Welcome Center

There’s a lot of useful stuff out there (and in here, of course).

This page contains various links and info snippets that will make your visit to AP more productive, seamless, and fun.

Having said that – welcome to AP.




  1. BongV,

    So why does my post have to undergo your review? And why should I trust that your scissors is different than the scissors at FV?


  2. JCC:

    I don’t do scissors – there’s a vetting process – and you know how that went.

  3. May Party Sa Dasma Wala Akong Wheels · ·

    Jcc got pwned haha!   😆

  4. hahahaha.. vetting process. you think you can also be mutawa policemen or fashion police only this time you want to police individual’s right to expression. you love to preach but would not want to be preached upon…hahahahahaa…

  5. let’s put it this way. you bet on the wrong horse. the ship has left the port. next time, be on time. tough luck. deal with it 😆

    you have Aquino your President..

    and we have AP the blog..

    can’t have the cake and eat it too. 😀

  6. its shakesperean language for “doublepspeak”.

  7. i mean “doublespeak”. sorry for the typho.

  8. you don’t want balance.. its a pity that FV which you and Bencard have accused as one-dimensional and would make a lot of noise about it only to impose it on your own turf.. talking of revolutionaries who freed their own people only to enslave them later… so why accused other people of hypocrisy when you have your own?

  9. @jcc: MSM already provides the balance – LOTS and LOTS of it.

  10. We’re already providing balance too… MSM and the 3-headed monster is providing so much of the triumphalism and personalistic culture we’re so against, so we’re the voice in the wilderness screaming against the vultures. The dichotomy is rather clear here – you’re either for the truth or not. You’re for the truth, go AP. You don’t believe in AP’s truth, you find a place for your concoction of truth. .

  11. I understand that people have different views from ours — hell, you’d be surprised at the degree our views differ from each other’s within our group — but we’re not in the business of publishing “all possible views,” and I’m pretty certain (since I’m the one that wrote most of the “About” declaration) that we’ve never misled anybody into thinking that was what we’re here for.

    Do you, for example, post pieces that oppose your personal views on your own blog? Of course you don’t. I don’t on mine, either. And I’d bet that neither one of us thinks there’s anything wrong with that at all, and I don’t see where the fact that AP happens to be a collaboration automatically renders that standard inoperative.

    If our audience wants to find a “balance” to our point of view, they can find it elsewhere; and as a matter of fact, we encourage them to do that, and then come back and share what they’ve learned in the discussion. Not saying that we — or is more often the case, our other readers — won’t hammer the hell out of them in the comment threads, and I suppose a lot of people find that intimidating, but we welcome everyone and neither block nor modify (apart from an automatic tool that takes the edge of some of the profanity) anyone’s participation. That was the issue with FV, not the content per se — although to be accurate FV always presented itself as a “balanced” collection of voices, which eventually did become misleading, unlike us. That’s the difference; they didn’t tolerate the dissent. We say bring it on, if you think you can — if you have an alternative point of view to something that’s been written, make your best case in the comments and prepare to defend yourself.

    But as far as putting up an article espousing views that significantly run counter to ours (and yours do) just for the sake of objectivity or “balance”, I see no purpose in that. We’re here to make a specific assertion, or rather a continuous series of assertions, not to serve as some neutral information portal. With all due respect, since I realize probably can’t avoid sounding arrogant but I’m otherwise trying not to be discourteous, the success of AP tends to confirm the effectiveness of how we do things around here. It’s just not for everybody, I suppose.

  12. just dream this out guys… “what if tomorrow you find yourselves the owners of the the 3-headed hydra you conveniently labelled, MSM, therefore, these fora would be one-dimensional channels for Anti-Pinoy sentiments” that would not accept any views contrary to yours, except if those contrary views appear as a footnote.

    The MSM, right now, is better off, though it is not in your own deluded sense, ideal, because it is capable of tolerating dissent and opinions contrary to yours..
    You talk of liberation of the mind, but yours is as closed as the people you want rescued from their own ignorance. how pathetic!

  13. you are nothing but a bunch of delusional and pathetic people who wallow in the idea that you have the monopoly patriotism and the truth!

  14. Your views are just like MSM’s views – there’s nothing new with what you are saying.

  15. What duh? That is what we usually say to some of FV bloggers…hey! That’s our line! 😉
    Seriously, the comment section is so open to dissenting views; I don’t know why you never tried it.
    Just today, there was this commenter called anonymous who wasted my time arguing a point that others don’t seem to have a problem understanding. So, that is proof that we entertain other people’s point of view even if it’s totally flawed.


  16. We will let the market decide  – it’s a free market .

    AP is a corporate entity with its own set of values on which it will sink or swim.

    Speaking of ignorance – hey, AP didn’t vote for Aquino YOU JCC VOTED FOR AQUINO  😆 😆 😆

  17. bongV,

    There were 15 million people who voted for Aquino. He was inaugurated President and the people speak their choice. Who was your presidential candidate? If he lost the election, you should bow to the choice of the majority already. If you have no candidate, then you must be one of those red-waiving flag on the street, which, incidentally some of them had joined the NP.

    Democracy is about the rule of the majority, though they may be ignorant majority. There is no civilization yet on earth that devised a system that only the “intelligent” people like you should vote for their leaders. If they happened to choose one who, in your approximation is not deserving president, wallow in that in your private moments, for right now, the ignorant majority had spoken and you must learn to live with rather than be cynical and impose your own deluding self-righteousness.
    Adlai Stevenson, a presidential candiate put it more succinctly after making an inspiring speech and was aproached by a woman who said: “Every right-thinking” individual should vote for you”. He replied: “That’s not enough, we need the majority”.

  18. Recognizing the choice – does not mean AGREEING with it.  😆

    Like I said – there’s nothing new in your views that”s not being peddled by MSM – another regurgitation.

    You are not a balance to AP – AP is the balance to your view.  :mrgreen:

  19. more than half of 15M was bought for P500/head + sardines (ligo) + kilo of rice… asked the squatfolks…squats are the electorate majority… they are prime commodity for traposakals… did you notice that kandidatos campaigned hard in squat townships? if you believe the numbers, you are one of ’em… for lack of better word >>> gung gong… …

  20. palebluedot_ · ·

    @mga ulol

    correction: some were bought for 200, some for 100. some were promised, casted their vote to penoy, and up til now are still waiting for the payment. 4 kilong bigas na rin daw yun, kahit late..

  21. @dot, ay sus ginoo… the leadsquat aka baranggay tanod made ‘sang tambaks na ninoys… during negotiation, leadsquat quoted P500/head in his squathood… no wonder he got a new hdtv and ipad/ipod in his shanty… flip ingenuity at work… 😳

  22. if i can trade my vote with one meal, how is that different from the people putting in their chains in comunist countries with the promise of their leaders that they can enjoy the communal largesse of the state and yet, they are still hungry despite the promise?

  23. you just did… traded your vote for a meal (lugaw)… and that is what you all are getting… kaya, you harden der (manigas kayo)… next time (if there’s another chance), use da kukote…

  24. palebluedot_ · ·

    hala! i know a brgy tanod who bought hp-compaq laptop for his son in college right after election. that answers my curiosity! galing pala sa giveaways na yellow cotton paper with daddy’s image…yak! how obvious the giveaways are…

  25. @jcc

    Ehem, “15 million people” do not constitute the voting majority. AbNoynoy is a minority president. There were more people who voted against him than for him.

    Even if they were “the majority.” It does not mean they either are correct or have made a wise choice. When the Germans, the Italians, and the Japanese became subservient to Hitler, Mussolini, or the Emperor respectively simply because the prevailing majority supported them, their countries fell apart and are now on the wrong side of history. There was also a time when the overwhelming majority believed that the sun revolved around the earth, but Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, etc who were less than a handful of minority were the ones who held the “correct view.”–AP is exactly doing what these minority of intellectuals have done–question the majority or current popular notions. AP belongs to a particular niche with its own brand of commentaries. If this is not what you would produce, you do have an ocean of alternatives already out there. Why insist on selling Coke in a Pepsi store?

    Democracy in the Philippines has degenerated into a mob rule and is only a “democracy” by name. We were under a dictatorship before, now the country is controlled by the Oligarchy and through the Tyranny of the Masses.

    Bottom line though, is that it’s not whether you advocate the majority view or not. Your arguments should stand or fall based on their own merits and whether your assumptions and thinking are sound.

  26. I LIKE most of the ideas on this blog. I voted for Aquino because I love my friends and I am intellectually honest about that. I mean, he was my neighbor.. was nice to me and I never liked Erap. That doesn’t mean however that I shall always agree with him and hate whom he hates with fanatical fervor. Like every sane human being, I wish him the best (better than Cory Aquino.. long story) . I don’t owe him money btw (lol) ; I do not “hate” people who have contrary opinions about him (let him be man enough to take it!) and I like this site 🙂

  27. local election is coming up. i got to get smart this time… my kabits need new cell w/ vid capability… 😳

  28. How do you know that we are delusional? Have you gotten our psychiatric reports lately? Have you hired detectives to investigate WHO we are and what funny farms we were confined(if any were anyway). Do you NOT have a sense of humor.. bad sign… you need more of your B-Vitamins man! It’s not nice.. nope.. it is rude to say that on a “GUEST” blog. It’s unclassy man!

  29. @temyong, flipland democrazy has all the hardware, but no software to run it… or a hacked, oligarch infested/infected sofware running it… 😳

  30. so this is what you call intelligence par excellence which cannot even extricate a metaphor from purely literal…

  31. intelligence is 15 million out of 40 million is a majority? go figure – no wonder the Philippines is effed up – mga BUGOK 😆

    make sure that your metaphor is backed up facts – or your metaphor falls flat – like daang matuwid vs tamang daan of the President of Morons – voted by morons for morons. 😆

  32. The 15 million were the real deluded ones. After August 23, some of them began to wake up. Once fully awake, 15 million will be revealed for what they are – a mere minority. And they’ll flash the L-sign against, not for, Master Ignoy.

  33. ((bangs head)) lol! I admit I may have Moronic lapses ((runs to get the Prozac)).. wonders why people can’t disagree without being nasty… what is it about FILIPINOS that seem to have robbed them of their sense of humor?

  34. I secretly wish the barangays were abolished btw!!!!

  35. They’d be better-off using the classic “pasulot” as a sign against their Sifu Ignoy, as opposed to the (now laughable) L-sign. We can expect more of them to wake up if their annointed one returns home and shows more indecisiveness on the issues that are hounding him more and more everyday.

  36. @jcc… wow… dat’s deep… why use so much figure of speech when you cannot figure out your own speech (post)… k.i.s.s…

  37. frustratedcitizen · ·

    this proves quite amusing, ahahaha, someone trying so hard to defend the prez..

    many intelligent people only voted for the prez because of the name.. where’s the logic and the thinking in that? yun lang? dahil lang sa pangalan? c’mon.. you have to do better than that..

    its correct that if you sum up all people who voted against Noynoy, then that is a number larger than 15 million… then isn’t the larger number the majority? well?

  38. bongv, frustratedcitizen; you still cannot grasp your political science subject huh.? the 40 million were dispersed among 10 or more candidates, the reason why 15 million is a majority in multi-party systems. the second highest vote getter, erap has 9 million… so you want the majortiy votes cast in favor of erap, gordon, teodoro, madrigal, de los reyes, perlas, etc.. combined to make the majority and have them seat altogether in malacanang as Presidents?– or you just have to agree with the constitutional arrangement that the highest vote-getter should be be declared the winner?… assuming he does not have the majority numbers at 15 million, who do you think is the rightful President?

  39. you still do not grasp that it’s a flawed social contract – no flexibility – too long if you have an incompetent – and if you have a competent one – too short. it is also skewed in favor of oligarchs – thus you have an economy that sucks. then you have bunch of retards who want keep the status quo…  😆

    no one’s questioning that he is president – 

    focus on winnability – and you get Aquino

    focus on competence and who do you get – Aquino?

    focus on competence and integrity – Aquino?
    You ask a lot of questions – it’s your turn to answer 

    you have a brain – use it, for once in your life – show some intelligence.

  40. Miriam Quiamco · ·

    I say after 8/23 incident, there should already have been 15 million mass suicides on our land, but I have family and friends who are part of the 15 million, what to do with this country, full of ignorant voters, daaang, the democrazy will persist. . .

  41. palebluedot_ · ·

    hay naku! blame it on the people who redefined barangay to mean the smallest unit of government in Philippine politics. kaya ayun, barangay elected officials act as if they are like mayors or governors in their own small world. mahilig kasi ang pinoy sa mga political positions & title, without considering the responsibility attached to it. barangay is important, barangay officials are redundant & a waste of money…aw! instead of them upholding peace sa small area na binigay sa kanila, sila pa yun unang nag-aaway…and the basic unit of corruption pa of this damNATION…

  42. frustratedcitizen · ·

    check your answers sir. I’m just basing everything on your answers. Sabi nga ni sir BongV:

    ‘you have a brain – use it, for once in your life – show some intelligence.’

  43. there is no argument that democracy/social contract theory is flawed, but what is your alternative, your Anti-Pinoy philosophy?

  44. the alternative is to FIX the contract. charter change –
    * go parliamentary
    * remove the protectionist provisions
    * go federal

    ask Butch Abad  😆

  45. you are all dreamers. the defect is not in the infrastructure but in our moral make-up. our damage culture cannot be fixed by putting in constitutional controls but by inculcating in ourselves the virtues of honesty, decency and hardwork. laws cannot legislate good moral conduct. it is cultivated right in our homes. as claro m. recto said, our laws will only be as good as the people implementing them.

  46. You’ll find loads of solution frameworks to deep issues with regard to our damaged culture here. Happy reading. 🙂

  47. Isn’t 60/40 a constitutional control? Removing it is removing the control – free the market. change the constitution from one of control – to one that is conducive to creating jobs – not suits  :mrgreen:

  48. There’s a barangay captain where I live which can be considered just a little suburban. I see him drunk at the Church Clubhouse.. then there’s a family with 5 kids (and they keep making more) living in the clubhouse office.. this barangay captain gets drunk and enjoys this woman (the one who keeps making kids). These are the type of people that I dislike. That’s what’s wrong with Filipinos! I blame BOTH btw.

  49. palebluedot_ · ·

    hey No Idea! isn’t the president your neighbor? tell your neighbor naman to reprimand that drunken barangay captain…at pagsabihan naman nya yun kabit ni kapitan na wala nang budget ang gobyerno sa mga anak nya. pinapahiya naman ni kapitan ang barangay nang presidente at ang presidente mismo…sana cooperate naman sya…

  50. LMAO!!!!! I told the barangay captain myself.. he pisses me really. I don’t think Presidents “deal” with barangays directly do they? (unless it’s an election year.) The crazy thing is that people should STOP electing him barangay. I may suggest to the President because I feel that we’re all being screwed, that maybe councilors can take the place of these crooks! Barangays aren’t needed, they’re just THERE to go around with their ridiculous looking tanods.. and we PAY tax!!!!

  51. @jcc… daaaang…. and you could not wake up from your nightmares…. you lecture us about moral make-up, blah, blah… while your prez gung gong&kamag-anak inc are the prime examples of a moral compass gone haywire… and, you are right about c. m. recto… prez gung gong is not “good”, not the right person in implementing laws…. he’s useless as a senatong and worst as flip prez…

  52. Buddy, I don’t think it’s a PHILOSOPHY these people are espousing but a delightful TRUTHFUL scrutiny on what is REALLY WRONG with the culture of Filipinos. They peg most of the things right we must admit…. All they want is to express themselves as frankly as they can. Also, most blog entries do make good points. Something we probably have to learn is to LISTEN and NOt get mad or get too sensitive.. Charter Change was a good idea frankly, it was started by FVR and was then messed up by Cory (God bless her soul really). We’re talking about the 1987 Constitution that was drafted in a MONTH (for pete’s sake) by Cory appointees… c’mon, let’s come up with something better, that is so passe’! Don’t misunderstand me I voted for Noynoy BUT the 1987 has always been flawed.

  53. All the guy did in Congress is composed of five… fingers. :mrgreen:

  54. btw, bongV… the parliamentary transition you were advocating works along the same premise of “social contract” which you say is flawed.

  55. @jcc… of cocurse… from a fanatic point of view, everything is flawed… prez gung gong&kamag-anak inc’s governance is ferpeckt… daaang, on a side note… are you a fashionista? :mrgreen:

  56. @aegis… prez gung gong was charged with bigamy… right and left hand… but t’was dropped on k. aquino’s supposition… 😳

  57. jcc –

    “social contract #1 – as-is state” – presidential – fixed terms, produces minority presidents, centralized, protectionist – seriously flawed

    “social contract #2 – future state ” – parliamentary – flexible terms, rules ensure there is always a majority – not a plurality being presented as a “majority ” presidents, fed, protectionist

    which social contract is flawed – i will go out on a limb that is social contract #1 – how about you? what do YOU stand for?

  58. @Jcc

    Tell me a time when the Pinoy democracy ACTUALLY worked. There you go. You absolutely cannot tell me when it did. So why do you continue to defend a system that never worked as how it was intended (much like the initial promise of the American Health Care system), regardless of your pandering your reason for value based principles?

    The values may be wrong but guess who has it even worst? Those with bad values who continue to be in a system that promotes them to be voted on positions for public servants. You wish you were half as brilliant to think that up.

  59. @Jcc

    So that means the Muslim population as a whole, who have qualms with the united states should be respected with their thoughts and views about aggression towards nations like them, while the minority who don’t believe otherwise and have a better, diplomatic view towards Christians in general are in silence.

  60. presidential system works in the u.s. and most of the time, produces a majority president. it is the adoption of the multi-party systems, which is unique in us that produces a minority president. solution: go back to the two-party system u.s. style.
    parliamentary system remains tied to the social contract 1 where the governors submit regulary to the sovereign to continue in office, it is not social contract 2 as you mused.

  61. Read Presidential Bandwagon by Yuko Kasuya, and you will see how our presidential system is seriously flawed. The single presidential term limit is the biggest factor for destabilizing party politics in our country, and has always led to minority presidents. You’ll see other problems mentioned in the book like patronage politics and party switching, all of which hint to a parliamentary system as the better system.

    Also, of countries with aspects similar to the Philippines (speak English, Hispanic, South East Asian, etc.), all of the countries with highest GDP per capita have parliamentary systems. Someone will write an article on it for this blog site later on.

    Tired of a lousy leader? Vote No Confidence! He’s out. That’s available only in the parliamentary system.

    Presidential systems have also been tied with more frequent corruption than in parliamentary systems.

    Butch Abad once had a paper on Charter Change. I wish he’d dust it off and promote it again. I assume he’s also for a parliamentary system.

  62. even if you return to two party system – you still have rigid terms – too short for good executives, too long for stupid ones. not good enough


    Where we left off on Charter change
    FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa (The Philippine Star) Updated September 12, 2010 12:00 AM

    Sometime before the campaign for the May 10 elections went on full swing, a parallel effort in Congress was pushing for a constitutional convention for Charter change. Discussions and debate took place on committee level headed by La Union Representative Victor Ortega.

    The committee voted in favor and a report was made. It was while waiting for the report to move to plenary discussions that the whole effort was stopped to make room for the May 10 elections. In other words, the decision was made yet again that issue of Charter change will not be brought to the people for their ratification.

    In the days that followed we were besieged by election fever with ABS-CBN and ANC leading the pack for setting aside any discussion or effort for Charter change. I used to hear from responsible politicians and government officials that the prospects were bright for Charter change and possibly the election of delegates would be scheduled simultaneously with the barangay elections. The American ambassador then, Kristie Kenney lent the weight of her position as her government’s representative here calling for honest elections. (CNP: Read — no Charter change)

    Serious advocates for Charter change seem to believe that it will be different this time. As I said in a previous column, “hope does spring eternal”.

    I have written in this column more than once that it is not possible to amend the Constitution unless we amend its provision for amendment. It is a very real predicament. We can try harder but all efforts will be useless. It is time to accept that legitimate efforts had failed and advocates should begin thinking of new strategies.

    Better to change course at this time and re-think our strategies. The Aquino government, like previous governments will not touch it. Instead of wasting our time with useless debates in the face of an implacable administration, let us put our heads together and confront the problem.

    Before Charter change was given up in the 14th Congress, I was told by a humble member of the staff for the committee for constitutional amendments that we should perhaps consider another people’s initiative. But this time its purpose is to correct the amendment provision of the Constitution so it would be possible for Congress to formulate the proposal for amendment for the people’s ratification.

    The staff member of the committee said this time it would be easier to explain the initiative to the electorate because it would rest only on one word: jointly or separately? When Congress debates the amendments should it be done jointly or separately. Unless we did this the Senate of the 15th Congress would yet again block any moves from the lower House.

    * * *

    More people should read a very interesting article in defense of Charter change in this country. It comes from a blog entitled Philippine Progress: Shift in Sports, Shift in System. Those who would like to read it should go .

    It is extensive and carefully researched but too long to include in this column. I can only draw excerpts but it would be a pity if it were not read in full and shared with more readers. Moreover the article is not boring even if it is on a very serious subject on which hangs the fate of our country.

    The title alone is a good inkling of what the author or authors want to do – popularize the topic by connecting the growing popularity of soccer in the Philippines to Charter change that would shift us from the presidential system to the parliamentary system.

    This is especially relevant today when once the presidential system has failed us yet again in bringing in competent and good governance. What are we to do – ask the many, both young and old, who seek solutions to the vicious cycle of our politics. We need to change our Constitution and shift to parliamentary system of government. Here’s why said the author:

    “Basketball and the Presidential system are problematic American imports. There is absolutely no doubt that an objective and honest discussion on the merits of soccer over basketball most certainly parallels the discussion on the merits of a Parliamentary System over the Presidential System .

    Both basketball and the Presidential System are largely American inventions which they brought along with them during the almost 50 years that they occupied our country and we Filipinos took to both of them as if they were our own.

    Unfortunately, both basketball and the Presidential System have pre-requisites that Americans often meet which Filipinos don’t: Basketball inherently favors height for a player to be considered eligible for competitive play because the hoops are high. On the other hand, the Presidential System requires that the electorate be naturally issues-centric and platform-oriented in order to counterbalance the inherent personality-centered exercise of voting for a presidential candidate.”

    “Incidentally, both basketball and the Presidential System have brought failure to Filipinos:

    Basketball has shattered the dreams and self-esteem of millions of young Filipinos who’ve continued to aspire to be just like their idols Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Michael Jordan, or Kobe Bryant, practicing basketball for hours on end, only to be rendered ineligible for competitive basketball all because they were too short. On the other hand, the current Philippine Presidential System (based on the 1987 Constitution) has shattered the lives of millions of Filipinos who — because the system favors candidate winnability (popularity, and name-recall) over competence and a sound platform for governance — often end up with leaders who merely have popularity but no competence.

    Sometimes we end up with leaders and lawmakers who have no choice but to pander to the public instead of focusing on doing what is the correct and beneficial course of action in the long-term, even if it may appear to be unpopular in the short-term.

    Most politicians with presidential ambitions (except for a select few) therefore tend to focus too much on short-term popularity by engaging in publicity stunts in order to have the name-recall and media attention they need just to have a stab at the Presidency when the time comes to run for it.

    In the end, Philippine Society as well as its Government is often unable to make the hard decisions necessary that would bring about a better economy, more jobs, more prosperity, and more improvements to the lives of the people, all because the focus on popularity-based personality-politics always manages to derail society away from focusing on the most important aspects of governance.”

    Read up – http://antipinoy.com/philippineprogress/ 🙂

  63. Paper is right here – http://antipinoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Towards-a-Parliamentary-Govt-Butch-Abad.pdf

    Pinoys can’t read more than one paragraph – it will overload the yellow kool-aide between their ears.

  64. Go back?

    You kinda forgot the other aspect the U.S. electoral system has implemented for a long time that the Philippines never did called the electoral college. Including on the sovereignty of the different local state governments. There is nothing to go back when the Philippines never implemented the systems correctly from where they copied it from.

  65. The 1898 Philippine Revolution

    At the turn of the century, Filipino revolutionaries were at the point of driving the Spanishcolonizers out of the islands and establishing an independent republic. At that stage, therevolutionaries were contemplating the adoption of a constitution that had the main features of a parliamentary form of government. T hey drew their ideas of government from English andEuropean sources, the Malolos Constitution, the Constitutions of Biak-na-bato and Makabulos, aswell as the constitutional plans prepared by Apolinario Mabini and Mariano Ponce.

    The Revolutionaries envisioned a constitution that made the legislature the dominant department of government, with the executive powers vested in a President elected by a majority of the  assembly of representatives.

    Along with the revolutionaries’ struggle for genuine independence, this desire for a parliamentary structure of government ended in December 1898 when the Philippines was formally ceded by Spain to the United States. To justify its colonization of the islands, the US government issued the “Proclamation of Benevolent Assimilation” after a bloody “pacification” campaign. This began the process of implanting American political institutions in its new colony.

    Presidential system??? hmmmm… Who really is the anti-pinoy?  8)

  66. I voted for him because he was my friend. I am admittedly “shallow”. I have “thing” about friendship and I think (?) that everything my friends say “goes”. It is admittedly so anti-intellectual but I think that all friendships are love stories (quoted from David Soul!). Do I support the president? YES. But I support Charter Change… I voted NO in 1987 (also because of a friend). Charter Change should have happened during FVRs time.. he was really IMHO the BEST after 1986… but then, Cory was against it… and then came Erap and Gloria.. and SEE what happened???? This system is NOT working. That is REALITY.

  67. The U.S. had a policy called:”Manifest Destiny”. It was advocated by U.S. Pres. Polk. This was the reason it expanded its size, taking lands from Mexico and the Spanish colonies in North America. The defeat of Spain during the Spanish-American War, made us one of of the countries that were made as War Booty. U. S. President William McKinley was the U.S. President during the time of the Treaty of Paris, when we were ceded by Spain to the U.S. The late industrialist, Andrew Carnegie, was against our colonization. He wanted to buy us, and set us free. The great humorist writer, Mark Twain, was also against our colonization. But, the decision of Pres. McKinley prevailed; and we were colonized. The rest is history. 😮

  68. Let’s also not forget the fact that the “Manifest Destiny” ideology was a racist idea shrouded in the idea that it is the white man’s burden to spread civilization across all races. While we can only contemplate what the Philippines would’ve been like if the Americans didn’t intervene when the revolutionaries were already winning, I seriously doubt it would’ve been different than it is already today. Let’s not forget the fact that “heroes” like Emilio Aguinaldo were traitors, had no sense of honor and conspired to kill his rivals that may endanger his hold in power. Let’s also not forget the fact that he even sold out his people when the Spanish begged him in talks to stop the revolution (even though the revolutionaries were winning) in exchange for benefits to be given to him by the Spanish government.

    Ironically, it was only upon the insistence of the Americans in their intervention here in the Pacific that Aguinaldo returned and resumed the war for “liberation”. Even as early in this era, we can already see the culture of corruption at work. I doubt it would’ve been any different today when supposed “leaders” sell out their own people and sovereignty.

  69. presidential form of government and parliamentary system do not address the defect in our character as a people. you are all romanticists, by reading pedrosa, abad, et. al. who made political theories that our characters can be addressed by constitutional controls. bwaaahh.

    when i say go back to presidential, it was limited to the issue raise about having a majority president, as against the evil brought about by “multi-party systems.

  70. what parliamentary system does is make the people’s defect irrelevant to the process of crafting policy.

    you are inside the presidential box – AP balances that by being outside the presidential box – and within the bigger, more dynamic parliamentary box. 

  71. As if your insistence that we should change people’s character is not romanticism by itself. Changing the character of the people can be done by changing the system.

  72. “daaang, on a side note… are you a fashionista?”

    hahaha…..as if that way-outdated “preppy” look was making a comeback.


  73. But then again, if changing the system won’t do it… we can still have other methods, even if we do continue to try changing the system.

  74. One thing I recall, also from Orion, is that the PAP government also went to the churches and local groups, and asked them to teach their people to follow the law. This worked. Based on this, aside from the system change, there is a need for efforts to influence the character and personal decisions of people. So it may be true that system change may not be enough. Going to people through their local leaders may be more effective, depending on the case.

  75. I’m entitled to a change of opinion when I learn new things, right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: