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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
