Started streaming 1 hour ago
Get live updates from the House of Representatives' justice committee hearing on the alleged drug trade inside the New Bilibid Prison on November 24, 2016: rappler.com/bilibiddrugs
|
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
EDITORIAL | Make them regret it
 EDITORIAL | Make them regret it
InterAksyon.com
The online news portal of TV5
On the burial of Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, President Duterte is responsible and he will ultimately be proven wrong. But that is not to say that his allowing it was impeachable. It is not. It was political prerogative - a gamble, a gambit, maybe even a deal - exercised on legal footing.
The Supreme Court assures him so. The President had the right. Which is not to say that either of them was right. Indeed, worse than risking being wrong, nine justices voted to merely make the High Court irrelevant. Marcos is not only NOT a hero, in 1987 his despotism became the very basis for an entire new Constitution, a wholly rebooted republic reconsecrated not to national independence or republican trends, but to human rights, democracy, and good government. The arguably paranoid Constitution under which we now strive was hammered out not only with those ideals in mind, but with bloodied survivors doodling on the margins: #NeverAgain.
The Supreme Court says there is no law (and Duterte says there is no movie) that calls out Marcos as a criminal unworthy of anything. The government has written out checks to thousands in reparation for human rights victims, specifically human rights victims of the Marcos regime. Our Bill of Rights was reformulated and strengthened so that only courts can issue warrants. Just between and among us Filipinos, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is now nearly impossible to suspend, Duterte's blithe musings notwithstanding. And the PCGG was created specifically to recover billions of dollars in Marcos' ill-gotten wealth.
There is no mention of Marcos in the Constitution not because he was out of mind. Search not the Constitution for his name, but scour instead the minutes of every committee of the Commission that drafted the charter. There reminders of Marcos' atrocities will have been intoned with such frequency and degree as to make it obvious: the omission is the actual recognition of the evil by which that name is officially denounced.
As Lady Sansa said to Ramsay Bolton: "Your words will disappear. Your house will disappear. Your name will disappear. All memory of you will disappear."
Except that Sansa - raped, tortured, mocked, her home pillaged, but ultimately the survivor and victor - then made sure she fed her tormentor to the dogs. In stark contrast, our government - our governments - struck deals for the Marcos clan to come home before any apology, without acknowledging any sins, much less returning any loot and doing justice by their human rights victims. We let Imelda run for President. Elected her children to Congress. Leaders, legislators, politicians signed resolutions endorsing Marcos to the LNMB long before Digong came into the picture. Then the Supreme Court voted to keep itself out of it.
It was into this pathetic history that Duterte, first as a candidate and then as President, finally stepped in to say: "Let's just do this and move on."
So we know how we got here. Duterte was not alone in leading.
But he was still misguided.
Where his avowed goal is national healing, his action in fact only reopened very deep, painful wounds. Where Duterte joins Bongbong Marcos in urging people to move on, they have only succeeded to rouse the marchers. Where they insist this is a petty fight among political families of the past, they have only woken the youth who evidently somehow learned - as Duterte's own mother railed - that Marcos' rule is about tens of thousands of human rights victims, a nation stunted and still handicapped by decades of unparalleled kleptocracy, about values and direction of a whole nation.
Make no mistake, President Duterte must be held accountable for whatever comes next. Discord, disunity... violence?
But what if Filipinos do in fact move on? If even those most outraged today run out of stamina tomorrow; if the protests do not grow and in fact never make it out of Facebook; if this insult does not disrupt nor even interrupt talks with the Left for whom "a just and lasting peace" is a pillar of negotiation; if, as Bongbong has exhumed his father, there is no effort to breathe new life into the cases against their entire clan…
In other words, if there is no political price to pay... then Duterte deserves the chance to prove that there is progress worth the perilous path of denial and apathy that we all will have paved.
As a politician, the President must be persuaded that burying Marcos at the LNMB is not only a mistake, it is not worth it. Appealing to his political sensibilities may seem a long shot or wishful thinking. But it is no more delusional than counting on the SC Justices to take away the President's options after they gave it to him. It is certainly no more delusional than insisting that underneath the anti-Marcos movement is a silent anti-Duterte majority.
Duterte, as Father of the Nation, can take it as tantrums of temperamental brats, or he can it take as well-meaning warning: If he wants the nation to heal, listening to Bongbong will only be damaging.
The Marcoses, too, must be made to regret. In wanting us to forgive, Bongbong should meet a people decidedly more unforgiving. We are asked to unite behind indifference to atrocities; let us be more obnoxious about justice. Bongbong would bury his father. Let us unearth everything we have forgotten or may have overlooked, particularly over the quarter century that Marcos Sr. was lying peacefully in a private mausoleum in Batac. The son thinks it a triumph to have transferred his father to a public cemetery imbued with higher public purpose? He should see, everyday, what exactly he wished for.
Two dates, two rallies, two venues - neither of which is anywhere near the LNMB - frankly make for ridiculous, comical scenes when both purport to make a point about how Bongbong's making a political pawn of his father's corpse will unite those who #NeverForget. But we suspect – and any truly loving Marcos child should fear - that there will be not a few moments when beyond the rallies, groups and individuals will indeed be visiting LNMB and paying Marcos the respect they think he deserves.
Nothing can stop them. Nothing should stop them. The LNMB is a public place. No Filipino should be denied entry, nor even be so much as questioned as to why he or she is there. Force the Supreme Court to explain that to Duterte, so he can shrug when Bongbong requests for round-the-clock security for their plot.
Just saying: It will be an impossible task keeping that tomb spotless. If Marcos taught Filipinos that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, Filipinos will likely prove to Bongbong that that too is the price he and his siblings will pay just to convince themselves they did not unearth their father to subject him to… what?
For as long as the Marcoses insist that Ferdinand Sr. deserves a hero's spot in land that we all own, his resting place will be anything but. Around that plot will erupt a battle to create a symbol. Of what? Of moving on or of refusing to budge? When the day comes, will you go to the gravesite? What will you bring? Flowers? Candles? Or things less fragrant?
Filipinos will move on, one way or another. The question is, to what? Whether the Marcoses will regret or gloat, whether we move on or march forward, will be determined by each Filipino's completing this sentence: "One day I will visit that grave and ____________."
shared from
 |
NALUSAW ANG PUSONG BATO NI GEN "BATO"
Published on Nov 23, 2016
GEN. BATO NAPAIYAK SA HIRAP NG PROBLEMA NG PNP NGUNIT NANGAKONG TATAPUSIN LAHAT ANG MGA ITO.
|
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
TV Patrol: Dayan, sinabing 7 taon silang nagka-relasyon ni De Lima
Published on Nov 22, 2016
Idiniretso ng PNP sa Camp Crame si Ronnie Dayan, at iniharap sa media.
|
Standing Rock: When Darkness Meets Light
 |
November 22nd: One of Modern History’s Darkest Days
 November 22nd: One of Modern History’s Darkest Days
That year, it was a Friday. It had rained the night before, but the weather had turned bright, sunny, comfortably warm and beautiful. So the glass bubble top was ordered removed. It would be top-down on the convertible limo for the motorcade, on instructions from The Boss himself, who enjoyed working on his tan. The crowds everywhere in Texas had been visibly enthusiastic and friendly, thrilled to greet the President of the United States and the First Lady, reveling in the fact that she was there for them. That was something she never did — accompanying her husband on a political trip that wasn’t an overseas diplomatic mission.
Being Texas, there were Texas-size egos to assuage. So, rather than driving from Fort Worth — where they spent the night and were guests at a breakfast filled with laughter and instantly-built good will — it required a ridiculously short hop on Air Force One to the Dallas airport so citizens there wouldn’t feel like second choice for the prom. Indeed, Dallas would get a parade, with the whole city turning out to see the First Couple. A luncheon gala was set to follow, where the President had prepared an especially moving speech. Surely his words would capture plenty of column-inches in all the nation’s Friday evening and Saturday morning newspapers.
Looking back to that November 22nd of 53 years ago, there is cause to find hope, and even more, a teachable moment, as we consider the terrible consequences of allowing bold dreams to die.
But Friday’s news wouldn’t turn out that way. And that luncheon speech would be forgotten for years, and then relegated to a footnote that can still produce tears, even from those too young to have been there.
We’re bringing you the encore that follows because the news of the last two weeks warrants it. This was published in 2013, when it marked the 50th anniversary of that terrible day. When the story appeared then in the L.A. Progressive, the boxed quote was, “It is certain that America lost its innocence and its faith in its leaders during the 1960s and 1970s. And it’s certain that began on November 22, 1963.”
That still rings true. So does the sense of living in dark times that seem so hopeless. Looking back to that November 22nd of 53 years ago, there is cause to find hope, and even more, a teachable moment, as we consider the terrible consequences of allowing bold dreams to die.
Here it is, in full, beginning with the 2013 title. Also note the art that ran with it, which is quite significant: it’s an image of the famous Jamie Wyeth oil portrait of JFK. (Strangely enough, the author was once assigned to safeguard the original, but that’s another story.)
_____
(from 2013, on the 50th anniversary)
A Final Word on November 22: The Day We Lost the Future of the Future
By Larry Wines
We’ve just finished a week of television’s incongruous mixes of wallowing in horrific forensics juxtaposed with revealing tributes, of critical commentary and analysis mixed with half-century-old images and memories of genuine grief and hand-wringing angst.
A few more words beg to be said about John Fitzgerald Kennedy, because we don’t want questions of how he died to continue to overshadow the kind of leader he was. Sadly, even after five decades, society isn’t quite capable of separating those things.
It is certain that America lost its innocence and its faith in its leaders during the 1960s and 1970s. And it’s certain that began on November 22, 1963.
The 800,000 who lined JFK’s funeral route, and the 75 million who watched on television, were processing the shock and the grief. Few, if any, could have understood the substance of what was lost. Even today, it’s almost overwhelming. And it is transcendent. We live in a time that looks nothing like the future we expected.
Would there have been a Watergate, a Vietnam quagmire, a preeminence of the Military-Industrial Complex, or even a Nixon Presidency, had there not been the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? Would America have seen the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act had JFK, instead of consummate political-arm-twister LBJ, been president?
Would there have been a Cuban Missile Crisis if Nixon had beat Kennedy in 1960? Would there have been global thermonuclear war in 1962 had anyone but Kennedy been president? Would we have gone to the Moon without a Kennedy Presidency, and would we have gone had he not been killed?
Would the spirit of unity and common effort — and asking what we can do for our country — have vanished in favor of high-tech narcissism? Would today’s politics of “I’ve got mine, you’re on your own,” have been possible had the culture of suspicion and cynicism and distrust not developed from the post-assassination / Vietnam war world?
At last, historians are focusing on questions like these, instead of the titillating and salacious boudoir gossip and the assassination theory du jour.
Enough facts are emerging to clarify all these questions, and more. And what is clear is that the man who founded the Peace Corps and the Green Berets; who faced-down the Russians over Cuba; the man who challenged us to “choose to go to the Moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” remains the most forward-looking American President since Woodrow Wilson.
After being one of only two men in history – the other was Nikita Kruschev – who looked into the face of hotter-than-the-sun destruction of human society and a radioactive wasteland for survivors, JFK was deeply committed to achieving lasting peace with the Soviet Union, three decades before it happened. After the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, he was in the middle of quiet negotiations with the Castro regime to normalize relations – something that still has not happened.
Conventional wisdom holds that the Apollo program and its lunar explorations were possible only because of the Cold War. Was it just an exercise of the national ego after Russia launched Sputnik as the first artificial satellite and Yuri Gagarin as the first human in space? We now know that JFK had taken his overture beyond his UN speech about the new frontier of space exploration, proposing that the US and the USSR go to the Moon together as a cooperative venture.
How many conflicts, uprisings, revolutions, refugee crises, flood and drought and famine deaths, and individual and collective cases of human mortality and suffering were prevented because JFK founded the Peace Corps?
He has been found wanting in historical speculations as someone with the savvy to convince Southern Democrats that Southern segregation – the American apartheid – needed to end. It became conventional wisdom that only Lyndon Baines Johnson, as a prominent leader from Texas — a state more Southern than Western, a state of the Confederacy — had the political skills to pass President Kennedy’s Civil Rights Act.
That may not be the case. JFK’s Texas trip, until the moment of the assassination, was a resounding success with the crowds. It was likewise a success with the warring factions of the Texas Democratic Party, who seemed to reconcile their differences with the visit by the President — and Jacqueline Kennedy, whose popularity and charm have never been exceeded by any other First Lady.
Internationally, President Kennedy had a proactive Latin America policy, a resounding success in the wake of Eisenhower’s Vice President Nixon getting stoned – it had a literal meaning then – in Latin America. No American president since JFK has understood the concerns of the Western Hemisphere south of Texas. And like the Europeans, the rest of the Americas loved him.
Not until George W. Bush took steps to fund AIDS prevention in Africa have we had a president that understood Kennedy’s “Africa for Africans” policy – and no president but JFK — including our current president — was proactively pro-African.
But we need not speculate simply on the basis of terrestrial perceptions. What enabled his global popularity was the largely intangible embodiment of one of JFK’s favorite words: vigor.
America was seen as a leader — happily, expectantly, peacefully and vigorously racing into a bright future, embracing it even before it was there, and inviting the rest of the world to come along.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk was on his way to Japan when the assassination turned his plane back home. Along with the many concerns of his trade delegation, Rusk had a personal mission: to arrange a reunion of mariners for 1964. It would have been a reunion of the crew of PT 109 with the crew of the Japanese destroyer that rammed and sunk them in the South Pacific during World War II in 1944 — twenty years earlier.
Little things are often as important as big ones when they are characteristic of outlook. And so many things about the Kennedy Presidency reveal a thoughtful, forward-looking leader who couldn’t wait to get to a brighter future.
When the trips to the Moon were achieved, Nixon omitted the name of the man who started us on humanity’s greatest voyage. There are plaques affixed to the descent stages of the six Lunar Modules, still on the Moon where they will last for millenia, and each bears the signatures of the crew of that mission and the signature of Richard M. Nixon. With no mention of the man who had committed us to be bold and go there. And Nixon’s complex personality of paranoia, petty resentment and retribution was no doubt at work when he cancelled the final three Apollo missions and mandated the long starvation diet to suck the vigor out of the manned space program.
Had Kennedy lived, there is good reason to believe the American presence in Vietnam would not have escalated. There is reason to believe we would have achieved détente with the Soviet Union, beyond Kennedy’s Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Those things alone would have freed billions of dollars for human empowerment and scientific exploration, two things dear to the spirit John Kennedy embodied with his dual sense of noblese oblige and bold adventure.
Perhaps the twenty-first century that Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick portrayed in their 1968 epic, “2001: A Space Odyssey,” would have come to pass. Given the momentum that Nixon abruptly stopped, there is more reason to believe that we would have achieved the lost world of “2001” than not to believe it.
Without the assassinations and the personal threat of getting drafted into the pointless meat-grinder of Vietnam, could the hopeful vigor of the Kennedy years have soured into disillusioned cynicism, protest and riots?
And without the modern outlook of suspicion and mistrust, would we instead have presidents today who could challenge us to boldly go forth to explore and discover and take humanity to a realization of ever-increasing aspirations?
Barack Obama can’t even get enough congressional support to repair the infrastructure we inherited from the administrations of Roosevelt and Truman, or of Eisenhower and Kennedy. It is excruciatingly impossible to imagine President Obama challenging us to reinvigorate the human spirit by returning to the adventurous exploration of space.
Had Kennedy lived and completed a second term, I might be writing a column from a colony on Mars.
 Larry Wines POSTED ON  |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED
RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL
 
SWINDLING ITO, SYNDICATED ESTAFA
HOT PURSUIT
DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES
SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR
|
