The Philippines on Biden Time: Filipinos revisit self while caught between a rock and a hard place

COVID-19's swath of horror hasn't subsided yet as 2021 enters the glade. The Philippines is the 28th worst-hit nation based on W.H.O. pandemic tally although Asia is the least-devastated region, so far. Meanwhile, the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte stays sunk in a murk of widespread criticism of leadership ineptitude and human rights violations, with or without the coronavirus.

            An utter inability to work around a sociopolitical clime that'd please the Philippines' perennially calamity-battered and culturally fragmented 109.5 million population punctuate the brash head of state's governance as it crawls to its fifth year next summer. Unable to secure affordable vaccine provisions for his disgruntled constituents despite new development aid/s from top benefactor United States last September, Duterte had to suffice, at least for now, with what China's state-owned Sinopharm could offer albeit more expensive that what the U.S./West's Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca et al pegged.

            Of course, Mr Duterte faces a complex and complicated geopolitical chessboard, played with unnerving unpredictability by Washington and Beijing, which only weakens his leverage/s. But Filipinos don't have the patience to pore deeper on the whys and wherefores of the superpower mindgames. The leader's dismissive demeanor is it. Duterte's PR crisis overshoots his officework. good or bad.

 

The Philippines in a West-East tug of war

THE Philippines' economic growth slipped to 5.9 percent, pre-pandemic 2019, from 2016's 6.9 percent when Duterte assumed office. Although unemployment didn't really change during his time per se compared with his predecessor Noynoy Aquino's last year, at around 5 percent, the current president now faces an almost 9 percent joblessness as he grapples for ways how to work around Covid-19. New daily cases of coronavirus infections are still at 4-digits, 6-digits total. Duterte has to issue a fix right here and right now as his people takes a holiday religious breather.

            Apparently the Philippine President, a favorite trajectory target of global media demonization, needs help more than ever from the country's traditional bestfriend America and its "new" trade buddy, China. Although Japan consistently stays as the Philippines' #2 trade partner behind the U.S. and on top of China, Washington and Beijing are undisputedly the world's top economic movers. Even Tokyo has to navigate how the two powers issue maneuvers and gambits and variations on the board. Yet as ever, the Philippines asks itself: Where to and how's that?

            Duterte's decision to avail of China/Sinopharm's Covid-19 vaccine instead of what the U.S.-controlled Pfizer, Moderna, and three more pharma giants that pursued development of vaccines with Washington funding aid could eventually offer, only accentuates the dire fact that Duterte's back is up against a wall. America or China? For now, he has got to go Chinese, while America cools out of its long-drawn partisanship drama and finally into leadership transition. It doesn't really matter that Beijing's vaccine, reportedly at $145 for two dozes, is more expensive than Pfizer's $19.50/dose. The Philippines has to buy a cure and then resume business, hoping of course, that Sinopharm's cure works.

            So what's up in January 2021 as Joe Biden sits? Let's wait and see.

 

Washington romance: From dovish Trump to hawkish Biden

THE defeat of trade-dealing Donald Trump to the expectedly "military hard-power" pushing Joe Biden in Nov 3 would mean a bit of a shakedown in upcoming Manila/Washington bilateral talks. Although America's Democratic Party has gained majority seats in the House, the Senate would still be essentially Republican. Expect more virulent bipartisanship headbutts in the U.S. come 2021.

            Despite high-intensity polar extreme murk-throw in America, which makes its #1 "stature" as worst hit by Covid-19 "less urgent," when it comes to dealing with China's obvious expansionism, the U.S. is on-target. At least, in terms of rhetoric. Anti-China zeal is the thingy that both Left and Right agree with. Yet from Bill Clinton's (re)defining trade pact with Jiang Zemin in 2000, Washington hasn't really introduced a strategy that'd at least halt China's march. Meantime, true to the Central Committee's historical tact, Beijing doesn't really wait whatever Washington is up to next. Xi Jinping had it all figured out; Mr Biden's tactics and strategies are just formalities. China always has fallbacks for blowbacks whatsoever. The Dragon's wicked resilience is still impeccable.

            Meantime, the Philippines got to weigh in how all these would play up in 2021.

            Last September, Duterte and Trump's administration signed a new 5-year USAID development assistance worth $675 million or around Php32 billion. Between 2016 and 2019, the U.S. has provided $554 million in military aid to the Philippines, which didn't really produce any significant shudder. Thanks to Trump's largely dovish tact. Yet America's 4-year fling with relative pacifism seems over. Expect more money on "security"-related matters in and around South China Sea as Washington's War Lobby gains ground, Bidentime.

            The House has recently passed a new Defense bill worth $741 billion, all-time U.S. military budget high. As both Japan and South Korea sought reduction of U.S. troops in their shore prior to 2019, the Philippines is Washington's logical fallback. Sure, Manila kicked Clark air base and Subic naval base out in 1991, but really? Or was it about Mt Pinatubo's eruption + end of Cold War and not really the Philippine Congress nay ink? Five more U.S. military bases and installations stay, strategically placed in the archipelago. Time to review and upgrade?

            Sadly though, Washington's cash, pledged or forwarded, didn't help Duterte much as the Philippines fell in pandemic murk. The second-worst hit in Southeast Asia. Prior to the virus scourge, a "terror bill" floated around as a prep to the next coming of the hawk? With Trump gone, it appears like a no-brainer.

            Meantime, it can be recalled that China's pledge of investments and aid to Manila worth around $24 billion in 2018 hasn't been fully delivered. Reason why Duterte has been to/fro in his dealings with both Beijing and Washington, pre-pandemic. For example, Duterte had sad he would avoid joining military exercises with the United States in the sea that his government disputes with China. Yet the Philippine navy still participated in the multicountry Rim of the Pacific exercises that the U.S. government hosts every two years.

           

China carries on as the U.S. remains high on drama

TWO weeks after the U.S. presidential election on Nov 3, 15 Asia-Pacific nations converged in a new alliance called Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Led by China, the obvious post-Trump economic hookup in the East included powerhouses Japan, South Korea and Australia plus Singapore, New Zealand, Indonesia, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

            Designed to remove trade barriers, the region which holds 30 percent of global economy, should worry the incoming administration of Joe Biden, which is expected to (again!) go through massive bipartisan caterwaul and party infighting as liberals and progressives clash within Washington's hyperactive Democratic Party.

            Conspicuously absent at RCEP held on Nov 15 was India, which is currently the worst Covid-19 hit nation in Asia. Prime Minister Narendra Modi also faces tempest from the agriculture sector which employs more than 50 percent of the giant country's 400 million strong workforce. India is of course the United States' economic fallback in case Beijing stays overprotective of its fort. As per first phase of the new U.S./China trade pact signed on January this year, China is obliged to purchase U.S. products and services worth $200 billion in two years time. That'd mean the Chinese would buy American but that should be equalled by the U.S. cutting shipments of Beijing imports. Easier said than done.

            Meantime, the U.S. lowers tariffs on Chinese goods and maintain 25 percent duties on roughly $250 billion worth of stuff and things mainly by manufacturers to make finished products in America. The U.S. also keeps a 7.5 percent tariff on another $120 billion worth of mostly consumer goods like jackets, gloves, footwear and flat panel electronic displays — all rolled back from 15 percent. However, nearly 30 percent of U.S. goods exports to China are not covered by the phase one deal.

            Whatever the case, China is expected to abide by the Jan 2020 Trump/Xi trade pact. But true to its preparedness and resilience, the Central Committee already had, obviously, a post-Trump plan. The RCEP. What Beijing would probably "lose" in the 2020 trade agreement, it'd recoup via the new Asia Pacific trade partnership.

            Beijing's economic march didn't really shudder per Covid-19 pandemic. Fact is, China's pace-setting $4.6 trillion worth of trade is the global economic engine. The country's trade balance of $367 billion rules the roost, meaning its overall exports are higher than its imports. Hence the easing of barriers via RCEP deals means China will still be dominating manufacturing even though most of these would be partnerships with other nations, not just the 14 signatories to RCEP. Meanwhile this alliance is the game-changer so far.

            But whether this will change/alter the Philippines' middleground "game" between Washington and Beijing remains to be seen.

 

China on the driver's seat.

THE clear as sun picture is: China is the world's #1 economic mover even if the United States dictates how Made in China merch are marketed, priced, or sold.

            Trump worked in and around China's game on the chess table, putting more premium on trade move variations and tariff gambits over America's historical protocol of war intrigue and security/military brinkmanship or protectionist pressure-points as foreign policy leverage/s. Sure, Trump's deviation from the grid courted a 4-year vilification extravaganza from the other side of political/profit 1 Percent gods, which apparently lost mojo in business haggling and stuff. How's that? Think Amazon losing out to Flipkart/Walmart in India's e-commerce and Hunter Biden's natural gas push in re Moscow/Berlin by way of Kiev energy/natural gas battle in Ukraine on a standstill till dad sits.

            But all these don't really affect China or the East compared with the West, especially European Union, which hasn't really gotten off the debt crisis ushered by 2009 recession. For Beijing, it's business as usual. Its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, designed to link regions via trade a-la 21st century Silk Road, is all set as Moscow gains in energy (oil and natural gas) global sales. Take note: Russia is #2 in oil exports and #1 in natural gas exports but the U.S., despite #1 ranking in oil production, is only #4 in both energy exports.

            So how does America at least halt China and Russia's ballroom dance? Both superpowers aren't Cold War-ring anymore; they are trading. On Bidentime, America and its European/NATO buddies will be back at a hawkish swagger, same policies that Joe's boss Barack Obama ineffectively waged for 8 years. Obama upped Defense budget to $721 billion in 2010 as recession crawled in the heartland.

            As most of the world a.k.a. West allies cringe in pandemic misery, border hostilities and civil strife rock nations NSEW of the globe. Enter Pentagon's new, astronomical military budget. Hence a Ramboesque foreign policy is back in Joe Biden era. Then we go to the Philippines, with its leadership painfully either confused or confusing since 2016. Should it go Chinese and abandon America, diss China and renew U.S. friendship of yore? Who knows. Yet President Duterte joining the RCEP joint accentuates the fact that Manila is torn between two lovers.

           

Washington military (re)strategy and Beijing's economic promise: Where to, Philippines?

ALTHOUGH the global writings on the wall say a clear message, it'd be hard to reject Washington's military restrategy to hopefully regain leverage on the trade table. America still controls the narrative hence the global perception. Yet militarism which was conveniently spun by "war of global terror" has lost considerable traction. Two major troublemakers out of the Gulf, ISIS' Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Iran's Quds' Qassen Soleimani were both taken out during Trump time.

            The signs that point to a world leaning towards the dove's olive branch over the hawk's claws seem no brainers: Russia has cut its Defense budget from #3 in the world to #9 last year to focus on economic diversification as augmented by the soon to be finished Nord Stream natural gas pipeline (to Western Europe). Oil-rich Middle East starts to sneer at "arms for oil" deals with the U.S. as the region heavily-diversifies from merely petroleum trade. Several handshakes between former Gulf enemies attest to the dictum war is bad for business.

            Meantime, as I noted below Japan and South Korea, #1 and #2 hosts of largest American troops overseas want lesser U.S. military presence in their midst. Australia and Singapore, both signatories to RCEP, could follow. Singapore already closed two Raytheon plants.

            As we entered a new millennia twenty years ago, relations between the Philippines and the United States also somehow wittingly or unwittingly waded in and around a tilt in geopolitical power play, anchored on China's advent as a global economic powerhouse. Following the gamechanging 2020 U.S./China trade pact, which paved the way for the Dragon's entry to the World Trade Organization as a favored new member, the Philippines, erstwhile top U.S. ally and security/military buffer in the East, got dragged into an entirely new superpower contest sans the destructive intrigue of Cold War.

            Yet despite media's fascination with pitting Washington vs Beijing as supposedly "warring" giants, the fact is they are not warring. They are actively dealing business. They are the world's top trade partners with export/import business amounting to $559 billion. The "trade war" was a kind of negotiation demeanor.

            So whether the Philippines concurs or not, or whoever it opts to kowtow with, however the ebb and tide of economic hawing between Washington and Beijing turns into, Manila simply allows itself to flow where the clime appears to blow. Which is how President Rodrigo Duterte seemed to play his cards. Or was he really playing on the table where his cards are either exposed or he has no high aces to play anymore. Or does he even know it? 

            Apparently, Duterte sought to please both benefactors. For now, he is with China per RCEP. But wait till Joe Biden finally sits in White House. Hence the Philippines remains in eerie theater of superpower tug of war. Torn between lovers or caught between a rock and a hard place. Such is the Philippines' chosen role, it seems. So it isn't really about the United States or China. It is about the Philippines. To simplify the analogy, in the context of Covid-19, what'd be the Philippines' choice of vaccine? Sinopharm or Pfizer? For now it's Sinopharm.

            This brings us to fundamental of human response. Should the Philippines stay this way? It is imperative that we look within and reexamine what we have lost, gambled away, or carelessly gave away. From ineptitude in governance to a fragmented population, from complacency in primal healthcare to lost in communal resilience, we need to go back to where we came in and restart. No revolution or election can change this institutionalized malady. The reexamination is individual and familial. Then communal/collective village-level as was the goal of government decentralization of Local Government Code. From there, we can go national. Regional and so on so forth. It would seem like going back to grade school.

            But that isn't really bad at all. Alvin Toffler wrote in 1969, as the world slides into computer technology that hinted of a global upheaval stronger than industrial revolution from agrarian paradigms: "The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." 

                                                            xxx

"The Chinese Roots of Italy’s Far-Right Rage." New York Times adds: "The country’s new politics are often attributed to anger over migrants. But the story begins decades ago, when China first targeted small textile towns." 

NY Times has evolved into a geopolitics tabloid. Intrigue pitcher, non pareil. China dominates the global economic roost so demonization of Beijing is a no brainer although I find it immature. Apparently, if ever, Italy's current "Far-Right" anti-immigrants anger is directed at a flawed asylum system vis a vis refugees from the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, which I often link with border laxity of Schengen Area, yet media again points at the Chinese. Beijing doesn't muzzle in military brawn as trade leverage in favor of business/investments yet it is perennially sneered at.
The anti China narrative is loud yet historical facts and current events don't really support the smear campaign. Bilateral relations between China and Italy date back to Imperial China and Ancient Rome but ties only formally began in 1970. That was when Italy recognized the People's Republic of China over Taiwan. Other European countries such as Austria and Belgium followed. Since then, China and Italy participated in high-level political exchanges. In 2005, Defense ministers of both sides expressed hope for closer military cooperation which of course pissed NATO diehards, although Italy is also a member. And with Beijing and Taipei looming as major trade BFFs in the East, it's all good.

China and Italy. Then and now. Like other bilateral relations, Beijing and Rome weren't always awesome. We can trace trade friendship from long time ago's incessant flow of goods and information between travellers from the Roman Empire and Han Empire of China, as well as those from Eastern Roman Empire and various Chinese dynasties. Count Marco Polo's friendship with Kublai Khan when the khagan ruled Yuan Dynasty in 1200s. Cordial ties stayed to modern times. One of a number of huge partnerships was the Hongdu Aviation, one of China's major aircraft manufacturers, which was first established as Sino-Italian National Aircraft Works (SINAW) in 1934.
          The Republic of China and Kingdom of Italy joint venture Sino-Italian National Aircraft Works or SINAW is symbolic in a way. When the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out in 1937, Italy became an ally of Japan and assisted Japan in its bombing of SINAW factories. The Chinese government confiscated Italian properties in that year and all Italian employees of the company left by the end of the year. Probably this is what media calls as "Chinese roots of Italy’s Far-Right rage," which happened almost 83 years ago. Come on! Why I say that break in friendship has been healed? In March 24, 2019, Italy signed up to the Belt and Road Initiative, becoming the first G7 (or G8) nation to do so. Let's stay positive, okay? 

MORE: U.S. and China Trade Pact 2020.

NEWS (1). "Trump Gets His Trade Deal, China Gets the Win. China has suffered short-term pain from the trade war, but it stands to gain in the long term." Short-term pain? Nope. The Chinese never risked business without a strong safety net. While Trump busied himself a-front his foes homebased, Beijing upgraded its infrastructure in anticipation of influx of foreign/US investments when a trade pact is finally signed. Also, it firmed up economic agreements with Latin/South American giants Brazil, Argentina, and Bolivia--as well as in Sub-Saharan Africa. Then there's China's BRI gaining traction in eastern Europe via Ukraine. And of course China accelerated investments in Southeast Asia, as well. "Short-term pain," what? Beijing is still within its annual target of 6 to 6.5 GDP growth rate.

NEWS (2). "Trump Signs China Trade Deal, Putting Economic Conflict on Pause. An initial pact, cooling tensions in an election year, follows months of escalating tariffs and a trade war that seemed as if it would never end." What could be the best time to sign a trade pact? This: Two major humps in MidEast trade, al-Baghdadi and Soleimani, had been taken out. Tehran needs China to stay as its #1 trade partner; Chevron expands as border issues between Kuwait and SA were fixed; Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE and Egypt shook hands with Qatar. War is bad for business. Aramco goes IPO. Fact: Global economic powers closely watch Washington's political drama due to obvious reasons. Sure, not just the Chinese. Consider oil-rich Arab sheikhs like the Saudis, Qataris and Emiratis. So there you go: Trade pact signed. 

Trade Pact 2020: United States and China.

NEWS: "China Trade Deal Details Protections for American Firms." News adds: "The agreement is expected to include significant concessions to protect U.S. technology and trade secrets, but its success hinges on whether China will follow through on its commitments." 

Copyrights are a central issue. Washington was aware of such a bottleneck when Bill Clinton signed a trade pact with Jiang Zemin nearly 20 years ago. The most integral issue is Beijing's overprotectiveness of its own internal business per se in re foreign traders coming in. Think British East India Company's Opium Wars or the Boxer Rebellion of many generations ago. I don't think China has really changed its Great Wall mindset despite its embrace of Western capitalism. 
         Beijing's iron-clad protection of homebased business, though leaning on the extreme, isn't really that bad. A government has to protect its own. Meantime, Bill Clinton's globalization oversight vis a vis 2000 trade pact left America's small and medium entrepreneurs (SMEs) reeling as China pumped up its manufacturing mojo. Beijing's massive production line a.k.a. working class was kept busy as job orders/deliveries incessantly packed shipments. When demands overflowed, China spread them out overseas via lands that the giant nation bought/rented as per its "Go Global" program that "soft-started" in the 1970s and went full gear following Beijing's WTO entry in 2001. All these, as China kept its countryside factories and plants strong.

          Protection of American firms homebased is a goal yet there is also the pressure of looking after US Forbes 400 within the Great Wall. The latter is the bottleneck: 1 Percent corporate gods who opted to ship jobs out. Would they care about a labor force that the new Left stereotype as nationalist/populist? Conservative voting bloc that they accuse of provoking Right-wing extremism? A media narrative that demonizes the working class as racist anti-immigrant church-going bigots? Meanwhile, what works in Beijing's socialist/Buddhist governance system doesn't necessarily apply as per America's political/cultural structure. For one, China controls its 4 state-owned banks; the US wades in and around the baton of 4 giant private banks.
         I don't think the new trade pact is about China than it is about the United States. Reason why Trump prolonged the hawing and haggling, which is basically the way he rolls his economic dice. Tariff gambits here and there. Bill Clinton saw a huge, largely untapped Chinese market in 2000 as export destination while probably not anticipating that the Chinese could actually turn the table upside down, not around, via low tax/tariff, cheap raw materials, low overhead etcetera to lure US corporations in. China had massive workforce. Aside from ample prep in lands bought in Argentina and Zimbabwe, for example, Beijing hooked up with surging Asian tigers/tiger economies, notably Taiwan and South Korea, to keep deliveries checked. 

          By the time the mighty lo mein dragon entered WTO in 2001, it had ample prep via its "Go Global" program that was silently scouring the peripheries while America was busy fortifying external Defense mojo. Meantime, 21st century pulled in. While US companies trooped out to savor globalization and a purist environmental tact pressured carbon footprinting plants out of the glade, America's small and medium traders reeled. By the time George W sat, 9/11 happened and so global war on terror was the Oval Office priority. Defense budget soared to $720+ billion all-time high. Bailouts came, which Obama carried on in his first term and then recession hit in 2008. Small business sunk some more and the working class suffered. Unemployment peaked at 10 percent in 2009. 
          As economic downturn growled, Obama unleashed stimulus package, initially estimated to be $787 billion, that essentially benefitted banks and giant corporations. All these as Beijing carried on spreading out loans and investments globally. That's where we are now: How do we restrain China from its massive Belt and Road Initiative? The hawks' push for military aid and security leverage which China doesn't buy at all? Good thing about Trump, compared with EU's collective administration post 2008 downturn, the US did recover but European Union is still mired at 0.2 percent GDP growth rate. So as two humps, al-Baghdadi and Soleimani, are taken out of the Strait of Hormuz bottleneck, let's see how these two superpowers work things out. Hence, I stay positive.

Immigration and Stuff

NEWS. "Immigrant Population Growth in the U.S. Slows to a Trickle." News adds: "The US population gained immigrants last year at the slowest pace since 2008. Trump’s approach to immigration is seen as the likely cause." 

OF COURSE, this article is politically-trajectoried as per the current migrants narrative. Obviously the article speaks of asylum-seekers, although it doesn't directly speak of it in defining "immigration." Fact is, there's not much change in "legal entries" in the last five years. Trump has been in power only in the last 3 years so I don't think there's already a significant new trend. The huge change is in asylum applications. From 2012 to 2017, asylum claims from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, have gone up from 8,519 to 76,023, an increase of 892 percent. 
One significant reason for lesser (legal) migration are improved opportunities back home, especially in Asia. Yet many chose to stay to savor the hard-earned fruit/s of their years of labor. Asians evolved as highest earners per household in the US. Now they can even (also) invest in businesses back home as economic clime sweetens out there. Yet the US' immigrant population reached 40 million in 2010, the highest number in the nation’s history. Still, of the 40 million immigrants in the country in 2010, 13.9 million arrived in 2000 or later making it the highest decade of immigration in American history, even though there was a net loss of jobs during the decade. 
Latin Americans have always dominated immigration. Countries from this region accounted for 58 percent of the growth in the immigrant population from 2000 to 2010. With nearly 12 million immigrants, Mexico was by far the top immigrant-sending country, accounting for 29 percent of all immigrants and 29 percent of growth in the immigrant population from 2000 to 2010. Washington's relations with Mexico, after Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, has always been lenient. In fact Mexico gets special treatment in the quota system as per the Immigration Act of 1924, which limits the number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota. 

And as I pointed out, Mexico/Central America still dominate entries, but legally. With an almost 900 spike in asylum-seekers, on top of the 47 percent of all Mexican illegal immigrants, some kind of adjustment in fiscal management has to be done. The last White House administration didn't mind the acceptance of a record number of refugeees while the country was grappling with economic downturn. Now it is Trump's job to deal with the huge backlog. But as I said, legal migration didn't really move much as per quota system, it is the asylum-acceptance and number of illegals that soared. Yet a highly-partisan media don't project that part of the immigration narrative. 

PERTINENT POINTS:

<>Place of birth for the foreign-born population in the United States. Top 10: Mexico, China, India, Philippines, El Salvador, Vietnam, Cuba, South Korea, Dominican Republic, Guatemala.

<>Countries of origins of immigrants to the US in the last ten years: [1] Mexico. [2] China. [3] Cuba. [4] India. [5] Dominican Republic. [6] Philippines. [7] Vietnam. [8] El Salvador. [9] Jamaica. [10] Haiti. 

<>Mexicans made up less than half of all unauthorized U.S. immigrants (47 percent) in 2017, compared with 57 percent in 2007. Their numbers (and share of the total) have been declining in recent years: There were 4.9 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the US. in 2017, down from 6.9 million in 2007.

<>Legal migration to America didn't really move much as per quota system. It is the asylum-acceptance and number of illegals that soared. Yet a highly-partisan media don't project that part of the immigration narrative. Fiscal management has to be adjusted thus less refugees are accepted by 2017. That's a fact not just in the US but also in most European nations. 

BLOGGED from my daily Facebook posts. And stuff.

CLICKS and LIKES. I understand why some people ask or wonder. Why oh why I don't get 505 likes like the others? Do I still have friends? Here are some examples. "Maybe no one cares about what dafuq I'm posting here. No one! I just shared you guys details why I call my ex schizophrenicloolyfuckedupbipolarnutcasedumb ass! Beware he's just out there lurking in the shadows, maybe munching his dumbstoopidnarcissistic beef jerky! Or didn't you see how funny my dog was when he assaulted the bear in the backyard with the pick-axe? But then I thought you wanted some deep political thoughts. So I did call out Trump's foul one-liners and stuff. You need Dawn Ultra SuperMaxPremiumPlus for your mouth, Donald! And Hillary, too. You are a centrist boogie lady. You will sell our souls to ETs in Wyoming! But still, I just got 5 likes, sometimes 4 or if I get lucky I get 12 for my gluten free dinakdakan dish post." 

         Oh well. Seriously. Why would it matter? Right? I am old-school writer because I am old. We writers write and then it's out there. Sometimes our story and byline ended on front page, sometimes on page 32 on pitiful 6 points font, the 745-word article mangled to 85 words. Only mom read my news report. Dad didn't even bother to pick the paper up! No problem. Better luck next deadline. Do you know how many books are there at Malaprop's? Named authors and classics and bestsellers--and then I get at least one or two sales of my book each month! I just outsold Stephen King!!! 
        Many times, I ask when people click and like do they really read or do they really LIKE what they read or saw? 
         I am more into having people read me, talk to me, engage me, ask me, share me some--just like a sweet conversation in a cafe or Greyhound station before a trip or while waiting for your delayed flight at JFK Airport. Or some funny joke. I don't mind politically-incorrect stuff. Redneck jokes. Blonde jokes. Pinoy jokes. But then you must know what is overboard or insensitive and you know, not all people on Facebook are our baristas and bartenders and favorite dude in the `hood. But talks with substance makes Facebooking worthy, right? Doesn't have to be so-called intelligent or smart. Just some talk with sense. Google stuff. If words like nincompoops sound like donut flavor or a bad word, not sure? Who the hell is Taylor Swift? Google. Or you don't have to like or you can like as well, dig? Those are your fingers, not mine. 

         All that I am saying is, likes or no likes--you are still my friend. And I won't unfriend you just because you did not "like" me. Notice I put quote marks on like--because even though you didn't "like" me I know you like me. I am that kind of narcissistic. Uh huh. 

MANY times I think what if 25 percent of the world's millionaire sports stars and Hollywood elite donate a "mere" $10,000 each a month from their bloated bank account for hungry people in Africa, breast cancer (treatment) research, refugee rehab, housing for the elderly etc etcetera. It'd be so cool, isn't it? Yet many are so tied up with their lucrative contracts and product endorsements to even care. They sell shoes and burgers and stuff. Busy so busy life. Some even choose to embrace another country's color and flag, in sports competitions, in exchange for money. 
         I am not saying though that these millionaire celebrities are bad. They are as human as you and me. Comfort from wealth is what most or all of us desire. But it also doesn't mean that there are no superstars who have "forgotten." Probably while perched up in their penthouse playing their X‑Arcade Machine PS3 or chillin' by the bay on their yacht sipping bottles of Vieille Bon Secours on the off-season or shooting breaks, they also read the news about those who don't have enough--or news about poor people in their old `hood. And they are saddened by what's going on. They'd like to say something about it--yet their publicists and agents say nope. Whatever comes out of their mouth must be filtered and reviewed--as per contract stipulations. Hence it is much better to just shut their mouth and just do the usual photo-ops while they hand a check to charity in front of ESPN or Fox. 

        Yet some are not contended by those sweet gestures. They still want to talk. Because like you and me, they have something to say about what's going on.  So they spoke--while knowing that a political backlash of their statements may ensue, media firestorm may be instigated, and their contracts adversely affected. So they spoke. And in so doing, they lost their money and subsquently pushed to the wall and into the darkness of oblivion. Yet they spoke just like you and me--while their millionaire colleagues go on selling shoes that only the moneyed could buy, as they dance with klieglights and handycams, and toast Dom Perignons with powerful politicos and corporate moguls. These crazy people, once millionaires and rock stars, are now forgotten as new kids in town hug the limelight and inhabit Times Square's marquee. 
         But then let us ask ourselves this. Did we read the wisdom behind the message more than we were so consumed by the messenger's lunacy? 

MANY racist gestures or racial slurs come out innocently or spewed out on random. Not premeditated or intended. But it doesn't mean we'd tolerate it. Most that we can do is let that person know that those words shouldn't have been said. I may be taking things lightly as a person, or I shrug it off--but I am very touchy when other people/ethnicity/diversity is maligned or "corrected" by others who feel theirs is the correct one. Those who know me as publisher/editor and concert producer/organizer, and just a mere pasckie--know how intense I could be when it comes to how we treat each other's diversity. In the tiny papers that I edited, I had columnists from different spectrum of faith or ideology--from a Communist based in Italy to a Wiccan high priestess in Asheville, from a devout Catholic social worker to an Atheist musician etc etcetera. Same goes with Traveling Bonfires shows. People judge them whatever--but I produced events for Christians and Muslims, Pagans and Buddhists, rightists and leftists, punk rockers and classical pianists. We can co-exist. We just have to be sensitive and respectful and accepting that others' truths are theirs, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong or incorrect just because they are not us. 

I AM always asked, online offline, if I experience racism. I think it's a stupid question although I appreciate the concern. Of course, I do. But mostly subtle almost innocent (ignorant?) racism. That's how the world rhumbas and jigs, you know. It's okay. Many times just my mere accent moves someone to give me a kindergarten lesson on English, definition of English words, elaboration of English terms, and how these words are pronounced. Place: Las Vegas Strip. While seated in a casino bar, trying to order wine. A blonde lady with bling-blings the size of an egg yolk on a skillet goes, "Chardonnay is wine, it is a kind of wine." "Chardonnay, do you have enough money for that?" "Chardonnay. You may want to have beer. It's only $7." "Chardonnay. Shaärdəˈnā. Nay." So I just said meekly like a behaved sharpei, "But I was asking for Dom Perignon. Just washing away a heavy dinner of Monk Fish Pate `Ankimo' with Caviar. It's pronounced An-kee-moh. I had it at Nobu. Noh-boo. Damn, I just lost 5 grand on blackjack." Racism? That's how I deal with it. Lightly. Smart-ass but still lightly. 

I OBSERVE that some of people's frustrations and complaints these days--these days of social media's inyourface nakedness (sharing each and everyone details of nasty breakups and what they had for dinner afterwards)--is we demand our governments to reveal everything that we so desire to know that's in their mind or white boards. Of course. But that is not realistic or even common sense reflex (sic). No government on this earth will tell us what agenda they just tackled in their Oval Office or Malacanang Palace study. That's just the way how the world spins, you know. That is why there is media and journalism. It's their professional calling to share infos within and around their sworn duties and responsibilities—as per lawful/ethical parameters. That is why there are press conferences and press releases. Read `em, ponder `em—then follow through. Find out more. Research. Then write. I got a lot of feeds from White Press press office and other media liaisons from a number of government entities, as well as those from non-governmental groups. I read them and ponder over them. It's natural for me to think things over. 

          Societies are bound by law/s whether we like it or not. Hacking. Breach. Contempt. Libel. Treason. Etc etcetera. If we suspect that the government itself is guilty of such unlawful shenanigans? Then we work things out to help correct those or amend ills of governance--again, within and around sworn duties and responsibilities. If we delve beyond those bounderies—that'd be the time our passion for change, no matter how sublime that'd be, is cut or delayed or trashed. We get arrested, demobilized, paralyzed, delayed. Because we did it unlawfully. 
         Simplified. Do our parents share us 101 percent of what they talk about in their bedroom? I don't think so. We give them the benefit of the doubt and then we wait. Otherwise, if we don't believe in them at all--the logic is, we'd be out of the house pronto. Conversely, those who lose trust and belief in their government--leave their country. But we know we can't fly all the way to Planet Whatever--and even if we can, we will still be under some kinda governance or system of leadership/adherence. So what I'm saying is, chill. Don't just believe in what you just got on your inbox or Facebook page or whatever your choir just howled--just because these cater to your personal fire. Find out. Explore. Navigate. (Re)discover. And then we do the "change" gig. 

         The “change” gig. Protest but protest via proper channels so you'd be heard—and do it consistently, multipronged. Lobby—in your City Council, county community centers, Congress, summits etc. Advocate—multi media, concerts, public forum. Or launch a revolution—which I don't suggest. Now, if you feel can't do any of these in an orchestrated, consistent manner—because you got kids to feed, work to attend to, cats and dogs to care for, a boy/girlfriend who may break up with you, you may miss an episode of “Game of Thrones,” you are allergic to sunlight etc etcetera? Then just enjoy funny stuff on Facebook—like cat videos, relationship jokes, and silly love songs. Or shut up.

RACISM and Stereotyping/Profiling—or the subtlety and blatantness of our collective guilt. I always write about this. Do I get discriminated upon due to my skin color? Or do I get stereotyped a lot? Of course, I do. You too, I guess. I always say that I get ruffled or angered not by choice of words pointed my way or a nature of a joke shared me. I get hurt by how I am treated, in general—irrelevant a word was said or not. It's how we treat people and not how we “call” them that are offensive. It's how we feel or think about a certain person (or culture) that matters in a basic crowd dynamics or person to person interaction. Just a certain look of the eye could be racist, or by simply ignoring someone because of an accent as accentuated by his/her skin color could be subtle racism. I get those a lot. When I talk and it so happened that my accent gets in the way, I get looks that almost say, “Shut up! Learn English. You are in America.” Believe me, even nice gestures like, “I can clean your barn...” or “Want me to cook you dinner?” would be misconstrued like I need a job or I may not have food for dinner or uhh, am I hitting on you? I just want to be nice, you know. Sorry. Or, if I seem to exude some assholeness (I got attitude, I'm warning you), immediately I get this. “Is that how Filipino (or Asian) men treat women?” One of the most classic ignorant retort that I ever heard.

          We should teach humanity how to be human first before we teach them how to speak a particular language, master it, and then be "human" next. You see, and believe it or not, I get more racial slurs from or gets profiled a lot by supposedly educated people from big cities than small-town folks or what we call “rednecks.” Why? I don't know. Maybe they imbue the good old American values (that I could easily connect with) more than the politically-correct “I know shit! Don't mansplain that to me!” arrogance of today's life. Now, that'd be a huge discussion, right? I guess, some of you will box me again as a rightwinger dumbass. Narcissist, self-righteous, misogynistic jerk. Good, I wasn't stereotyped as White Anglo Saxon Conservative Moron (as how The Enlightened consign Caucasian GOPs), uh huh. Because my skin is nowhere white—it is as brown as third world earth. BTW, I am not Republican or gadDem. Not rightist or Leftist, either. I am Pasckie. And I am Straight as a Curveball. 

WHATEVER political/ideological or political partyline some may think I lean on, it doesn't bother me much. No big deal. I can rock with you. Those who know me longer are aware of what side of the fence I tend to gravitate to--which is the Left side of the ballroom. Yet I currently live with Republicans and have fun with their Republican friends and family for many years now. My second family. My own family is kind of divided--left of center to moderate right. Yet we party as one. I know who they voted without asking them. I don't have any difficulty discussing stuff with Republican Right or Democrats, liberals or radicals. I worked with all these people, actual work with concrete results, for years. Years before Steven Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg gave us these awesome toys. For me, whether you are Right or Left, Catholic or Pagan, Baptist or Atheist--you got something good to say and share on the table that would benefit a diverse world other than you. But if one declares I am this and you are that and so you are a moron just like your leader! on the get go--then there will be no room for compromise and negotiation. You see, if you march only with your Right or with your Left like a zealot or fanatic--you will trip eventually.

STUFF: First Amendment. Diversity talk. "Is it really that bad?" Anger implodes. Rudeness and bogus feeds in Social Media. Immigration. Single-payer healthcare. Teenagers and anxiety. Tech ad disclosures.

Compilation of past Facebook posts. Unedited. 
Not updated. 
I BELIEVE the First Amendment was drafted and then evolved into a significant Constitutional Right as a way for diverse people to dialogue, negotiate and compromise toward a common good. So the citizenry could get to work and build a strong community and nation. Hence in these times of blahblah brilliance and yaddayadda yarns delivered one click, the one who speaks the essence of true freedom of speech is the one who says "Done!" Meaning, what we say or write before and after are just stuff. Noise. Okay, let's go plan dinner now! 

DO you notice that the words "diversity" or "hate" etcetera have evolved into partisan/political mantra? "Unity in diversity" only happens when this side of the polar extreme says so. How did "diversity" come to exclude other immigrant ethnicities from the political priority and protest platform? Or where do we place Church-going Christian Conservatives in this sweet and enlightened diversity drum circle? "Hate"? Don't this side of the spectrum HATE as well the opposing side that they accusing of Hatred? Diverse my way, diverse your way. Where is the highway? If you don't agree with either side, you get ran over by a Walmart delivery truck or an Amazon drone falls on your noggin'! 

IS IT REALLY THAT BAD? I always read posts that whine about the hardship/s of living in America. Any country is better they say. Maybe. But not really. It is not because they could be. It's because it all depends on how we're conditioned to live a certain lifestyle and/or navigate truths that we've known etcetera that matter when we live in another country. They could have better health care, crime rate is lower, biodiversity is awesome, beer is a $1 with rebates, sun shines just like a Hallmark movie, what not. But life is LIFE, you know what I mean? 

         For example, many say they'd move to Canada once Trump sits in office as though Vancouver is Key West or Long Beach, right? Well, if you're Bruce Springsteen maybe you can. You got the moolah and VIP vibe. The US. dollar is currently equal to $1.34 Canadian dollars. Not much. Average rent for a one-bedroom in Toronto is $1,255, which is roughly comparable to cities like Dallas or yes Asheville downtown these days. In Quebec it's slightly cheaper but an average one-bedroom in Montreal will cost you back $1,043. Finding a job there is another issue of course. Remember you are a foreigner. No job. Not a citizen. No benefits. Like universal health care. Of course. Same in Taiwan, the only country, besides Canada, with single-payer insurance joy. They got good stuff there. 
        But again you gotta get a job to get the good stuff. But getting hired isn't so easy. Usual employment case in Europe. Say, Netherlands. If a Dutch employer wants to hire someone from outside the European Union, they have to prove a Dutch citizen or someone from another EU country can’t fill the position, which is rarely the case. Meantime, the Netherlands compares favorably to the UK and the US when it comes to crime statistics. Expats will likely feel secure. Good. Less angry people there. But the problem is if you're the one who gets pissed all the time. Especially with regards cyclists. The Dutch bike more than any other people/s in the world, you know. But most safety issues in the Netherlands seem to come from bicycles. Cyclists often weave in and out of traffic without safety helmets, and it’s worth bearing in mind that in a collision between a car and a bicycle, the car driver will be held responsible. 

          What about Costa Rica? They got awesome biodiversity out there. Good, if you're just visiting, just like in other smaller nations, but staying for good? Think about it. Want to work for $2 an hour and spend ten of it on a bag of quinoa? You like that kind of rice, right? Want to work online when all of the electrical lines break? Local buses are limited, running infrequently and rarely on time, but they’re a good option for going further distances. But since you're used to driving a mile away for a cooking oil or condom, forget it. Stay in. Besides, the $2+ worth of gasoline in America is one of the less expensive in the world. I mean, gasoline in the Philippines is around $3+/gallon. Marijuana, you say? I don't even wanna go there. You may get it so “easily,” but beware of the repercussions. That could be hell. Heller than hell, you know what I mean? I digress. 
          They say it's cool in Singapore. Some 90+ percent of people, including expats, own their house out there. But then if you're used to criticizing and dissing people and government, you may have to shut up here. Singapore fares low rate in what we call First Amendment, you see. And if you easily gets pissed when a car in front of you doesn't move .2 seconds on a green light, you need more patience than that when you visit Bangkok for example. Traffic! And crowded transport? India may feed your spiritual trip but don't say “I wanna go home!” when you get stranded in a train where people fit in like sardines. You will know. 

          So what I'm saying is just enjoy what you got and where you are. But again, as I say, if you got millions like Bruce and LeBron, go ahead. You can go wherever you please. They will love you. But you and me are not. So chill. Want a beer? Handcrafted, I reckon? I got PBR. Good? Good.

ANGER implodes. Hidden. Kept. Then it explodes. Ferociously, without regard of life. How many times have this happened in the last few years? The writings on the wall are screaming yet blurry and smeared. It is almost impossible to find answers why. Why would someone who didn't seem to fit a killer's profile would do such a gruesome act? But then how many who carried out deadly destruction in recent past “didn't fit a killer's profile”?
          The Las Vegas gunman, 64-year old Stephen Paddock, who mowed down 58 people (with 500+ more injured) had no criminal history, save a minor citation. Police officials have not uncovered any connections between the suspect and any foreign terrorist groups. The motive for the shooting remains unclear. Paddock's brother Eric said, “We have no idea how or why this happened. As far as we know, Steve was perfectly fine.”

          Stephen Paddock worked for a predecessor company of Lockheed Martin from 1985 until 1988. He was a licensed hunter and private pilot. He owned an aircraft that he kept at Mesquite Metro Airport in Texas from 2007 to 2009. “I do not recall that he was ever a person who created any problems for us,” the airport director told ABC News. “He kept his accounts up to date and we never had any problems with him here."
          It has come to that bloodied point when an individual's political affiliation or ideological dogma, racial snarl or societal isolation, or medical background or cache of weapons, or even personal grief that couldn't slide away, aren't enough to draw a picture of the why and how. Is it the government? The President? Church and religion? Cultural identity? The truth which we tend to consign to mere cliché? Humanity isn't alone despite all our “differences.” We are a universal community that gravitates to the light and good more than we are blinded by imagined torches of doom in the dark. Yet if we choose to stay in oblivion although we are wading in an ocean of heartbeats we will still drown in our own futility. Because anger should not be uncontained and nurtured. Anger should not evolve into hatred. Loneliness nourishes the volcano in one's broken heart. 
          Perhaps we can start by at least talking about this mayhem's aftermath as one voice that seeks understanding in dialogue than divisions in arguments. No standpoint or opinion is right or correct anymore because when that rage gets off one's chest, we will again go back to the white board and all we see are blood, thick and red. Has humanity really has lost belief in negotiation and compromise? We don't “agree to disagree” and let it stand that way. We should not let cracks stay as is. We have to find a way to give and take, share and co-exist. Worse, we should not take this pain and fear to again anchor our endless contention that we are right and they are wrong. And then we are arguing again although we haven't healed yet.
          Give peace a chance. 

I DO believe that Facebook will slowly but surely cut down the flailing rudeness and bogus feeds in here. The Russian inquiry (y'know election influence) is a precedent. The proliferation of fake but intentioned links and destructive memes and disrespectful conversations on Social Media have gone weird from crazy. You get links that say “prayers don't stop killings, scientifically-proven” or “vodka is good for sexual potency” or “sex trafficking is the number 1 export of the Philippines.” Some people believe those. Worse, those are shared in million forwards, one click per second. In fact, many people believe what their Friends say on FB more than what a 50-year old news organization says. So if a meme says Trump is a direct descendant of Hitler or Obama is a Muslim, people believe those. They believe outrageous and fantastic feeds just because those nurture and nourish what their partisan girth or prejudiced minds tell them. THAT is dangerous. Dangerous because these influence people's actions out there. It is not merely about coaxing a chunk of people to vote one candidate over the other with whatever are fed them. You know what I'm saying.

IMMIGRATION isn't all about two sets of ethnicity or race. We need to spread the discussion out to include others. Modify the narrative. I notice that whenever people debate immigration on Social Media it is usually confined to only two sets of people. Lest I'd be boxed again as Rightist Conservative, which infuriates me, I hold back. But many people need education about the issue of immigration and America's relation/s with other countries whose people migrate here. But we have to get off our liberal/Leftist/Democratic and Conservative/Rightist/Republican dogma to be able to dialogue (verb) and deliberate, and hopefully, offer solutions to whatever ails the (immigration) system or law. I am so perplexed how many people rant about immigration but actually don't know shit. I digress. 

READING through people's thoughts (mostly rants) on health care, it seems that more favor a single-payer healthcare system. This system pays for all covered healthcare-related services by a single government or government-related source. A strategy employed by governments to achieve several goals, including universal health care, decreased economic burden of health care, and improved health outcomes for the population. Only three countries implement single payer system/s: Canada, Taiwan, and South Korea. But those were achieved following years of steady people education, community advocacy, and Congress/Parliament lobbying. I am not against what Social Media people are wanting in re this issue. But I am against the manner how these are hyperventilated to the public. Effective road to change is a tactical alliance of people who may disagree in a number of issues but would compromise toward a general consensus of a bigger issue. Same with Congress discussion leading to a bipartisan finality. But with the way people are “talking” these days, it seems the cracks are only widening and the light remains devoured by darkness.

NEWS. "Why Are More American Teenagers Than Ever Suffering From Severe Anxiety?" Parents, therapists and schools are struggling to figure out whether helping anxious teenagers means protecting them or pushing them to face their fears. Probably because they are confused. The older generations are busy arguing on Facebook, and then these youths read/hear news or listen to teachers, then they go google stuff or go to chat rooms, and there you go. No brainer. Also, we should advise or guide troubled youths with ample time and "real life" attention than continually feed them (internet) links to this and that, fancy meme and that one. Those only confuse them.

NEWS. "Senators Demand Online Ad Disclosures as Tech Lobby Mobilizes." Tech has fought online ad regulations, but three senators will introduce a bipartisan bill to force the industry to disclose who buys political ads. I believe, "disclosures" automatically negates or invades First Amendment tenets, tantamount to "Gestapo"-like witchhunt. What they can do is look into certain features/apps/commands or self-correcting clicks that somehow remind people of stuff. Or what are parameters of an advertising contract? So and so. But demanding tech companies to disclose ads? Oh well, have they already conformed with submissions of data from subscribers? Bottomline, the internet is a monster that is let loose. There is no way to stop its surge other than work around it. Meantime, can we go to the next issue (gut issue) under heaps of Congress files?