At the annual conference of the American Studies Association of the Philippines last Saturday, I started off with a borrowed idea (from Henry Jenkins of the Center for Future Civic Media, whom I read about through Ethan Zuckerman’s indispensable blog). I started with a question: What does democracy look like? And then offered the following photograph, by the celebrated Romy Gacad of AFP, as an answer.

I explained why, in the following terms:

“This Agence France Presse photograph was taken on August 12, 2006, when President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo paid a quick visit to Legazpi City to survey preparations at a danger zone under the shadow of a restless Mayon. The next day, I wrote in my Newsstand blog:

This photo, taken yesterday by the peerless Romy Gacad of AFP in the vicinity of Mayon volcano, spoke to me on so many levels I knew I just had to use it … The composition is so exact it seems almost posed, until you consider the subjects involved: President Arroyo, of course, under the umbrella, facing (or receiving tribute from) Albay Gov. Gonzalez, Reps. Salceda and Lagman, and volcanology institute chief Solidum. (Note the triangle that the officials form.) Other photos, taken by Gacad and by other photographers too, remind us that this particular tableau was very much a product of the moment; in fact, most of the pictures taken at this volcano-gazing event yesterday show either the President by herself or in a huddle with officials. But the veteran lensman saw something different, perhaps a shift in movement, perhaps a blurring and then a coming-into-focus of color. Was it perhaps the presidential umbrella that drew his attention?

“In the 15 months since I wrote that, I have become more and more convinced that this candid portrait of the hierarchy of political power, caught on the wing, tells us something true about democracy, Philippine-style.

“But if this is democracy, where are the demos? Three possibilities. The people are implied; the leaders from the executive and the legislative branches are discussing their fate. The people have been warned off; note the sign that can be glimpsed in the space between the President and her umbrella-toting guard. If we fill in the blanks, we can read: Warning Don’t Go Beyond The Line. Not least, the people (and the press) are outside the frame, watching the scene.

“You may have other images in mind that illustrate democracy, Philippine-style. Any of the iconic photographs from the four heady days of Edsa Uno, for instance, would be similarly evocative. Familiar images of Philippine elections—yellow ballot box, blue-stained index fingers, seminarians in white—remain resonant. A photograph taken by Inquirer photographer Rem Zamora during special elections last May casts the eternal triangle of ballot box, armed guard, and election volunteer in a new light, literally through a different grid.

“But back to Bicol. I hope you will agree with me when I say that the Gacad photo does two things wonderfully well: It captures the elite nature of our representative democracy today, and at the very same time it recalls the datu-and-tribute origins of our history.”

The rest of my remarks can be found here, in Newsstand. But I would be interested to find out: For you, what does democracy look like? If you can’t post a photo, maybe you can post a link!

Exhibit A (actually, Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2) is what the Philippine National Police says caused the Glorietta blast.

Exhibit B is what the Ayala Corporation says caused the Glorietta blast.

And a 3-D Walk-Through of the Glorietta basement! How cool is that?

Bloggers like Tongue In, Anew seem more inclined to be skeptical of the PNP’s explanations, while other bloggers like Inner Sanctum (see his October 22 entry in particular) are not. See also, The Journal of the Jester-in-Exile.

Here’s what I find interesting. Now that the Governor-General, I mean, the US Ambassador, has spoken, it just might be that public opinion will shift, one way or another. The only reason I’m not saying public opinion will suddenly shift totally in favor of the PNP is, that the Zobels are involved on the other side, and you have another kind of colonial dynamic at work, there, as blogger Inner Sanctum seems to represent.

An effort to try to sift the evidence is in Glorietta Blast: Blaming the Basement, in Newsbreak (complete with a nifty diagram!).

As for me, I still think it’s too early to make conclusions, not least because a layman-friendly side-by-side comparison of all the available information, and the experts weighing in, has yet to be done.

Two months ago, I asked you if we should post a comment from a politician or a political group. Somebody had written what amounted to an invitation to readers to join “Team Gordon,” and I didn’t know what to do.

I like what Kabayan said in response, and his pragmatic frame of mind: Let’s post it, he said, and if what happens after is not to our liking, then “discontinue the experiment.” I also like Bert’s evocative suggestion: Post them all, he said, and we will “clobber them with kisses, or with stones.”

A couple of other loyal readers said perhaps we shouldn’t entertain posts like this; I hear them, but perhaps if we adopt Kabayan’s experimental approach they can see their way to a qualified Yes?

Here, then, is that two-month-old post from Gordon’s camp.

Vision. Experience. Track Record.

These are the criteria for leadership that should guide us in choosing the next President in 2010.

Dick Gordon is the only one with Vision, Experience, and Track Record.

He turned Olongapo City around, made subic an investment and tourist destination, and brought about the resurgence of tourism in the Philippines.

Through his long involvement with the Philippine National Red Cross, as governor and Chairman, Gordon has brought help to those struck by calamities and diseases.

As Senator, he has worked on bills and resolutions aimed at repairing our people’s faith in government institutions.

As President, we are certain that ONLY DICK GORDON’s TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERHSIP can bring about CHANGE that is FOR REAL, FOR BETTER, FOR EVERYONE, AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME!

Visit our blog at www.teamgordon2010.blogspot.com and find out how you can help elect Dick Gordon for PRESIDENT!

Just a word to explain why some 16 comments since about two weeks ago have been disapproved and then deleted.

From the start, I wanted the comment thread for our particular corner of the blogosphere to be unmoderated, with offensive comments deleted only after (soon after) publication (that is, once they were caught). That is the rule I follow in my own blog, at Newsstand, and I think colleague Manolo follows that simple guideline too. But Current belongs to Inquirer.net’s pool of blogs, and must follow Inquirer.net rules. Primarily because even comments have their own RSS feed, and offensive comments once distributed by RSS can no longer be retrieved and then deleted, Inquirer.net requires comment moderation.

Fine, you might ask, but define offensive? Well, as we all know, there are very few hard and fast rules; chief of these, I would think, is what we can call the doubter’s rule: If there is some doubt as to whether a comment is offensive, give the commenter the benefit of the doubt. Publish the comment.

Another basic rule: writing in ALL CAPS is the Internet equivalent of screaming. Lower the volume.

A third: Do not insult other commenters. The 16 comments I caught in the offensive-comments net all fall, without exception, under this rule of thumb. Insult politicians and big business and the Elders of Zion, if you want; criticize the Inquirer or its editors and columnists and blog gatekeepers, if you wish; raise conspiracy theories about what gets published here or not or who gets convicted or thrown to jail, if you will. But respect other commenters, at least for the trouble they take to write down their thoughts, with a minimum of courtesy.

Many of the 16 comments use the word of the year: hunghang. And direct it at specific commenters.

“MGA HUNGHANG KAYO!!!!” says one. “Mga honghang ang dami nyo ng pinagsasabi,di nyo ba alam na ang magnanakaw galit sa kapwa magnanakaw?” says another.

Others use variations on the same theme. “Asan ang mga katulad mong bobo? 100,000 daw magrally? Nasan?” Or: “The other group of morons here are asking why Chavit is not included in the suit.” Or: “tanga! gumising ka nga!” Or even: “hoy egan.. isa ka pang ungas.”

Another even brought schools into the sorry picture. “Bobo ka pala e, the justices make decisions based on submitted evidences, not on hearsays or public opinions, hay naku, mga bobong tao. Ako kahit di ako lawyer, naintindihan ko. Siyempre, UPI-an ako, kaw siguro Benilde?” (No comment!)

Does anyone seriously think that the arguments we forward are enhanced by the insults we use? Or that expressing our thoughts in the language of insult makes them worth considering?

What, aside from venting their frustrations and their inability to argue in public, were the following commenters thinking when they wrote: “Ang kapal ng mukha mong magsabi ng mga bagay na nasa taas tapos di mo alam ang mga facts!” Or: “I don’t know if you’re just playing a dim-wit but your analogy really is out of this world?” Or: “baka tulad ka din ng idol mo…walang laman ang utak hahahahahahahaha.”

Really, is there a need to say: “I read that kind of arguments in the tabloid…given by those who argue but doesnt think…. You are a waste!!!!”

I did not delete the 16 comments because I did not agree with their substance; as anyone can tell just by scrolling through the hundreds of comments already published, anything goes here, as far as point of view is concerned. But let’s draw the line at insulting each other, shall we?

This playground is for the big boys and girls. If you want to play by shouting “DOUBLE STANDARD KA DIYAN…! UNGAS KA TALAGA…”, may I suggest another sandbox?

Of course, I can imagine some of you thinking, of me: “MAY PERSONALITY DISORDER KA PALA.”

The other day, I had to disapprove two comments, posted by the same writer, because in an attempt to defend his own views he took to calling two co-commenters names. That brings the total number of comments I’ve disapproved to maybe four or five, all of them (at least in my view) bearing great offense not to me or Manolo personally but to our fellow readers.

The disapproved comments were atypical; by and large, as can be seen from a simple review of the hundreds of comments we’ve already logged, commenters or (my preference) co-bloggers have been generally civil. Oh, to be sure, there is much sarcasm to go around, and insults have been exchanged, but subtly.

While there is little evidence that we have actually succeeded in convincing others (much of our exchange consists of opinion firmly stated and, when challenged, even more firmly restated), we have managed to keep talking. The comments of a recent regular poster, completely cynical about all politicians and even the political enterprise itself, have probably tested the patience of other commenters. And yet the discussion continues. That, I would like to think, is no mean feat; merely keeping this small part of the public square open is already a good thing.

[Read the rest of this entry »]

I’ve been meaning to do this for some time; this blog has had the good fortune to be read by prolific commenters, and it is only right that we recognize what they do for our particular corner of the so-called blogosphere.

Without them, Inquirer Current would lose much of its electricity, its snap and crackle. In a very real (or really virtual?) sense, this is their blog too.

Let me cite three of them in particular: Bert, Kabayan, and OFW in Afghanistan. They are not often on the same side of an issue, or reading from the same page (if I read between the lines correctly, they were not even on especially cordial terms in this blog’s early days); their frequent interventions, however, have helped turn this blog’s comment threads into a real forum.

If I’m not mistaken, three of our most commented-on posts are Manolo’s discussion of presidential timber in the senatorial forest, his take on Korean assertiveness, and my singing of the post-Zubiri blues. In each of them, you will find, among the other voices, Bert, Kabayan, and OFW commenting away.

Something Bert wrote, in the middle of a sometimes sharp-edged discussion about possible presidential candidates, struck the right note about our role as participants – as posters, responders, reply-ers — in the public discourse. 

Let’s blog, post, argue and quarrel about everything, anything political. That’s one way of making our voices heard. Every one of us, what ever our views, have one thing in common-and that is that we all want the best happening to our beloved country and people. We want the best for ourselves in our lifetime, and the future of our next generations. This common denominator is the one force causing the continuing political upheavals and turmoil happening in all those years in our country resulting from our grim determination to find the ideal government officials we want that could give light to our aspirations. It’s so sad that as of this moment we are still stuck with the lot of them that have failed us, including this present government. Adding salt to injury, advertently or inadvertently, unheeding of our contempt and displeasure we have bestowed them, they are still making moves and plan to perpetuate themselves on us forever by this plan to do the CHA-CHA. ARE WE GOING TO LET THEM? Please reply, the future of the our next generations are in your hands.

It has been a month since my last post; my apologies for dropping off the radar screen, but I have been unusually busy. With luck, this busy-ness, or at least parts of it, should bear fruit starting next week. My thanks to colleague Manolo for keeping the blog going, and to our growing band of readers who continue to post very interesting comments indeed. (More about this, later this week.) 

On to the present, which, as luck would have it, is all about the past: I was struck last month by a column of Billy Esposo’s in the Star, which offered an assessment of the columnist’s reliability as a political crystal-ball gazer.

I thought Esposo did the honorable thing: Unlike any other mainstream media political commentator I know, he asked his readers to judge his political prognostications. But a close look at his column, and at other columns he had written (easily accessible here), tells us that Esposo undermined his own experiment, by choosing to write about only those predictions that had, willy-nilly, come true.

In other words, Esposo inserted a new mono-bloc into journalism’s musical chairs game —- and then promptly wrecked it.

[Read the rest of this entry »]

In The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh reports on How Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, became one of its casualties. Taguba was born in the Philippines, his father was a veteran of Bataan, and Taguba himself became a bemedaled general in the US armed forces. Read about his integrity.

If only we have generals like him -here at home.

Today we printed the last issue of Inquirer Compact, the company’s first venture in compact-format journalism. We had a great ride, but, well, all good things must come to an end. Ours came after almost a year and a half of publication, with issue no. 572.

The transition occupied most of my time the last two weeks; one of the last things we did was to upload our front pages to Flickr, as a fittingly digital reminder of the work we poured into the title. Over the next several days, I expect, I will be updating the tags, the descriptions (in other words, the text part) of our Flickr site.

But if you’d like to take a look now, the door’s already open.