When one searches the records of those who filed their Certificates of Candidacies(CoCs) at the Commission on Elections, many would notice familiar names in the list of candidates vying for different positions.
In Negros Occidental, most of the candidates for the 2010 polls are related to one another with several unopposed.
In the First District, Board Member Nehemias Dela Cruz, his son Don Salvador Benedicto Mayor Marxlen Dela Cruz, and wife Vice Mayor Cynthia Dela Cruz are all seeking reelection unopposed.
In the Second District, Sagay City Vice Mayor Leo Rafael Cueva is running for mayor unopposed. Cueva is the nephew of Sagay City Mayor Alfredo Marañon Jr. who is seeking the gubernatorial post against former Gov. Rafael “Lito” Coscolluela.Second District Rep. Alfredo “Thirdy” Marañon III is also seeking reelection while Joseph Gerald Marañon and Donato Marañon are running as vice mayor and councilor, respectively.In Cadiz, running for mayor is Councilor Patrick Escalante. He is the brother of incumbent Mayor Salvador Escalante Jr. who is running for Board Member of the Second District unopposed.
In the Third District, outgoing Cong. Jose Carlos “Kako” Lacson is the uncle of incumbent E.B. Magalona Mayor David Albert Lacson and Board Member Patrick Lacson who are both seeking reelection. Patrick has no opponent while Rep. Lacson is running for mayor of Talisay City against incumbent Mayor Eric Saratan.In Victorias City, Mayor Severo Palanca and his nephew Vice Mayor Francis Frederick Palanca are seeking reelection. Mayor Palanca’s nephew, businessman Alfredo “Albee” Bantug-Benetiz, will run for congressman of the Third District.In Silay City, cousins Carlo Gamban and Edwin “Bigot” Velez, who are former mayors, will challenge incumbent Mayor Roberto “Oti” Montelibano.In Murcia, Judith Coscolluela, wife of incumbent Mayor Esteban “Sonny” Coscollula, will run for mayor against Andrew Montelibano. Mayor Coscolluela will run for congressman.In Manapla, running for mayor is Lourdes Socorro Escalante, wife of incumbent Mayor Manuel
“Manolet” Escalante III, who is not running for any position in 2010.
In the Fourth District, Board Members Mae Javellana and Jose Benito Alonso are also seeking reelection unopposed.In Pulupandan, Mayor Magdaleno Peña and Vice Mayor Antonio Suatengco, who are brothers-in-law, are seeking reelection.In San Enrique, incumbent Mayor Jilson Tubillara is expected to be replaced by his wife, Florenda Tubillara.Incumbent Pontevedra Mayor Jose Maria Alonso, who is the twin of Board Member Alonso, is seeking reelection.
In the Fifth District, Rep. Jeffrey Ferrer is seeking reelection unopposed, while his wife Juliet Marie Ferrer will run for mayor of La Carlota City.In Isabela, running for mayor is Francis Malabor, who is the brother of incumbent Mayor Renato Malabor who is now on his final term.In Himamaylan City, Councilor Agustin Ernesto Bascon will run for mayor against his uncle, Antonio Gatuslao, while incumbent Himamaylan City Mayor Carmencita Bascon will run for vice mayor.
In the Sixth District, running for Congress is lawyer Mercedez Alvarez while her father Rep. Genaro “Lim-ao” Alvarez is running for vice governor.
Incumbent Ilog Mayor Joyce Alvarez, who is on her final term, will be replaced by her husband John Paul Alvarez who is running unopposed.In Cauayan, incumbent Mayor John Rey Tabujara and his son, incumbent Vice Mayor Jerry Tabujara, are expected to swap posts.In Sipalay City, incumbent Mayor Soledad Montilla is expected to be replaced by her son, incumbent Vice Mayor Oscar Montilla Jr., although he will be challenged by Gary Alejano, who is a member of the Magdalo soldiers who staged the foiled Oakwood mutiny.In Kabankalan City, incumbent Mayor Pedro Zayco Jr. is expected to be replaced by his brother, incumbent Gov. Isidro Zayco, who has decided not to run for governor after succeeding the late Gov. Joseph Marañon last year.
In this part of the world where patronage politics, that dispense favors in return for blind loyalty and votes during elections, is the name of the game. Not democracy.Not ideology. Filipino political scientists say that the Filipino tends to perceive things wearing a family lens.
As pointed by the different stories posted on its website, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism said that the "influence of the familiar-sounding families can keep us mired firmly in the problems of the past."
If change is to take place,the right leaders should be voted into office.And we the people should make the right right demands from them. It is easy for us to be pessimistic about not only of the 2010 elections but the country as a whole. Many have made the choice. they packed their bags and fly out of the country.
It is now high time for us to get the government we want. Not what the landed elites want us to want and need. The challenge for us is to create the country we deserve.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Family Ties
With barely six months to go before what many call as one of the most important electoral process in this country's history, one question behooves us,"will there really be change?".
We pose that dangling question like the Damocles sword over the heads of every Filipino in the light of recent developments not only because of the Maguindanao massacre involving a Muslim political dynasty in Mindanao but also of the fact that there is a growing number of familiar surnames in the list of candidates from the lowest ranked town councilor up to the highest position of government.
Julio Tehankee, a fellow of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism wrote in 2007 that there are 160 families domination Congress in more than a century( And the clans played on,www.pcij,org).
The PCIJ pointed out that "for decades political families, not political parties has been the most significant force behind Philippine politics; elections are exercises or tests of the political clout of political families if not mere bitter contests with rival clans."
In Negros Occidental alone, there are many familiar surnames in the ballot in 2010. Political families in the province have seen a recent resurgence and many of them are running unopposed. In the mountain town of Salvador Benedicto the father is a member of the provincial board, the eldest son is the town mayor and the mayor, the former mayor is now her son's vice mayor. In the province' sixth district, the outgoing congressman is running for vice governor and her lawyer-daughter will try to replace him in the position.
Many a study of Philippine political culture have a come to a conclusion that our politics is based on patronage where the Filipino in terms of his political choices, is guided not by abstract principles like democracy or ideology but personal relationships where he can reap benefits that he or or his family wants.
It is this political reality that many of the political oligarchs in the Philippines take advantage especially in the local arena where they consider their constituents as their fiefdoms ready to bow down to their wishes. These power elites believe that it only their family that can bring development to the people. But these are not development in the context that it has a long term impact in the life of the people, but rather, development in the micro sense, that is the despensing of favors to gain blind loyalty.
The story is as old as pre- Spanish history. But the facts still hold true. Members of political families make a musical chair out of government posts every election time to protect there economic interests if not cover their tracks.
To the question we posed earlier," will there be change?". The answer still lies deep in the hearts and minds of those who will vote in 2010- US.
We pose that dangling question like the Damocles sword over the heads of every Filipino in the light of recent developments not only because of the Maguindanao massacre involving a Muslim political dynasty in Mindanao but also of the fact that there is a growing number of familiar surnames in the list of candidates from the lowest ranked town councilor up to the highest position of government.
Julio Tehankee, a fellow of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism wrote in 2007 that there are 160 families domination Congress in more than a century( And the clans played on,www.pcij,org).
The PCIJ pointed out that "for decades political families, not political parties has been the most significant force behind Philippine politics; elections are exercises or tests of the political clout of political families if not mere bitter contests with rival clans."
In Negros Occidental alone, there are many familiar surnames in the ballot in 2010. Political families in the province have seen a recent resurgence and many of them are running unopposed. In the mountain town of Salvador Benedicto the father is a member of the provincial board, the eldest son is the town mayor and the mayor, the former mayor is now her son's vice mayor. In the province' sixth district, the outgoing congressman is running for vice governor and her lawyer-daughter will try to replace him in the position.
Many a study of Philippine political culture have a come to a conclusion that our politics is based on patronage where the Filipino in terms of his political choices, is guided not by abstract principles like democracy or ideology but personal relationships where he can reap benefits that he or or his family wants.
It is this political reality that many of the political oligarchs in the Philippines take advantage especially in the local arena where they consider their constituents as their fiefdoms ready to bow down to their wishes. These power elites believe that it only their family that can bring development to the people. But these are not development in the context that it has a long term impact in the life of the people, but rather, development in the micro sense, that is the despensing of favors to gain blind loyalty.
The story is as old as pre- Spanish history. But the facts still hold true. Members of political families make a musical chair out of government posts every election time to protect there economic interests if not cover their tracks.
To the question we posed earlier," will there be change?". The answer still lies deep in the hearts and minds of those who will vote in 2010- US.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
RANDON THOUGHTS ON POWER THEORIES
The unmarked category
Feminists have analysed the powerless extensively. There are theories about discrimination on the basis of sex, race, class and religion as well as sexuality, disability, age and culture. What often remains unexamined is the culture of the powerful, since it is difficult for the purveyors of culture – the powerful – to see the mechanisms of their own structures. And it is difficult for the powerless to get access to the resources and education necessary to enable such a critique. Everything is ranged against it.
The powerful are those members of a society who can gain ready access to power and who also are able to exercise it without thinking particularly about what they are doing. For the powerful the culture is obvious, accessible and cut out for them. For the powerless it is unreachable, impenetrable, high, élite, expensive and it would take an act of violence or self-violation to get in.
The ‘unmarked category’ is the identifying mark of the powerful. He is the standard by which everything else is measured: for example Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, or medical wall charts. In the informational address structures of the internet, US addresses are the unmarked category. These ideas connect with the work of feminists such as Luce Irigaray and Gyatri Spivak.
Whiteness is not visible to the powerful, because they themselves are white. They notice black, brown, ‘other’ bodies and the difference of those imaginations. But whiteness, to the white, is the norm. It has a normative status in the same way that ‘man’ has a normative status. The able body is the neutral body. The marked body is outside what is regarded as the norm: it is too thin, it is too fat, it is crippled, it is mad, it is unpredictable.
The unremarked, the unmarked is always the clue.
Susan Hawthorne
Read: Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality, Crossing Press
Toni Morrison, Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination, Random House
Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva, Ecofeminism, Zed Books
The Irigaray Reader, edited by Margaret Whitford, Basil Blackwell
The Spivak Reader, edited by Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, Routledge
Representation and counterpower
The French theorist and activist Gilles Deleuze compared voting for political representation with being taken hostage.
Government is the exercise of power by representatives elected by democratic process. This assumes that there are categories of people distinct in their shared interests and numerous enough to warrant a say in exercising power. Their representative is somehow seen as embodying the group’s interests. Movements have achieved change by fighting for inclusion within this system. Thus the working classes, women, ethnic minorities, younger people and the disabled have all won victories that have brought them concrete gains. However, we have yet to see any parliament that proportionally reflects those groups/characteristics amongst its elected representatives.
The limitations of representative democracy are lampooned in Borges’ short story ‘The Congress’, about a proposed Congress of the World. It contains an absurd debate over which communities the lead character Don Alejandro represents: ‘Not only cattlemen, but also Uruguayans, and also humanity’s great forerunners, and also men with red beards, and also those who are seated in armchairs...’ Finally Don Alejandro concludes that the only Congress that could represent the world is the world itself.
Perhaps surprisingly, this democratic utopianism has found popular expression in social movements for global justice. Don Alejandro’s logic underpins the horizontal growth of the social-forum movement, where diverse groups, movements and individuals coalesce in different regions; participation is open to everyone in all their uniqueness, without presuming to represent, to delegate or mandate.
What we might call ‘counterpower’ is in the movements against representation and for democracy, who seek to have their voices heard and listened to, not assimilated and condensed. Counterpower is the shadow realm of alternatives, a hall of mirrors held up to the dominant logic of capitalism – and it is growing.
Graeme Chesters
Contact: World Social Forum 2004 www.wsfindia.org
Participation and liberation
Most people have never heard of him, but almost all effective social-change projects today draw on the work of Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator with revolutionary learning methods.
Freire starts with the assumption that people have enormous archives of knowledge within them. He rejects the notion that one is ignorant unless one has learned to communicate using the culture of the powerful; learning should not be about being a mere receptacle of that culture.
With Freire’s method the learner is part of a group ‘culture circle’ within which she builds her own view of reality, starting with the circumstances of her everyday life. These, rather than textbooks which teach only the culture of the powerful, are the ‘texts’ from which the learner can analyse and begin to transform the world in which she lives.
Dialogue – an exchange of knowledge and a process of co-learning – as opposed to monologue – imparting of knowledge from the teacher to the ignorant – is key. This group-learning process doesn’t just teach people literacy at an extraordinarily fast rate: it builds a shared understanding of their world. For Freire, learning begins with action, which is then shaped by reflection on the action, which gives rise to further action. The learner goes on creating herself from the inside out, expanding her capacity to act in the world and change it. Fundamentally this is a process by which the powerless transform their relationship to power.
Read: The Paulo Freire Reader, edited by Ana Maria Araujo Freire and Donald Macedo, Continuum.
Power and knowledge
Michel Foucault, one of the key thinkers about power, knowledge and society, was a French intellectual working in fields as diverse as history, medicine, cultural criticism and psychology (what he called the ‘human sciences’) in the 1960s and 1970s. Put simply, Foucault says that if enough people accept as ‘common knowledge’ the particular belief systems of a group of authority figures such as scientists, priests, or medical doctors, then this group exercises power in society by defining right from wrong and who, or what, is ‘normal’. It is a subtle form of power: easier to overlook than power enforced by law or violence, hard to resist because it is all about ‘normalization’.
He came to this conclusion through studying prison systems, mental asylums, schools, attitutudes to homosexuality and the ways in which society creates categories of deviance and abnormality. Take the example of a person in a mental institution. Their life is tightly controlled; their resistance to this control though non-co-operation is seen by most as a symptom of their abnormality or madness. But couldn’t it be a rebellion against a power system that has defined them as abnormal? And might not this ‘outsider’ have powerful insights into the nature of that system? Queer theorists and others have embraced Foucault, celebrating the importance of the marginal perspective.
Contact: Queer theory www.theory.org.uk
Read: Foucault for Beginners, Ludia
Alix Fillingham, Writers and Readers
Feminists have analysed the powerless extensively. There are theories about discrimination on the basis of sex, race, class and religion as well as sexuality, disability, age and culture. What often remains unexamined is the culture of the powerful, since it is difficult for the purveyors of culture – the powerful – to see the mechanisms of their own structures. And it is difficult for the powerless to get access to the resources and education necessary to enable such a critique. Everything is ranged against it.
The powerful are those members of a society who can gain ready access to power and who also are able to exercise it without thinking particularly about what they are doing. For the powerful the culture is obvious, accessible and cut out for them. For the powerless it is unreachable, impenetrable, high, élite, expensive and it would take an act of violence or self-violation to get in.
The ‘unmarked category’ is the identifying mark of the powerful. He is the standard by which everything else is measured: for example Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, or medical wall charts. In the informational address structures of the internet, US addresses are the unmarked category. These ideas connect with the work of feminists such as Luce Irigaray and Gyatri Spivak.
Whiteness is not visible to the powerful, because they themselves are white. They notice black, brown, ‘other’ bodies and the difference of those imaginations. But whiteness, to the white, is the norm. It has a normative status in the same way that ‘man’ has a normative status. The able body is the neutral body. The marked body is outside what is regarded as the norm: it is too thin, it is too fat, it is crippled, it is mad, it is unpredictable.
The unremarked, the unmarked is always the clue.
Susan Hawthorne
Read: Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality, Crossing Press
Toni Morrison, Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination, Random House
Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva, Ecofeminism, Zed Books
The Irigaray Reader, edited by Margaret Whitford, Basil Blackwell
The Spivak Reader, edited by Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, Routledge
Representation and counterpower
The French theorist and activist Gilles Deleuze compared voting for political representation with being taken hostage.
Government is the exercise of power by representatives elected by democratic process. This assumes that there are categories of people distinct in their shared interests and numerous enough to warrant a say in exercising power. Their representative is somehow seen as embodying the group’s interests. Movements have achieved change by fighting for inclusion within this system. Thus the working classes, women, ethnic minorities, younger people and the disabled have all won victories that have brought them concrete gains. However, we have yet to see any parliament that proportionally reflects those groups/characteristics amongst its elected representatives.
The limitations of representative democracy are lampooned in Borges’ short story ‘The Congress’, about a proposed Congress of the World. It contains an absurd debate over which communities the lead character Don Alejandro represents: ‘Not only cattlemen, but also Uruguayans, and also humanity’s great forerunners, and also men with red beards, and also those who are seated in armchairs...’ Finally Don Alejandro concludes that the only Congress that could represent the world is the world itself.
Perhaps surprisingly, this democratic utopianism has found popular expression in social movements for global justice. Don Alejandro’s logic underpins the horizontal growth of the social-forum movement, where diverse groups, movements and individuals coalesce in different regions; participation is open to everyone in all their uniqueness, without presuming to represent, to delegate or mandate.
What we might call ‘counterpower’ is in the movements against representation and for democracy, who seek to have their voices heard and listened to, not assimilated and condensed. Counterpower is the shadow realm of alternatives, a hall of mirrors held up to the dominant logic of capitalism – and it is growing.
Graeme Chesters
Contact: World Social Forum 2004 www.wsfindia.org
Participation and liberation
Most people have never heard of him, but almost all effective social-change projects today draw on the work of Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator with revolutionary learning methods.
Freire starts with the assumption that people have enormous archives of knowledge within them. He rejects the notion that one is ignorant unless one has learned to communicate using the culture of the powerful; learning should not be about being a mere receptacle of that culture.
With Freire’s method the learner is part of a group ‘culture circle’ within which she builds her own view of reality, starting with the circumstances of her everyday life. These, rather than textbooks which teach only the culture of the powerful, are the ‘texts’ from which the learner can analyse and begin to transform the world in which she lives.
Dialogue – an exchange of knowledge and a process of co-learning – as opposed to monologue – imparting of knowledge from the teacher to the ignorant – is key. This group-learning process doesn’t just teach people literacy at an extraordinarily fast rate: it builds a shared understanding of their world. For Freire, learning begins with action, which is then shaped by reflection on the action, which gives rise to further action. The learner goes on creating herself from the inside out, expanding her capacity to act in the world and change it. Fundamentally this is a process by which the powerless transform their relationship to power.
Read: The Paulo Freire Reader, edited by Ana Maria Araujo Freire and Donald Macedo, Continuum.
Power and knowledge
Michel Foucault, one of the key thinkers about power, knowledge and society, was a French intellectual working in fields as diverse as history, medicine, cultural criticism and psychology (what he called the ‘human sciences’) in the 1960s and 1970s. Put simply, Foucault says that if enough people accept as ‘common knowledge’ the particular belief systems of a group of authority figures such as scientists, priests, or medical doctors, then this group exercises power in society by defining right from wrong and who, or what, is ‘normal’. It is a subtle form of power: easier to overlook than power enforced by law or violence, hard to resist because it is all about ‘normalization’.
He came to this conclusion through studying prison systems, mental asylums, schools, attitutudes to homosexuality and the ways in which society creates categories of deviance and abnormality. Take the example of a person in a mental institution. Their life is tightly controlled; their resistance to this control though non-co-operation is seen by most as a symptom of their abnormality or madness. But couldn’t it be a rebellion against a power system that has defined them as abnormal? And might not this ‘outsider’ have powerful insights into the nature of that system? Queer theorists and others have embraced Foucault, celebrating the importance of the marginal perspective.
Contact: Queer theory www.theory.org.uk
Read: Foucault for Beginners, Ludia
Alix Fillingham, Writers and Readers
Monday, December 7, 2009
38 DISHONEST TRICKS IN ARGUMENTS
This is taken from “Straight and Crooked Thinking” by Robert H. Thouless, Pan Books.
In most textbooks of logic there is to be found a list of “fallacies”, classified in accordance with the logical principles they violate. Such collections are interesting and important, and it is to be hoped that any readers who wish to go more deeply into the principles of logical thought will turn to these works.
The present list is, however, something quite different. Its aim is practical and not theoretical. It is intended to be a list which can be conveniently used for detecting dishonest modes of thought which we shall actually meet in arguments and speeches.
Sometimes more than one of the tricks mentioned would be classified by the logician under one heading, some he would omit altogether, while others that he would put in are not to be found here. Practical convenience and practical importance are the criteria I have used in this list. If we have a plague of flies in the house we buy fly-papers and not a treatise on the zoological classification of Musca domestica. This implies no sort of disrespect for zoologists; or for the value of their work as a first step in the effective control of flies.
Undoubtedly it is also important to be able to say of an argued case whether it has or has not been established by the arguments brought forward. Mere detection of crooked elements in the argument is not sufficient to settle this question since a good argumentative case may be disfigured by crooked arguments.
The study of crooked thinking is, however, an essential preliminary to this problem of judging the soundness of an argued case. It is only when we have cleared away the emotional thinking, the selected instances, the inappropriate analogies, etc, that we can see clearly the underlying case and make a sound judgeMent as to whether it is right or wrong.
The thirty-eight dishonest tricks of argument described in the present book are the following:
The use of emotionally toned words.
- Dealt with by translating the statement into words emotionally neutral.
Making a statement in which “all” is implied but “some” is true
- Dealt with by putting the word “all” into the statement and showing that it is then false.
Proof by selected instances
- Dealt with dishonestly by selecting instances opposing your opponent’s contention or honestly by pointing out the true form of the proof (as a statistical problem in association) and either supplying the required numerical facts or pointing out that your opponent has not got them.
Extension of an opponent’s proposition by contradiction or by misrepresentation of it
- Dealt with by stating again the more moderate position which is being defended.
Evasion of a sound refutation of an argument by the use of a sophistical formula
- Dealt with by analysis of the formula and demonstration of its unsoundness.
Diversion to another question, to a side issue, or by irrelevant objection
- Dealt with by refusing to be diverted from the original question, but stating again the real question at issue.
Proof by inconsequent argument
- Dealt with by asking that the connection between the proposition and the alleged proof may be explained, even though the request for explanation may be attributed to ignorance or lack of logical insight on the part of the person making it.
The argument that we should not make efforts against X which is admittedly evil because there is a worse evil Y against which our efforts should be directed
- Dealt with by pointing out that this is a reason for making efforts to abolish Y, but no reason for not also making efforts to get rid of X.
The recommendation of a position because it is a mean between two extremes
- Dealt with by denying the usefulness of the principle as a method of discovering the truth. In practice, this can most easily be done by showing that our own view also can be represented as a mean between two extremes.
Pointing out the logical correctness of the form of an argument whose premisses contain doubtful or untrue statements of fact
- Dealt with by refusing to discuss the logic of the argument but pointing out the defects of its presentations of alleged fact.
The use of an argument of logically unsound form
- Since the unsoundness of such arguments can be easily seen when the form of the argument is clearly displayed, an opponent who does this can be dealt with by making such a simple statement of his argument that its unsoundness is apparent. For one’s own satisfaction when reading an argument of doubtful soundness, it will often be found useful to make a diagram.
Argument in a circle
Begging the question
- Both 12 and 13 can be dealt with in the same way as 11; by restating your opponent’s argument in such a simple way that the nature of the device used must be clear to anyone.
Discussing a verbal proposition as if it were a factual one, or failing to disentangle the verbal and factual elements in a proposition that is partly both
- This is really an incompetent rather than a dishonest way of arguing. The remedy is to point out how much of the question at issue is a difference in the use of words and how much (if at all) it is a difference as to fact or values.
Putting forward a tautology (such as that too much of the thing attacked is bad) as if it were a factual judgement
- Dealt with by pointing out that the statement is necessarily true from its verbal form.
The use of a speculative argument
- Rebutted by pointing out that what is cannot be inferred from what ought to be or from what the speaker feels must be.
Change in the meaning of a term during the course of an argument
- Dealt with by getting the term defined or by substituting an equivalent form of words at one of the points where the term in question is used and seeing whether the use of this form of words will make true the other statements in which this term is used.
The use of a dilemma which ignores a continuous series of possibilities between the two extremes presented
- Dealt with by refusing to accept either alternative, but pointing to the fact of the continuity which the person using the argument has ignored. Since this is likely to appear over-subtle to an opponent using the argument, it may be strengthened by pointing out that the argument is the same as saying, “Is this paper black or white?” when it is, in fact, a shade of grey.
The use of the fact of continuity between them to throw doubt on a real difference between two things (the “argument of the beard”)
- Dealt with by pointing out that the difference is nevertheless real. This again may be made stronger by pointing out that application of the same method of argument would deny the difference between “black” and “white” or between “hot” and “cold”.
- If an opponent uses definitions to produce clear-cut conceptions for facts which are not clear-cut, it is necessary to point out to him how much more complicated facts are in reality than in his thought. If he tries to drive you to define for the same purpose, the remedy is to refuse formal definition but to adopt some other method for making your meaning clear.
Suggestion by repeated affirmation
Suggestion by use of a confident manner
Suggestion by prestige
- The best safeguard against all three of these tricks of suggestion is a theoretical knowledge of suggestion, so that their use may be detected. All three devices lose much of their effect if the audience see how the effect is being obtained, so merely pointing out the fact that the speaker is trying to create conviction by repeated assertion in a confident manner may be enough to make this device ineffective. Ridicule is often used to undermine the confident manner, or any kind of criticism which makes the speaker begin to grow angry or plaintive.
Prestige by false credentials
- The obvious remedy for this is, when practical, to expose the falsity of the titles, degrees, etc, that are used. The prestige then collapses.
Prestige by the use of pseudo-technical jargon
- Best dealt with by asking in a modest manner that the speaker should explain himself more simply.
Affectation of failure to understand backed by prestige
- Dealt with by more than ample explanation.
The use of questions drawing out damaging admissions
- Dealt with by refusal to make the admissions. The difficulty of this refusal must be overcome by any device reducing one’s suggestibility to the questioner.
The appeal to mere authority
- Dealt with by considering whether the person supposed to have authority had a sound reason for making the assertion which is attributed to him.
Overcoming resistance to a doubtful proposition by a preliminary statement of a few easily accepted ones
- Knowledge of this trick and preparedness for it are the best safeguard against its effects.
Statement of a doubtful proposition in such a way that it fits in with the thought- habits or the prejudices of the hearer
- A habit of questioning what appears obvious is the best safeguard against this trick. A particular device of value against it is to restate a questionable proposition in a new context in which one’s thought-habits do not lead to its acceptance.
The use of generally accepted formulae of predigested though as premisses in argument
- The best way of dealing with predigested thinking in argument is to point out good- humouredly and with a backing of real evidence that matters are more complicated than your opponent supposes.
“There is much to be said on both sides, so no decision can be made either way”, or any other formula leading to the attitude of academic detachment
- Dealt with by pointing out that taking no action has practical consequences no less real than those which result from acting on either of the propositions in dispute, and that this is no more likely than any other to be the right solution of the difficulty.
Argument by mere analogy
- Dealt with by examining the alleged analogy in detail and pointing out where it breaks down.
Argument by forced analogy
- The absurdity of a forced analogy can best be exposed by showing how many other analogies supporting different conclusions might have been used.
Angering an opponent in order that he may argue badly
- Dealt with by refusing to get angry however annoying our opponent may be.
Special pleading
- Dealt with by applying one’s opponent’s special arguments to other propositions which he is unwilling to admit.
Commending or condemning a proposition because of its practical consequences to the bearer
- We can only become immune to the effect of this kind of appeal if we have formed a habit of recognizing our own tendencies to be guided by our prejudices and by our own self-interest, and of distrusting our judgement on questions in which we are practically concerned.
Argument by attributing prejudices or motives to one’s opponent
- Best dealt with by pointing out that other prejudices may equally well determine the opposite view, and that, in any case, the question of why a person holds an opinion is an entirely different question from that of whether the opinion is or is not true.
In most textbooks of logic there is to be found a list of “fallacies”, classified in accordance with the logical principles they violate. Such collections are interesting and important, and it is to be hoped that any readers who wish to go more deeply into the principles of logical thought will turn to these works.
The present list is, however, something quite different. Its aim is practical and not theoretical. It is intended to be a list which can be conveniently used for detecting dishonest modes of thought which we shall actually meet in arguments and speeches.
Sometimes more than one of the tricks mentioned would be classified by the logician under one heading, some he would omit altogether, while others that he would put in are not to be found here. Practical convenience and practical importance are the criteria I have used in this list. If we have a plague of flies in the house we buy fly-papers and not a treatise on the zoological classification of Musca domestica. This implies no sort of disrespect for zoologists; or for the value of their work as a first step in the effective control of flies.
Undoubtedly it is also important to be able to say of an argued case whether it has or has not been established by the arguments brought forward. Mere detection of crooked elements in the argument is not sufficient to settle this question since a good argumentative case may be disfigured by crooked arguments.
The study of crooked thinking is, however, an essential preliminary to this problem of judging the soundness of an argued case. It is only when we have cleared away the emotional thinking, the selected instances, the inappropriate analogies, etc, that we can see clearly the underlying case and make a sound judgeMent as to whether it is right or wrong.
The thirty-eight dishonest tricks of argument described in the present book are the following:
The use of emotionally toned words.
- Dealt with by translating the statement into words emotionally neutral.
Making a statement in which “all” is implied but “some” is true
- Dealt with by putting the word “all” into the statement and showing that it is then false.
Proof by selected instances
- Dealt with dishonestly by selecting instances opposing your opponent’s contention or honestly by pointing out the true form of the proof (as a statistical problem in association) and either supplying the required numerical facts or pointing out that your opponent has not got them.
Extension of an opponent’s proposition by contradiction or by misrepresentation of it
- Dealt with by stating again the more moderate position which is being defended.
Evasion of a sound refutation of an argument by the use of a sophistical formula
- Dealt with by analysis of the formula and demonstration of its unsoundness.
Diversion to another question, to a side issue, or by irrelevant objection
- Dealt with by refusing to be diverted from the original question, but stating again the real question at issue.
Proof by inconsequent argument
- Dealt with by asking that the connection between the proposition and the alleged proof may be explained, even though the request for explanation may be attributed to ignorance or lack of logical insight on the part of the person making it.
The argument that we should not make efforts against X which is admittedly evil because there is a worse evil Y against which our efforts should be directed
- Dealt with by pointing out that this is a reason for making efforts to abolish Y, but no reason for not also making efforts to get rid of X.
The recommendation of a position because it is a mean between two extremes
- Dealt with by denying the usefulness of the principle as a method of discovering the truth. In practice, this can most easily be done by showing that our own view also can be represented as a mean between two extremes.
Pointing out the logical correctness of the form of an argument whose premisses contain doubtful or untrue statements of fact
- Dealt with by refusing to discuss the logic of the argument but pointing out the defects of its presentations of alleged fact.
The use of an argument of logically unsound form
- Since the unsoundness of such arguments can be easily seen when the form of the argument is clearly displayed, an opponent who does this can be dealt with by making such a simple statement of his argument that its unsoundness is apparent. For one’s own satisfaction when reading an argument of doubtful soundness, it will often be found useful to make a diagram.
Argument in a circle
Begging the question
- Both 12 and 13 can be dealt with in the same way as 11; by restating your opponent’s argument in such a simple way that the nature of the device used must be clear to anyone.
Discussing a verbal proposition as if it were a factual one, or failing to disentangle the verbal and factual elements in a proposition that is partly both
- This is really an incompetent rather than a dishonest way of arguing. The remedy is to point out how much of the question at issue is a difference in the use of words and how much (if at all) it is a difference as to fact or values.
Putting forward a tautology (such as that too much of the thing attacked is bad) as if it were a factual judgement
- Dealt with by pointing out that the statement is necessarily true from its verbal form.
The use of a speculative argument
- Rebutted by pointing out that what is cannot be inferred from what ought to be or from what the speaker feels must be.
Change in the meaning of a term during the course of an argument
- Dealt with by getting the term defined or by substituting an equivalent form of words at one of the points where the term in question is used and seeing whether the use of this form of words will make true the other statements in which this term is used.
The use of a dilemma which ignores a continuous series of possibilities between the two extremes presented
- Dealt with by refusing to accept either alternative, but pointing to the fact of the continuity which the person using the argument has ignored. Since this is likely to appear over-subtle to an opponent using the argument, it may be strengthened by pointing out that the argument is the same as saying, “Is this paper black or white?” when it is, in fact, a shade of grey.
The use of the fact of continuity between them to throw doubt on a real difference between two things (the “argument of the beard”)
- Dealt with by pointing out that the difference is nevertheless real. This again may be made stronger by pointing out that application of the same method of argument would deny the difference between “black” and “white” or between “hot” and “cold”.
- If an opponent uses definitions to produce clear-cut conceptions for facts which are not clear-cut, it is necessary to point out to him how much more complicated facts are in reality than in his thought. If he tries to drive you to define for the same purpose, the remedy is to refuse formal definition but to adopt some other method for making your meaning clear.
Suggestion by repeated affirmation
Suggestion by use of a confident manner
Suggestion by prestige
- The best safeguard against all three of these tricks of suggestion is a theoretical knowledge of suggestion, so that their use may be detected. All three devices lose much of their effect if the audience see how the effect is being obtained, so merely pointing out the fact that the speaker is trying to create conviction by repeated assertion in a confident manner may be enough to make this device ineffective. Ridicule is often used to undermine the confident manner, or any kind of criticism which makes the speaker begin to grow angry or plaintive.
Prestige by false credentials
- The obvious remedy for this is, when practical, to expose the falsity of the titles, degrees, etc, that are used. The prestige then collapses.
Prestige by the use of pseudo-technical jargon
- Best dealt with by asking in a modest manner that the speaker should explain himself more simply.
Affectation of failure to understand backed by prestige
- Dealt with by more than ample explanation.
The use of questions drawing out damaging admissions
- Dealt with by refusal to make the admissions. The difficulty of this refusal must be overcome by any device reducing one’s suggestibility to the questioner.
The appeal to mere authority
- Dealt with by considering whether the person supposed to have authority had a sound reason for making the assertion which is attributed to him.
Overcoming resistance to a doubtful proposition by a preliminary statement of a few easily accepted ones
- Knowledge of this trick and preparedness for it are the best safeguard against its effects.
Statement of a doubtful proposition in such a way that it fits in with the thought- habits or the prejudices of the hearer
- A habit of questioning what appears obvious is the best safeguard against this trick. A particular device of value against it is to restate a questionable proposition in a new context in which one’s thought-habits do not lead to its acceptance.
The use of generally accepted formulae of predigested though as premisses in argument
- The best way of dealing with predigested thinking in argument is to point out good- humouredly and with a backing of real evidence that matters are more complicated than your opponent supposes.
“There is much to be said on both sides, so no decision can be made either way”, or any other formula leading to the attitude of academic detachment
- Dealt with by pointing out that taking no action has practical consequences no less real than those which result from acting on either of the propositions in dispute, and that this is no more likely than any other to be the right solution of the difficulty.
Argument by mere analogy
- Dealt with by examining the alleged analogy in detail and pointing out where it breaks down.
Argument by forced analogy
- The absurdity of a forced analogy can best be exposed by showing how many other analogies supporting different conclusions might have been used.
Angering an opponent in order that he may argue badly
- Dealt with by refusing to get angry however annoying our opponent may be.
Special pleading
- Dealt with by applying one’s opponent’s special arguments to other propositions which he is unwilling to admit.
Commending or condemning a proposition because of its practical consequences to the bearer
- We can only become immune to the effect of this kind of appeal if we have formed a habit of recognizing our own tendencies to be guided by our prejudices and by our own self-interest, and of distrusting our judgement on questions in which we are practically concerned.
Argument by attributing prejudices or motives to one’s opponent
- Best dealt with by pointing out that other prejudices may equally well determine the opposite view, and that, in any case, the question of why a person holds an opinion is an entirely different question from that of whether the opinion is or is not true.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
DEATH KNEEL FOR NEGROS BASKETBALL?
I was at game 2 of the best-of-three championship series of Negros Basketball Association at the Po Hang gym of the Tay Tung High School, the 'mecca' of basketball in this side of this hoop- crazy country.
The common view was it was not a 'championship' basketball match in the truest sense of the word. But as many commented after the game, it was 'lousy'. Ticel- Iloilo composed of basketball has- beens reinforced by struggling local talents as they made minced meat of their opponents, the underachieving Rams of the University of Negros Occidental- Recoletos. I would not even dare look at the scoreboards.
How the tournament was organized, played and the barren seats at the venue leaves much to be desired. And as I tried to find answers,more questions arise.
Gone were the days when Bacolod was the 'hotbed' of basketball after Cebu and outside Metro Manila wher the big leagues are. Bacolod saw the rise of talents in the pro ranks starting with the Foxy Francis Arnaiz in the days where basketball shorts were really short shorts(pun intended). To the days of the lady killer Yves Dignadice from neighboring Iloilo but made a name playing hoops here where he was discovered by scouts that landed him a slot in the national team of Ron Jacobs. Enforcer Rudy Distrito who carried his nickname proudly on his breast off and on the court also hailed from the squalid street games of Magsungay.Retired pros Wilmer Ong, Noli Locsin and Boyet Fernandez honed their skills in Bacolod. Topping the list among the active players in the Philippine Basketball Association who has roots here is former MVP James Yap, the Mr. Kris Aquino. It is a long list.
But, those were bygone days, the peak of basketball in Bacolod and Negros Occidental.Gone were the days when the local collegiate hoop wars and NBA games at the Po Hang gym drew fans to the rafters who shout their hearts out in support of their favorite players and teams and jeer at bungling plays and the inconsistent calls of referees if not the KSP antics of Vic Tan. There were even times when games were settled after the games and fans especially the girlfriends,wives even mothers rush to the middle of the court because of 'dirty' plays. There was even a time when the tournaments were covered by both local radio and television media. Now, they are just memories of days long gone.
Now, aside from the Mustangs of the West Negros University lording it over the local collegiate wars in the past decade or so, the level of competition has plummetted to below zero. Thanks to the dedication of Dodong Bascon, head honcho of NBA, Mr. Basketball himself and remains synonymous with the game as are Jaworski to the PBA and Jordan, Magic, Kobe and Lebron to the American original.
But, what would happen to the league, as my friend Cyrus Garde asked in his column in the Negros Daily Bulletin, if Mr. Dodong calls it quitys and finally decides to enter the political arena, which many quarters in the city has egged him to do? Who would be man enough to take over the reins of the NBA and organize tournaments that would satisfy the basketball palate of dedicated fans.
Do we hear the death kneel of Negros basketball?
The common view was it was not a 'championship' basketball match in the truest sense of the word. But as many commented after the game, it was 'lousy'. Ticel- Iloilo composed of basketball has- beens reinforced by struggling local talents as they made minced meat of their opponents, the underachieving Rams of the University of Negros Occidental- Recoletos. I would not even dare look at the scoreboards.
How the tournament was organized, played and the barren seats at the venue leaves much to be desired. And as I tried to find answers,more questions arise.
Gone were the days when Bacolod was the 'hotbed' of basketball after Cebu and outside Metro Manila wher the big leagues are. Bacolod saw the rise of talents in the pro ranks starting with the Foxy Francis Arnaiz in the days where basketball shorts were really short shorts(pun intended). To the days of the lady killer Yves Dignadice from neighboring Iloilo but made a name playing hoops here where he was discovered by scouts that landed him a slot in the national team of Ron Jacobs. Enforcer Rudy Distrito who carried his nickname proudly on his breast off and on the court also hailed from the squalid street games of Magsungay.Retired pros Wilmer Ong, Noli Locsin and Boyet Fernandez honed their skills in Bacolod. Topping the list among the active players in the Philippine Basketball Association who has roots here is former MVP James Yap, the Mr. Kris Aquino. It is a long list.
But, those were bygone days, the peak of basketball in Bacolod and Negros Occidental.Gone were the days when the local collegiate hoop wars and NBA games at the Po Hang gym drew fans to the rafters who shout their hearts out in support of their favorite players and teams and jeer at bungling plays and the inconsistent calls of referees if not the KSP antics of Vic Tan. There were even times when games were settled after the games and fans especially the girlfriends,wives even mothers rush to the middle of the court because of 'dirty' plays. There was even a time when the tournaments were covered by both local radio and television media. Now, they are just memories of days long gone.
Now, aside from the Mustangs of the West Negros University lording it over the local collegiate wars in the past decade or so, the level of competition has plummetted to below zero. Thanks to the dedication of Dodong Bascon, head honcho of NBA, Mr. Basketball himself and remains synonymous with the game as are Jaworski to the PBA and Jordan, Magic, Kobe and Lebron to the American original.
But, what would happen to the league, as my friend Cyrus Garde asked in his column in the Negros Daily Bulletin, if Mr. Dodong calls it quitys and finally decides to enter the political arena, which many quarters in the city has egged him to do? Who would be man enough to take over the reins of the NBA and organize tournaments that would satisfy the basketball palate of dedicated fans.
Do we hear the death kneel of Negros basketball?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
GLORIA- ROTTEN PINOY POLITICAL CULTURE
The decision of President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo to demote herself by running for a seat in the second district of her home province of Pampanga leaves a bad taste in the mouth and questions whether 'delicadeza' and ethics if not morality is in her vocabulary.
Her action is a sad reflection of the kind political culture we have. That is the bigger picture that I see in her action.
GMA is not alone.Many politicians in this country have clung to power for decades already. They are now well- entrenched in their areas that many became warlords. They think that they own the reins of power in their towns, cities and provinces.
Philippine politicians consider their areas their little kingdoms, they as the ruling depots and their constituents their slaves ready to do their bidding.Many actually made the town hall their career and not many take it personally when they loose their seats during elections.
That is Philippine political culture. There is a power monopoly where the moneyed elite control political power relinquishing it only to to those with their blood line. check the records at the local office of the Commission of Elections and it will show the starling data that those who filed their candidacies are either wives, husbands, brothers, fathers, mothers, sisters, cousins if not in- laws of the incumbents.They believe that there families are the only ones who knows what is best for their constituents.
These fact shows that Filipinos are still politically immature. This country lacks a strong middle class to buffer the distance between the elite and the poor. Sadly, those middle- class who managed to win elections are eaten- up by the rotten system and forget their promises when they where still candidates.
That is the reason why many has left the country not just for greener pastures alone but for sheer frustrations and hopelessness on the situation that we as a nation and people has put this country.
Is there hope? Hope they say is eternal. And, to use a much- abused adage, it starts within each Filipino.
Her action is a sad reflection of the kind political culture we have. That is the bigger picture that I see in her action.
GMA is not alone.Many politicians in this country have clung to power for decades already. They are now well- entrenched in their areas that many became warlords. They think that they own the reins of power in their towns, cities and provinces.
Philippine politicians consider their areas their little kingdoms, they as the ruling depots and their constituents their slaves ready to do their bidding.Many actually made the town hall their career and not many take it personally when they loose their seats during elections.
That is Philippine political culture. There is a power monopoly where the moneyed elite control political power relinquishing it only to to those with their blood line. check the records at the local office of the Commission of Elections and it will show the starling data that those who filed their candidacies are either wives, husbands, brothers, fathers, mothers, sisters, cousins if not in- laws of the incumbents.They believe that there families are the only ones who knows what is best for their constituents.
These fact shows that Filipinos are still politically immature. This country lacks a strong middle class to buffer the distance between the elite and the poor. Sadly, those middle- class who managed to win elections are eaten- up by the rotten system and forget their promises when they where still candidates.
That is the reason why many has left the country not just for greener pastures alone but for sheer frustrations and hopelessness on the situation that we as a nation and people has put this country.
Is there hope? Hope they say is eternal. And, to use a much- abused adage, it starts within each Filipino.
Monday, November 30, 2009
POSITIVE VIEW OF POLITICS
A lot of people perceive that politics as dirty and a means to achieve one's craving for power and a tool for personal aggrandizement. Gone were the principles laid down by ancient and medieval political theorists that politics is a means or a venue by which man can achieve his true potential, not only for his or her own personal gain but moreover for the good of many.
It does not help any that politics as practiced in the Philippines is nowhere near the ideals that has helped alleviate the current murk of socio- political and economic quagmire we stuck ourselves into. I need not enumerate the numerous examples to prove this point. One has just to look at the window to see reality. Will there be any hope for change amid the growing quiet discontent, indifference, apathy and hopelessness prevailing now?
In an article I clipped from the Philippine Daily Inquirer column of Tita Datu Puangco,"Advice for the Anxious Person at Work," last Sept. 7, 2003, she quotes Chiara Lubich, founder of the Focolare Movement in Switzerland. It is about the challenge of authentic politics.
Lubich words,Puangco said, gave her hope. Lubich proposed a "Politicians for Unity Movement," and a unique and positive view of politics. She said that a " response to a political vocation is an act of brotherhood, because one acts upon public matters and deals with questions that are of concern to theirs, wanting their good as if it were their own."
Ideal politics is the "gathering into unity of a common design the resources of persons and groups that provide the means for each one to freely pursue his or her own vocation. It also fosters collaboration among all, bringing together the need with the resources, the questions with the answers, instilling trust among all."
The key ideas of the movement of unity in politics are: One is the concept that the vocation of a politician is an act of love, a personal calling that provide an answer to a social need or problem, to the sufferings of people and the needs of the time.
Two,politicians understand that others, even political opponents, might have made their choices out of love and therefore worthy of respect. They are interested in supporting good proposals of their political adversaries. They can build the common good together.
Third, politicians must listen to everyone, including those who are "different." They make themselves one with everyone, so that they become capable of understanding and offering proposals. This is what is called,"authentic political realism."
Fourth, politicians cannot remain passive in the face of conflicts that can create deep divisions between politicians and citizens. They must make the first step to rebuild a breakdown in communication.
Fifth, brotherhood has to become mutual, necessary for a correctly understood democracy.
Finally, politicians are capable of loving the other parties as they love their own.
The trend of the Movement for Unity in Politics has gained ground in Europe and South America. In the light of the coming elections, which will again deepen the already wide gap between the different sectors of our society, this call should be heeded by our politicians especially by those who are aspiring for the high public offices.
Only then, shall we as a people and a nation gain our lost dignity.
It does not help any that politics as practiced in the Philippines is nowhere near the ideals that has helped alleviate the current murk of socio- political and economic quagmire we stuck ourselves into. I need not enumerate the numerous examples to prove this point. One has just to look at the window to see reality. Will there be any hope for change amid the growing quiet discontent, indifference, apathy and hopelessness prevailing now?
In an article I clipped from the Philippine Daily Inquirer column of Tita Datu Puangco,"Advice for the Anxious Person at Work," last Sept. 7, 2003, she quotes Chiara Lubich, founder of the Focolare Movement in Switzerland. It is about the challenge of authentic politics.
Lubich words,Puangco said, gave her hope. Lubich proposed a "Politicians for Unity Movement," and a unique and positive view of politics. She said that a " response to a political vocation is an act of brotherhood, because one acts upon public matters and deals with questions that are of concern to theirs, wanting their good as if it were their own."
Ideal politics is the "gathering into unity of a common design the resources of persons and groups that provide the means for each one to freely pursue his or her own vocation. It also fosters collaboration among all, bringing together the need with the resources, the questions with the answers, instilling trust among all."
The key ideas of the movement of unity in politics are: One is the concept that the vocation of a politician is an act of love, a personal calling that provide an answer to a social need or problem, to the sufferings of people and the needs of the time.
Two,politicians understand that others, even political opponents, might have made their choices out of love and therefore worthy of respect. They are interested in supporting good proposals of their political adversaries. They can build the common good together.
Third, politicians must listen to everyone, including those who are "different." They make themselves one with everyone, so that they become capable of understanding and offering proposals. This is what is called,"authentic political realism."
Fourth, politicians cannot remain passive in the face of conflicts that can create deep divisions between politicians and citizens. They must make the first step to rebuild a breakdown in communication.
Fifth, brotherhood has to become mutual, necessary for a correctly understood democracy.
Finally, politicians are capable of loving the other parties as they love their own.
The trend of the Movement for Unity in Politics has gained ground in Europe and South America. In the light of the coming elections, which will again deepen the already wide gap between the different sectors of our society, this call should be heeded by our politicians especially by those who are aspiring for the high public offices.
Only then, shall we as a people and a nation gain our lost dignity.
POLITICAL DILLEMAS
About five months from now, the Filipino voters will again troop to the different polling places to make a decision on whom they want to lead them as government officials, from the lowly councilors of a town to the president of the Philippines. For the many, it will not be a problem as they hinge their future on who are popular and "mahapos palapitan", as it is aptly called in the Hiligaynon dialect. But, for those who are "educated", it is often a dilemma, a choice of who are the "winnable" or those who are "ideal."
But we will not be delving here on that aspect, as the Filipino voter's mind are very fickle and the surveys now are often not reflective of the final results when the last ballots are counted come election time. I am going to focus on the dilemma of the candidates themselves.
Candidates for elective positions are often faced with a dilemma especially if many groups or parties wanting him or her in their line- up. A tough choice, choice indeed. This dilemma is not faced by candidates whose candidacy is only for the money from a backers campaign kitty. This dilemmas are faced by candidates who are advocates of causes that have endeared them to a certain sector of in the locality.
Do I have to go with the group with the most organized political machinery? Or do I have to run as independent and shell out or invest a large amount of money from my pockets? Do I join other candidates to form an alternative choice for voters? What are the factors should I take into consideration in my candidacy? These I believe are the questions bugging many would- be political hopefuls right now.
Here's more: I could turn off a lot of my supporters when I join a group led by somebody they would not vote for. However, if I join other group or choose to be independent my chances of winning will be next to nil. As an independent or opt to join an alternative group I will have to do it on my own, like assigning watchers to guard the ballots come election time, get campaigners down to the lowly level of the puroks aggravated by the fact that I have to shell out a large amount to maintain them.
In joining a more stable party with an entrenched and well- organized political machinery, spending can be cut- off by 20 percent (granting that your party will not attempt to dump you, a week before the actual elections) and the campaign can be more focused than distracted by bickering's over money. As every Philippine elections would show, the chances of winning are much bigger if one is backed by supporters and campaigners down to the level of the household or family leaders. Such is the political culture of the Filipinos.
What about the causes that I have espoused before I entered the political arena as they may be compromised?, a candidate may ask. Let me return the question, what would that worthy cause be if after the counting of votes you don't win? It will all go to naught.
Candidates who are idealists should strongly hold on the values and causes they champion but should balance it with a pragmatic view of Philippine political realities. When you win, then by all means stand by it through your efforts as a public official, otherwise you will remain a lonely voice in the wilderness.
But we will not be delving here on that aspect, as the Filipino voter's mind are very fickle and the surveys now are often not reflective of the final results when the last ballots are counted come election time. I am going to focus on the dilemma of the candidates themselves.
Candidates for elective positions are often faced with a dilemma especially if many groups or parties wanting him or her in their line- up. A tough choice, choice indeed. This dilemma is not faced by candidates whose candidacy is only for the money from a backers campaign kitty. This dilemmas are faced by candidates who are advocates of causes that have endeared them to a certain sector of in the locality.
Do I have to go with the group with the most organized political machinery? Or do I have to run as independent and shell out or invest a large amount of money from my pockets? Do I join other candidates to form an alternative choice for voters? What are the factors should I take into consideration in my candidacy? These I believe are the questions bugging many would- be political hopefuls right now.
Here's more: I could turn off a lot of my supporters when I join a group led by somebody they would not vote for. However, if I join other group or choose to be independent my chances of winning will be next to nil. As an independent or opt to join an alternative group I will have to do it on my own, like assigning watchers to guard the ballots come election time, get campaigners down to the lowly level of the puroks aggravated by the fact that I have to shell out a large amount to maintain them.
In joining a more stable party with an entrenched and well- organized political machinery, spending can be cut- off by 20 percent (granting that your party will not attempt to dump you, a week before the actual elections) and the campaign can be more focused than distracted by bickering's over money. As every Philippine elections would show, the chances of winning are much bigger if one is backed by supporters and campaigners down to the level of the household or family leaders. Such is the political culture of the Filipinos.
What about the causes that I have espoused before I entered the political arena as they may be compromised?, a candidate may ask. Let me return the question, what would that worthy cause be if after the counting of votes you don't win? It will all go to naught.
Candidates who are idealists should strongly hold on the values and causes they champion but should balance it with a pragmatic view of Philippine political realities. When you win, then by all means stand by it through your efforts as a public official, otherwise you will remain a lonely voice in the wilderness.
why english is hard to learn
This piece is entitled,"Why English is Hard to Learn" shared by my 'barkada' Joan Honoridez- Mocorro through my e-mail.Laugh your heart out guys,here goes:
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce.
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10) I did not object to the object.
11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13) They were too close to the door to close it.
14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18) After a number of injections my jaw got number.
19) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in an eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
Sweetmeats are candies, while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat.But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. You park in the driveway but you drive on the parkway. You ship by truck and send cargo by ship. How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which an alarm goes off by going on. When the stars are out, they are visible, but then the lights are out, they are invisible. And finally, how about when you want to shut down your computer you have to hit "START."
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce.
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10) I did not object to the object.
11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13) They were too close to the door to close it.
14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18) After a number of injections my jaw got number.
19) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in an eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
Sweetmeats are candies, while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat.But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. You park in the driveway but you drive on the parkway. You ship by truck and send cargo by ship. How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which an alarm goes off by going on. When the stars are out, they are visible, but then the lights are out, they are invisible. And finally, how about when you want to shut down your computer you have to hit "START."
women.vs.men part 2
Here is a more witty take on the age-old "war of the sexes".Have fun:
1. Tests have shown that women rate 3% higher in general intelligence than men, although their brain size is smaller.
2. Women are walking radar detectors, that is why men have difficulty lying to women. Their brains have the ability to integrate and decipher verbal, visual and other signals of body language. Hence women will always be safe when faking an orgasm.
3. Women want lots of sex with the men they love. Men just want lots of sex.
4. When men flirt, they will lower their pitch of voice. Women will raise theirs.
5. Women talk and think aloud while men do them silently. As a result, men think women talk too much and are nags.
6. Women talk about their problems as a way of relieving stress. They want to be heard, not fixed by being offered advice and solutions
7. Speech and words are not a specific brain skill for men. They find it hard to express themselves. That's why they often choose greeting cards with plenty of words inside. That way, there's less space for them to write.
8. Women leave men, not because they are unhappy with what he can provide, but because they are emotionally unfulfilled
9. Women use an average of 20,000 communication words, sounds, and gestures a day. Men only use about 7,000.
10. So if a woman is talking to you a lot, she likes you. But if she's not talking, you're in trouble.
11. Men are more thick-skinned than women.Literally. Which explains why women have more wrinkles than men. Boys lose their sensitivity to touch by the time they reach puberty. So where does all that sensitivity go? It all goes to just one area.
12. If a woman is unhappy in her relationship, she can't concentrate on her work. If a man is unhappy at work, he can't focus on his relationship.
13. Men can only do one thing at a time. When they stop their car to read a street directory, they have to turn down the radio. Women's brain are configured for
multi-tasking performance. They can talk on the phone, watch the TV and cook at the same time.
14. Most men get a brain hemorrhage after 20 minutes of clothes shopping.
15. When it comes to sex, women need a reason; men need a place.
16. 15% to 20% of men have feminized brains. About 10% of women have masculinized brains. So there are more gays than lesbians in the world.
17. Most women prefer sex with the lights off because they can't bear to see a man enjoying himself. Men like the lights on - so they can get the woman's name right.
Do you agree?
1. Tests have shown that women rate 3% higher in general intelligence than men, although their brain size is smaller.
2. Women are walking radar detectors, that is why men have difficulty lying to women. Their brains have the ability to integrate and decipher verbal, visual and other signals of body language. Hence women will always be safe when faking an orgasm.
3. Women want lots of sex with the men they love. Men just want lots of sex.
4. When men flirt, they will lower their pitch of voice. Women will raise theirs.
5. Women talk and think aloud while men do them silently. As a result, men think women talk too much and are nags.
6. Women talk about their problems as a way of relieving stress. They want to be heard, not fixed by being offered advice and solutions
7. Speech and words are not a specific brain skill for men. They find it hard to express themselves. That's why they often choose greeting cards with plenty of words inside. That way, there's less space for them to write.
8. Women leave men, not because they are unhappy with what he can provide, but because they are emotionally unfulfilled
9. Women use an average of 20,000 communication words, sounds, and gestures a day. Men only use about 7,000.
10. So if a woman is talking to you a lot, she likes you. But if she's not talking, you're in trouble.
11. Men are more thick-skinned than women.Literally. Which explains why women have more wrinkles than men. Boys lose their sensitivity to touch by the time they reach puberty. So where does all that sensitivity go? It all goes to just one area.
12. If a woman is unhappy in her relationship, she can't concentrate on her work. If a man is unhappy at work, he can't focus on his relationship.
13. Men can only do one thing at a time. When they stop their car to read a street directory, they have to turn down the radio. Women's brain are configured for
multi-tasking performance. They can talk on the phone, watch the TV and cook at the same time.
14. Most men get a brain hemorrhage after 20 minutes of clothes shopping.
15. When it comes to sex, women need a reason; men need a place.
16. 15% to 20% of men have feminized brains. About 10% of women have masculinized brains. So there are more gays than lesbians in the world.
17. Most women prefer sex with the lights off because they can't bear to see a man enjoying himself. Men like the lights on - so they can get the woman's name right.
Do you agree?
women vs.men part 1
One of the convenient ways of having an e- mail is you get a lot of comments, reactions and contributions from readers. Some react to the issues we write in this space, others contribute, share and forward information for our readers to reflect and laugh. Maybe, they want to ease the problems we face everyday. Here's two e- mails I got from our readers who wished to remain anonymous under their e- mail address.The contributors are women because it talks about finding a good husband and the other is one a study about the differences between men and women.
Here goes:
Where do you find good ones? I've been asked so many times. Well, how would I know? I never found one for myself.
What's a good husband, anyway?Someone who runs at your bidding? That would be your dog.Someone who lets you shop till you drop? That would be your father. Someone who listens to your never-ending woes? That would be your best friend.
Someone who loves you no matter what? That would be your mother.Someone who knows exactly how to bring you pleasure? That would be you.
I think men who make good husbands abound.But what is good for one woman is not necessarily good for all. One man can make one woman, a good husband. The same man can make another, a lousy one.
We grow up in different homes. We come from different backgrounds. And so we bring different expectations to a marriage. One woman expects love and fidelity. Another
expects financial security. Some women marry for love.Others marry for tradition. Some women expect bliss after the wedding. Some women expect sacrifice. Some women are forgiving. Some women are not open to compromise. Different expectations conjure up different images of good husbands.
Who doesn't want a man who can cook, who can write poetry and who can move your furniture around when you want to? Well, I don't. I want a man who can do what I
can't do. But that, my mother would say, is my biggest problem. But I don't have a problem with a man not knowing how to do the things I can do. It's he who usually has a problem with that.
There is no perfect man. But there is a perfect match for every Woman.This made me think. Most people think that like minds make a perfect match.But how much passion and excitement can you bring into a relationship when you both love pasta, salsa and Salvador Dali? If we thought, ate and dressed completely alike, how far could we really grow beyond ourselves and our common interests?
I think that a good husband is someone who does not necessarily love and like everything that you think, say or do but someone who endeavors to accept your eccentricities and experiences because his love for you is larger than his
priorities and preferences. A good husband is a man who loves you for who you are and all that you hope to be in an imperfect world.
At different times in my life, I vacillated on the best reason for getting married.When I was young and starry-eyed, it was love. When I grew older and bitter,
it became convenience. Now that I am yet much older but unexpectedly happier, I believe with all my heart that it should never be for anything but love. So, where do you find good husbands?Well, every woman should know. Looking for a good husband is much like going shopping. When you know what you want, it's fast and easy. But when you walk aimlessly through the mall, you mostly end up with impulse goods or nothing at all. If you want to find the man you want, you need to find yourself first. After all, it's pretty easy to find what you want when you know what it is, even in the crowd.
Here goes:
Where do you find good ones? I've been asked so many times. Well, how would I know? I never found one for myself.
What's a good husband, anyway?Someone who runs at your bidding? That would be your dog.Someone who lets you shop till you drop? That would be your father. Someone who listens to your never-ending woes? That would be your best friend.
Someone who loves you no matter what? That would be your mother.Someone who knows exactly how to bring you pleasure? That would be you.
I think men who make good husbands abound.But what is good for one woman is not necessarily good for all. One man can make one woman, a good husband. The same man can make another, a lousy one.
We grow up in different homes. We come from different backgrounds. And so we bring different expectations to a marriage. One woman expects love and fidelity. Another
expects financial security. Some women marry for love.Others marry for tradition. Some women expect bliss after the wedding. Some women expect sacrifice. Some women are forgiving. Some women are not open to compromise. Different expectations conjure up different images of good husbands.
Who doesn't want a man who can cook, who can write poetry and who can move your furniture around when you want to? Well, I don't. I want a man who can do what I
can't do. But that, my mother would say, is my biggest problem. But I don't have a problem with a man not knowing how to do the things I can do. It's he who usually has a problem with that.
There is no perfect man. But there is a perfect match for every Woman.This made me think. Most people think that like minds make a perfect match.But how much passion and excitement can you bring into a relationship when you both love pasta, salsa and Salvador Dali? If we thought, ate and dressed completely alike, how far could we really grow beyond ourselves and our common interests?
I think that a good husband is someone who does not necessarily love and like everything that you think, say or do but someone who endeavors to accept your eccentricities and experiences because his love for you is larger than his
priorities and preferences. A good husband is a man who loves you for who you are and all that you hope to be in an imperfect world.
At different times in my life, I vacillated on the best reason for getting married.When I was young and starry-eyed, it was love. When I grew older and bitter,
it became convenience. Now that I am yet much older but unexpectedly happier, I believe with all my heart that it should never be for anything but love. So, where do you find good husbands?Well, every woman should know. Looking for a good husband is much like going shopping. When you know what you want, it's fast and easy. But when you walk aimlessly through the mall, you mostly end up with impulse goods or nothing at all. If you want to find the man you want, you need to find yourself first. After all, it's pretty easy to find what you want when you know what it is, even in the crowd.
JOINT STATEMENT OF PHIL.MEDIA ON THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE
Below is the joint statement of various media ornaginizations in the Philippines:
Last November 28, several media organizations and newspaper publishers and editors met to discuss the horrific massacre of journalists, lawyers, and several others in Ampatuan town in Maguindanao and to map out plans for a concerted effort to push for justice for all victims of the carnage.
Among those who attended were officers of the Center for Community Journalism and Development (CCJD), Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP), Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP), Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ), Kapisanan ng mga Broadcaster sa Pilipinas (KBP), National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), Philippine Press Institute (PPI), Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project/Institute for War and Peace Reporting, Philippine Daily Inquirer, and People’s Journal.
One of the immediate actions agreed upon was to issue a joint statement calling on the government to swiftly bring the perpetrators of this most terrible crime to the bar of justice to our full satisfaction. Those who attended the meeting have adopted the joint statement (attached below).
We appeal to you to print or air this joint statement on December 1 to express our collective outrage and grief against this abomination inflicted not only on the media but on human dignity and decency as well.
We also call on everyone to join or express solidarity in other actions that will follow the issuance of this statement.
Thank you.
1. Business World – Vergel Santos
2. College Editors Guild (CEGP) – Trina Federis
3. Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) – Luis Teodoro
4. Center for Community Journalism and Development (CCJD) – Adelina S. Alvarez, Red Batario
5. Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP) -- Gabby Tabunar*
6. Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) – Jose L. Pavia
7. Kapisanan ng mga Brodkasters ng Pilipinas (KBP) – Rey Hulog/Herman Basbano*
8. National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) – Nestor Burgos, Inday Espina, Sonny Fernandez, Marlon Ramos, May Rodriguez
9. People’s Journal – Badette Tamayo
10. Philippine Daily Inquirer – Isagani Yambot
11. Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project -- Rorie Fajardo
12. Philippine Press Institute (PPI) – Jose L. Pavia
(Joint Statement)
A Challenge of Conscience
The brutal, indiscriminate mass murder on Monday in Ampatuan town, in Maguindanao province, raises the ultimate challenge of conscience. It carries the culture of impunity at work in this country to such levels of horror that, if it remains unpunished for long, can send the nation into an inexorable descent into absolute dehumanization.
The crime thus calls for swift justice, which can only be achieved through a credible and independent process, which in turn can only be achieved without the hand of this government – a government justly mistrusted generally and openly friendly precisely to the very members of the clan accused in the massacre.
We, ourselves colleagues of the more than a score journalists who were killed, demand the following:
One, the creation of a commission outside the government to investigate the crime;
Two, the arrest and prosecution of all the people involved in it in any way, as murderers themselves or their protectors;
Three, the formation of a special court to try the case;
Four, fully guaranteed protection for the witnesses;
Five, the disarming and dismantling of all private armies, such as those evidently employed in the massacre.
Six, the enlistment of persons of unquestioned probity in the whole process;
And finally, the resignation of the government if it fails to deliver such basic satisfaction – indeed, the very same government that has encouraged by partisanship and conspiracy the culture of impunity of which the massacre has been the most abominable manifestation.
Business World
College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP)
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)
Center for Community Journalism and Development (CCJD)
Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ)
National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP)
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project
Philippine Press Institute (PPI)
Last November 28, several media organizations and newspaper publishers and editors met to discuss the horrific massacre of journalists, lawyers, and several others in Ampatuan town in Maguindanao and to map out plans for a concerted effort to push for justice for all victims of the carnage.
Among those who attended were officers of the Center for Community Journalism and Development (CCJD), Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP), Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP), Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ), Kapisanan ng mga Broadcaster sa Pilipinas (KBP), National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), Philippine Press Institute (PPI), Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project/Institute for War and Peace Reporting, Philippine Daily Inquirer, and People’s Journal.
One of the immediate actions agreed upon was to issue a joint statement calling on the government to swiftly bring the perpetrators of this most terrible crime to the bar of justice to our full satisfaction. Those who attended the meeting have adopted the joint statement (attached below).
We appeal to you to print or air this joint statement on December 1 to express our collective outrage and grief against this abomination inflicted not only on the media but on human dignity and decency as well.
We also call on everyone to join or express solidarity in other actions that will follow the issuance of this statement.
Thank you.
1. Business World – Vergel Santos
2. College Editors Guild (CEGP) – Trina Federis
3. Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) – Luis Teodoro
4. Center for Community Journalism and Development (CCJD) – Adelina S. Alvarez, Red Batario
5. Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP) -- Gabby Tabunar*
6. Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) – Jose L. Pavia
7. Kapisanan ng mga Brodkasters ng Pilipinas (KBP) – Rey Hulog/Herman Basbano*
8. National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) – Nestor Burgos, Inday Espina, Sonny Fernandez, Marlon Ramos, May Rodriguez
9. People’s Journal – Badette Tamayo
10. Philippine Daily Inquirer – Isagani Yambot
11. Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project -- Rorie Fajardo
12. Philippine Press Institute (PPI) – Jose L. Pavia
(Joint Statement)
A Challenge of Conscience
The brutal, indiscriminate mass murder on Monday in Ampatuan town, in Maguindanao province, raises the ultimate challenge of conscience. It carries the culture of impunity at work in this country to such levels of horror that, if it remains unpunished for long, can send the nation into an inexorable descent into absolute dehumanization.
The crime thus calls for swift justice, which can only be achieved through a credible and independent process, which in turn can only be achieved without the hand of this government – a government justly mistrusted generally and openly friendly precisely to the very members of the clan accused in the massacre.
We, ourselves colleagues of the more than a score journalists who were killed, demand the following:
One, the creation of a commission outside the government to investigate the crime;
Two, the arrest and prosecution of all the people involved in it in any way, as murderers themselves or their protectors;
Three, the formation of a special court to try the case;
Four, fully guaranteed protection for the witnesses;
Five, the disarming and dismantling of all private armies, such as those evidently employed in the massacre.
Six, the enlistment of persons of unquestioned probity in the whole process;
And finally, the resignation of the government if it fails to deliver such basic satisfaction – indeed, the very same government that has encouraged by partisanship and conspiracy the culture of impunity of which the massacre has been the most abominable manifestation.
Business World
College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP)
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)
Center for Community Journalism and Development (CCJD)
Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ)
National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP)
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project
Philippine Press Institute (PPI)
journalistic objectivity
Let me share with you some thoughts i gathered from the internet about objectivity in the light of then fast changing realities of modern journalism:
Gillmor on Grassroots Journalism, Etc.
A conversation about the future of journalism "by the people, for the people" -- and occasional other thoughts.
January 20, 2005
The End of Objectivity (Version 0.91)
UPDATED
(This is a draft. Over time I hope, with your help, to revise this into a better document. Let me know what you think.)
Maybe it's time to say a fond farewell to an old canon of journalism: objectivity. But it will never be time to kiss off the values and principles that undergird the idea.
Objectivity is a construct of recent times. One reason for its rise in the journalism sphere has been the consolidation of newspapers and television into monopolies and oligopolies in the past half-century. If one voice overwhelms all the others, there is a public interest in playing stories as straight as possible -- not favoring one side over the other (or others, to be more precise, as there are rarely just two sides to any issue).
There were good business reasons to be "objective," too, not least that a newspaper didn't want to make large parts of its community angry. And, no doubt, libel law has played a role, too. If a publication could say it "got both sides," perhaps a libel plaintiff would have more trouble winning.
Again, the idea of objectivity is a worthy one. But we are human. We have biases and backgrounds and a variety of conflicts that we bring to our jobs every day.
I'd like to toss out objectivity as a goal, however, and replace it with four other notions that may add up to the same thing. They are pillars of good journalism: thoroughness, accuracy, fairness and transparency.
The lines separating them are not always clear. They are open to wide interpretation, and are therefore loaded with nuance in themselves. But I think they are a useful way to approach quality journalism. They are, moreover, easier to achieve in an online setting.
Thoroughness
When I was a reporter and, later, a columnist, my first goal was to learn as much as I could. After all, gathering facts and opinions is the foundation of reporting. I liked it best when I felt I had left 95 percent of what I'd learned out of the final piece. The best reporters I know always want to make one more call, check with one more source. (The last question I ask at all interviews is, "Who else should I talk with about this?"
Today, thoroughness means more than asking questions of the people in our Rolodexes (circular or virtual). It means, whenever possible, asking our readers for their input, as I did when I wrote my book (and other authors are doing on theirs). Competitive pressures tend to make this a rare request, but I'm convinced that more journalists will adopt it.
Accuracy
Get your facts straight.
Say what you don't know, not just what you do. (If the reader/listener/viewer does know what you don't, you've just invited him/her to fill you in.)
Fairness
This one is as difficult, in practice, as accuracy is simple. Fairness is often in the eye of the beholder. But even here I think a few principles may universally apply.
Fairness means, among other things, listening to different viewpoints, and incorporating them into the journalism. It does not mean parroting lies or distortions to achieve that lazy equivalence that leads some journalists to get opposing quotes when the facts overwhelmingly support one side.
Fairness is also about letting people respond when they believe you are wrong. Again, this is much easier online than in a print publication, much less a broadcast.
Ultimately, fairness emerges from a state of mind. We should be aware of what drives us, and always willing to listen to those who disagree. The first rule of having a conversation is to listen -- and I know I learn more from people who think I'm wrong than from those who agree with me.
Transparency
Disclosure is gaining currency as an addition to journalism. It's easier said than done, of course.
No one can plausibly argue with the idea that journalists need to disclose certain things, such as financial conflicts of interest. But to what extent? Should journalists of all kinds be expected to make their lives open books? How open?
Personal biases, even unconscious ones, affect the journalism as well. I'm an American, brought up in with certain beliefs that many folks in other lands (and some in this one) flatly reject. I need to be aware of the things I take for granted, and to periodically challenge some of them, as I do my work.
Another way to be transparent is in the way we present a story. We should link to source material as much as possible, bolstering what we tell people with close-to-the-ground facts and data. (Maybe this is part of accuracy or thoroughness, but it seems to fit here, too.)
To the extent that we make thoroughness, accuracy, fairness and transparency the pillars of journalism, we can get a long way toward the worthy goal of helping our audiences/collaborators. I don't claim it's easy, but I do think it's worth the effort.
Gillmor on Grassroots Journalism, Etc.
A conversation about the future of journalism "by the people, for the people" -- and occasional other thoughts.
January 20, 2005
The End of Objectivity (Version 0.91)
UPDATED
(This is a draft. Over time I hope, with your help, to revise this into a better document. Let me know what you think.)
Maybe it's time to say a fond farewell to an old canon of journalism: objectivity. But it will never be time to kiss off the values and principles that undergird the idea.
Objectivity is a construct of recent times. One reason for its rise in the journalism sphere has been the consolidation of newspapers and television into monopolies and oligopolies in the past half-century. If one voice overwhelms all the others, there is a public interest in playing stories as straight as possible -- not favoring one side over the other (or others, to be more precise, as there are rarely just two sides to any issue).
There were good business reasons to be "objective," too, not least that a newspaper didn't want to make large parts of its community angry. And, no doubt, libel law has played a role, too. If a publication could say it "got both sides," perhaps a libel plaintiff would have more trouble winning.
Again, the idea of objectivity is a worthy one. But we are human. We have biases and backgrounds and a variety of conflicts that we bring to our jobs every day.
I'd like to toss out objectivity as a goal, however, and replace it with four other notions that may add up to the same thing. They are pillars of good journalism: thoroughness, accuracy, fairness and transparency.
The lines separating them are not always clear. They are open to wide interpretation, and are therefore loaded with nuance in themselves. But I think they are a useful way to approach quality journalism. They are, moreover, easier to achieve in an online setting.
Thoroughness
When I was a reporter and, later, a columnist, my first goal was to learn as much as I could. After all, gathering facts and opinions is the foundation of reporting. I liked it best when I felt I had left 95 percent of what I'd learned out of the final piece. The best reporters I know always want to make one more call, check with one more source. (The last question I ask at all interviews is, "Who else should I talk with about this?"
Today, thoroughness means more than asking questions of the people in our Rolodexes (circular or virtual). It means, whenever possible, asking our readers for their input, as I did when I wrote my book (and other authors are doing on theirs). Competitive pressures tend to make this a rare request, but I'm convinced that more journalists will adopt it.
Accuracy
Get your facts straight.
Say what you don't know, not just what you do. (If the reader/listener/viewer does know what you don't, you've just invited him/her to fill you in.)
Fairness
This one is as difficult, in practice, as accuracy is simple. Fairness is often in the eye of the beholder. But even here I think a few principles may universally apply.
Fairness means, among other things, listening to different viewpoints, and incorporating them into the journalism. It does not mean parroting lies or distortions to achieve that lazy equivalence that leads some journalists to get opposing quotes when the facts overwhelmingly support one side.
Fairness is also about letting people respond when they believe you are wrong. Again, this is much easier online than in a print publication, much less a broadcast.
Ultimately, fairness emerges from a state of mind. We should be aware of what drives us, and always willing to listen to those who disagree. The first rule of having a conversation is to listen -- and I know I learn more from people who think I'm wrong than from those who agree with me.
Transparency
Disclosure is gaining currency as an addition to journalism. It's easier said than done, of course.
No one can plausibly argue with the idea that journalists need to disclose certain things, such as financial conflicts of interest. But to what extent? Should journalists of all kinds be expected to make their lives open books? How open?
Personal biases, even unconscious ones, affect the journalism as well. I'm an American, brought up in with certain beliefs that many folks in other lands (and some in this one) flatly reject. I need to be aware of the things I take for granted, and to periodically challenge some of them, as I do my work.
Another way to be transparent is in the way we present a story. We should link to source material as much as possible, bolstering what we tell people with close-to-the-ground facts and data. (Maybe this is part of accuracy or thoroughness, but it seems to fit here, too.)
To the extent that we make thoroughness, accuracy, fairness and transparency the pillars of journalism, we can get a long way toward the worthy goal of helping our audiences/collaborators. I don't claim it's easy, but I do think it's worth the effort.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
ME AND MYSELF...
EUGENE YUSALAN ADIONG
EXPERIENCE/ SPECIALIZATION
* Experience in different media outlets in Bacolod City as reporter, writer, talk show host, columnist and editor.
* A professional lecturer of student leadership, argumentation and debate, public speaking and journalism.
* Worked as marketing and public relations consultant of a Bacolod-based food company in launching it’s products in the local market and made it a leading player in the market.
ACHIEVEMENTS
* Editor of high school newspaper, THE NORTH STAR, for two consecutive years, the first third year student to be qualified for the position.
* A debater since high school through college and represented his school in different local debate competitions.
* As a campus journalist, represented his school in journalism competitions both in the city and regional levels, since high school and college.
* A college student leader, he was in the committee that drafted his college’ constitution and by-laws and a position paper against tuition increase that was sent to President.
* As a professional government employee since 1995, he was in the forefront f public sector unionism highlighted by a three year term as second vice- president of the Bacolod City Government Employees Union.
* As a professional endeavor, he was appointed a vice- president for marketing of the Toastmasters International Division D that covered the whole of Western Visayas
CAREER HISTORY
* Currently, a regular government employee appointed as supply inspector at the City General Services Office of the Bacolod City government since 1995
* He is also an associate editor of the weekly Bacolod- based weekly newspaper, KAPAWA NEWS and a contributor with the daily, NEGROS DAILY BULLETIN, since 1995
* Hired as marketing and public relations consultant of the MERCI PASALUBONG CENTER in 2004-2005
* Worked as correspondent of the MANILA TIMES in 2003- 2004 and for the Cebu- based daily THE FREEMAN in 1995.
* A field reporter of local radio stations DYEZ of the Manila Broadcasting Company in 1990- 1993 and as news- writer and news anchor of DYRL of the Radyo Pilipino Corporation. During elections, worked as correspondent for DZEC of the Eagle Broadcasting Corporation.
PERSONAL DETAILS
* Eugene Yusalan Adiong
* Nov.19, 1970
*Married with three children
EDUCATION
* College of Law, Univ. of Negros Occidental- Recoletos, Bacolod City 1993- 1994
* Graduated with a degree in Bachelor of Arts major in Political Science from UNO- R, Bacolod City, 1992
* Graduate of secondary education with special citations form the Domingo Lacson National High School, Bacolod City, 1998
* Graduate of elementary education with honors from the Education and Training Center School II, Bacolod City, 1994
EXPERIENCE/ SPECIALIZATION
* Experience in different media outlets in Bacolod City as reporter, writer, talk show host, columnist and editor.
* A professional lecturer of student leadership, argumentation and debate, public speaking and journalism.
* Worked as marketing and public relations consultant of a Bacolod-based food company in launching it’s products in the local market and made it a leading player in the market.
ACHIEVEMENTS
* Editor of high school newspaper, THE NORTH STAR, for two consecutive years, the first third year student to be qualified for the position.
* A debater since high school through college and represented his school in different local debate competitions.
* As a campus journalist, represented his school in journalism competitions both in the city and regional levels, since high school and college.
* A college student leader, he was in the committee that drafted his college’ constitution and by-laws and a position paper against tuition increase that was sent to President.
* As a professional government employee since 1995, he was in the forefront f public sector unionism highlighted by a three year term as second vice- president of the Bacolod City Government Employees Union.
* As a professional endeavor, he was appointed a vice- president for marketing of the Toastmasters International Division D that covered the whole of Western Visayas
CAREER HISTORY
* Currently, a regular government employee appointed as supply inspector at the City General Services Office of the Bacolod City government since 1995
* He is also an associate editor of the weekly Bacolod- based weekly newspaper, KAPAWA NEWS and a contributor with the daily, NEGROS DAILY BULLETIN, since 1995
* Hired as marketing and public relations consultant of the MERCI PASALUBONG CENTER in 2004-2005
* Worked as correspondent of the MANILA TIMES in 2003- 2004 and for the Cebu- based daily THE FREEMAN in 1995.
* A field reporter of local radio stations DYEZ of the Manila Broadcasting Company in 1990- 1993 and as news- writer and news anchor of DYRL of the Radyo Pilipino Corporation. During elections, worked as correspondent for DZEC of the Eagle Broadcasting Corporation.
PERSONAL DETAILS
* Eugene Yusalan Adiong
* Nov.19, 1970
*Married with three children
EDUCATION
* College of Law, Univ. of Negros Occidental- Recoletos, Bacolod City 1993- 1994
* Graduated with a degree in Bachelor of Arts major in Political Science from UNO- R, Bacolod City, 1992
* Graduate of secondary education with special citations form the Domingo Lacson National High School, Bacolod City, 1998
* Graduate of elementary education with honors from the Education and Training Center School II, Bacolod City, 1994
more on poverty
UNDERSTANDING POVERTY (1)
What I meant is that government officials and the "elite and educated minority" should understand that poverty is caused by the "collapse of the very structure of opportunities".
Sociology professor and writer Randolph "Randy" David, in one of his essays compiled in "Nation,Self and Citizenship", still available in local bookstores, said that to understand poverty,"one must primarily focus on the failings of the social order". He argued that "poverty is more than caused by the personal inadequacies of then individual Filipino families and the character of the poor", as others are fond to believe.
David said that in the Philippines there are two realities:the reality of economic underdevelopment and the reality of inequality because our poverty is the product of both. He cited that the amount of wealth in our economy produces is small because of underdevelopment of our productive capacities. Moreover,productivity of labor and technology is low compared to our Asian neighbors.
Because, "the wealth we produce is unequally distributed, the rich corner most of it, while the poor get poorer or are completely excluded from the mainstream production process and the market.Their dwindling share of the nation's product prevent them from transforming themselves into more productive members of society,"he lamented.
What I meant is that government officials and the "elite and educated minority" should understand that poverty is caused by the "collapse of the very structure of opportunities".
Sociology professor and writer Randolph "Randy" David, in one of his essays compiled in "Nation,Self and Citizenship", still available in local bookstores, said that to understand poverty,"one must primarily focus on the failings of the social order". He argued that "poverty is more than caused by the personal inadequacies of then individual Filipino families and the character of the poor", as others are fond to believe.
David said that in the Philippines there are two realities:the reality of economic underdevelopment and the reality of inequality because our poverty is the product of both. He cited that the amount of wealth in our economy produces is small because of underdevelopment of our productive capacities. Moreover,productivity of labor and technology is low compared to our Asian neighbors.
Because, "the wealth we produce is unequally distributed, the rich corner most of it, while the poor get poorer or are completely excluded from the mainstream production process and the market.Their dwindling share of the nation's product prevent them from transforming themselves into more productive members of society,"he lamented.
understanding poverty
Noted sociologist and writer Randolph "Randy"David in one of his essays compiled in the book, "Nation, Self and Citizenship", argued that in the current Philippine system, the poor have their political rights and freedoms. But because of their economic vulnerability, the poor majority is unable to meaningfully use these rights. David claims that the poor use their rights to secure short- term economic benefits (jobs at the City Hall, dole- outs, recommendations, etc.)rather than use it to shape basic economic policy.
Today, he said the delicate social order that the elite had defended fiercely from the time of independence is gradually falling apart. The poor now, refuse to continue shouldering the burdens of a stunted economy (it's the job of the government and it's officials, stupid!). These refusal is being expressed in political terms. The past two elections saw that the poor is now slowly realizing their true potential if done in a united voice by way of the power of the ballot.
However, some smart politicians are using the poor's disenfranchisement to boost their political ambitions, David said. If only the politicization of the poor can be properly harnessed to produce lasting social change and economic growth, he added, the Philippines would have moved forward already.
Unfortunately, nobody not even the poor themselves have bonded together to utilize their political might to change the status quo.David's thesis is closer to truth than most of our politicians and analyst's would want to admit.
Today, he said the delicate social order that the elite had defended fiercely from the time of independence is gradually falling apart. The poor now, refuse to continue shouldering the burdens of a stunted economy (it's the job of the government and it's officials, stupid!). These refusal is being expressed in political terms. The past two elections saw that the poor is now slowly realizing their true potential if done in a united voice by way of the power of the ballot.
However, some smart politicians are using the poor's disenfranchisement to boost their political ambitions, David said. If only the politicization of the poor can be properly harnessed to produce lasting social change and economic growth, he added, the Philippines would have moved forward already.
Unfortunately, nobody not even the poor themselves have bonded together to utilize their political might to change the status quo.David's thesis is closer to truth than most of our politicians and analyst's would want to admit.
philippines in the doldrums
WHY RP IS STILL IN THE DOLDRUMS
The Philippines prides itself as the first democracy in Asia not to mention the "only Christian" nation in this part of the globe(as if there is anything to be proud about this fact). But,many observers, watchers and the the citizens themselves, ask why is still the country stucked in the doldrums? We are left behind by its neighbors in terms of socio- economic development.
However, as pointed out by William Esposo, the Internet opinion of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine society is far from:
"Attaining social justice. There is an oligarchy that operates a semi-feudal structure where about 90 percent of the wealth is in the hands of 3 percent of Philippine society. There are two active rebellions in the Philippines - one a Communist insurgency and the other a Muslim separatist movement - that have been raging for over 30 years now.
"Instituting real reforms. How can real reform come from political structures that the privileged 3 percent control and use to perpetuate their stranglehold on the economy and strengthen their political power?
"Providing freedom for all. The top 3 percent enjoy much more freedom (and exclusive privileges) than the bottom 60 percent who live below the poverty line. The 60 percent living below the poverty line do not have a voice and they are mostly engaged in the fight for that freedom from want and hunger."
Esposo said one of the reasons why Filipinos are disunited and at odds with each other is because many do not really know their history and do not understand the socio-economic forces that exploit them and conspire to keep them poor and ignorant.
He argued that history proved that even a known divided society like ours can be galvanized into greatness - and even inspire the world like our People Power events did - if there is a leadership that can raise the right standard every Filipino will rally to. "Unity remains elusive in the Philippines because the ruling class benefits from disunity. The divide and rule dictum was perfected by the Roman Caesars and today that is applied with optimum efficiency to exploit the Filipinos",he adds.
Many Filipinos, in reality know the reasons for the inescapable muck where it is trapped. However, nobody seems brave enough to challenge the existing social structures and rally the national consciousness to move away.
At the moment, individual Filipinos are "contented" with the status quo where the minority control the reins of socio- economic power and hapless minority are inutile in doing something about it.
The Philippines prides itself as the first democracy in Asia not to mention the "only Christian" nation in this part of the globe(as if there is anything to be proud about this fact). But,many observers, watchers and the the citizens themselves, ask why is still the country stucked in the doldrums? We are left behind by its neighbors in terms of socio- economic development.
However, as pointed out by William Esposo, the Internet opinion of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine society is far from:
"Attaining social justice. There is an oligarchy that operates a semi-feudal structure where about 90 percent of the wealth is in the hands of 3 percent of Philippine society. There are two active rebellions in the Philippines - one a Communist insurgency and the other a Muslim separatist movement - that have been raging for over 30 years now.
"Instituting real reforms. How can real reform come from political structures that the privileged 3 percent control and use to perpetuate their stranglehold on the economy and strengthen their political power?
"Providing freedom for all. The top 3 percent enjoy much more freedom (and exclusive privileges) than the bottom 60 percent who live below the poverty line. The 60 percent living below the poverty line do not have a voice and they are mostly engaged in the fight for that freedom from want and hunger."
Esposo said one of the reasons why Filipinos are disunited and at odds with each other is because many do not really know their history and do not understand the socio-economic forces that exploit them and conspire to keep them poor and ignorant.
He argued that history proved that even a known divided society like ours can be galvanized into greatness - and even inspire the world like our People Power events did - if there is a leadership that can raise the right standard every Filipino will rally to. "Unity remains elusive in the Philippines because the ruling class benefits from disunity. The divide and rule dictum was perfected by the Roman Caesars and today that is applied with optimum efficiency to exploit the Filipinos",he adds.
Many Filipinos, in reality know the reasons for the inescapable muck where it is trapped. However, nobody seems brave enough to challenge the existing social structures and rally the national consciousness to move away.
At the moment, individual Filipinos are "contented" with the status quo where the minority control the reins of socio- economic power and hapless minority are inutile in doing something about it.
maguindanao massacre
MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE A BIG SLAP TO THE ARROYO GOVT
The recent massacre of civilians in Maguinadanao has earned the Philippines international condemnation, a big slap to the government of Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo, coming at a time when her administration needs all the 'clean' image it needed. As they say in slang,it was a 'bad timing'.
The incident comes on the heels of the coming elections which the ruling party may have a hard time winning as the outgoing president's endorsement is perceive by many as a 'kiss of death'.
The massacre is tinged with grief also netted the lives of our media colleagues covering an event that is newsworthy. The killing of a civilian for whatever reason is not justifiable at all. The killing of journalists who have no arms except, their microphone,cameras and pens should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.The government should enforce the full force of the law even if the suspects are administration allies and ensured the victory of the senatorial slate during the last elections.
The barbaric killing of innocent civilians is a sad reflection of the real state of our dear country. We have the best laws in the world but it is not implemented fairly,there is protection for the violators who have the money and influence while the lowly is apprehended at the slimmest of charges.
This unequal treatment of law is seen in the example that the Constitution considers private armies as illegal but no one is caught but ordinary Filipinos,mostly the homeless are caught by the local police for mere vagrancy?How hypocritical can this government be?
Another point, the Philippines has now passed Iraq as the most dangerous place for journalists. We in media are just carriers of news and information in the most objective way possible but killing us just because of bias is not righteous.
The killing should open our eyes to make a change for the generations to come. A future free from fear from those who weld power with guns and gold. A future where power is with the people and not the landed oligarchs. That future will only come true if we stop being puppets, beholden to the those who control the reins of power.
Until then,how many more lives will be sacrificed in the altar of peace, freedom and democracy? We could only hope that it stopped last Monday in Maguindanao.
The recent massacre of civilians in Maguinadanao has earned the Philippines international condemnation, a big slap to the government of Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo, coming at a time when her administration needs all the 'clean' image it needed. As they say in slang,it was a 'bad timing'.
The incident comes on the heels of the coming elections which the ruling party may have a hard time winning as the outgoing president's endorsement is perceive by many as a 'kiss of death'.
The massacre is tinged with grief also netted the lives of our media colleagues covering an event that is newsworthy. The killing of a civilian for whatever reason is not justifiable at all. The killing of journalists who have no arms except, their microphone,cameras and pens should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.The government should enforce the full force of the law even if the suspects are administration allies and ensured the victory of the senatorial slate during the last elections.
The barbaric killing of innocent civilians is a sad reflection of the real state of our dear country. We have the best laws in the world but it is not implemented fairly,there is protection for the violators who have the money and influence while the lowly is apprehended at the slimmest of charges.
This unequal treatment of law is seen in the example that the Constitution considers private armies as illegal but no one is caught but ordinary Filipinos,mostly the homeless are caught by the local police for mere vagrancy?How hypocritical can this government be?
Another point, the Philippines has now passed Iraq as the most dangerous place for journalists. We in media are just carriers of news and information in the most objective way possible but killing us just because of bias is not righteous.
The killing should open our eyes to make a change for the generations to come. A future free from fear from those who weld power with guns and gold. A future where power is with the people and not the landed oligarchs. That future will only come true if we stop being puppets, beholden to the those who control the reins of power.
Until then,how many more lives will be sacrificed in the altar of peace, freedom and democracy? We could only hope that it stopped last Monday in Maguindanao.
out of hibernation
BACOLOD CITY- "Sapped energy and siphoned creativity..A monumental case of writer's block forced incapability of even stringing a simple sentence.."
This best describes the reason why I quit filling up a column space of the two newspaper I have been writing for,that is nearly four years now.
I don't know but something inside me forced(?)into coming out of writing hibernation to write my thoughts on anything under the sun,so here I am trying to make sense on what to write on my first piece.
I have been consistent in the mission of all the columns in different papers I have written for. That is i don't want to write for the sake of filling up a space. That is not what opinion writers do.
I actually stopped writing columns for my Bacolod- based newspapers as I found local issues too parochial. For me,opinion writing is more than just mere flowing of creative juices. Opinion writing should be aimed not only to inbform but also enlighten readers of inportant issues which impact on their lives.Columnists should give readers an analysis beyond sheer statistics and biased facts.It is the reponsibility of columnists to mol;d public minds for them to make the right decisions.
Thus, if I write just for the sake of filling up column space, I might as well not waste it on mere poetryas it would be of use to readers whose main concern is to survive each day.
Let me re-affirm this columnists commitment. I will write about more than parochial issues especially if it concerens the political squabbles of politicians and their unquenchable thirst for power. Life and living is more than just that.
This precious space will be more about analysis of current socio- economic and political issues.I will go beyond more than just scratching the issues on the surface. I will do my best to give you the real picture that others's either can't see or refused refused to see and undertands because of personal biases.
Sociologist and columnist Randy david in his introduction to a book compilation of his columns in the Philippine Daily Inquirer,with the title "Nation,Self and Citizenship:An Invitataion to Philippine Sociology",said:
"The quality of mind that C.Wright Mills called 'the sociological imagination' consists of the ability to view social reality as it is projected from three coordinates- history, society and biography. The individual who possess a sociological imagination,Mills says, is able to understand her personal circumstances in relation to the structural features of her society..."
David furhter says, "...The Filipino nation is unfinished business and therefore it is underestandable that in a public discourse that nation's needs take moral precedence over invidual fulfillment."
Filling this space is beyond space filler but both an individual fulfillment on an unfinished business.
-30-
This best describes the reason why I quit filling up a column space of the two newspaper I have been writing for,that is nearly four years now.
I don't know but something inside me forced(?)into coming out of writing hibernation to write my thoughts on anything under the sun,so here I am trying to make sense on what to write on my first piece.
I have been consistent in the mission of all the columns in different papers I have written for. That is i don't want to write for the sake of filling up a space. That is not what opinion writers do.
I actually stopped writing columns for my Bacolod- based newspapers as I found local issues too parochial. For me,opinion writing is more than just mere flowing of creative juices. Opinion writing should be aimed not only to inbform but also enlighten readers of inportant issues which impact on their lives.Columnists should give readers an analysis beyond sheer statistics and biased facts.It is the reponsibility of columnists to mol;d public minds for them to make the right decisions.
Thus, if I write just for the sake of filling up column space, I might as well not waste it on mere poetryas it would be of use to readers whose main concern is to survive each day.
Let me re-affirm this columnists commitment. I will write about more than parochial issues especially if it concerens the political squabbles of politicians and their unquenchable thirst for power. Life and living is more than just that.
This precious space will be more about analysis of current socio- economic and political issues.I will go beyond more than just scratching the issues on the surface. I will do my best to give you the real picture that others's either can't see or refused refused to see and undertands because of personal biases.
Sociologist and columnist Randy david in his introduction to a book compilation of his columns in the Philippine Daily Inquirer,with the title "Nation,Self and Citizenship:An Invitataion to Philippine Sociology",said:
"The quality of mind that C.Wright Mills called 'the sociological imagination' consists of the ability to view social reality as it is projected from three coordinates- history, society and biography. The individual who possess a sociological imagination,Mills says, is able to understand her personal circumstances in relation to the structural features of her society..."
David furhter says, "...The Filipino nation is unfinished business and therefore it is underestandable that in a public discourse that nation's needs take moral precedence over invidual fulfillment."
Filling this space is beyond space filler but both an individual fulfillment on an unfinished business.
-30-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
