by Perry Diaz
Color-blind generation
On August 28, 1963, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. evoked the name of Lincoln in his "I Have a Dream" speech. "I have a dream," he said, "that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Almost half a century later on November 3, 2008, his dream came true with the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America.
Obama was catapulted to the presidency with the vote of a new generation of Americans: idealistic, young people of diverse colors -- white, black, brown, yellow, red -- who judged Obama not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. This is the color-blind generation that Dr. King dreamed about and they're the vanguard of a movement that changed politics in America.
The road America took towards a color-blind society -- we're not there yet but getting closer to it -- was pock-marked with violence and hatred. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln led his Republican Party to stop the expansion of slavery beyond the borders of the 11 pro-slavery southern states. Lincoln's ascension to the presidency sparked the American Civil War in 1861 that took 620,000 lives -- the bloodiest in the nation's history. In 1862, in the midst of the civil war, Lincoln made a bold step and issued his Emancipation Proclamation with the goal of ending slavery. The victory of Lincoln's Union Army in 1865 ended the civil war.
Although freed from slavery, the African-Americans had to fight for equality for the next 100 years. Racial segregation was the rule rather than the exception. African-Americans were systematically disenfranchised particularly in the Deep South where Jim Crow laws relegated African-Americans to second class citizens.
With the landmark legislation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ended segregation and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which outlawed discriminatory voting practices against African-Americans, African-Americans and other minorities made inroads in politics. However, gerrymandering still lived -- electoral districts were arbitrarily redistributed to the advantage of the majority whites.
Forty-three years after the Voting Rights Act was enacted, a black man finally shattered the racial barriers in politics. The key to Obama's success was his ability to register and mobilize millions of young voters… and get them out to vote on election day.
Polls showed that Obama got at least two-thirds of the young -- and first-time -- voters. But what became apparent during the campaign was that these young voters were ethnically diverse. They looked upon Obama as a leader whose blackness was irrelevant to their cause. To them he is the visionary that they believe would lead America in a new direction and change the way the government works.
Obama saw the strength of the Internet-savvy youths. He used state-of-the- art technology to gather and compile the email addresses of 70 million Americans that he could reach at the click of a laptop keyboard. Aaron Smith of the Pew Internet and American Life Project said, "They have millions of e-mail addresses, phone numbers and whole communities of supporters – both geographic and online – and it will be very interesting to see how they use them in government."
Obama's Internet-based networking website www.my.barackobama. com attracted millions of young voters. He used "viral networking" to spread his message by email and text messaging. And he raised a record-setting $158 million in September alone, 75% of which came online.
Obama has changed the way of reaching out to voters. Indeed, it was his consistent message of "Change" that attracted this color-blind generation of young idealistic Americans who are restless for change. Finally, America is beginning to outgrow its race-conscious ways of doing business.
A year ago, many people were saying that America was not ready to elect an African-American President. Even African-Americans were cynical of Obama's quixotic quest for the presidency. Before the Iowa caucuses, many African-Americans opted to support Hillary Clinton whom many believed was in a better position to clinch the Democratic nomination. Many believed that Obama did not have a chance to win the Iowa Democratic caucuses.
The conventional wisdom at that time was that Iowa was too lily white -- and very Republican -- for Obama to snatch. But snatch he did… with the support of young white voters who flocked to the caucuses that gave Obama his first primary victory. By the time South Carolina held its primary, the African-Americans had detoured from the Clinton trail and gave Obama his first southern state victory.
With his African-American base and the newly empowered color-blind generation of young voters, Obama clinched the presidency on November 4th. Now, the question is: will the color-blind generation continue to expand and flex its political muscle in electing our national leaders without regard to race? And finally, would other people of color be able to follow Obama's footsteps to the White House? (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Showing posts with label Perryscope. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Perryscope. Show all posts
Monday, November 17, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
PERRYSCOPE
Perry Diaz
Dawn of a new era
At 11 p.m. eastern time on Nov. 4, Barack Obama made history when he was elected President of the United States, a feat that no African-American has achieved before. After enduring a negative campaign by his opponent, Obama convinced the American people that he is the man whom they can trust in changing the way the government works. With a vision of hope, Obama's victory ushers in a new era.
Obama's election amidst some of the sleaziest campaign tactics against him proved once again that the American people will not fall prey to negativism. But it was Obama's positive outlook and determination to stay on course that finally convinced the electorate that he could bring real change to America.
In his victory speech in Chicago attended by 125,000 enthusiastic supporters, Obama gave a stirring call to all Americans to come together and help him bring change to the nation. He set the tone of his administration when he prefaced his speech by saying, "The greatest of a lifetime -- two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century."
He told them, "This is our moment, this is our time" and declared: "Change has come to America." But he reminded the people that he alone cannot make that change. "So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder," he said. The response was spontaneous and brought many to tears of joy. In the crowd was the fiery Rev. Jesse Jackson -- who once ran for President -- with tears falling from his eyes.
The diversity of the crowd was a testament to the wide support for Obama's message, "Yes, we can," which the crowd chanted as Obama outlined the tasks that lie ahead: ending the Iraq War, fix the economy, health care, education…
It is not going to be easy. It would take a man of great courage to achieve the change he wanted. But he is not a man lacking in courage. His courage to seek the presidency without a precedence was like charting the unknown seas. He didn't have the stars to go by, only the instinct and determination of a person whose only fear is fear itself.
Looking back at the 21 months of his steep climb to the pinnacle of political power in America, Obama's success may have been attributed to "Mandela Effect," to wit: "When you can create enduring success not because you are perfect or lucky but because you have the courage to do what matters to you." Indeed, he proclaimed oftentimes during his campaign that he was not perfect. And lucky? Well, as someone once said, "The harder you work, the luckier you get." And worked harder he did to achieve what he courageously sought: the presidency of the United States of America.
Obama had broken the racial barrier to the presidency.
The trail that he blazed to the White House will be studied and charted by political scientists for others to use. Henceforth, it would be easier for people of color to pursue the highest position in the land. And no longer do they have to fear the "Bradley Effect." In 1982, Tom Bradley, an African-American, lost the California gubernatorial contest although he was ahead in the polls prior to the election.
The theory suggests that white voters would tell pollsters that they are undecided or would vote for a black candidate; however, on election day they would vote for the white candidate.
Because of the "Bradley Effect," political pollsters and pundits would not dare predict the victory of Obama prior to the November 4 elections. It has never happened in a presidential election before; thus, making "Bradley Effect" a huge variable in the polls. Some say that for Obama to win, he had to have at least a 10-percent lead over McCain in the polls. In most polls, Obama led by 5 to 6 percent -- not enough to offset the "Bradley Effect." The initial results of the popular vote were 52% for Obama to 47% for McCain with 84% of all precincts reported. Most of the polls were pretty close to these figures. In other words, "Bradley Effect" did not materialize in the 2008 elections.
The first task of Obama is to start the unification of the American people who were polarized by the negative campaign tactics. McCain, in his concession speech in Phoenix, Arizona, congratulated and complimented Obama. He urged his followers to "come together and bridge the separations and put aside differences." And he promised that he "will get behind his president, President Obama."
Thus started the healing process. If the two erstwhile rivals could work together -- McCain is still a senator -- it would certainly bode well for the Obama administration. And as Obama promised, he will reach across the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship.
As the Bush presidency comes to an end, let's give President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joseph Biden best wishes as they usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. God bless both of them. God bless America.
Dawn of a new era
At 11 p.m. eastern time on Nov. 4, Barack Obama made history when he was elected President of the United States, a feat that no African-American has achieved before. After enduring a negative campaign by his opponent, Obama convinced the American people that he is the man whom they can trust in changing the way the government works. With a vision of hope, Obama's victory ushers in a new era.
Obama's election amidst some of the sleaziest campaign tactics against him proved once again that the American people will not fall prey to negativism. But it was Obama's positive outlook and determination to stay on course that finally convinced the electorate that he could bring real change to America.
In his victory speech in Chicago attended by 125,000 enthusiastic supporters, Obama gave a stirring call to all Americans to come together and help him bring change to the nation. He set the tone of his administration when he prefaced his speech by saying, "The greatest of a lifetime -- two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century."
He told them, "This is our moment, this is our time" and declared: "Change has come to America." But he reminded the people that he alone cannot make that change. "So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder," he said. The response was spontaneous and brought many to tears of joy. In the crowd was the fiery Rev. Jesse Jackson -- who once ran for President -- with tears falling from his eyes.
The diversity of the crowd was a testament to the wide support for Obama's message, "Yes, we can," which the crowd chanted as Obama outlined the tasks that lie ahead: ending the Iraq War, fix the economy, health care, education…
It is not going to be easy. It would take a man of great courage to achieve the change he wanted. But he is not a man lacking in courage. His courage to seek the presidency without a precedence was like charting the unknown seas. He didn't have the stars to go by, only the instinct and determination of a person whose only fear is fear itself.
Looking back at the 21 months of his steep climb to the pinnacle of political power in America, Obama's success may have been attributed to "Mandela Effect," to wit: "When you can create enduring success not because you are perfect or lucky but because you have the courage to do what matters to you." Indeed, he proclaimed oftentimes during his campaign that he was not perfect. And lucky? Well, as someone once said, "The harder you work, the luckier you get." And worked harder he did to achieve what he courageously sought: the presidency of the United States of America.
Obama had broken the racial barrier to the presidency.
The trail that he blazed to the White House will be studied and charted by political scientists for others to use. Henceforth, it would be easier for people of color to pursue the highest position in the land. And no longer do they have to fear the "Bradley Effect." In 1982, Tom Bradley, an African-American, lost the California gubernatorial contest although he was ahead in the polls prior to the election.
The theory suggests that white voters would tell pollsters that they are undecided or would vote for a black candidate; however, on election day they would vote for the white candidate.
Because of the "Bradley Effect," political pollsters and pundits would not dare predict the victory of Obama prior to the November 4 elections. It has never happened in a presidential election before; thus, making "Bradley Effect" a huge variable in the polls. Some say that for Obama to win, he had to have at least a 10-percent lead over McCain in the polls. In most polls, Obama led by 5 to 6 percent -- not enough to offset the "Bradley Effect." The initial results of the popular vote were 52% for Obama to 47% for McCain with 84% of all precincts reported. Most of the polls were pretty close to these figures. In other words, "Bradley Effect" did not materialize in the 2008 elections.
The first task of Obama is to start the unification of the American people who were polarized by the negative campaign tactics. McCain, in his concession speech in Phoenix, Arizona, congratulated and complimented Obama. He urged his followers to "come together and bridge the separations and put aside differences." And he promised that he "will get behind his president, President Obama."
Thus started the healing process. If the two erstwhile rivals could work together -- McCain is still a senator -- it would certainly bode well for the Obama administration. And as Obama promised, he will reach across the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship.
As the Bush presidency comes to an end, let's give President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joseph Biden best wishes as they usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. God bless both of them. God bless America.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
PERRYSCOPE
Perry Diaz
October surprise
Rumors were abounding in the media about an "October Surprise" by John McCain that would shatter the presidential aspiration of Barack Obama. But as it turned out, the "October Surprise" was on McCain -- Obama pulled ahead of McCain in the battleground states.
On Oct. 4, it was reported on the news that "Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama's character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat's judgment, honesty and personal associations. " By attacking Obama's character, McCain hoped that it would put Obama on the defensive; thus, distracting him from discussing the economic crisis and outlining his economic recovery plan.
As soon as the decision to assault Obama's character was made, McCain unleashed his running mate Gov. Sarah Palin to attack Obama. That day, she told three separate rallies that Obama is "not a man who sees America like you and I see America," and accused him of "palling around" with William Ayers -- co-founder of the radical Weather Underground in the 1960's -- whom she called a "domestic terrorist."
She told the agitated crowds that Obama is "not one of us." On that same day, McCain who was addressing a crowd in New Mexico called Obama a "mystery, a liar, complicit in the economic crisis and an unaccomplished naif, at all the same time."
For two weeks, McCain and Palin were doing their demolition job on Obama. But Obama was indestructible only because he chose not to respond to the "low blows" of McCain and Palin. McCain finally realized that these "low blows" were hurting him more than it hurt Obama.
The polls were showing Obama's rating going over 51% while McCain's was hovering at around 42%. With less than two weeks left in the campaign, McCain changed his strategy back to selling his economic plan. But to his dismay, a lot of Americans had already bought Obama's economic plan and many have already cast their votes in states that allowed early voting.
If that was the "October Surprise" that McCain had bandied about, it turned out to be nothing more than a distraction.
However, a series of surprises occurred that helped Obama's campaign. The "Big Surprise" came on October 19 when retired Gen. Colin Powell announced on NBC's Meet the Press that he will vote for Obama . He said, "I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities -- and you have to take that into account-- as well as his substance -- he has both style and substance. He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."
Powell was critical of McCain's campaign tactics including the controversial "rob calls" that tried to link Obama to Ayers. He was also critical of McCain's judgment in selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate. Powell said, "Now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she is ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president."
Powell also criticized some Republicans for insinuating that Obama is a Muslim. He said, "Well, the correct answer is: he is not a Muslim, he is a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is: what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?
The answer is no; that is not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He is a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."
Many believe that Powell's endorsement of Obama and blistering critique of McCain's campaign tactics could have a devastating blow to McCain's candidacy and which could sway the undecided voters to Obama, particularly in the battleground states.
Four days later, there were a cluster of surprises. Scott McClellan, President Bush's former Press Secretary announced on the "D.L. Hughley Breaks the News" that he is going to vote for Obama. McClellan said, "From the very beginning I've said I am going to support the candidate who has the best chance of changing the way Washington works and getting things done. I will be voting for Barack Obama."
On the same day, Alison Goldwater, granddaughter of former Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, voted early for Barack Obama. She said of McCain, "I don't have respect for him." It's interesting to note that McCain has oftentimes claimed to be a "Barry Goldwater" Republican. Apparently, Alison didn't think so.
Also on the same day, Arne Carlson, former Republican Governor of Minnesota, endorsed Obama for president. She said, "He has laid out for this nation a vision for a national purpose."
And in a desperate act, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the fund-raising arm of Republican senatorial candidates across the country, is now running ads that "presume" that McCain will lose.
Yesterday, I was surprised when I was reading an email from a friend who was a supporter of McCain. She said that she checked her IRA account in preparation for her retirement and was shocked to find out that she lost $36,000! She was devastated because she may not be able to retire next year. She promised that she will vote for Obama.
My friend's story is not uncommon. In early October, about 100 million Americans received a letter that shattered their dreams. Everyone received the same message. The letter told them that their savings -- IRAs, 401Ks, mutual funds, etc. -- were 30% down this year.
The pain, loss, and stress suffered by these 100 million Americans is a testament to the failed economic policies of President Bush. Are they going to vote for McCain or Obama? More than likely they -- like my friend who lost $36,000 -- would vote for Obama. This election is not about politics, it's all about the economy. That is the "October Surprise." (PerryDiaz@gmail. com
Thursday, October 30, 2008
PERRYSCOPE
Perry Diaz
Why I support Barack Obama
Last October 7, 2008, I withdrew my endorsement of John McCain and endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States. News of my support for Obama spread like wildfire in the Filipino-American community. After all, I have been known to be an active and loyal Republican for the past 25 years.
I sent the following message by email to the members of the Executive Council of the National Federation of Filipino-American Republicans (NFFAR), an organization which I founded in 2004: "Effective immediately, I am resigning as Chairman of NFFAR. It was a hard decision on my part. However, I believe that I have to do it because of what has been happening in the McCain campaign.
I endorsed McCain before the California primary believing that he was the right man for the job. I was wrong. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate and his decision a few days ago to resort to personal attacks on Obama's character and integrity run counter to my personal beliefs and core values. I have lost my respect for McCain and I believe that a McCain/Palin administration would only worsen the economic situation in the country."
Severing my ties to a party that I worked tirelessly for 25 years -- campaigning for every Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan -- never crossed my mind… until McCain shifted his campaign strategy to launch negative attacks against Obama. McCain's characterization of Obama as "terrorist" and a "Muslim" reeked with racism. And unleashing his vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, to do the dirty job against Obama further solidified my support for Obama who -- despite the negative attacks against him -- has maintained an honorable and respectful campaign.
Watching their third presidential debate where McCain incessantly attacked Obama reinforced my perception that McCain is an angry and erratic man unworthy of occupying the highest position of the land. What the American people need is someone who is cool under fire and can articulate his program of government clearly without ambiguities. Obama has consistently demonstrated his cool-headedness time and time again during the course of his campaign. On the other hand, McCain has the propensity to go off tangent.
Unable to market McCain's fuzzy economic plans to the electorate, the McCain campaign launch its "October Surprise" in an attempt to recover lost ground. Negative ads were shown on television and "whispering" campaign -- most of which were lies and half-truths -- pervaded in the Internet.
Palin's attacks began on October 4 when she told three separate rallies that Obama is "not a man who sees America like you and I see America," and accusing Obama of "palling around" with a William Ayers -- co-founder of the radical Weather Underground in the 1960's -- whom she called a "domestic terrorist." She told the agitated crowds that Obama is "not one of us." That same day, McCain who was addressing a crowd in New Mexico called Obama a "mystery, a liar, complicit in the economic crisis and an unaccomplished naif, at all the same time." In boxing, that's called "low blow."
Recently, the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee (RNC) launched a massive "rob call" campaign whose purpose was to link Obama to Ayers. Interestingly, Obama was only eight years old when Ayers was involved in the anti-Vietnam War student movement in the 1960's. Today, Ayers has reformed and is now a respectable professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois and holds the title of "Distinguished Professor."
Compared to the "politics of fear" tactics of the McCain campaign, Obama's campaign by contrast took the high road, continually articulating the various programs that Obama plans to implement in his administration. And they are resonating with the people, particularly the middle class which is the group that is hurt most in the economic crisis and financial meltdown that plagues the nation today. Polls have shown that the people believe that Obama is more capable than McCain in handling the economic crisis.
In my opinion, Barack Obama is the right man for the job as President of the United States of America. In times of crisis, I believe that Obama would have better judgment in dealing with domestic issues as well as international issues. I believe that he has the vision to bring the nation into the 21st century. I also believe that Obama will bring the American people together. And ultimately, I believe that Obama will regain the world's respect for America. (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Why I support Barack Obama
Last October 7, 2008, I withdrew my endorsement of John McCain and endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States. News of my support for Obama spread like wildfire in the Filipino-American community. After all, I have been known to be an active and loyal Republican for the past 25 years.
I sent the following message by email to the members of the Executive Council of the National Federation of Filipino-American Republicans (NFFAR), an organization which I founded in 2004: "Effective immediately, I am resigning as Chairman of NFFAR. It was a hard decision on my part. However, I believe that I have to do it because of what has been happening in the McCain campaign.
I endorsed McCain before the California primary believing that he was the right man for the job. I was wrong. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate and his decision a few days ago to resort to personal attacks on Obama's character and integrity run counter to my personal beliefs and core values. I have lost my respect for McCain and I believe that a McCain/Palin administration would only worsen the economic situation in the country."
Severing my ties to a party that I worked tirelessly for 25 years -- campaigning for every Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan -- never crossed my mind… until McCain shifted his campaign strategy to launch negative attacks against Obama. McCain's characterization of Obama as "terrorist" and a "Muslim" reeked with racism. And unleashing his vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, to do the dirty job against Obama further solidified my support for Obama who -- despite the negative attacks against him -- has maintained an honorable and respectful campaign.
Watching their third presidential debate where McCain incessantly attacked Obama reinforced my perception that McCain is an angry and erratic man unworthy of occupying the highest position of the land. What the American people need is someone who is cool under fire and can articulate his program of government clearly without ambiguities. Obama has consistently demonstrated his cool-headedness time and time again during the course of his campaign. On the other hand, McCain has the propensity to go off tangent.
Unable to market McCain's fuzzy economic plans to the electorate, the McCain campaign launch its "October Surprise" in an attempt to recover lost ground. Negative ads were shown on television and "whispering" campaign -- most of which were lies and half-truths -- pervaded in the Internet.
Palin's attacks began on October 4 when she told three separate rallies that Obama is "not a man who sees America like you and I see America," and accusing Obama of "palling around" with a William Ayers -- co-founder of the radical Weather Underground in the 1960's -- whom she called a "domestic terrorist." She told the agitated crowds that Obama is "not one of us." That same day, McCain who was addressing a crowd in New Mexico called Obama a "mystery, a liar, complicit in the economic crisis and an unaccomplished naif, at all the same time." In boxing, that's called "low blow."
Recently, the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee (RNC) launched a massive "rob call" campaign whose purpose was to link Obama to Ayers. Interestingly, Obama was only eight years old when Ayers was involved in the anti-Vietnam War student movement in the 1960's. Today, Ayers has reformed and is now a respectable professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois and holds the title of "Distinguished Professor."
Compared to the "politics of fear" tactics of the McCain campaign, Obama's campaign by contrast took the high road, continually articulating the various programs that Obama plans to implement in his administration. And they are resonating with the people, particularly the middle class which is the group that is hurt most in the economic crisis and financial meltdown that plagues the nation today. Polls have shown that the people believe that Obama is more capable than McCain in handling the economic crisis.
In my opinion, Barack Obama is the right man for the job as President of the United States of America. In times of crisis, I believe that Obama would have better judgment in dealing with domestic issues as well as international issues. I believe that he has the vision to bring the nation into the 21st century. I also believe that Obama will bring the American people together. And ultimately, I believe that Obama will regain the world's respect for America. (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Saturday, October 18, 2008
PERRYSCOPE
Perry Diaz
Politics of Fear
Never in the history of the United States was "politics of fear" used to bring out the worse in people and sow fear in them. And by doing so, John McCain has created a "lynch mob" mentality among white voters.
McCain unleashed his running mate, Sarah Palin, to attack Barack Obama with lies and innuendoes. At a Florida rally, the event turned so ugly that it prompted the Secret Service to investigate an alleged death threat when someone shouted "Kill him! Kill him!" Others shouted "terrorist" in reaction to Palin's inflammatory rhetoric that Obama was palling around with Bill Ayers -- co-founder of the radical Weather Underground in the 1960's -- whom she called a "domestic terrorist" As Dana Milbank, a Washington Post columnist, says in his column, "Unleashed, Palin makes a pit bull look tame." Yes, indeed. Palin's vitriolic attacks against Obama have earned her the moniker "Attack Dog."
It is interesting to note that Obama was only eight years old when Ayers was involved in the student unrest in the 1960's. Today, Ayers has reformed and is now a respectable professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois and holds the title of "Distinguished Professor."
In an attempt to tone down Palin's hate-mongering tirades, McCain told a Minnesota rally, "We want to fight, and I will fight, but we will be respectful. I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments and I will respect him." McCain said further, "I want to be president ... but I have to tell you that he is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared of as president of the United States." But the crowd booed him -- Sarah had already turned his supporters into a lynch mob.
Obama, who never digressed from his focus on the country's worst economic crisis since the Great Depression 80 years ago, rebuked McCain for preaching "anger and division." At an Ohio rally, Obama said, "In the last couple of days we have seen a barrage of nasty insinuations and attacks and I am sure we will see much more over the next 25 days." Indeed, the intensity of personal attacks against Obama has increased dramatically.
At another Palin rally, a supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African-American camera man and told him, "Sit down, boy!" -- an apparent warning that tells African-Americans to stay away from McCain rallies. In his column titled "McCain and Palin's lynch-mob tactics," Tod Robberson said, "It's increasingly worrying that John McCain and Sarah Palin are embracing the acceptability of campaign tactics that play to the most racist and intolerant tendencies among their supporters.
John McCain knows that Barack Obama has no links whatsoever to terrorism, and yet he's doing everything he can to create that linkage. And he's unleashing Sarah Palin to do his dirty work while McCain claims to be above this condemnable form of negative campaigning. This is unconscionable, and it shows how desperate John McCain has become. He promised repeatedly that he wouldn't campaign this way.
And he said that when politicians campaign that way, it shows how little vision they have of the future. But most dangerous in this form of campaigning is that he and Sarah Palin are standing by, with smiles on their faces, while their supporters yell things like, 'Kill him!' in reference to Obama. They have done nothing to calm down this lynch-mob mentality. Instead, they are doing everything they can to promote it. John McCain must make a full-court, public push to stop this 'kill him' mentality now."
These hate-mongering attacks by the McCain campaign started in earnest after the Vice Presidential Debate two weeks ago; however, I have been receiving hundreds of hate Obama emails since the primary season from -- of all people! -- Filipino-Americans. I received an email from Ed F. titled "More Family Pictures of the new First Family??" which contains photos of Obama's "African heritage."
I received another email from Elena A. titled "Is America FOR SALE to the Arabs?" which seems to suggest that Obama is an "Arab" and therefore a Muslim.
I received an email from Thelma E. criticizing support of Obama. She said that she is not voting for Obama because he is a Muslim. She said that Obama used the Koran when he took his oath of office as Senator. I replied saying that there is a picture in the Internet which shows that he used the Bible, not the Koran.
The other day, I got a call from Celly C. She told me that Obama grew up in Indonesia and since Indonesia is a Muslim country, therefore Obama is Muslim. She also said that Obama is linked to terrorists including Libya's President Kaddafi. I told her that these statements aren't true.
I received another email from Jess H.R. which says: "Hi you all!!! Hope you don't mind me sharing this open letter with you all which is written by someone I don't even know but I truly agree with his opinions about Barack Obana as a future president of this country. In all my life time here in the United States, I never thought that there would be a time when I would really fear for the security of this country.
The opinions expressed in this letter are so much like mine, and also really like my opinions as well. It is only that the author expressed them better than I can ever do. My mind is so worried , and my physical being so scared and being so I don't think I would be able to delineate those same opinions better myself. Urging you all therefore to read and give this letter some thought, and decide whether which of the two candidates have the best interest and serve this country better." The open letter that Jess attached to his email was another hate Obama letter. It has nothing to do with real issues such as the economic crisis and financial meltdown.
What I found distressing from all the emails I received is that the senders didn't seem to care about the real issues. They indulge in "politics of fear." As one of my readers said, "I think they're trying very hard to out-white the whites, out-conservative the conservatives, and out-Republican the Republicans. " If that is the case, I feel sorry for them. This election will be won by the candidate who can convince the voters that he is the one who can handle the economic problems of the country. And recent polls showed that a majority of American believed that Obama is the man who can do the job.
As Bill Clinton said in 1992 when he ran against then President George HW Bush, "It's the economy, stupid," Obama can say the same thing. But this time around, the economy is worse than it was in 1992. (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Politics of Fear
Never in the history of the United States was "politics of fear" used to bring out the worse in people and sow fear in them. And by doing so, John McCain has created a "lynch mob" mentality among white voters.
McCain unleashed his running mate, Sarah Palin, to attack Barack Obama with lies and innuendoes. At a Florida rally, the event turned so ugly that it prompted the Secret Service to investigate an alleged death threat when someone shouted "Kill him! Kill him!" Others shouted "terrorist" in reaction to Palin's inflammatory rhetoric that Obama was palling around with Bill Ayers -- co-founder of the radical Weather Underground in the 1960's -- whom she called a "domestic terrorist" As Dana Milbank, a Washington Post columnist, says in his column, "Unleashed, Palin makes a pit bull look tame." Yes, indeed. Palin's vitriolic attacks against Obama have earned her the moniker "Attack Dog."
It is interesting to note that Obama was only eight years old when Ayers was involved in the student unrest in the 1960's. Today, Ayers has reformed and is now a respectable professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois and holds the title of "Distinguished Professor."
In an attempt to tone down Palin's hate-mongering tirades, McCain told a Minnesota rally, "We want to fight, and I will fight, but we will be respectful. I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments and I will respect him." McCain said further, "I want to be president ... but I have to tell you that he is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared of as president of the United States." But the crowd booed him -- Sarah had already turned his supporters into a lynch mob.
Obama, who never digressed from his focus on the country's worst economic crisis since the Great Depression 80 years ago, rebuked McCain for preaching "anger and division." At an Ohio rally, Obama said, "In the last couple of days we have seen a barrage of nasty insinuations and attacks and I am sure we will see much more over the next 25 days." Indeed, the intensity of personal attacks against Obama has increased dramatically.
At another Palin rally, a supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African-American camera man and told him, "Sit down, boy!" -- an apparent warning that tells African-Americans to stay away from McCain rallies. In his column titled "McCain and Palin's lynch-mob tactics," Tod Robberson said, "It's increasingly worrying that John McCain and Sarah Palin are embracing the acceptability of campaign tactics that play to the most racist and intolerant tendencies among their supporters.
John McCain knows that Barack Obama has no links whatsoever to terrorism, and yet he's doing everything he can to create that linkage. And he's unleashing Sarah Palin to do his dirty work while McCain claims to be above this condemnable form of negative campaigning. This is unconscionable, and it shows how desperate John McCain has become. He promised repeatedly that he wouldn't campaign this way.
And he said that when politicians campaign that way, it shows how little vision they have of the future. But most dangerous in this form of campaigning is that he and Sarah Palin are standing by, with smiles on their faces, while their supporters yell things like, 'Kill him!' in reference to Obama. They have done nothing to calm down this lynch-mob mentality. Instead, they are doing everything they can to promote it. John McCain must make a full-court, public push to stop this 'kill him' mentality now."
These hate-mongering attacks by the McCain campaign started in earnest after the Vice Presidential Debate two weeks ago; however, I have been receiving hundreds of hate Obama emails since the primary season from -- of all people! -- Filipino-Americans. I received an email from Ed F. titled "More Family Pictures of the new First Family??" which contains photos of Obama's "African heritage."
I received another email from Elena A. titled "Is America FOR SALE to the Arabs?" which seems to suggest that Obama is an "Arab" and therefore a Muslim.
I received an email from Thelma E. criticizing support of Obama. She said that she is not voting for Obama because he is a Muslim. She said that Obama used the Koran when he took his oath of office as Senator. I replied saying that there is a picture in the Internet which shows that he used the Bible, not the Koran.
The other day, I got a call from Celly C. She told me that Obama grew up in Indonesia and since Indonesia is a Muslim country, therefore Obama is Muslim. She also said that Obama is linked to terrorists including Libya's President Kaddafi. I told her that these statements aren't true.
I received another email from Jess H.R. which says: "Hi you all!!! Hope you don't mind me sharing this open letter with you all which is written by someone I don't even know but I truly agree with his opinions about Barack Obana as a future president of this country. In all my life time here in the United States, I never thought that there would be a time when I would really fear for the security of this country.
The opinions expressed in this letter are so much like mine, and also really like my opinions as well. It is only that the author expressed them better than I can ever do. My mind is so worried , and my physical being so scared and being so I don't think I would be able to delineate those same opinions better myself. Urging you all therefore to read and give this letter some thought, and decide whether which of the two candidates have the best interest and serve this country better." The open letter that Jess attached to his email was another hate Obama letter. It has nothing to do with real issues such as the economic crisis and financial meltdown.
What I found distressing from all the emails I received is that the senders didn't seem to care about the real issues. They indulge in "politics of fear." As one of my readers said, "I think they're trying very hard to out-white the whites, out-conservative the conservatives, and out-Republican the Republicans. " If that is the case, I feel sorry for them. This election will be won by the candidate who can convince the voters that he is the one who can handle the economic problems of the country. And recent polls showed that a majority of American believed that Obama is the man who can do the job.
As Bill Clinton said in 1992 when he ran against then President George HW Bush, "It's the economy, stupid," Obama can say the same thing. But this time around, the economy is worse than it was in 1992. (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Sunday, October 12, 2008
PERRYSCOPE
Perry Diaz
Who won the Palin- Biden debate?
The much-ballyhooed vice presidential debate turned out to be a "presidential" debate by surrogates of John McCain and Barack Obama. Both surrogates -- Sarah Palin and Joseph Biden -- attacked and defended the presidential candidates and hardly questioned each other's qualifications.
However, odd as it may seem, it was the right thing to do for both surrogates. After all, the office they're seeking is a "do nothing" job until a situation arises where the presidency is vacated at which time the vice president would ascend to the top job of the land. And that's one reason why the Palin-Biden debate had attracted a lot of attention and anticipation. The American people -- due to McCain's age -- wanted to know if Sarah Palin is qualified and ready to assume the presidency should it become vacant.
As a debater, Palin excelled in form and style. She was able to think on her feet and has the uncanny ability to digress from the issue and talk about something else, usually about "energy" which she claimed to be an expert on. Or she would blurt out something about "change" or "reform" and promise to stop the "greed and corruption in Wall Street" -- a line that she repeated numerous times. With a smiling face and an occasional flirtatious wink at the audience and television viewers, Palin charmed her way out of situations where she didn't have any idea what the issues were all about.
There was a moment during the debate when the moderator asked her: "As Vice President, there's nothing you've promised as a candidate that you would take off the table because of this financial issue?" Palin's response was: "There is not, and how long have I been at this? Like five weeks?" Whoa! Five weeks of exposure in national and world affairs? This only reinforced what people have been saying all along: Palin does not have the qualifications to hold the office of Vice President or -- God forbid! -- President of the United States.
So, who won the debate? All things considered, Palin won on "form and style" which were not quantifiable and Biden won on "substance" which was what really counts. Simply put, Biden's 35 years of experience in the U.S. Senate was just too much for Palin to match. Indeed, Palin's refusal to answer some of the questions manifested her abject ignorance of the issues confronting the nation and the American people.
All the polls conducted after the debate gave thumbs up to Biden. A CBS News/Knowledge Networks surveyed 500 uncommitted voters of which 46% thought that Biden won and 21% thought that Palin was the winner. On important issues, 98% found Biden to be more knowledgeable compared to Palin's 65%.
Another survey conducted by CNN/Opinion Research Corp. showed Biden did better with 51% to Palin's 36%. The survey also showed that 87% believed that Biden was qualified to be president while only 42% favored Palin.
It is interesting to note that 84% of the those polled said that Palin exceeded their expectations compared to Biden's 64%. Does this means then that Palin did a better job than Biden? I don't think so. All it proved was that the viewers' perception of Palin prior the debate was below par.
Her performance may be categorized as "most improved." And the "improvement" comes from the fact that she did not repeat the blunders she made during her interview with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric. It's like improving her grade of F to a C. Had it been another F, Palin would have flunked the finals and she would have dragged McCain down the drain as well.
The debate came to and end with no knock-out punches. Obviously, Biden restrained himself from "slugging" Palin. He did the right thing. And Palin didn't even attempt to throw a real punch at Biden. In essence, the two protagonists were just sparring -- or, more aptly, shadow boxing -- for 90 minutes.
The Palin-Biden debate may go down in history as the "Debate to Nowhere." It was a draw in the sense that it wouldn't have any considerable impact on the McCain-Obama presidential contest. McCain and Obama have two more debates to come. Obama scored high on their first debate and he is enjoying a slim but stable lead of about 5% over McCain in surveys.
McCain finally realized that the economy and the Iraq war are two issues he cannot win but could not afford to lose. As a consequence, McCain made a decision to resort to attacking Obama's character and integrity. Right after the Palin-Biden debate, McCain unleashed Palin -- the "pit bull with a lipstick" -- to immediately attack Obama and attack she did. The campaign has gotten really nasty. Indeed, the 2008 presidential campaign season could become the dirtiest in the history of the United States. With McCain unabashedly and purposely using "character assassination" tactics to capture the presidency, it could cause a backlash against him and his attack dog Palin.
In my opinion, with the financial meltdown and the spectre of an economic collapse, the American people will be looking for a leader who can deal with these problems. Thus far, the polls showed that Obama is perceived to be the one who can do it. (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Sunday, October 5, 2008
PERRYSCOPE
Perry Diaz
Palin should bow out
When Republican presidential candidate John McCain picked Palin as his vice presidential running mate, little did he know that he was in for a roller coaster ride in his quest to become the oldest first-term President. When McCain introduced her to the public, she became an instant "super star." She reenergized McCain's campaign with her stunning beauty and "go-getter" personality.
And by the time she spoke at the Republican National Convention, the slumbering conservative Republicans -- who had a hard time accepting the maverick McCain into their fold -- woke up and don their armor ready to follow McCain and Palin into battle against the better-organized Democrats.
Within a few days of Palin's emergence on the national scene on August 29, 2008, McCain wiped out his rival Barack Obama's nine-point lead. Donations to McCain's war chest poured in. Finally, the turning point in McCain's campaign was reached and the McCain/Palin ticket took off at supersonic speed. McCain took Palin with him most of his campaign appearances and unleash his "pit bull with a lipstick" to do all the demolition work against the Obama political machine.
Then in a sudden twist of events, the seemingly formidable Palin fortress began to crumble under a tidal wave of public criticism. The "fortress" turned out to be a craftily configured -- and deceiving -- maze of lies and deceit. Recently, an article by Andrew Sullivan listed 12 documented lies told by Palin, to wit: She lied about the Bridge to Nowhere, her firing of the town librarian and police chief of Wasilla, Alaska, about her pressure on Alaska's public safety commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in- law, about her previous statements on climate change and about Alaska's contribution to America's oil and gas production.
She also lied when she asked her daughters for their permission for her to run for vice-president, about the actual progress in constructing a natural gas pipeline from Alaska, about Obama's on habeas corpus, about her alleged tolerance of homosexuality, about the use or non-use of a TelePrompter at the St. Paul convention, about her alleged pay-cut as mayor of Wasilla and about health of the polar bear population in Alaska.
In the three one-on-one interviews that Palin had with the media, Palin's performance in addressing the issues was miserable, to say the least. During her interview with Charlie Gibson, she couldn't give the right answer when asked what the "Bush Doctrine" was. But it was the interview with Katie Couric that manifested her lack of knowledge on foreign policy. She claimed that the proximity of Russia to Alaska gave her credentials in foreign policy. When Couric asked her to elaborate, Palin responded, "Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land — boundary that we have with — Canada." Then she said, "It's funny that a comment like that was kind of made to — cari — I don't know, you know? Reporters ..." Couric said, "Mocked?" "Yeah, mocked," said Palin. "I guess that's the word. Yeah."
When Couric asked Palin again to explain how Alaska's proximity to Russia has enhanced her foreign policy credentials, Palin replied, "Well, it certainly does because our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there—" Couric interrupted and asked her, "Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?"
Palin replied, "We have trade missions back and forth… We do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to our state." If trade missions were all that Palin could show as her experience in negotiating with the Russians, she would be a good candidate for president of the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, but not the vice president the of the U.S.
Palin's forthcoming debate with Joe Biden will be the defining moment for her. If she fails to perform convincingly, then she might as well pack up and abandon her quest for the vice presidency.
In the short time that Palin has been on the national scene, she came to personify a new breed of populists -- the "Palinists." Palinism attracts a broad base of evangelicals, creationists, and defenders of the Second Amendment; and which propagates anti-abortion and anti-gay sentiments.
Palin's use of the media to distort facts and disseminate lies has been initially successful. However, recent events have turned the table on Palin. Recently unearthed facts about her public and private life have combusted and are spreading like prairie fire across America.
Recently, conservative Kathleen Parker, in her syndicated column, surprised her readers when she said: "Like so many women, I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted."
Parker commented that Palin is "clearly out of her league." Her reaction to Palin's interviews with Gibson, Hannity, and Couric was: "If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself." And finally, she said: "Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first. Do it for your country."
As McCain's slogan says, "Country First," Palin should do exactly that and bow out of the race graciously. (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
PERRYSCOPE
PERRY DIAZ
Palin effect
When Republican presidential candidate John McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, a lot of people wondered if Palin was qualified to become Vice President of the United States. Having been a mayor of a small Alaska town of 9,000 residents and governor of Alaska with a population of 700,000 for less than two years, was Palin ready to take over the presidency should anything happen to 72-year old McCain if he were elected president?
McCain was criticized -- particularly by the media -- for his choice of a seemingly inexperienced politician with no evident exposure to foreign policy or world affairs. But as soon as Palin was presented at the Republican National Convention last September 3, 2008, she became an overnight sensation.
Instantly, she boosted McCain's presidential stock and reenergized his campaign. McCain wouldn't go anywhere without Palin in tow. Palin -- who calls herself "pit bull with a lipstick" -- was very effective in getting the Republicans excited. In effect, Palin became McCain's ultimate "weapon of mass deception" which he needed to torpedo and derail the turbo-driven campaign of Barack Obama.
Palin was so effective that some people started making reference to the McCain/Palin ticket as the Palin/McCain ticket as if she was the one running for president, which in a sense she was. In his campaign rallies, McCain would make a short introductory pitch and then let Palin do the talking... and attacking. Enthusiastically, she would do the dirty job of smearing Obama for McCain. And McCain would just stand grandfatherly- like behind her, happy as a clam. It was a great script.
Within a week of the emergence of Palin from nowhere, McCain obliterated Obama's nine-point lead. In recent polls, McCain had surged ahead of Obama, thanks to the entry of a "super star" into his campaign. Indeed, the presidential campaign was beginning to look like a Palin vs. Obama contest.
Why not? Given McCain's age and health issues, Americans could be electing two Republican presidents in this election. But this could also cause the voters to take another hard look at the real Palin -- not the stunningly attractive and sweet-talking "hockey mom" that they're seeing in scripted appearances.
That first opportunity to see the real Sarah Palin came when she was interviewed by Charles Gibson on television. Gibson was selected in the belief that he would give Palin an easy pass. Wrong! Gibson seemingly knew Palin's weak and vulnerable areas. So when he asked Palin if she agreed with the "Bush Doctrine," she paused for a few seconds, breathed deeply as if she was going to perform a triple-somersault dive, and then asked, "In what respect, Charlie?" Gibson then asked her: "What do you interpret it to be?"
Dumbfounded and with eyes agog, Palin said, "His world view," which sounded more like a question. She then tried to wing it but it was one of those moments when you don't know the answer, it's better not to give an answer. However, to admit ignorance would have been more disastrous for a person seeking the vice presidency.
The second test came when Gibson asked her how Alaska's proximity to Russia would give her an "insight" into that country. Palin responded: "They're our next door neighbor and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." Now, is that the extent of Palin's foreign policy experience and world view?
Gibson's interview with Palin has put an indelible black mark on Palin's façade.
Consequently, tons of information surfaced when an army of media people and researchers descended on Alaska turning over every stone under the artic tundra to unearth the trail that Palin left behind before catapulting to the national scene. And lo and behold, there were enough damaging and disparaging information that painted Palin quite differently from her "star power" image.
Interviews with people and public officials revealed more about the "Troopergate" scandal in which Palin allegedly fired the Public Safety Commissioner when he refused her demand to fire Palin's former brother-in-law from his job as state trooper. Other scandals and anomalies involving Palin's public and personal life surfaced and inundated the media as well as the late-night shows.
She became staple for jokes by Jay Leno, David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Kimmel, Craig Ferguson and others. Sarah Palin cartoons and funny pictures mushroomed in the Internet. But the final test of Palin will come during her debate with her Democratic vice presidential rival Joe Biden on October 2. Their debate would be the defining moment for Palin. A mediocre performance could repel a lot of her supporters and put McCain's candidacy at risk.
Although McCain's selection of Palin momentarily boosted his candidacy, at the end of the day the American people will reserve their final judgment on which presidential candidate is best suited for the job. On November 4, 2008, the American people will troop to the polling booths to decide once and for all whether McCain or Obama should lead the nation -- and the world -- in the next four years or probably eight years.
And like every U.S. presidential election, there are two criteria that the voters would use to decide whom to vote for: Character and Leadership.
Palin and Biden would become incidental to the voters' choice for president. With less than six weeks left in the campaign, a lot of things could happen that could sway the Americans' preference for president, particularly at a time when the country is experiencing a financial meltdown which could be worse than the Great Depression 80 years ago. And whoever that person is, there are two things he or she must possessed: strong character and great leadership. (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Palin effect
When Republican presidential candidate John McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, a lot of people wondered if Palin was qualified to become Vice President of the United States. Having been a mayor of a small Alaska town of 9,000 residents and governor of Alaska with a population of 700,000 for less than two years, was Palin ready to take over the presidency should anything happen to 72-year old McCain if he were elected president?
McCain was criticized -- particularly by the media -- for his choice of a seemingly inexperienced politician with no evident exposure to foreign policy or world affairs. But as soon as Palin was presented at the Republican National Convention last September 3, 2008, she became an overnight sensation.
Instantly, she boosted McCain's presidential stock and reenergized his campaign. McCain wouldn't go anywhere without Palin in tow. Palin -- who calls herself "pit bull with a lipstick" -- was very effective in getting the Republicans excited. In effect, Palin became McCain's ultimate "weapon of mass deception" which he needed to torpedo and derail the turbo-driven campaign of Barack Obama.
Palin was so effective that some people started making reference to the McCain/Palin ticket as the Palin/McCain ticket as if she was the one running for president, which in a sense she was. In his campaign rallies, McCain would make a short introductory pitch and then let Palin do the talking... and attacking. Enthusiastically, she would do the dirty job of smearing Obama for McCain. And McCain would just stand grandfatherly- like behind her, happy as a clam. It was a great script.
Within a week of the emergence of Palin from nowhere, McCain obliterated Obama's nine-point lead. In recent polls, McCain had surged ahead of Obama, thanks to the entry of a "super star" into his campaign. Indeed, the presidential campaign was beginning to look like a Palin vs. Obama contest.
Why not? Given McCain's age and health issues, Americans could be electing two Republican presidents in this election. But this could also cause the voters to take another hard look at the real Palin -- not the stunningly attractive and sweet-talking "hockey mom" that they're seeing in scripted appearances.
That first opportunity to see the real Sarah Palin came when she was interviewed by Charles Gibson on television. Gibson was selected in the belief that he would give Palin an easy pass. Wrong! Gibson seemingly knew Palin's weak and vulnerable areas. So when he asked Palin if she agreed with the "Bush Doctrine," she paused for a few seconds, breathed deeply as if she was going to perform a triple-somersault dive, and then asked, "In what respect, Charlie?" Gibson then asked her: "What do you interpret it to be?"
Dumbfounded and with eyes agog, Palin said, "His world view," which sounded more like a question. She then tried to wing it but it was one of those moments when you don't know the answer, it's better not to give an answer. However, to admit ignorance would have been more disastrous for a person seeking the vice presidency.
The second test came when Gibson asked her how Alaska's proximity to Russia would give her an "insight" into that country. Palin responded: "They're our next door neighbor and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." Now, is that the extent of Palin's foreign policy experience and world view?
Gibson's interview with Palin has put an indelible black mark on Palin's façade.
Consequently, tons of information surfaced when an army of media people and researchers descended on Alaska turning over every stone under the artic tundra to unearth the trail that Palin left behind before catapulting to the national scene. And lo and behold, there were enough damaging and disparaging information that painted Palin quite differently from her "star power" image.
Interviews with people and public officials revealed more about the "Troopergate" scandal in which Palin allegedly fired the Public Safety Commissioner when he refused her demand to fire Palin's former brother-in-law from his job as state trooper. Other scandals and anomalies involving Palin's public and personal life surfaced and inundated the media as well as the late-night shows.
She became staple for jokes by Jay Leno, David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Kimmel, Craig Ferguson and others. Sarah Palin cartoons and funny pictures mushroomed in the Internet. But the final test of Palin will come during her debate with her Democratic vice presidential rival Joe Biden on October 2. Their debate would be the defining moment for Palin. A mediocre performance could repel a lot of her supporters and put McCain's candidacy at risk.
Although McCain's selection of Palin momentarily boosted his candidacy, at the end of the day the American people will reserve their final judgment on which presidential candidate is best suited for the job. On November 4, 2008, the American people will troop to the polling booths to decide once and for all whether McCain or Obama should lead the nation -- and the world -- in the next four years or probably eight years.
And like every U.S. presidential election, there are two criteria that the voters would use to decide whom to vote for: Character and Leadership.
Palin and Biden would become incidental to the voters' choice for president. With less than six weeks left in the campaign, a lot of things could happen that could sway the Americans' preference for president, particularly at a time when the country is experiencing a financial meltdown which could be worse than the Great Depression 80 years ago. And whoever that person is, there are two things he or she must possessed: strong character and great leadership. (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
PERRYSCOPE
Perry Diaz
'Legalizing' Jueteng
Like the popular "transformer" toys, the illegal numbers game -- jueteng -- has transformed by way of bureaucratic legerdemain into a legalized game called "small town lotto" or STL. But the game hasn't changed a bit, it is still jueteng. The only difference is that the jueteng lords are raking in more money.
STL is a government-sponsored numbers game administered by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO). Launched in 1987 during the time of then President Cory Aquino, STL failed for a variety of reasons. It was shelved in 1990. In 2005, in the aftermath of the jueteng scandal which implicated some members of the First Family --one of whom was referred to as the "Lion King" by whistleblower Sandra Cam -- President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed Edward Hagedorn, the Mayor of Puerto Princesa, as National Anti-Jueteng Task Force czar. Hagedorn advocated for the revival of STL. He was convinced that STL was the right tool to stamp out jueteng. With optimism and great expectation Hagedorn set a deadline -- September 15, 2006 -- to totally stop jueteng in the country.
In reaction to the STL revival, Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz, the chairman of the "Krusadang Bayan Laban sa Jueteng," said that STL was meant as a "shameful substitute for jueteng." He said: "just the same it is also a corrupt and corrupting numbers game as jueteng. It was already tried before and proved to be a big failure."
Recently, jueteng made the front pages again when Auxiliary Bishop Lucilo Quiambao of the Diocese of Legazpi City in Albay alleged that PCSO employees were also working as jueteng collectors for the local gambling lords. He suggested that the government should investigate the PCSO employees if the government was indeed serious in stamping out jueteng. But how can the government -- or to be more precise, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo -- stop jueteng when her "kumpadre," town mate, and political benefactor is reputedly the biggest jueteng operator in the country.
To my knowledge, jueteng in Pampanga and the rest of the country has never been better during Gloria's presidency. Ironically, it was the jueteng scandal during Joseph Estrada's presidency that catapulted Gloria to power in 2001. Indeed, corruption begets corruption.
In Albay, the only STL operation in the entire province -- and all of Bicolandia -- was franchised to the Pilipinas Pacific Rim Corp. (PPRC) on November 29, 2006. Within a year, allegations of fraud were made that the STL operation was just a cover up for jueteng. It is interesting to note that PCSO granted the STL franchise to PPRC on the latter's representation that it will use STL to combat the jueteng operation in the province. Nothing was farther from the truth. Once STL became operational, the number of jueteng "comadors" -- or bet collectors -- increased substantially, a clear indication that jueteng thrived under STL.
STL is supposed to generate revenue for the government. There are three draws everyday at 11:30 a.m., 4:30 p.m. and 9:15 p.m. The STL franchisee is supposed to remit the proceeds as follows: 5% to the provincial government, 10% to the local governments, 4.5% to the local PNP (police), 0.5% to the national police, 2.5% to the three congressional districts, and 7.5% to PCSO.
PPRC keeps the lion's share -- 70%. But here is the stinger: it was reported in the news last year alleging that PPRC was "raking big money from the Albayanons while only a pittance is being remitted to the provincial government" by manipulating the remittance reports. The STL operation in Albay rakes in about P500,000 daily. That's a whopping P182.5 million a year!
The plot thickens when Sandra Cam accused PPRC of not properly declaring its income from STL. Cam claimed that falsified bet collection reports were widespread in more than 15 provinces in Luzon, particularly in Albay. She criticized Gov. Joey Salceda for failing to act on the "doctored" collection reports.
She also alleged that Salceda and three other Bicol governors -- Sally Lee of Sorsogon, Jesus Typoco Jr of Camarines Norte, and Luis Raymund Villafuerte of Camarines Sur -- were responsible for the jueteng revival in their respective province. In a surprise move, Salceda reacted and issued a directive to stop STL in Albay. He instructed the provincial police director to relay his directive to PCSO to stop all STL operations in his province. But PCSO defied Salceda's order. Meanwhile, Malacanang has been quiet about the whole scandal.
Three years after Czar Hagedorn declared war on jueteng, jueteng is still alive and kicking with vigor. The people continue to bet on jueteng or STL… or both. It wouldn't matter whether they're betting on jueteng or STL -- what difference would it make other than gambling away their hard-earned money. And it wouldn't matter whether it's legal or illegal. It's a social disease and there is no known prescription to cure it. None yet. (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
PERRYSCOPE
Perry Diaz
What price peace?
In her fervent desire to have peace in Mindanao, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo went to the extent of secretly forging an agreement that would virtually cede a huge portion of Philippine territory to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The treaty would have expanded the present Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) into a virtual state within a state replete with all the functions and authority of a sovereign and independent state.
But, in a twist of fate, the day before the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral
Domain (MOA-AD) last August 5, 2008 in Malaysia, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order in response to several petitions claiming that the treaty was unconstitutional.
What followed next was a tragedy of error that cost lives and property in Mindanao.
In the aftermath of the public uproar over the attempt to partition the country, Gloria decided to scrap the controversial MOA-AD. She also dissolved the government's peace panel negotiating with the MILF. Basically, it's back to square one for the peace process. And, worst, Mindanao is now in a virtual state of war or, to be more precise, a civil war between Muslim Filipinos and Christian Filipinos. In reaction, Mohaqher Iqbal, the MILF's chief peace negotiator declared, "The peace process is now in purgatory."
One might wonder if Gloria could have done better to achieve a lasting peace in Mindanao. In my opinion, yes! she could have done better to achieve peace without dividing the country and
pitting the Muslims and Christians against each other, particularly in the ARMM region.
ARMM was established in 1989 through Republic Act 6734 pursuant to the 1987 constitution which mandated its creation. It consisted of the predominantly Muslim provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi. ARMM is headed by an elected Regional
Governor and has a unicameral Regional Legislative Assembly headed by a Speaker.
Although ARMM is not a perfectly "autonomous" body, there is much to be desired to truly fulfill the mandate of the law that created it. Like the government that begot it, ARMM is, to say the least, congenitally corrupt. The recent ARMM elections, while generally peaceful, was marred by anomalies and irregularities. The Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) Foundation, which was accredited by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), reported vote-buying and what it called "a culture of corruption."
What MOA-AD would have accomplished was anything but peace. As a matter of fact, it already has started the opposite -- war! For the first time in the past 30 years, the spectre of "jihad" -- holy war -- looms in the horizon. The snafu created by the Arroyo government has angered leaders from both sides of the conflict: the MILF militants were incensed because they considered the MOA-AD a "done deal" while Gloria and her henchmen were frustrated because they were stopped by the Supreme Court a day away from signing the agreement.
With 500,000 people already displaced by the war and increasing daily, peace has once again eluded us. All the work built up in the past three decades by government peace negotiators were blown to smithereens -- a setback that would take time and effort to rebuild.
Now, that the "peace process" is back to square one, it's time for the government to take a hard look at what it would really take to achieve peace. In my opinion, any peace formula that doesn't address poverty is doomed to fail.
Religious differences are not the issue. They can be bridged. But as long as the people are mired in poverty, there will be no peace in Mindanao. Mindanao, with its rich natural resources is being exploited by profiteers.
The local population -- particularly the Muslims -- have been relegated to second-class citizenship. The Arroyo government is lacking in programs that would alleviate the plight of the Muslim poor. Giving the Muslims an "ancestral domain" is meaningless unless there is a sincere attempt -- not the usual lip service -- to develop the economy in Mindanao.
In its June 2008 survey, the Social Weather Stations (SWS) showed that self-rated poverty in Mindanao rose by nine points, from 59% to 68%. In comparison, Metro Manila rose from 44% to 51% and Balance Luzon from 48% to 53%. The hardest hit was the Visayas from 47% to 66%. However, poverty in the ARMM region was the highest in Mindanao.
The polls would tend to support Gloria's critics who have been saying all along that she neglected the Visayas and Mindanao, favoring the ruling elite based in Metro Manila. Indeed, the strongest supporters of federalism -- or partitioning -- come from the Visayas and Mindanao. Their complaints have been ignored by Gloria whose dole-out programs have caused more resentment among Visayans and Mindanaons.
Indeed, the price of peace in Mindanao is more than just giving the Muslim Filipinos their "ancestral domain." As long as the Muslim Filipinos are treated as second-class citizens and kept in perpetual bondage, peace will never blossom in Mindanao. The seeds of discontent have been sowed and have taken roots in Mindanao. The bottom line is: peace can only be achieved in Mindanao if the people saw real economic progress in the ARMM region. And if real progress was made, autonomy or statehood becomes moot. The Muslims would opt to remain in the Philippine republic (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
What price peace?
In her fervent desire to have peace in Mindanao, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo went to the extent of secretly forging an agreement that would virtually cede a huge portion of Philippine territory to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The treaty would have expanded the present Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) into a virtual state within a state replete with all the functions and authority of a sovereign and independent state.
But, in a twist of fate, the day before the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral
Domain (MOA-AD) last August 5, 2008 in Malaysia, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order in response to several petitions claiming that the treaty was unconstitutional.
What followed next was a tragedy of error that cost lives and property in Mindanao.
In the aftermath of the public uproar over the attempt to partition the country, Gloria decided to scrap the controversial MOA-AD. She also dissolved the government's peace panel negotiating with the MILF. Basically, it's back to square one for the peace process. And, worst, Mindanao is now in a virtual state of war or, to be more precise, a civil war between Muslim Filipinos and Christian Filipinos. In reaction, Mohaqher Iqbal, the MILF's chief peace negotiator declared, "The peace process is now in purgatory."
One might wonder if Gloria could have done better to achieve a lasting peace in Mindanao. In my opinion, yes! she could have done better to achieve peace without dividing the country and
pitting the Muslims and Christians against each other, particularly in the ARMM region.
ARMM was established in 1989 through Republic Act 6734 pursuant to the 1987 constitution which mandated its creation. It consisted of the predominantly Muslim provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi. ARMM is headed by an elected Regional
Governor and has a unicameral Regional Legislative Assembly headed by a Speaker.
Although ARMM is not a perfectly "autonomous" body, there is much to be desired to truly fulfill the mandate of the law that created it. Like the government that begot it, ARMM is, to say the least, congenitally corrupt. The recent ARMM elections, while generally peaceful, was marred by anomalies and irregularities. The Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) Foundation, which was accredited by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), reported vote-buying and what it called "a culture of corruption."
What MOA-AD would have accomplished was anything but peace. As a matter of fact, it already has started the opposite -- war! For the first time in the past 30 years, the spectre of "jihad" -- holy war -- looms in the horizon. The snafu created by the Arroyo government has angered leaders from both sides of the conflict: the MILF militants were incensed because they considered the MOA-AD a "done deal" while Gloria and her henchmen were frustrated because they were stopped by the Supreme Court a day away from signing the agreement.
With 500,000 people already displaced by the war and increasing daily, peace has once again eluded us. All the work built up in the past three decades by government peace negotiators were blown to smithereens -- a setback that would take time and effort to rebuild.
Now, that the "peace process" is back to square one, it's time for the government to take a hard look at what it would really take to achieve peace. In my opinion, any peace formula that doesn't address poverty is doomed to fail.
Religious differences are not the issue. They can be bridged. But as long as the people are mired in poverty, there will be no peace in Mindanao. Mindanao, with its rich natural resources is being exploited by profiteers.
The local population -- particularly the Muslims -- have been relegated to second-class citizenship. The Arroyo government is lacking in programs that would alleviate the plight of the Muslim poor. Giving the Muslims an "ancestral domain" is meaningless unless there is a sincere attempt -- not the usual lip service -- to develop the economy in Mindanao.
In its June 2008 survey, the Social Weather Stations (SWS) showed that self-rated poverty in Mindanao rose by nine points, from 59% to 68%. In comparison, Metro Manila rose from 44% to 51% and Balance Luzon from 48% to 53%. The hardest hit was the Visayas from 47% to 66%. However, poverty in the ARMM region was the highest in Mindanao.
The polls would tend to support Gloria's critics who have been saying all along that she neglected the Visayas and Mindanao, favoring the ruling elite based in Metro Manila. Indeed, the strongest supporters of federalism -- or partitioning -- come from the Visayas and Mindanao. Their complaints have been ignored by Gloria whose dole-out programs have caused more resentment among Visayans and Mindanaons.
Indeed, the price of peace in Mindanao is more than just giving the Muslim Filipinos their "ancestral domain." As long as the Muslim Filipinos are treated as second-class citizens and kept in perpetual bondage, peace will never blossom in Mindanao. The seeds of discontent have been sowed and have taken roots in Mindanao. The bottom line is: peace can only be achieved in Mindanao if the people saw real economic progress in the ARMM region. And if real progress was made, autonomy or statehood becomes moot. The Muslims would opt to remain in the Philippine republic (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Monday, September 8, 2008
PERRYSCOPE
Perry Diaz
Going to the Dogs
With all the scandals and anomalies which have erupted during Gloria Arroyo's tumultuous reign, it seems that the Philippines is going to the dogs or could it have gone already to the dogs. With a highly politicized military and an abjectly dysfunctional Congress, the Supreme Court appears to be the only branch of government that has not yet deteriorated. However, some members of the Judiciary have used their position to achieve ends other than protecting the law and safeguarding the constitution of the land.
In my article, "Reign of the Kleptocrats (January 19, 2007)," I said of former Justice Secretary Hernando "Nani" Perez: "The Perez corruption case is one of the most despicable corruption cases because, as the chief guardian of the law, he brazenly broke the law that he swore to protect. He was responsible for the prosecution of law-breakers and now he is prosecuted for breaking the law."
Gloria appointed Perez, an intimate friend, as the Top Lawman of the land after she assumed the presidency on January 20, 2001 when Joseph Estrada was ousted President during the "People Power" EDSA II revolution. Four days later, Perez approved the controversial IMPSA deal in which he allegedly received a $2-million bribe for his ruling favorable to the Argentine-based company. It was also alleged that this amount was part of a $14-million bribe given to Arroyo administration officials.
The First Gentleman, Mike Arroyo, was also implicated in the scandal. Recently, a "bombshell" was dropped involving the two Sabio brothers in the GSIS-Meralco feud. It all started when Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr. of the Court of Appeals complained that a certain Francis de Borja who, on behalf of Meralco, offered him a P10-million bribe to inhibit himself from the case filed against Meralco, presumably a move that would benefit Meralco.
As soon as Justice Sabio disclosed the offer of bribery, de Borja countered and alleged that Justice Sabio wanted P50 million instead. According to de Borja, Sabio told him that Malacanang had offered him a large amount plus a promotion to the Supreme Court. Apparently, Sabio would have preferred P50 million to a promotion to the High Court. Needless to say, Sabio denied de Borja's allegation.
As all of these events were going on, Jesus Santos, a lawyer of First Gentleman Mike Arroyo and a member of the GSIS Board of Trustees, called Camilo Sabio -- older brother of Justice Sabio and Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) -- to ask for "help" on behalf of GSIS General Manager Winston Garcia. Santos later admitted that he indeed called Chairman Sabio on May 30, 2008.
In an interview with dzBB radio station, Santos said: "We are not trying to influence the courts. We were just asking for help for GSIS president and general manager Winston Garcia, for his campaign to give justice to consumers and fellow Filipinos abused by Meralco's policies." Would anybody believe that?
The scandal prompted Senator Ping Lacson to call for the disbarment of Santos and PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also formed a panel to investigate the role of the PCGG Chairman in the bribery scandal. But like what had happened in several scandals involving government officials, Malacanang hastily sent Sabio on an "official" trip to Brazil, Austria, and the United Kingdom from August 14 to 30.
When his brother Justice Sabio was summoned to testify before the Supreme Court investigation panel, he admitted that his brother Camilo called him twice to influence him to decide in favor of GSIS. With his testimony, the link from Winston Garcia to Justice Sabio was established with Justice Sabio's brother Camilo as the conduit.
On June 12, several senators called for Camilo Sabio's resignation or removal from office. It is interesting to note that Camilo Sabio was arrested in September 2006 by the Senate for ignoring a Senate subpoena to answer accusations that he and other PCGG commissioners dissipated funds from sequestered Marcos properties.
What I found abominable is that Sabio is supposed to be the anti-corruption crusader and advocate for "good government" but as it has turned out, he may have betrayed his duty to the people he swore to protect. What a shame.
Last Sept. 1, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines published a paid statement seeking the resignation of Court of Appeals justices involved in the bribery scandal and influence peddling in the GSIS-Meralco case. The statement said that "resignation would salvage what is left of the integrity of the Court and is a necessary sacrifice that needs to be made by those whose names have been dragged into the scandal." Now is the opportune time for the Judiciary to clean up house and restore high ethical standards among its members from the Supreme Court down to the Municipal Courts. (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Going to the Dogs
With all the scandals and anomalies which have erupted during Gloria Arroyo's tumultuous reign, it seems that the Philippines is going to the dogs or could it have gone already to the dogs. With a highly politicized military and an abjectly dysfunctional Congress, the Supreme Court appears to be the only branch of government that has not yet deteriorated. However, some members of the Judiciary have used their position to achieve ends other than protecting the law and safeguarding the constitution of the land.
In my article, "Reign of the Kleptocrats (January 19, 2007)," I said of former Justice Secretary Hernando "Nani" Perez: "The Perez corruption case is one of the most despicable corruption cases because, as the chief guardian of the law, he brazenly broke the law that he swore to protect. He was responsible for the prosecution of law-breakers and now he is prosecuted for breaking the law."
Gloria appointed Perez, an intimate friend, as the Top Lawman of the land after she assumed the presidency on January 20, 2001 when Joseph Estrada was ousted President during the "People Power" EDSA II revolution. Four days later, Perez approved the controversial IMPSA deal in which he allegedly received a $2-million bribe for his ruling favorable to the Argentine-based company. It was also alleged that this amount was part of a $14-million bribe given to Arroyo administration officials.
The First Gentleman, Mike Arroyo, was also implicated in the scandal. Recently, a "bombshell" was dropped involving the two Sabio brothers in the GSIS-Meralco feud. It all started when Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr. of the Court of Appeals complained that a certain Francis de Borja who, on behalf of Meralco, offered him a P10-million bribe to inhibit himself from the case filed against Meralco, presumably a move that would benefit Meralco.
As soon as Justice Sabio disclosed the offer of bribery, de Borja countered and alleged that Justice Sabio wanted P50 million instead. According to de Borja, Sabio told him that Malacanang had offered him a large amount plus a promotion to the Supreme Court. Apparently, Sabio would have preferred P50 million to a promotion to the High Court. Needless to say, Sabio denied de Borja's allegation.
As all of these events were going on, Jesus Santos, a lawyer of First Gentleman Mike Arroyo and a member of the GSIS Board of Trustees, called Camilo Sabio -- older brother of Justice Sabio and Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) -- to ask for "help" on behalf of GSIS General Manager Winston Garcia. Santos later admitted that he indeed called Chairman Sabio on May 30, 2008.
In an interview with dzBB radio station, Santos said: "We are not trying to influence the courts. We were just asking for help for GSIS president and general manager Winston Garcia, for his campaign to give justice to consumers and fellow Filipinos abused by Meralco's policies." Would anybody believe that?
The scandal prompted Senator Ping Lacson to call for the disbarment of Santos and PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also formed a panel to investigate the role of the PCGG Chairman in the bribery scandal. But like what had happened in several scandals involving government officials, Malacanang hastily sent Sabio on an "official" trip to Brazil, Austria, and the United Kingdom from August 14 to 30.
When his brother Justice Sabio was summoned to testify before the Supreme Court investigation panel, he admitted that his brother Camilo called him twice to influence him to decide in favor of GSIS. With his testimony, the link from Winston Garcia to Justice Sabio was established with Justice Sabio's brother Camilo as the conduit.
On June 12, several senators called for Camilo Sabio's resignation or removal from office. It is interesting to note that Camilo Sabio was arrested in September 2006 by the Senate for ignoring a Senate subpoena to answer accusations that he and other PCGG commissioners dissipated funds from sequestered Marcos properties.
What I found abominable is that Sabio is supposed to be the anti-corruption crusader and advocate for "good government" but as it has turned out, he may have betrayed his duty to the people he swore to protect. What a shame.
Last Sept. 1, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines published a paid statement seeking the resignation of Court of Appeals justices involved in the bribery scandal and influence peddling in the GSIS-Meralco case. The statement said that "resignation would salvage what is left of the integrity of the Court and is a necessary sacrifice that needs to be made by those whose names have been dragged into the scandal." Now is the opportune time for the Judiciary to clean up house and restore high ethical standards among its members from the Supreme Court down to the Municipal Courts. (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Monday, September 1, 2008
PERRYSCOPE
Perry Diaz
The war Gloria waited for
The ugly turn of events in Mindanao in the past several weeks makes me wonder if what happened was accidental or deliberate. It may seem accidental, but in politics events are sometimes programmed to make them look accidental but in reality were deliberately planned.
After drafting a Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) that seemed to be in violation of the constitution, Gloria -- to avoid embarrassment by a Supreme Court reversal -- canceled the MOA-AD.
But any intelligent person -- and Gloria is a very intelligent woman -- would know that the MOA-AD violated the constitution. So, why did she push hard for the signing of the controversial treaty when she knew that it wouldn't pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court and Congress.
What did she really have in mind?
What I find intriguing was that Gloria preempted the Supreme Court by canceling the MOA-AD before the High Court could decide on whether the agreement was in order or not. Had she allowed the High Court to reject the MOA-AD, she could have washed her hands and blame the High Court for denying the Muslim Filipinos' right to a homeland or ancestral domain. She could then renegotiate the MOA-AD and make it more compliant with the constitution.
That would have been a win-win situation. And she would have redeemed herself and at the same time demonstrate her statesmanship. And, the Muslims will have their Bangsamoro homeland and perhaps peace will finally reign in Mindanao. Who knows, Gloria might even be able to tweak the constitution and achieve her dream of an "Enchanted Kingdom" as the nation's Prime Minister for the next 20 years. That would have been the high road for her to take. But she chose to waddle in murky waters.
Gloria played a queen's gambit by sacrificing the MOA-AD to gain a strategic offensive position against the MILF. The MILF fell for it and declared that they will not renegotiate the MOA-AD claiming that the treaty is a "done deal." Immediately, elements of the MILF went on the offensive and struck at government forces as well as civilians. Civilian casualties were heavy and more than 200,000 were displaced.
On Aug. 18, Gloria addressed the nation and said: "We will not tolerate and will crush any attempt to disrupt peace and development in Mindanao. I'm also calling for an emergency meeting of the National Security Council this afternoon. I'm with you in peace. We're all in this together."
She then convened the NSC Cabinet cluster -- not the entire council which includes the past presidents and congressional leaders. Gloria then instructed the members -- many of whom are retired generals serving in her administration -- to come up with recommendations on how to deal with the Mindanao imbroglio. I wouldn't be surprised if the generals would recommend an "all-out war" against the MILF.
Of course we all know that an "all-out war" is not going to vanquish the MILF or, on broader scale, the Muslims of Mindanao. The Muslims in Mindanao have never been totally subjugated in the last 500 years. War between the government and the Muslims would only end in stalemate.
The Arroyo government has made its position: It will not sign the MOA-AD in its present form. The government also demanded that the MILF turn in the three "rogue" commanders who initiated the attacks in Mindanao. In addition, the government said it will only renegotiate with the MILF only if they surrendered their weapons. The MILF's position is:
It is willing to go back to the negotiation table; however, it considered the MOA-AD a "done deal" and will never renegotiate it. In regard to surrendering the "rogue" commanders, MILF said, "No way." Unless the parties change their positions, the peace process is in the deep freeze. And for now, it's war
I often wonder what Gloria had in mind when she appointed her retired Chief of Staff, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, as Presidential Adviser for the Peace Process in Mindanao. It was like putting a wolf in sheep's skin. And true enough, the moment Esperon took charge of the "peace process," the whole thing went haywire. His predecessor, Jess Dureza, said that the draft of the MOA-AD had been changed drastically where he left off.
I am beginning to suspect that the real objective of Gloria was to create a "war," not the peace that she had been parroting for the past weeks. It's beginning to sound like a broken record. Indeed, this could be the war that Gloria has been waiting for to put in place a scenario that would ultimately end in a martial law. Indeed, all the signs are there for Gloria to replicate what Ferdinand Marcos did in 1972 and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan in 1999.
They were both supported by the U.S. Marcos stayed in power for 14 years before Uncle Sam booted him out of the country and dumped him in Hawaii. Musharraf was in power for nine years until Uncle Sam forced him to resign last week. Can Gloria do 10? (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
The war Gloria waited for
The ugly turn of events in Mindanao in the past several weeks makes me wonder if what happened was accidental or deliberate. It may seem accidental, but in politics events are sometimes programmed to make them look accidental but in reality were deliberately planned.
After drafting a Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) that seemed to be in violation of the constitution, Gloria -- to avoid embarrassment by a Supreme Court reversal -- canceled the MOA-AD.
But any intelligent person -- and Gloria is a very intelligent woman -- would know that the MOA-AD violated the constitution. So, why did she push hard for the signing of the controversial treaty when she knew that it wouldn't pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court and Congress.
What did she really have in mind?
What I find intriguing was that Gloria preempted the Supreme Court by canceling the MOA-AD before the High Court could decide on whether the agreement was in order or not. Had she allowed the High Court to reject the MOA-AD, she could have washed her hands and blame the High Court for denying the Muslim Filipinos' right to a homeland or ancestral domain. She could then renegotiate the MOA-AD and make it more compliant with the constitution.
That would have been a win-win situation. And she would have redeemed herself and at the same time demonstrate her statesmanship. And, the Muslims will have their Bangsamoro homeland and perhaps peace will finally reign in Mindanao. Who knows, Gloria might even be able to tweak the constitution and achieve her dream of an "Enchanted Kingdom" as the nation's Prime Minister for the next 20 years. That would have been the high road for her to take. But she chose to waddle in murky waters.
Gloria played a queen's gambit by sacrificing the MOA-AD to gain a strategic offensive position against the MILF. The MILF fell for it and declared that they will not renegotiate the MOA-AD claiming that the treaty is a "done deal." Immediately, elements of the MILF went on the offensive and struck at government forces as well as civilians. Civilian casualties were heavy and more than 200,000 were displaced.
On Aug. 18, Gloria addressed the nation and said: "We will not tolerate and will crush any attempt to disrupt peace and development in Mindanao. I'm also calling for an emergency meeting of the National Security Council this afternoon. I'm with you in peace. We're all in this together."
She then convened the NSC Cabinet cluster -- not the entire council which includes the past presidents and congressional leaders. Gloria then instructed the members -- many of whom are retired generals serving in her administration -- to come up with recommendations on how to deal with the Mindanao imbroglio. I wouldn't be surprised if the generals would recommend an "all-out war" against the MILF.
Of course we all know that an "all-out war" is not going to vanquish the MILF or, on broader scale, the Muslims of Mindanao. The Muslims in Mindanao have never been totally subjugated in the last 500 years. War between the government and the Muslims would only end in stalemate.
The Arroyo government has made its position: It will not sign the MOA-AD in its present form. The government also demanded that the MILF turn in the three "rogue" commanders who initiated the attacks in Mindanao. In addition, the government said it will only renegotiate with the MILF only if they surrendered their weapons. The MILF's position is:
It is willing to go back to the negotiation table; however, it considered the MOA-AD a "done deal" and will never renegotiate it. In regard to surrendering the "rogue" commanders, MILF said, "No way." Unless the parties change their positions, the peace process is in the deep freeze. And for now, it's war
I often wonder what Gloria had in mind when she appointed her retired Chief of Staff, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, as Presidential Adviser for the Peace Process in Mindanao. It was like putting a wolf in sheep's skin. And true enough, the moment Esperon took charge of the "peace process," the whole thing went haywire. His predecessor, Jess Dureza, said that the draft of the MOA-AD had been changed drastically where he left off.
I am beginning to suspect that the real objective of Gloria was to create a "war," not the peace that she had been parroting for the past weeks. It's beginning to sound like a broken record. Indeed, this could be the war that Gloria has been waiting for to put in place a scenario that would ultimately end in a martial law. Indeed, all the signs are there for Gloria to replicate what Ferdinand Marcos did in 1972 and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan in 1999.
They were both supported by the U.S. Marcos stayed in power for 14 years before Uncle Sam booted him out of the country and dumped him in Hawaii. Musharraf was in power for nine years until Uncle Sam forced him to resign last week. Can Gloria do 10? (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Monday, August 25, 2008
PERRYSCOPE
Perry Diaz
Blueprint for Balkanization
The attempt of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to secretly grant "statehood" to a large area of Philippine territory has sparked an uproar and also brought to the forefront of international debate the issue of federalization of the Philippines. After failing to carve out a Bangsamoro "ancestral domain" for the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), Gloria has put into motion another Charter change (Cha-cha) -- to change the present unitary presidential system of government to a federal system.
Last Aug.4, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order stopping the signing of the "Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain" between the Philippine government and the MILF which was to occur the following day in Malaysia.
The Supreme Court had been kind and accommodating to Gloria on matters involving executive privilege; however, it has been vigilant when it comes to tinkering with the constitution. It appears that the Supreme Court is the only institution left which would protect the sanctity of the country's constitution.
With the House of Representatives seemingly in Gloria's pocket, the Senate has been wishy-washy on how to deal with Cha-cha. They didn't seem to know what they were bargaining for when 12 senators signed Joint Resolution No.10 authored by Senator Aquilino Pimentel which calls for the creation of 11 federal states including a homeland or "ancestral domain" for Bangsamoro.
However, once Cha-cha is on, Gloria could introduce any amendment including a provision that would allow her to remain in power beyond 2010 either as a Prime Minister for an indefinite period or President without term limits. Didn't she at one time promise that if the people would stay with her she'll transform the country into an "Enchanted Kingdom" within 20 years?
What then would Resolution No.10 accomplish? First of all, it will convene the Congress into a Constituent Assembly for the purpose of revising the constitution to establish a federal system of government which shall consist of 11 states and a Federal Administrative Region. It calls for the election of six senators from each state and increase the number of seats in the House of Representatives to a maximum of 350. The new states shall be Northern Luzon, Central Luzon, Southern Tagalog, Bicol, Minparom (Mindoro, Palawan, and Romblon), Eastern Visayas, Central Visayas, Western Visayas, Northern Mindanao, Southern Mindanao, and Bangsamoro. Metro Manila shall serve as the Federal Administrative Region. So far, so good.
But here is the stinger in Resolution No.10: "No state may dissolve itself, secede or separate from the Federal Republic of the Philippines unless it first secures the approval of two-thirds of its qualified voters in a plebiscite called for that purpose. Thereafter, the Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, voting separately, act on the proposed dissolution, secession or separation of the State concerned."
The question is: Why did Sen. Pimentel include a provision that would allow a State to dissolve, secede or separate from the Federal Republic? All constitutions of the Philippines, past and present, have not allowed secession. Why now?
It is important to note that the MILF's absolute goal has always been independence, not statehood. In my opinion, statehood to them would just be another step closer to independence. One may argue that while it would be possible to get two-thirds of a State's voters to secede, it would be improbable for the Congress to muster two-thirds to allow secession. And when that happens, would a seceding State take it sitting down?
Or would it go to war to free itself from the federal government? Wasn't that what happened in 1861 when seven states seceded from the United States? When the U.S. federal government rejected the secession, the secessionists formed their own country and went to war against the U.S. More than 620,000 Americans died in the War Between the States or better known as the American Civil War.
Indeed, the spectre of a Kosovo-like war in Mindanao is making a lot of people jittery. Recently, North Cotabato, Lanao del Norte, Sultan Kudarat, and Sarangani provinces became war zones when government military forces and MILF guerillas had running battles which caused massive evacuation of tens of thousands of civilians. Christians are arming themselves to the teeth.
Once the country is federalized, conflicts could erupt in Luzon and the Visayas. Northern Luzon, the largest of the 11 states, could become a hotbed of secessionist activities. The indigenous tribes in the four mountain provinces, which cut across Northern Luzon from north to south, have been yearning for autonomy for many years. Long neglected by the Philippine government, they're likely to demand for their own state or secede.
In the Western Visayas, the predominant Ilonggos have also been yearning for a separate Ilonggo Republic. In the Eastern Visayas, the predominant Cebuanos have always maintained that they were the largest ethnolinguistic group in the entire archipelago. They have been claiming that they were neglected and exploited by the "ruling Tagalistas" in "Imperial Manila."
At the end of the day, the nagging question is: Is federalism good for the Philippines? One of my readers, Ike Santos, said it succinctly: "Federalism is a natural political creation, not a work of a committee. We can not artificially create a new form of government overnight. Creating federalist regions, as suggested will only create more private armies, political animosities, corruption and power grabbing.
It's just another layer of bureaucracy. The current constitution has enough elbow room to allow laws to be made to provide political and geographic 'autonomies' while we continue to preserve the national government's role in equitable revenue and shared governance. We've created the autonomous barangays, Metro Manila, etc. Congress can enact laws on revenue sharing, forego pork barrels, implement current laws, etc. With the present state of political and economic affairs in the Philippines, we do not need another rock to hit our head with and ask why we're in pain."
In my opinion, Resolution No.10 is a blueprint for the Balkanization of the Philippines. What was once the "Pearl of the Orient" could become a chopped-up archipelago in a sea teeming with infernal warfare. Are the Filipino people ready for this? Or would they try to work within the framework of "One Nation, One People? (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Blueprint for Balkanization
The attempt of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to secretly grant "statehood" to a large area of Philippine territory has sparked an uproar and also brought to the forefront of international debate the issue of federalization of the Philippines. After failing to carve out a Bangsamoro "ancestral domain" for the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), Gloria has put into motion another Charter change (Cha-cha) -- to change the present unitary presidential system of government to a federal system.
Last Aug.4, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order stopping the signing of the "Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain" between the Philippine government and the MILF which was to occur the following day in Malaysia.
The Supreme Court had been kind and accommodating to Gloria on matters involving executive privilege; however, it has been vigilant when it comes to tinkering with the constitution. It appears that the Supreme Court is the only institution left which would protect the sanctity of the country's constitution.
With the House of Representatives seemingly in Gloria's pocket, the Senate has been wishy-washy on how to deal with Cha-cha. They didn't seem to know what they were bargaining for when 12 senators signed Joint Resolution No.10 authored by Senator Aquilino Pimentel which calls for the creation of 11 federal states including a homeland or "ancestral domain" for Bangsamoro.
However, once Cha-cha is on, Gloria could introduce any amendment including a provision that would allow her to remain in power beyond 2010 either as a Prime Minister for an indefinite period or President without term limits. Didn't she at one time promise that if the people would stay with her she'll transform the country into an "Enchanted Kingdom" within 20 years?
What then would Resolution No.10 accomplish? First of all, it will convene the Congress into a Constituent Assembly for the purpose of revising the constitution to establish a federal system of government which shall consist of 11 states and a Federal Administrative Region. It calls for the election of six senators from each state and increase the number of seats in the House of Representatives to a maximum of 350. The new states shall be Northern Luzon, Central Luzon, Southern Tagalog, Bicol, Minparom (Mindoro, Palawan, and Romblon), Eastern Visayas, Central Visayas, Western Visayas, Northern Mindanao, Southern Mindanao, and Bangsamoro. Metro Manila shall serve as the Federal Administrative Region. So far, so good.
But here is the stinger in Resolution No.10: "No state may dissolve itself, secede or separate from the Federal Republic of the Philippines unless it first secures the approval of two-thirds of its qualified voters in a plebiscite called for that purpose. Thereafter, the Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, voting separately, act on the proposed dissolution, secession or separation of the State concerned."
The question is: Why did Sen. Pimentel include a provision that would allow a State to dissolve, secede or separate from the Federal Republic? All constitutions of the Philippines, past and present, have not allowed secession. Why now?
It is important to note that the MILF's absolute goal has always been independence, not statehood. In my opinion, statehood to them would just be another step closer to independence. One may argue that while it would be possible to get two-thirds of a State's voters to secede, it would be improbable for the Congress to muster two-thirds to allow secession. And when that happens, would a seceding State take it sitting down?
Or would it go to war to free itself from the federal government? Wasn't that what happened in 1861 when seven states seceded from the United States? When the U.S. federal government rejected the secession, the secessionists formed their own country and went to war against the U.S. More than 620,000 Americans died in the War Between the States or better known as the American Civil War.
Indeed, the spectre of a Kosovo-like war in Mindanao is making a lot of people jittery. Recently, North Cotabato, Lanao del Norte, Sultan Kudarat, and Sarangani provinces became war zones when government military forces and MILF guerillas had running battles which caused massive evacuation of tens of thousands of civilians. Christians are arming themselves to the teeth.
Once the country is federalized, conflicts could erupt in Luzon and the Visayas. Northern Luzon, the largest of the 11 states, could become a hotbed of secessionist activities. The indigenous tribes in the four mountain provinces, which cut across Northern Luzon from north to south, have been yearning for autonomy for many years. Long neglected by the Philippine government, they're likely to demand for their own state or secede.
In the Western Visayas, the predominant Ilonggos have also been yearning for a separate Ilonggo Republic. In the Eastern Visayas, the predominant Cebuanos have always maintained that they were the largest ethnolinguistic group in the entire archipelago. They have been claiming that they were neglected and exploited by the "ruling Tagalistas" in "Imperial Manila."
At the end of the day, the nagging question is: Is federalism good for the Philippines? One of my readers, Ike Santos, said it succinctly: "Federalism is a natural political creation, not a work of a committee. We can not artificially create a new form of government overnight. Creating federalist regions, as suggested will only create more private armies, political animosities, corruption and power grabbing.
It's just another layer of bureaucracy. The current constitution has enough elbow room to allow laws to be made to provide political and geographic 'autonomies' while we continue to preserve the national government's role in equitable revenue and shared governance. We've created the autonomous barangays, Metro Manila, etc. Congress can enact laws on revenue sharing, forego pork barrels, implement current laws, etc. With the present state of political and economic affairs in the Philippines, we do not need another rock to hit our head with and ask why we're in pain."
In my opinion, Resolution No.10 is a blueprint for the Balkanization of the Philippines. What was once the "Pearl of the Orient" could become a chopped-up archipelago in a sea teeming with infernal warfare. Are the Filipino people ready for this? Or would they try to work within the framework of "One Nation, One People? (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)
Sunday, August 17, 2008
PERRYSCOPE
Quo Vadis, Mindanao?
PERRY DIAZ
Within a matter of days, Mindanao was thrown into a cauldron of turmoil which could -- if not handled judiciously -- explode into a civil war in Mindanao. Muslim separatists and Christian settlers who have coexisted for the most part of the last century are arming themselves for what could become a Kosovo-like strife.
What could trigger an armed conflict is the "Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain" (MOA-AD) between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) which would establish the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). Accordingly, the BJE "shall have the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral lands" and whose territory shall encompass the "land mass as well as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, and the aerial domain, the atmospheric space above it, embracing the Mindanao-Sulu- Palawan geographic region."
The agreement stipulates that "the core of the BJE shall constitute the present geographic area of the ARMM, including the municipalities of Baloi, Munai, Nunungan, Pantar, Tagoloan and Tangkal in the province of Lanao del Norte that voted for inclusion in the ARMM during the 2001 plebiscite." ARMM stands for "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" which is comprised of the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. Lately, the MILF demanded that the southern part of Palawan be included in their "ancestral domain."
In regard to internal waters, "the BJE shall have jurisdiction over the management, conservation, development, protection, utilization and disposition of all natural resources, living and non-living, within its internal waters extending fifteen (15) kilometers from the coastline of the BJE area."
In regard to territorial waters, "the territorial waters of the BJE shall stretch beyond the BJE internal waters up to the Republic of the Philippines (RP) baselines south east and south west of mainland Mindanao. Beyond the fifteen (15) kilometers internal waters, the Central Government and the BJE shall exercise joint jurisdiction, authority and management over areas and all natural resources, living and non-living contained therein."
In regard to resources, "the BJE is empowered with authority and responsibility for the land use, development, conservation and disposition of the natural resources within the homeland." And here is the stinger: "The BJE is free to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relations with foreign countries." And it also have the option to "establish and open Bangsamoro trade missions in foreign countries with which it has economic cooperation agreements."
The MOA-AD further stipulates: "Jurisdiction and control over, and the right of exploring for, exploiting, producing and obtaining all potential sources of energy, petroleum, in situ, fossil fuel, mineral oil and natural gas, whether onshore or offshore, is vested in the BJE as the party having control within its territorial jurisdiction."
It's no wonder Uncle Sam is supportive of the MOA-AD. On governance, "the BJE shall be empowered to build, develop and maintain its own institutions, inclusive of, civil service, electoral, financial and banking, education, legislation, legal, economic, and police and internal security force, judicial system and correctional institutions, necessary for developing a progressive Bangsamoro society."
All in all, the MOA-AD -- if signed and implemented -- would create an autonomous state within a state. The BJE has all the functions and powers of a sovereign and independent state. The only thing under the MOA-AD that the Central Government would control is its duty and obligation to take charge of external defense.
Set to be formally signed by the Philippine government and the MILF last Aug. 5 in Malaysia, the Philippine Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) the day before the scheduled signing. The High Court's TRO has put a monkey wrench on the questionable "peace formula" concocted by Malacanang. As soon as the TRO was issued, warfare between government forces and MILF rebels broke out in North Cotabato. A
ccording to some legal and constitutional experts, the MOA-AD is unconstitutional since it would create an autonomous state within a state with a centralized system of government. However, the BJE would fit under a federal system of government. In other words, before BJE could be created, the Philippine constitution must first be amended to change the unitary system of government to a federal system.
It is in this context that Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Hermogenes Esperon Jr. conveniently advanced the idea of a constitutional amendment. What Esperon has done is create a situation where Muslims in Mindanao and proponents of federalism would be allied with him and his master in Malacanang, Gloria Arroyo.
The Supreme Court's TRO would actually play into Gloria's hands. Since the MOA-AD couldn't be implemented at this time, Gloria could put the MOA-AD on the back burner and fast-track Charter change (Cha-cha) through a People's Initiative or Constitutional Assembly. An amendment to the constitution could then be introduced to allow Gloria to be in contention for Prime Minister or President without term limit after her current term ends in 2010.
But the Muslims should watch out. There is no guarantee that once Gloria has achieved her goal of staying in power beyond 2010, she could scrap the controversial MOA-AD and move to quell the MILF rebellion once and for all.
For the Muslims in Mindanao, it would be back to square one. For Gloria, her dream of an "Enchanted Kingdom" would come closer to reality. All she has to do next is look for the rest of Yamashita's gold and she can then live happily ever after in her "Enchanted Kingdom." (PerryDiaz@gmail. com)