How Filipino Personal Independence Undermines Community

I notice that Filipinos don't do "unified" particularly well. They don't do "compromise" or "concede" particularly well.

Do I need to do a recitation of examples, or will you stipulate that I am right and save me the time and words?

Okay, a couple of quick examples.

• Senator Sotto did not concede or compromise. He rebelled and set out on the attack.

• Elections are murderous. Not much concession there.

• Bloggers operate apart from one another rather than as a unified community. Loyalties of different writers join then split because they get hung up on some win-loss argument they cannot resolve with compromise and concession. Those who comment on blogs strive to dominate, not find agreement.

• Arguments for federalism keep cropping up because strong cities and provinces chafe under the heavy hand of the central government.

• Political parties collect and fall apart and collect again like bees with no queen or an elephant with no memory. The Philippine party collaboration is a short-term thing, with each candidate jockeying to find a niche that will benefit him best. There is not a lot of give to it, for sure.

Independence is great. Necessary in some circumstances, to define one's turf and rights. We don't want no stinkin' American occupiers ever again. Or Japanese. Or Spanish. Or Chinese.

But community is also great. Necessary in some circumstances, to be strong and repel enemies, or to go along the same path rather than erode progress by butting heads.

A sense of community is necessary IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES to agree to a set of laws and abide by them, for the good of the whole.

Filipinos have proved to me, their Western Born Resident Blogger, that they can do independent well. They have not proved squat about being able to do UNIFIED well. Just about everything is transactional. Temporal. "What's in it for me?"

Source: NASA

Big Ego does not let go well. It is a brittle business, trying to get things done in a climate of win/lose, gain face, save face. Brittle breaks easily.

The most constructive institutions hereabouts seem to be those with autocratic, independent bosses who have a clear sense of where they want to take things. Davao City, for example.

Fortunately, President Aquino is also one of those because he has the Peoples' endorsement, and that is an enormous backing. But what happens when Mar Roxas is elected President, and he has to do it on a bloody and divided battlefield over VP Binay? Or the other way around?

What is the aftermath of a dog eat dog political battle? Vengeance? Bitterness? Divided legislature at each other's throats? Vindictive Get Real style bloodletting for six years?

What happens to the unity of the Executive Branch and its ability to move the Philippines forward? How does the nation end the endless carping and malcontent bickering and maybe even coup plotting or Constitutional rewrites?

President Aquino has brought stability and progress because MOST of the Philippines is unified behind him. That ends in three years.

Until Filipinos can do the tough business of conceding, the Philippines will never be unified. Until a broad segment of population can grasp the concept of "good loser" , it will always be a bickering, contentious, negative place. As if the Get Real attitude speaks to what the psyche of the Filipino really is. Small minded and bickering and negative, relentlessly looking for someone to tear down.

As per usual, in spotting flaws, and believing they are real, I search for solution and . . .

I don't have one.

Until there is a national drive to teach -and a desire among mature adults to learn - how to be COMMUNITY, the Philippines is destined to be a contentious and non-productive place.

The fundamentals of unity:

• Sacrifice

• Courtesy

• Diplomacy

• Concession

They are built on being able to be BIG ENOUGH to let go of one's own imperatives in favor of those offered by others. In personal terms, unity requires:

• Strength of sacrifice

• Compassion of courtesy

• Dignity of Diplomacy

• Courage of Concession

It seems to me that Filipinos seeking a unified nation need to demonstrate, through acts, that they have the required:

• Strength

• Compassion

• Dignity

• Courage

You may wonder why I plant a photo of an American shuttle launch in a blog article about Philippine unity.

Here's why. I look at that picture and I imagine climbing into the seat of that plane and getting strapped onto what essentially is a huge guided explosion. Riding a bomb. THAT my friends is courage. Can you imagine the noise, the vibrations, the sense of vulnerability?

As it happens, and maybe you can read the small print on the shuttle, this is the Columbia, and while it is being blasted into space, a piece of foam insulation falls from the big rocket tube and damages the heat shield tiles of the shuttle wing. On re-entering the atmosphere, the wing breaks apart, the shuttle explodes, and all seven astronauts, six Americans and one Israeli, are killed.

That is sacrifice.

Not just to America, or Israel, really. But to knowledge, and the deepest quality of the human spirit that insists that we can be more tomorrow than we are today.

So in understanding the great courage and sacrifice these seven brave citizens of the world displayed, I wonder why it is so difficult for us to summon up the courage to concede an argument upon which no lives rest. Or let someone else be boss for a while, and support him rather than undermine him. Or grant a pedestrian the right-of-way in crossing the street, as a small gift of courtesy to our nation.

How hard is it, really, to give a little of ourselves in order to build a greater, unified Philippines?

Strength. Compassion. Dignity. Courage.

That is a proper Philippines.

"My Mind is a Blob"

When I was teaching high school for one frightful term, education was moving to a "New Math" which involved set theory; unions and intersections and ways of looking at mathematical truths. I never quite got the hang of it, beyond drawing circles, nor did anyone else, for the schools quickly tap-danced away from that teaching trend as too theoretical. And I tap danced away from the blackboard and into army green.

But the set concept has good application as we try to understand one another and the East/West cultures that sometimes collide. I don't think "collision" was a New Math term . . . but it seems to fit for East/West cultural overlap. The union of our cultures - the place where values are the same -sometimes seems small. The place where they collide seems huge.

All of us, both East and West, are alike in one way. We are limited in our ability to understand that which we have never experienced. That is, we both pack our ignorance. Usually, we simply don't have enough good information. We only see what we see, which is sometimes shaded by seeing only what we WANT to see. Or what others TELL us to see.

"Uh, Joe. You're getting kinda thick here. Watchu drivin' at?"

Grossly generalized opinion: Americans are more adept at accepting their own ignorance. Filipinos deny theirs. Americans learn, adjust, grow. Filipinos resist change. (Exceptions abound.)

I think most of the writers at Get Real Post (GRP) believe in what they write, about the limitations of Philippine culture and the incompetence and vindictiveness of President Aquino. I believe the yellow hordes supporting President Aquno also believe what they say, that this is a good man doing a lot of good things for a good nation. The opposing parties are firm in their respective views. Rigid.

But JoeAm can believe what he writes, that there is a bit of "beggar soul" in the cultural habits of the Philippines. And he can believe simultaneously that the Philippines is a rich, wholesome, interesting place to live, a nation that may be on the way to its welcome place as a respected, productive economic force. He can argue either point on a different day, or even merge them as one.

Each viewpoint - one by GRP, one by the hordes, and two by JoeAm - is a true slice of the pie, but none is the whole pie.

The error is when someone insists he has the whole pie.

The question is, do we draw hard and fast lines about our ideas and opinions. Are they thick lines that can't be dented or re-drawn with new information? Are they brick walls? Or are we flexible, fluid, open minded.

Often, the need to save face or maintain reputation leads people to refuse to see or acknowledge new information. They look for information that reinforces their beliefs and skip over information that might oppose their beliefs. They defend a position long after the validity of that position has been called reasonably into question.

You look at all the good things happening in the Philippines now. The call center boom fueling high-rise construction in Manila. New casinos coming in. A strong tourism program. Debt ratings up two ticks in a year, and likely heading to investment grade next year. Corrupt people heading for jail, or like 31 DENR people, getting fired. Strong peso. Booming stock market. International reports largely positive. It is hard to sweep that under any kind of rug.

Yet GRP scribes CANNOT acknowledge the good trends at risk of losing their entire platform. So they keep flailing away, one arm whipping in the air the other whacking at a rock, throwing up arguments that get ever more bizarre or off the point. How do you spell desperation? "GRP".

I'm a believer of soft lines, myself. Indeed, mine are so soft and flexible that the label "hypocrite" or "inconsistent" thrown my way by the thugs at GRP holds up as true, in a certain light. I have no problem with changing my mind if shown new information or the errors of my ways. That is not commonly done in the Philippines. Many a Filipino would find my tappy feet and flip-flopping mind to be weak. About as un-macho as you can get.

Well, you see, I don't see what words have to do with manhood, and I see little need to ridicule someone who tells me my arguments are half baked or out to lunch or nutso. I'd only want to grasp why we look at the same object but see different colors and shapes.

A great many Filipinos pride themselves on superior knowledge. Unbending, self-certain knowledge. They are relentlessly argumentative, throwing up diversions or tangents or truths apart from the real discussion, to prove the certainly of their standing.

Losing an argument does not go down well in the Philippines.

Ridicule follows in short order. Humiliation is thrust down other people's throats with glee.

It is not exactly a forgiving society.

And yet. And yet, in a different reality, it is. It forgives Enrile, a coup master, it forgives Ms. Marcos, the wife of a failed dictator, it forgives a corrupt Estrada and lets him run for President again. But that is partially because these people are MASTERS of word wrestling, of shaping realities to their liking and benefit. And they are masters of the "Get Out Of Jail" trade of favors.

• Mr. Estrada: "Yes, Glo, I won't criticize you while you are in office, even if you try to become a dictator.

• Ms. Arroyo: "Okie dokie. Here's your get out of jail free card."

It is like listening to VP Binay defend getting P 200 million in pork for play money. There's no stated purpose for the money. Just "here, have some, because you are our Number 2 guy". These legislators and rulers act like this is just a Monopoly game and they can buy Boardwalk or all of Makati on a whim. They act like they EARNED the money, that's what bugs me about it.

It is figured that Binay will run for President. I hope he gets pulverized. He defines his realities too slickly. I don't trust him.

Well, this all seems artificial to me, the Filipino hard-headedness and slippery arguments. This need to hold onto views, even if incorrect, because one's ego is vested in the argument. The twisting of realities by tangential arguments and half-truths.  Surreal. Absurd.

So my own personal challenge is to wade through the artificial realities that are thrown up everywhere in the Philippines, from biased newspaper reports to emotional tantrums from a certain senator to GRP propaganda. I choose to find my own reality and refuse to line up to follow an ideology, or political party's view, or a given religious faith. Mine is a blob of a reality, a truth that shifts and drifts according the information available.

I don't like being cemented in place. It doesn't feel right.

I prefer to fly, and welcome it when others straighten out my occasionally crooked trajectory.

It is not a humiliation to be wrong. It is merely an unfortunate information warp in the space time continuum.

In other words, a mistake.

My bad.

Grow. Move on.

Fire in the Belly: "Filipinos for Filipinos"

Let us assume that most Filipinos accept that people in power have advantages. The powerful can appoint sons, daughters, wives and nephews to important government jobs, whether qualified or not. They can squeeze out a little cash from awards to favored contractors for the building of roads and bridges. Their position gets them cars, staff, expense accounts and nice travel arrangements. They live the good life.

The powerful can do this because they are "winners" in Philippine society, even if their values by Christian standards are pretty oily, or even downright disgusting. In the Philippines, power is respected, no matter how it is used. Even the Ampatuans are respected in some places.

So Senator Enrile can stage a coup and get elected to the Senate. Imelda Marcos can be the husband of a failed dictator and gain election to Congress. Manny Pacquiao can be a superb boxer and thereby qualify for a seat in the House; one he seldom sits in.

They are the "winners". They have power and they have a following, a loud one. People EXPECT those in power to use their position for gain. It is what anyone would do if they had the chance.

Well, that is one way to run a country, and it is not for this transplant to say his nation does any better. After all, politicians in the U.S. are for the most part undiplomatic, narrow-principled manipulators with little real regard for the public well-being. Somehow they get re-elected.

But I have this naïve idea that there is a more rewarding way to run a country.

It goes back to Jeffersonian principles of rights and responsibilities. Not just rights. And certainly not rights only for the powerful.

What do civic responsibilities entail? That is, what should you and I be doing to contribute to the development of a strong community of fellow islanders, our nation.

In the United States, we have some basic obligations to take care of: pay taxes, obey laws, respect authority (while maintaining rights of free speech), serve in the military or other ways. Some times sacrifice of oneself for the good of others is requested, but the desire and need for that is diminishing (the military uses drones instead of soldiers). Vote. And to vote, we should be reasonably well informed on important issues.

That's the minimum. Anything we do beyond that is fine, too, and would put us into the category of an "activist". Attending rallies and marches, organizing rallies, making dollar contributions, volunteering to work on candidate campaigns, getting involved in issues-based organizations, NRA, NAACP, NOW and the like. Running for office. A lot of people get involved.

I think the minimum responsibilities also apply in the Philippines. But there is a lesser motivation, lesser opportunity here to go beyond that to become an "activist". For one thing, when one becomes an activist in the Philippines, one creates enemies. This has something to do with loss of face for whomever one is active against. For many people, the personal affront of someone coming at them with criticism is too much to bear. Ampatuan is the extreme example of that. Rampant violence during campaigns illustrates the problem.

For another thing, too many people simply don't care very much.

So activism in the Philippines is not so widespread.

Okay then, what's a Filipino citizen to do, really, if he sees his country falling short? And he CARES?

I know there are high-moral people in the Philippines. Lots of them. They swim upriver, though. They  shake their heads at the gullibility of their fellow Filipinos who elect people with such deficient character to important positions. They see the abuses but can't do much about it. They have no power.

I wonder. Is that true?

Thinking here. Pause for thinking . . .

They have no power. Hmmmmm . . .

Right thinking people, silent because they have no power . . .

In the age of the internet? Hmmmm . . .

Perhaps the REAL situation is they have simply not figured out how to organize. Or they have the MENTAL CONCEPT of what it takes to wield civic power, but not the FIRE IN THE BELLY to step outside themselves and actually DO something.

Or perhaps they are afraid of the consequences. Consequences they cannot anticipate. And which experience suggests may be angry.

Do you consider yourself to be a regular person? A small person, really, of no particular stature in the Philippines? A powerless person?

What if there were two of you working together, would you have a little more power?

What if five?

What if 500?

What if 2 million?

Do you think you might get a newspaper editor to look up?

Do you think you might get a candidate interested in your support?

Do you think you might be powerful enough to influence a bill?

The U.S. is rich with institutions that gather the power of many "little" people and unify them into one big force. NOW (women). NAACP (blacks). Tea Party (conservative Christians). NRA (gun owners). AARP (seniors). And many more. Most have a band of attorneys fighting for their cause in the courts. And publicity specialists to articulate their positions. And fund-raising experts.

What does the Philippines have? An occasional protest by this group or that, generally a march down Roxas. Somehow throwing their cause in the face of the United States gives it added meaning. Like a couple of weeks ago when several hundred leftists were blocked by riot police from going to Roxas to protest the poor treatment of farmers and the presence of the US in the Philippines, as if the two were somehow connected. Nothing like a good shout at the US regarding the plight of farmers in the Philippines.

The newspapers, always interested in a sensationalist angle, put small-time, loud, controversial protests such as this on the front page. As if half the nation were behind the rabble-rousers.

Half the nation is taking their nap, sorry. The other half is out working.

I personally think the lack of "power to the little people" comes from a lack of "fire in the belly". A lack of passion. An inability to get past lethargy or apathy or fear or whatever this drag is that makes Filipinos far and wide complacent, subsistent, or downright subservient.

Those who see, stand back. Those who understand, turn away.

The accumulation of power by the common Filipino merely lacks organization. It lacks someone with the courage and ability to organize.

I'd do it but it is not my job.

I'd find two smart, aggressive people to join me and we'd put together a cause and an organization.

Mine would be aimed at getting a Fair Employment Law passed to end nepotistic hiring and to energize careers. And it would be aimed at getting a divorce law passed to end the ridiculous human bondage of women to abusive, useless men. And it would be aimed at privatizing education.

The name would be something like "Filipinos for Filipinos".

But, as I said, that is not my job . . .

I've got the fire in the belly, but no platform to stand on . . .

What are you standing on?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Look for JoeAm's blockbuster article "Principles for Organizing Insurrection", coming soon to a blog site near you  . . .

The Matter of Ms. Arroyo's Health

Former President Arroyo is reported to be in bad health and considerable pain. President Aquino is not inclined to provide her any special rights to get medical care, pointing to her prior use of medical cause to try to flee the Philippines. Holding Ms. Arroyo to account is one of the central planks of his anti-corruption agenda and he does not want to be seen as softening.

The two extreme arguments are as follows:

• Ms. Arroyo made life hell for a lot of people and deserves her pain. I don't care what happens to her.

• Mr. Aquino is heartless. Some people treat their dogs better than he treats a former president.

We hear calls for consideration from the esteemed Senate President Enrile and others. After all, she was a president of the Republic. She has not yet been convicted. This is the middle road.

I wrote a comment somewhere in the blogosphere that I would be inclined to let her go to Hong Kong, or wherever she wants, to secure medical services. If she took the opportunity to flee, it would: (1) prove the point that she is a scoundrel of the utmost lack of character, (2) save the Philippines a lot of grief and allow the nation to move on to more important matters, and (3) portray President Aquino as living up to Christian values of charity and compassion.

I would note that charity and compassion outside the family are not traits commonly found in the Philippines because many Filipinos read generosity as weakness. Generosity and compassion are good traits. I suspect that Filipinos who see them as weaknesses have esteem issues.

Having said all that, I certainly understand Mr. Aquino's animosity toward this lady. She has done everything within her power to undermine and "defeat" President Aquino, specifically making midnight appointments and stocking the courts with cronies who will, presumably, try to keep her out of jail. It would not be surprising if the Supreme Court's Hacienda Luista decision were an Arroyo decision.

So it is, what? Ironic? That she demonstrated absolutely zero diplomatic consideration or charity toward Mr. Aquino. Now she wants it from him?

What we are observing is what occurs daily in Filipino interpersonal involvements. Everything is done to "win" and save face. It's a one way ticket to ride, my way or the highway. There is no nuance, no sportsmanship, no consideration, and precious little responsibility in evidence for things that go bad. Blames and excuses and ridicule; the whine, the 115th dialect of the nation.

When do you figure we will hear Ms. Arroyo state that perhaps her stocking the Supreme Court with political allies may not have been in the best interest of THE PHILIPPINES.

Not in her life time.

The Corona supporters screamed that Mr. Aquino undermined the independence of the courts by pushing impeachment. What exactly do they figure Ms. Arroyo did with her cozy appointments?

The one-sided blindness around here is palpable. Any rationalization to save face.

So this is all a bunch of macho posturing to me, wasted energy lacking principle. Win. Lose. Both sides are engaged in old school, dysfunctional Filipino interpersonal dealings. These values are low class.

So, to me, both parties are a bit scumbag for failing to aspire toward a higher road, for failing to accept accountability for ANYTHING, for endless rationalizations, for failure to be flexible in the face of changing circumstance.

Win. That is the agenda. If you can't win then blame and ridicule and accuse.

Somehow I think this obsession with winning makes people losers.

Snuffle . . . I Love Youse Guys . . .

Any of you in Los Angeles the 80's or 90's? Did you listen to sportscaster Jim Healy? His 30 minute radio show was a highlight of my drive home many days, 5:30 to 6 pm. He made that solid mass of metal called a drive-time freeway survivable. Healy would intersperse his commentary with a lot of audio tapes, like of Tommy Lasorda, manager of the baseball Dodgers, off on one of his frequent foul-mouthed rants. This one was after opposing hitter Kingman blasted several home runs: "What's my opinion of Kingman? Fbleep Kingman. What's my fbleepin' opinion of fleepin' Kingman? Fbleepin' Kingman can bite my Fbleepin' Ableep!"

I'm not sure if I got the quote exactly right, but it is close, and is in the appropriate mood.

The show was hilarious, and all of mass-media Los Angeles, and the sports world, mourned when Jim Healy died in 1994. He was one-of-a-kind, an institution. For 43 years he labored behind the microphone in LaLa Land.

Another one of his oft-used quotes was great, by a manager whose name I can't remember. But he was all teary and choked up, maybe on resigning or something. San Diego's manager? I dunno. But he said, in a chokey way, to his men . . .

Snort, choke . . ."I love youse guys . . ."

Snuffle.

Well, it was a rare glimpse into the softer side of the athlete's heart, which, behind all the beating and thumping and chest-puffing, is pretty sentimental. These guys do battle together, 100 percent most days, giving their bodies, minds and spirit to the team. You don't do that without sentiment. No matter how well hidden it is.

So, ummmmmmm, that's kinda how I feel about people who comment on my blogs. Snort. Snuffle. Like, I appreciate y'all. Because (1) you are intelligent, and (2) know the difference between issue and personality and (3) stick with my commentary, which can be bizarre at times. Sniffle.

So thanks for giving me occasionally the 1.3% of your brain that it takes to keep up with things hereabouts.

Take brianitus. Now he and I are on opposite sides of the thinking fence regarding President Aquino. When I try to drag people to my side of the fence, he articulately drags them back. And he makes me think about what I am saying.

For instance, consider my recent blog about President Aquino's sledge hammer approach to corruption. My article seemed to take a sledge hammer to people who criticize the President. But that was not my intent. Indeed, when writing the article (or most articles) I did not have a clear grasp of exactly why I was writing it, it just came off the keyboard that way.

brianitus challenged. I had to state what I was really driving at.

I re-state it here, because I think it is more meaningful than the original article:

I suppose there are two points I am making, brianitus. One, is that there is a middle ground between love and hate of the President, that is called reason. I think too many people on either side of the spectrum are overly strident because they are not arguing about the President, but about their own stance . . . for or against the president. There is a middle ground. The middle ground should start with an understanding that the president was elected to do a job on corruption, and that is what he is doing.

The second point is to emphasize the intricacy and demands of the job. I don't expect people to go light on the President and not criticize when it is warranted, for a specific act. But to take a specific act where a mistake has been made (by a subordinate, probably, as in the bus massacre), and to declare the Presidency a "failure" is unreasonable.

It is this 100% black or white I have problems with.

When you argue, say about President Aquino, do you argue about him explicitly? Or do you argue in part, or wholly, to defend your opinion of him? That is, does the argument become shifted in a really slippery way to be about you instead of the President?

Or when you argue about any one or anything? How much of YOU is in the argument?

I think a lot of arguing in the Philippines is about the person arguing, not about the supposed subject. That's why views are 100% for or against. Because they are arguing about their own intellectual integrity, or self esteem. Seldom do you see a T-chart listing pros and cons, with a well-rationalized conclusion. You get all the reasons for one view. Or you get all the reasons for the opposing view. You don't get much reasoning in between.

So when you visit a blog site that is decidedly one-way, you know that either: (1) they have an agenda to push, or (2) they are self-involved and possible low of self-esteem. They aren't solving any problems or providing any honest analytics because that is not their motivation.

Yes, yes. Joe Am also gets personally involved in his issues sometimes, too. We all do it. But I argue that we should STRIVE for reason, both in how we think about things, and what we say about them. Few issues are black and white, and simplifying them to be so is not very respectful, kind or intelligent.

Also, we shouldn't have to defend ourselves or apologize for a mistake if our views are honest. People can just tell us why we are wrong, and we should be big enough to recognize when we are. Being wrong is no big deal in a world as intricate as ours, as imperfect.

Any way, snort, snuffle . . . Men (and the rare and therefore highly respected women who occasionally drop by) go out there and argue your best for the Gipper!

(In my mind, the Gipper will always be Ronald Reagan, who played Knute Rockne on film; the case of a future great President play-acting as a great coach.)

And, as the ref tells boxers, "gentlemen, keep it above the belt".