There will be more to say on all this tomorrow. For now, it's worth observing that a Democratic Party that would abandon their central initiative this quickly isn't a Democratic Party that deserves to hold power. If they don't believe in the importance of their policies, why should anyone who's skeptical change their mind? If they're not interested in actually passing their agenda, why should voters who agree with Democrats on the issues work to elect them? A commitment provisional on Ted Kennedy not dying and Martha Coakley not running a terrible campaign is not much of a commitment at all.
Speaking of Kennedy, he anticipated this reaction back in 1980. On the eve of his defeat to Jimmy Carter, and Carter's defeat to Ronald Reagan, he warned his supporters against letting electoral setbacks dampen their commitment to their cause. “If the Democrats run for cover, if we become pale carbon copies of the opposition, we will lose–and deserve to lose,” he said. “The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties.”
Pity he's not around to remind Democrats of that today.
via Ezra Klein – What Ted Kennedy would tell the Democrats.
rePost::Why Poor Countries Are Poor – Reason Magazine
Olson supposed that governments are simply bandits, people with the biggest guns who will turn up and take everything. That’s the starting point of his analysis–a starting point you will have no trouble accepting if you spend five minutes looking around you in Cameroon. As Sam said, “There is plenty of money…but they put it in their pockets.”
Imagine a dictator with a tenure of one week–in effect, a bandit with a roving army who sweeps in, takes whatever he wishes, and leaves. Assuming he’s neither malevolent nor kindhearted, but purely self-interested, he has no incentive to leave anything, unless he plans on coming back next year. But imagine that the roaming bandit likes the climate of a certain spot and decides to settle down, building a palace and encouraging his army to avail themselves of the locals. Desperately unfair though it is, the locals are probably better off now that the dictator has decided to stay. A purely self-interested dictator will realize he cannot destroy the economy and starve the people if he plans on sticking around, because then he would exhaust all the resources and have nothing to steal the following year. So a dictator who lays claim to a land is a preferable to one who moves around constantly in search of new victims to plunder.
via Why Poor Countries Are Poor – Reason Magazine.
rePost::“A Message of Modern Politics” by Randy David | Filipino Voices
This was an excellent write up of a speech/lecture? Prof Randy David gave. It’s an interesting read!!!
Quest for political stability
David observes that Filipinos are “sick and tired” of politics. In other societies, people are not overburdened with politics. And normally citizens think only about it during elections. The fact the politics consumes much of our national imaginary has both good and bad effects, he says. It is good in that citizens are kept informed. It is bad in that the constant politicking leaves little room to do much of anything else. It is time spent away from thinking about ways to improve education and health, growing businesses and the arts.
He says in the region the Philippines has had the longest experience with elections and yet we cannot seem to get it right. Elections are a good way of making the transition from a ‘traditional’ to a ‘modern’ society.
Here he gives quick yet unerring definitions of these broad concepts. A ‘traditional’ society is one of hierarchies. One might also call them ‘feudal’, ties and associations based on families. He also calls this society ‘limited-access’ in that only certain people enjoy monopolies of power and influence. A ‘modern’ society is ‘open-access’ and allows associations not based on familial or personal ties but through functions. They are ‘functionally differentiated’, allowing for clear divisions between politics and business, politics and religion, politics and other public realms. One might argue that a modern society is also more democratic.
David then makes an astonishing claim, one that many of us will probably instantly recognize but which we have not yet articulated, most of all to ourselves. I know I was struck by it. David claims we cannot seem to make that transition from being a ‘traditional’ (i.e. hierarchical, monopolistic) society to a ‘modern’ (i.e. truly democratic) society. We are stuck somewhere in the middle, exhibiting characteristics of either model. And here is where David makes a crucial point. He asks, why is it important to modernize?
via “A Message of Modern Politics” by Randy David | Filipino Voices.
rePost:: Mr. Smith Rewrites the Constitution – NYTimes.com
found this article really interesting. It’s funny to notice that in the case of the Philippines we still have a considerable number of people alive who were part of the Filipinos who created the Philippine Constitution and yet we have Congress people who have the gall to twist the meaning of certain provisions/articles(I have no idea how to refer to them) in our constitution.
Whether any such approach works, the founders would have expected us to do something about this unconstitutional filibuster. In Federalist No. 75, Hamilton denounced the use of supermajority rule in these prophetic words: “The history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed is a history of impotence, perplexity and disorder.” That is a suitable epitaph for what has happened to the Senate.
via Op-Ed Contributor – Mr. Smith Rewrites the Constitution – NYTimes.com.
rePost::Kilalanin! A presidential forum moderated by Mike Enriquez on dzBB – Nation – GMANews.TV – Official Website of GMA News and Public Affairs – Latest Philippine News
I’m beginning to think that all these presidential forums etc are only really helping the news organizations to drive viewers to their show. Why? Because if history has anything to tell us; People who vie for the presidency would lie,cheat,steal to get it. We have no way of holding them accountable. Even in an advance democracy we have Barack Obama lying about campaigning for the public option, what can we expect from our more gullible and manipulated media. I’m not saying that knowing your candidates views on stuff isn’t important. What I’m saying is that; what we should be doing is looking at what they earlier promised when they ran for public office and how they followed through with their promises.
Kilalanin! A presidential forum moderated by Mike Enriquez on dzBB
01/09/2010 | 05:35 PM
Listen to an audio recording of Kilalanin! – a presidential forum with four candidates in Alabang on Sunday, January 9, moderated by Mike Enriquez and broadcast on dzBB. The four featured candidates:
* Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III
* Richard “Dick” Gordon
* Gilbert “Gibo” Teodoro
* Manuel “Manny” Villar
via Kilalanin! A presidential forum moderated by Mike Enriquez on dzBB – Nation – GMANews.TV – Official Website of GMA News and Public Affairs – Latest Philippine News.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?w=525)
rePost::Nick Perlas and the Missing Manual of Maria Clara
I’ve never thought of Don Quixote as a geek. This framing of Nick Perlas as the geek suitor help me make the connection. This was a nice article, read the whole thing, tis really short. The funny thing is if we use his way of thinking what would Manny Villar be? the rich suitor? Eddie Villanueva would then be the suitor that speaks of spirituality and purity? Gibo would be the intelligent talented guy who doesn’t have much charm? Erap would be the Bad Boy?
What scares me with this is that my jaded ecxperience tells me that the nice guys finish last and ; It’s either the Bad Boy or The Rich Guys who get the girl.
I’m rambling. Once you get blogging into your system, you sometimes just have too. Okay vacation mode again!!!!!!!!
Think about Nick Perlas as the quintessential geek, neither flashy nor fancy.
The geek is plain. He is ordinary. He isn’t in it for the money or the honor or whatnut. He wants to solve problems that he is presented with. He is geek and like all geeks, a woman throws him into a recursive loop.
The geek is like that reliable knight who does Maria Clara’s will, and the perfect confidant. The geek is the guy who shields her as best he could and picks her up when she falls. He stands by her when no one does. But seduction is not in the geek’s repertoire.
And Nick Perlas the candidate is as exciting as the wrapping of bond paper.
Noynoy Aquino is the Trojan horse, the least expected and unlikely suitor/hero of the story who comes riding to save the day. He isn’t evil. He comes from a good background. He is not a genius and knows he cannot surpass his own parents’ success. In fact, of the list seeking her sweet approval he is the one best-shot Maria Clara has at happiness.
(And yes, how ironic since Mr. Aquino is a bachelor).
via Nick Perlas and the Missing Manual of Maria Clara.
Best Read::Eyes – 12/22/09
Parang kinurot puso ko ng nabasa ko ito.
Beggars however—and their tribe increases by the day in various forms of disguised beggary, from caroling to slapping soapy water on your windshield—are not so easily dismissed in the heart. I’ve always thought they posed a bind, even to the mind.The best way to deal with them of course is to not look them in the eye. At the very least that’s so because eye-contact is the equivalent of the first question you ask the salesperson who knocks on your door. As everyone warns, never do that. Just say, “Sorry,” if you’re in the mood to be polite or slam the door on his face if you’re not. You ask a question and that’s his one foot in the door, which can sometimes be scarily literal.But more than that, don’t look the ragged children in the eye because if you do, you impale their fleeting forms into reality. You transform a vague and abstract presence into living tissue, into flesh and bone, into solid matter, as solid as the loud rap on your window. You look them in the eye, and suddenly, terrifyingly, movingly, you’re no longer looking at a formless mass, you are looking at a four-year-old—if he’s at all so, it’s not easy to reckon age in age-worn faces—trudging along with not much older company, a torn and worn-out T-shirt hanging over his body like a tent.But this best way of dealing with the problem is the same best way to make the problem stay. Which is the bind. I’ve always thought the only reason we’ve kept out equanimity in the face of the teeming poverty around us, some of its aspects too mind-boggling to contemplate, is that it is invisible to us. It is invisible to us because we do not see it. We do not see it because we do not look it in the eye. And because we do not look it in the eye, the poor, like beggars, or carolers on the street, cease to exist. They are just a blur, a ghost, an apparition that flits by but is swallowed in the dust and smoke when the light flashes green.By all means let us not give to carolers on the streets, or out-and-out beggars who badger us with their pain and their humiliation. Though heaven knows that isn’t always easy during Christmas, a season dedicated to discovering the existence of others. But whether we give or not, the point is to not be blind to their being there, to not make them disappear in the mind, if not in space, because they are an inconvenient truth. They will continue to be there in space, whether we see them of not: the beggars, the throwers of soapy water on windshields, the children in the streets, who while waiting for the cars to stop stand in awe before the tailoring shop near where I live, admiring the basketball uniforms that proclaim various teams. They will continue to be there, like an indictment, like an accusing finger, like a question hanging in the air demanding an answer.Like eyes that haunt. Like eyes that bind.
via Eyes – 12/22/09.
Holiday Reading::Published platforms : Manuel L. Quezon III: The Daily Dose
Published platforms
December 23, 2009 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
Leave a comment
See my previous entries, Platforms and Platform time begins November 30.
In chronological order, the platforms thus far, are the following.
via Published platforms : Manuel L. Quezon III: The Daily Dose.
Manolo Quezon is a gem. He has compiled all published platforms of Presidential Candidates to the 2010 National Elections of the Philippines.
Probably Why GMA Left Copenhagen As Fast As She Could::How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room | Mark Lynas | Environment | The Guardian
With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. “How can you ask my country to go extinct?” demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.
via How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room | Mark Lynas | Environment | The Guardian.
Taking a vacation and using the Mayon Volcanic activities as excuse initially infuriated be when I read the reports. I am less mad now. I believe the President didn’t know if she was going to be China or USA’s lackey, might as well not get in the oven and get burned in the process. Shrewd move.
Better Politicians Please::How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room | Mark Lynas | Environment | The Guardian
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.
Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
Here’s what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.
What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.
via How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room | Mark Lynas | Environment | The Guardian.
This was sad.