles of Impeachement provided several grounds constituting culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust. Chief Justice Corona is being tried as Chief Justice--a member of the Supreme Court. However, for the past few days, several documents pertaining to the SALN's of the Chief Justice prior his assumption as a Member of the Supreme Court and as Chief Justice were presented and marked as evidence.

Yesterday, Senator Escudero took notice of this and made a relevant question and a point that made a lot of sense--are they impeaching the Chief Justice based on his acts as Chief Justice, a member of the Supreme Court, or both? Or, are they to include the acts prior to the current position?

This makes a lot of sense, does it not? No clear answer has yet to be given, but the Presiding Judge has noted this issue and the Senator-Judges might come up with an answer in the coming days.

I have two views on this.

First view: CJ Corona should be tried as Chief Justice and therefore, only cover acts done as Chief Justice. After all, it is his current position and it is his acts as Chief Justice that he is being impeached for.

Second view: Although he is Chief Justice, he is first a member of the Supreme Court, thus including his acts as Associate Justice. Hence, the Chief Justice is not just impeached as Chief Justice but also as a member of the highest court.

In both views, it is clear that documents or information gathered and/or presented and marked as evidence before he became Member of the Supreme Court and in the first case, as Chief Justice, is deemed irrelevant.

You remove an official from his position because he is no longer fit to be in that position. Would it make sense if you remove a Vice President from office due to an act done when he was a Governor? Or, impeach a President because he violated a municipal ordinance when he was in college?

The only thing that makes sense to me right now is that the Prosecution has not really been making a lot of sense since the beginning of this Impeachment Trial.

Know your candidates.

The Philippine Mid-term Election is coming, have you decided who to vote for? It seems a lot of people right now have not completed their top 12 Senators yet. It really is hard to decide particularly when we have few Senatorial candidates who could be trusted to do their job. So, who are on your list?

There are only four senators on my list. Yes, four. And, I don’t think I plan to complete the slate. I’d rather vote for those four candidates than filling it all up with names who are completely mediocre or incompetent.

Why would some people have this difficulty? My guess: as time passed by, more and more politicians or people think that they can win even without a track record. It's simple--as long as they’re popular and with a well-known family name, that’s it. Time really has changed. Or, maybe it has always been that way–based on popularity and family association. Yet, the people elected back then–either through popularity or family association–were really competent. Issues were properly taken and even resolved. Where are all the Salongas, the Dioknos, the Aquinos and the Marcoses of that time? Sure, we see these familiar surnames, but is their generation good enough?

Our Senators and Representatives have stopped being public servants. Most of them think of themselves while others allow others to think for themselves. Sometimes, well, most of the time, they won’t even think at all. As long as it’s their welfare they are talking about, they’ll be fine with it. They really don’t care about the people and the country’s welfare.

However, not all of them think that way. We do have Senators, Representatives, and other local government officials that really serve the country and her people well. They are public servants. We need people like them. We may not know ALL of them but we may have an idea of who these people are. We have several candidates who are public servants. The best way here is to know who they are. How? KNOW them. Don’t based it on the media or what other people say. Look at their track record, their background, their platform and their agenda. Don’t be fooled by their promises, their political ads, their smiles or whatever. It’s difficult, but it can be done. Know the person who you’ll vote for. Know who they really are and whether or not they are the best one to serve us all.

What was he thinking?!

Manny Pacquiao has been on the news for several weeks now and it doesn’t involve boxing. It’s all about his Congressional bid. He has aready decided to run for congress as a Representative of his district in General Santos City. He’ll be up against Representative Darlene Antonino-Custodio.

If there is something that he could be doing which is a mistake, it would be this decision. He keeps on saying that he wants to help people. But come on, he has done that already! And, he can even do more even without him being in the government.

This is not about his educational background. Rather, it’s about being a puppet of you-know-who. For sure, someone’s involved in this. Manny Pacquiao is Manny Pacquiao--the “great” boxer. He is no politico. Politics would only destroy him. Did he not think about that?

It’s time to change something. Vote for people not based on personality or popularity. Vote for people not based on trying to prove something. Vote for them based on what they can do to serve the country the best possible way.

I am not saying Pacman is incapable of doing such a thing. I am sure he is, but his experience as a LAWMAKER is questionable–highly questionable. He’s been a boxer most of his life and if he wants to help people as he say he wants, he can do that even if he’s not a Congressman. He’s been helping people already.

I just hope that his decision is not a decision by someone who just intends to destroy everything about this country. I hope he would think about it and voters in that district should think about it as well.