Featured Post


Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Angry Filipinos in South Korea Sent Senator Trillanes Back To The Philippines

It seems Senator Antonio Trillanes IV traveled to different countries to meet with government officials to throw President Rodrigo out from his power who had been voted by more than 16 million Filipinos in and outside the country.

After Trillanes meeting with some U.S  senators and government officials, he was spotted by an overseas Filipino worker named Christopher de Jesus who posted a live video while he was waiting for a taxi in Korea.

In the video, De Jesus was mad at Trillanes for being a number one destabilizer of present administration as he shouted to the senator to go back to the Philippines.

In a blog post of Mr. Alon Calinao Dy, he said, "I think this shows that a lot of Filipinos are going after to Trillanes because of his destabilization plots against Duterte administration. I don't think Filipinos give him enough attention as what Mr. De Jesus said on his video."

As a matter of fact and parts of the video, a few Filipinos laughed at Trillanes since nobody paying attention at him even though he is a senator of the Republic of the Philippines.

About Trending Topics Today/Pinoy Ako:

Trending Topics Today/Pinoy Ako is a blog that supports President Rodrigo Duterte's good advocacy and his best efforts to change the old and corrupt system of Philippine government. Let's share the news responsibly and for everyone to know the reality, the latest news and information in our beloved country.

This website cannot guarantee the legitimacy of some information written here. If possible, you may do additional research if you find anything suspicious, misleading and doubtful information. It may publish political opinions but does not allow fake news for the sake of inviting more readers.

The purpose of this site is to share the latest, trendiest, and most viral news from around the web. This includes the views and opinions of a blogger, Mr. Alon Calinao Dy, who started blogging since 2014.

This website wishes to open the eyes of Filipinos who are not aware of political situations in and outside the country. It also helps the present administration in its war on illegal drugs, criminality and corruption.

Almost every article written here tackles the most recent news in social media, particularly in Philippine politics, and is committed to fight the BIAS media TV networks who are run by oligarchs, politicians and businessmen. It also brings out the voice of people through this best blogging platform.




By Orion Perez D

Fellow Filipinos:
There's still so many of us who make this fatal mistake of easily believing in the FUD-attacks (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) made by the enemies of Progress.
One main reason for why some Filipinos are hesitant to support the push for Federalism is because they have sadly been brainwashed by repetitive Goebbelian lies propagated in Mainstream Media. One such lie was invented by both Christian and Winnie Monsod and it has infected so many Filipinos to wrongly believe that "Federalism will cause/worsen warlords and dynasties to emerge."
In all my more than 20+ years of research on Federalism, I have not once come across any whitepaper or dissertation by any renowned PhD who has proven such a claim. In fact, a simple google search with those keywords "warlords, dynasties, federalism" will reveal that all of the search results point to Pinoy-authored utterances, blogs, comments, wrong opinions, etc.
In short, the idea that "Federalism will worsen Warlords and Dynasties" is an "onli-in-da-Pilipins" shtick!
Think about it.
Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Malaysia, Switzerland.. They all use Federalism. But do they have a warlords-and-dynasties problem?
No they don't.
And yet the Philippines which is Unitary clearly has a severe warlords and dynasties problem. So why blame Federalism when Federalism has nothing to do with this?
See, fellow Filipinos, the problem is Feudalism, not Federalism. Federalism does NOT cause warlords and dynasties to emerge or worsen.
The Philippines does not have Federalism, yet we have warlords and dynasties because our economic system and economic structure is still very much based on Feudalism.
Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Malaysia, Switzerland all use Federalism but they don't have the warlords and dynasties problem because they don't have Feudalism.
Let me explain how the economic system plays a role...
The Philippines is essentially Feudal because in the rural areas, there are lots and lots of poor people and just a handful of rich people, sometimes just one family of landowners in one area.
The poor people can barely feed themselves or if they are able to, they have no money for emergencies or important events. So they generally ask help from the few rich people in their area.
If they need to pay for hospitalization bills, tuition fees, costs for weddings, or just simply need to borrow money, they go to the rich landowner in the area and obsequiously ask for assistance.
The rich don then helps out and this peasant now becomes indebted to the don. Come election time, when the don or his son runs for office, the rich family calls upon the poor peasants whom they've helped out to help campaign for them and vote for them in the elections. The grateful peasants who owe them a debt of gratitude then happily comply, thanking them for their assistance.
See what's wrong with this scenario?
Why are these people so poor and pathetically penniless that they need to ask help from the don anyway?
Simple. Something is seriously wrong with the Philippines' economic system. We don't create enough jobs for our people, and whatever few jobs exist don't pay enough to allow one to live decently.
This issue continues on election after election, causing the members of the same family to keep winning since (1) everyone is indebted to the same family and (2) there's no one rich enough to run against the incumbent because everyone else is so poor.
This is why we have dynasties.
It doesn't help that the Philippine Presidential System's popularity-centric dynamics cascades downwards to the level of provincial governor, and down to mayor. Voters vote candidates based on their names, not parties, and with a Feudalistic system of personal loyalties that results from the debt of gratitude that poor peasants have when the rich don in the area helps them out with favors - usually related to money, it's no surprise that dynasties flourish.
It's worse when the dynasties have a violent streak and hire goons and thugs from among the peasant families that owe them a debt of gratitude. These dynasties become warlords because of their private armies of goons and thugs.
But had there been enough good economic opportunities and jobs in the area, would these people have signed up to become goons and thugs? No.
Everything all boils down to ECONOMICS.
Federalism has absolutely NOTHING to do with warlords and dynasties.
It's FEUDALISM that you should be pointing at, not Federalism.
I'm surprised that this issue still lingers on as a showstopper and mindblocker for so many Filipinos. I've talked about this in my videos and have posted a lot about this. And still some people haven't gotten up to speed on this.
Disabuse yourselves of that fake-news notion that "Federalism will worsen Warlords and Dynasties." Because if there had been an iota of Truth to it, then why is it that Australia, Austria, Canada, Malaysia, Switzerland don't have any of these warlords and dynasties issues?
To be fair, Austria, Germany, and Malaysia once did: they used to have Feudalism and this is found in the fact that Malaysia still has Royalty, while Austria & Germany used to have a Royal Family plus a Peerage (Nobility). But rapid industrialization and economic development and job creation have rendered the old nobility largely ceremonial and merely titular. In Malaysia, there are royal families, but their roles have been relegated to mostly ceremonial or titular religious ones (Sultans are traditionally the heads of Islam within their states). In modern Austria, they've even phased out surnames of the Nobility that have "von" as a prefix (a sign of coming from a noble/aristocratic family). The ones who retain "von" in their surname are dead people in history books or those who emigrated to the US or elsewhere before the "von" phaseout happened. (I'm not so sure about Germany, but it seems some lighter form of phase-out happened too)
Economic Development and massive job-creation is what will cure the Philippines of our warlords and dynasties issues. Removing the anti-FDI restrictions in the constitution and allowing massive amounts of foreign direct investment and inviting large numbers of multinational corporations to set up factories and offices will help immensely. But Federalism is needed, because Federalism will allow the regional governments to set up the necessary policies aimed at attracting these companies to locate their offices and factories in their areas. We can't have all these companies setting up in Metro Manila. They need to spread out to the regions and create jobs for the people in the regions.
Develop the economy by inviting in lots of foreign direct investors to jumpstart the economy and create massive amounts of jobs for the people in the regions and notice how warlords and dynasties will weaken. In fact, as new rich people will emerge, there will be new people emerging as political contenders challenging the old order. The creation of a large middle class will cause people to vote more based on principle and less based on "utang-na-loob" (debt of gratitude).
Filipinos need to learn to be more scientific and analytical. We need to stop getting swayed by repetitive Goebbelian rhetoric that aims to brainwash us subliminally.
Remember, folks, it is not Federalism that empowers warlords and dynaties... It is FEUDALISM!
Do not confuse the two just because both start with FE and end with ALISM. Feudalism and Federalism are DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER!
Now you know!

Pia Ranada and Hollow Blocks -Malacañang Press Corps- Duterte visits Japan

Support Rappler! Why? Coz God’s Gift to Journalism cannot surivive on DATA alone

Why should we “support Rappler”? Good question. Rappler is, supposedly, a business venture. It’s got investors who expect a return on their investment that is proportionate to the risk they’ve taken parking that money in Rappler’s books (i.e. more than, say, what they could have earned in interest had they invested those funds in a term deposit instead).
Rappler is, as far as we know, not a cooperative. A cooperative is a community enterprise funded by its own customers and members who collectively enjoy a common benefit from the services said enterprise delivers. There is no evidence that Rappler ever pitched itself as anything resembling a cooperative in the past. It has, for the most part of its trade since it bubbled up from out of the political muck in 2012 operated as a media business. Indeed, much speculation surrounded what its business model was considering that it employed a lot of people and did not have a readily-evident revenue stream (it did not serve ads on its Web pages and did not sell print versions of its content in the real world).
Back in 2012 the text on its ‘About’ page was as follows:
Rappler is a social news network, whose journalists have worked for global news organizations and top Filipino news groups. We are proud to be “online journalists.” We promise uncompromised journalism that inspires smart conversations and ignites a thirst for change.
The blurb has since expanded to define a bit about how one would “join” Rappler in this mission from God to deliver “uncompromised journalism” to the Filipino people…
We won’t be complete without YOU.
Technology now allows us to work in ways never before possible to create connected communities and to tap “the wisdom of crowds,” the process of harnessing a group’s collective answer which, under the right conditions, have proven to be better than any single expert opinion.
In effect, the original deal was that Rappler’s audience and readers’ input into the enterprise was mainly around data much the same way as the big great Internet data collection behemoths like Facebook and Google currently work — harvesting data from day-to-day user interactions with their online services and turning these into intelligence to drive marketing and, perhaps, political decisions and actions. Rappler, it seems, was meant to operate that way; by (1) harvesting insights from users’ tapping on the colourful circles on those “mood meters” and correlating these “moods” with topics and key words in their articles to derive insights and identify trends, and (2) “crowdsourcing” information from user-generated content such as readers’ comments and online discussions on these comment threads.
Any further user input into Rappler beyond data was not part of the original deal. Yet, today, it seems money is now part of the equation. Rappler is no longer just “crowdsourcing” now, it is also crowdfunding — specifically soliciting funds from its users.
And why should one “support” Rappler by forking cash out to it? Well, because, we are told, we owe it to ourselves to help them “stay free and independent of political pressure and commercial interests.” It seems that says something about the effect on its editorial direction of funding sources its CEO Maria Ressa tapped earlier in its history (wink, wink). No, this time, soliciting money from Rappler readers will assure its true independence, right? But of course.
God’s Gift to Journalism, after all, cannot survive on data alone.
In short, Rappler has resorted to begging for funds from its own users because its business model of monetising analytics derived from data collected from users has failed. It has also most likely failed to deliver a return to its traditional investors — shadowy entities and parties that sought to either (1) use these analytics to influence public sentiment or (2) directly influence public sentiment through the sheer audience reach of Rappler’s online presence.
As explained earlier Rappler seemingly failed on the first point and, on the second point, whilst it does have the audience reach, its content has for some time now suffered crises of credibility thanks to the glaringly evident slant in its editorial direction in favour of, shall we say, “liberal” Filipinos. As such, the ability of the content published by Rappler’s “thought leaders” to influence has seen a marked decline.
The writing on the wall is quite clear. This “Support Rappler” initiative comes across more like the frantic thrashing of a drowning enterprise. The only thing that will really save Rappler now is conventional business sense, like developing a less pathetic revenue stream and finding a real investor. That, of course, means, in their very own words, that having conventional investors and conventional revenue streams (i.e. being a viable business) will no longer keep it “free and independent of political pressure and commercial interests”. Such is the media business. That is a lesson Rappler seems to have learned the hard way.

About benign0

benign0 is the Webmaster of GetRealPhilippines.com.


October 31, 2017 - The Kingdom of Heaven Infiltrates and Enriches Everything It Touches

Tuesday of the Thirtieth Week in Ordinary Time

Father James Swanson, LC

Luke 13:18-21

Jesus said, "What is the kingdom of God like? To what can I compare it? It is like a mustard seed that a person took and planted in the garden. When it was fully grown, it became a large bush and the birds of the sky dwelt in its branches." Again he said, "To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of wheat flour until the whole batch of dough was leavened."

Introductory Prayer: Lord, I believe in you with a faith that never seeks to test you. I trust in you, hoping to learn to accept and follow your will, even when it does not make sense to the way that I see things. May my love for you and those around me be similar to the love you have shown to me.
Petition: Lord, help me to value and seek the invisible strength of the Kingdom of Heaven.

1. The Kingdom Grows from Small Beginnings: Jesus tells us two parables to help us understand the Kingdom of Heaven. What does he want us to know about it? When he speaks about the mustard seed, he is emphasizing that something that seems inconsequential can grow to become something of great importance. Although the mustard seed is so small as to be nearly invisible, it grows into a small tree, big enough for birds to make a nest in. Its usefulness goes beyond its own needs. It can give shelter and support to others.

2. You Don’t Have to Understand Biology to Be a Baker: In the parable of the leaven, something similar happens. Leaven has a mysterious property. Although it seems to be nothing special itself, even a small amount of it, mixed with dough, causes the dough to rise. The Jews listening to Jesus didn’t know why. They didn’t know that the leaven contained yeast spores that under the right conditions of heat, moisture and nutrients, would begin to grow and produce carbon dioxide gas (which is what makes the dough rise). It was mysterious to them, what power the leaven contained, but they knew that just a little of it would transform a much larger quantity of dough, so that the resulting bread would not just be matzo, but a much larger quantity of light, airy bread that is much nicer to eat. In a similar way, grace transforms the ordinary acts of our day, making them much nicer in God’s eyes.

3. The Church Transforms Societies: Both these parables apply to the Kingdom of Heaven. As he spoke, Jesus had before him just a few apostles who still didn’t grasp his message very well. The Kingdom of Heaven was so small as to be invisible, like the mustard seed. But it was destined to have incredible growth, such that it would begin to help all humanity and not just those who belonged to it. When he speaks of the leaven, he refers not just to the growth that the Kingdom of Heaven would undergo throughout the centuries, but to the transformation it would accomplish in the societies it entered. We see this in the world today. The Church has not only grown, but it has also come to affect many who are not in the Church and to transform society. The apostles, who did not see the Kingdom very clearly, had a hard time accepting this. We have seen much more, and yet we still doubt and hesitate.

Conversation with Christ: Dear Jesus I have seen so much of your Kingdom that I should believe without hesitation, yet I still worry about the final triumph of your Kingdom. Help me to have a greater faith, not only to believe what you said, but to help the spread of the Kingdom continue to come true in my society and culture.

Resolution: I will try to be more optimistic about the Church in society, seeing how it has influenced so much of what is best in our society – love for the poor, love for enemies etc. Knowing that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, I will accept that as it has happened so many times in the past, just when things look bleakest for the Church, God turns the tables, and it enters into another Golden Age. Didn’t John Paul II predict that we were just launching out into the New Age of Evangelization?

Should Sen. Leila De Lima be released from detention?

By RG San Luis

Mareng Winnie on the single political detainee of the Duterte administration, Leila De Lima.
For the sake of argument, let's say that what Monsod claims are all true. Should Sen. Leila De Lima be released from detention?
Yes, if the cycle of political vendetta is to end and the reform of the justice system is to begin.

The problem with De Lima is she allowed herself to be used as a pawn by her boss then, PeNoy. She was the hatchet person of PeNoy who caused the detention of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona. Senators Enrile, Estrada and Revilla followed shortly.
She then proceeded to protect the prominent members of the Liberal Party who were involved in the pork barrel scam and was one of the key officials who allowed the proliferation of the drug trade by accepting bribes in her capacity as Justice Secretary. She may not have handled the drugs directly but she was complicit in the conspiracy to allow the distribution of drugs by those who paid bribes to her.
The most explicit indication of her guilt is her claim she didn't have a relationship with her driver-bodyguard at the beginning, only to backtrack in the middle of the controversy and admit that she differed from the frailties of a woman to Monsod herself in her public affairs program.
The photos and videos of her visiting the National Penitentiary and mingling with convicted drug lords are also very incriminating based on the testimony given by the convicts themselves.
The problem with law enforcement agencies in the country is the evidence is gathered after the commission of the crime and not while the crime is being committed. This speaks volumes about the complicity of appointed and career government officials in corruption. There is no independent anti-corruption body which is tough enough to put the fear of God in those who are guilty or as a deterrent to those thinking of committing corrupt acts.
The lack of adherence to the rule of law is one reason why the country can't attract foreign investors. The justice system is rigged in favor of those who are in power in both their public and private capacities.
It cannot be denied also that during her incumbency, De Lima had the gall to go against the Supreme Court because PeNoy held the threat of impeachment over the Justice's heads. The appointment of Conchita Carpio-Morales as Ombudsman and Maria Lourdes Sereno as Chief Justice empowered De Lima to go after the political enemies of the Aquino administration with impunity.
De Lima was a willing participant in the power games being played at the highest level of government during her time. Her detention is part of the consequence of her actions. The greatest fear of her allies in the opposition is she might not be up to the rigors of detention and might just decide to sing and spill the beans on them if only to win her freedom back.

Military strategy should not be based on the assumption that terrorists may consider ‘surrender’?

Trust Rappler to give air time to any content that works towards painting a beaten enemy of the Opposition’s favourite bogeyman — the Philippine military — as victims of yet another “human rights” travesity. In the “report” Overkill? Some locals question Marawi shelling (seemingly re-published from Al Jazeera), the devastation wreaked upon Marawi City is used as a context to ponder, in hindsight, possible missed opportunities had a “different strategy” been applied to liberating it of entrenched pro-ISIS fighters.
“We were against the air strikes from the very beginning,” said Zia Alonto Adiong, a regional legislator and spokesman of the civilian committee that manages the Marawi crisis. “We were hoping for a different strategy.”
“It was overkill,” said Agakhan Sharief, spokesman of a local council of ulama or Islamic authorities. “Why? Because there was an opportunity for negotiations with the Maute. They were considering surrender.”
“Surrender”? Suddenly the word is part of Islamic extremists’ vocabulary. Or, rather, people with nothing more than the easy brilliance offered by essentially useless hindsight put that word in terrorists’ mouths. These, of course, are terrorists — people who believe in the glory of blowing themselves up in the middle of a bustling nightclub or running over innocent tourists enjoying the sites on an ancient European avenue. Their foresight in the heat of battle hardly ever offers that option — only, perhaps, in hindsight and, even more likely, in the hindsight of those who would go on to defend their sudden entitlement to “human rights” after the fact of their defeat.
It gets better…
During a brief ceasefire on the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, Sharief and 7 other ulama entered the war zone to speak with Abdullah Maute, a leader of the fighters, to negotiate for hostages.
“Abdullah was willing to discuss surrendering to the government on the condition that the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) mediated for them,” said Sharief. “We sent the president several letters about this. We never got a response.”
Quite rich, actually. Conditional surrender. This is a request coming from the sorts of people who take and broadcast videos of captured soldiers being decapitated with a small blunt knife or burned alive inside a cage. Even more astounding is the nature of the condition — that the surrender be mediated by another terrorist group.
It would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that this is about a hideous enemy that does not wage war according to the rules of civilised societies, does not see its own enemies as equally human, nor even considered the consequences to the citizens of a city they intended to turn into a vast weapons depot and a launch pad for the violent rise of a “caliphate” the streets of which will, presumably, be paved with the skulls of Christian infidels.
It seems the author of this Rappler report is just short of suggesting that the reduction of Marawi City to a pile of rubble is on the Philippine military, never mind that this all could have been prevented had the enemy been a bit more considerate — no, a bit more human — in the way they thought things through and in the way they fought their war.
Filipinos should be resolute in the winning of the War for Marawi City — one of the very few won against a foreign invader in their history. They should celebrate the victory of their valiant soldiers and uphold a narrative of an enemy’s plan to deprive a nation of its humanity thwarted decisively. In short, Filipinos should hold their heads high and think and act like winners rather than succumb to the emotional blackmail of cliques within their society who hoped for a different outcome — one that would have validated their insidious political agendas.

About benign0

benign0 is the Webmaster of GetRealPhilippines.com.


Monday, October 30, 2017

Why Filipinos should support Harry Roque, their new presidential spokesman

New presidential spokesman Harry Rogue.
(Photo source: Interaksyon)

The trouble with “thought leaders” of the Philippine Opposition is that they often think and behave like spurned adolescent lovers more than rational adults. The way they launched into a shrieking fit over the recent move of renowned human rights lawyer Harry Roque into the Malacanang team reeks of vindictiveness and lacks any semblance of forward thinking.
The Opposition straight out fail to take a constructive perspective to this development and fail to apply a bit of imagination to at least find curious fascination in the prospect of how a human rights lawyer might speak for a government highly-criticised for alleged “human rights abuses”. Rather, the usual shrill voices of the Opposition turned their guns on Roque’s back as he seemingly walked away from their “graces” towards the unknown challenge of working with the government of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.
This highlights the futility in attempting a conversation with idiots. On one hand, the Opposition led by their self-appointed “leaders” in the Liberal Party (LP, a.k.a. the “Yellowtards”) would cocoon themselves within a clique of mutual back-patting like minds throwing barbs at what they perceive to be “incompetent” and even “evil” people serving the Duterte administration. Yet, on another (as we are seeing today), they decry someone they once regarded as “one of us”, opting to serve the Duterte government. Well, dude, what exactly is it that you want to see happen? The Yellowtards lament that all the wrong people work for Duterte. Now that one of the supposedly “right” ones have opted to join him, the shrill shrieks simply grow louder.Tanginang yan.
Perhaps, like any politician, part of what motivates Roque is political survival. But, really, what is wrong with that? It is too naive for anyone to think that anyone of consequence in the Philippines does anything purely for altruistic purposes. Roque, like any sane human being, balances personal interest and noble ideals. Perhaps it is because Yellowtards are into the worship of saints, martyrs, and their “amazing” gods. That mindset leads them to expect nothing less than pure intentions in the people they choose to hold in high esteem. For the Yellowtards, good people are always 100 percent motivated by pure or noble intentions and that their actions always involve self-sacrifices for zero personal gain.
Well now, that certainly is a recipe for the very culture of hypocrisy that lost them an entire country back in 2016. After all, onlysaints and martyrs are worthy of Yellowtard veneration and Filipinos, quite simply, have gotten sick of that insane self-righteousness.
Roque perhaps saw some opportunity for personal gain in joining Team Duterte. Duterte, after all, remains a popular leader. But only intelligent people who are able to think in the modern sense can properly fill in the less-evident gaps and formulate a more complete theory of why Roque does what he does. Indeed, Roque is obviously not stupid and is aware of the risk he is taking (which is a no-brainer seeing the predictibality with which the Yellowtards are reacting to this today) and would haveweighed the pros and cons of joining Duterte.
There is, obviously, potential for a big win that makes this risk worthwhile for Roque. That’s Investing 101, by the way — seeing an opportunity and taking a risk to exploit it. The question therefore is, what opportunity could Roque have possibly seen that makes his investment in lost political capital amongst the Yellowtards worthwhile?
For one, Duterte’s alleged “human rights violations” are largely unsubstantiated. The gone-viral notions of him being a human rights “abuser” are largely products of spin spewed by a hostile butthurt news media industry and a largely unimaginative, directionless, and strategically-bankrupt Opposition. There is a popular saying: It takes one to know one. Roque is, of course, not a “human rights violator”. But Roque has battled a lot of them. He knows how they think and he knows how to formulate an attack plan to thwart them in court. He knows the enemy.
One-dimensional minds will, as is evident in the position the Yellowtards take, fixate themselves in this one-dimensional logical construct:
Duterte is a violator of human rights and is therefore an enemy of human rights defenders. Roque is a human rights defender. Therefore, Roque should regard Duterte as The Enemy.
It is on that childish logic that they now condemn Roque for joining Team Duterte. However, a real intellectual will, before dubbing one “The Enemy”, first ask: Is Duterte really the enemy? More specifically, perhaps Roque asked himself:
Is Duterte really a human rights violator?
As long as the answer to that question has not been established beyond reasonable doubt there is opportunity for Roque the Human Rights Lawyer to work with Duterte.
It is likely in the course of Roque’s stint in Malacanang, that he will crystallise his own conclusions about Duterte and his government to a point where he can answer this question conclusively then act accordingly. Until then, Filipinos should support the new presidential spokesperson and wish him well. He is, after all, serving the Philippine Government and, by logical extension, the Filipino people. Let’s stop acting like a bunch of Yellowtards, grow up, and start looking forward.

About benign0

benign0 is the Webmaster of GetRealPhilippines.com.


WATCH: Roxas And Drilon Could Face Lifetime Imprisonment if Found Guilty in Drugs.

Spokesperson Harry Roque may BABALA sa mga walang HIYA at BIAS Media na naninira kay Duterte

October 30, 2017 - Jesus Blows me Out of my Comfort Zone – Again!

Monday of the Thirtieth Week in Ordinary Time
Father James Swanson, LC

Luke 13:10-17

Jesus was teaching in a synagogue on the sabbath. And a woman was there who for eighteen years had been crippled by a spirit; she was bent over, completely incapable of standing erect. When Jesus saw her, he called to her and said, "Woman, you are set free of your infirmity." He laid his hands on her, and she at once stood up straight and glorified God. But the leader of the synagogue, indignant that Jesus had cured on the sabbath, said to the crowd in reply, "There are six days when work should be done. Come on those days to be cured, not on the sabbath day." The Lord said to him in reply, "Hypocrites! Does not each one of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his ass from the manger and lead it out for watering? This daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound for eighteen years now, ought she not to have been set free on the sabbath day from this bondage?" When he said this, all his adversaries were humiliated; and the whole crowd rejoiced at all the splendid deeds done by him.

Introductory Prayer: Lord, I believe in you with a faith that never seeks to test you. I trust in you, hoping to learn to accept and follow your will, even when it does not make sense to the way that I see things. May my love for you and those around me be similar to the love you have shown to me.   

Petition: Lord, protect me from spiritual old age.

1. Jesus Is Showing his Messiah Credentials Again: Jesus’ opponents were desperate. They didn’t want to believe that he was the Messiah, and they especially didn’t want anyone else to think he was the Messiah. But there was the pesky problem of his miracles. They knew that when God sent someone to speak for him, he usually performed signs through the person so that people would believe in him. The sign was proof that the person (Jesus in this case) was sent by God. Jesus was doing plenty of miracles, which most people were taking as the sign that he was sent by God. What could Jesus’ opponents do? They could only try to discredit the miracles any way possible.

2. You Can Do a Lot More than You Think on the Sabbath: This miracle was done on the Sabbath. The head of the synagogue had a problem with that. Didn’t God himself rest on the sixth day? Oughtn’t we to do the same? How does this Jesus heal on the Sabbath if he is truly from God? In fact, there were many exceptions to the rules about the Sabbath. In another place, Jesus himself says that the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). Certainly, the observance of the Sabbath was always subject to the practice of charity, that it was always permissible to break the Sabbath rest in the case when needed to do some necessary act of charity for another. Jesus mentions situations when for practical reasons (necessary farm chores, like watering animals) work can be done without breaking the Sabbath rest.

3. Lord, Please Let me Keep my Mediocrity: And so, there is really nothing to the objection. The head of the synagogue does not want to believe because what Jesus says and does seems threatening to him. If Jesus is the Messiah, he foresees having to change his life, and he does not want to do that. He may not even realize that this is his real objection, but it is. We can be this way, too. We don’t want to accept something Jesus teaches us through his Church because it would mean that we have to change our lives, and we don’t want to. We are comfortable the way we are. If we had to do what Jesus asks, it would take us out of our comfort zone. Sometimes it is mere fear of something different. Jesus always is offering us something different, but we don’t want it. We want to stay in our rut. We have surrounded ourselves with limited horizons and are afraid to stretch them.

Conversation with Christ: Dear Jesus, help me to accept you fully. If I am rejecting you or your teaching without realizing it, show me. Help me to overcome my attempt to construct my own little universe in which I am God. If I have grown old spiritually, renew my youth and help me break through my restricted, shrunken horizons that exclude you.

Resolution: Where in my life have I settled into spiritual routine and old age? Do I habitually skip some prayer I should be saying, telling myself it isn’t that important? I will make an extra effort to pray it today. Is there some other aspect of my spiritual or moral life that I have removed to make life “more comfortable” for me? Time to start doing it again!

Why our telecoms will never be world-class with this kind of telco owners

Reason 1: Their uncontrolled avarice

THE two companies monopolizing our telecommunications industry were taking us for fools when they recently claimed, trying desperately to counter Chinese billionaire Jack Ma’s pointed criticism that their internet service was lousy, that it is government regulations and red-tape that have hindered their efforts to improve their services.

The truth is that it is their owners’ avarice that explains why our telecoms industry hasn’t been on a par with the world, demonstrated by the fact that we have the slowest internet speeds—even slower than such countries as Kazakhstan, Kenya and Cambodia—and among the most expensive telecom services.
My accusation isn’t a moralistic nor subjective one. Data that I’ve compiled quantify and prove this obsession for earnings of the controlling owners of the two telcos, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. and Globe Telecoms, at the expense of improving their services at the least cost.
PLDT and Globe have been giving out the bulk of their profits to their shareholders, leaving little to be used for infrastructure to improve their services. This is in stark contrast to what other Philippine conglomerates do, such as Henry Sy’s SM, San Miguel, JohnGokongwei’s JG Summit, property and alcoholic-drinks tycoon Andrew Tan’s Megaworld, and even Ayala Land.
The accompanying table shows two types of data for the two telcos and for a sample of the country’s conglomerates.
Dividends and payout ratios

One set shows how much each of the companies declared for the 12 years from 2005 to 2006 as dividends – corporate lingo for the part of the company’s earnings given to its shareholders.

The second set show for the same period each company’s average dividend-payout ratio. This is how much, expressed in percentages, of a company’s income was distributed as dividends to its shareholders. If a company earned $100 million for 2016, and $60 million was distributed to its shareholders, its dividend payout-ratio is 60 percent.
While stock market players (since stock prices are mainly determined by how much a company distributes to its shareholders) are happier the higher the dividend-payout ratio is for a company, it also measures the greed of its shareholders. That is, they get the bulk of the company’s profits, rather than leaving more to be reinvested into the company – in the case of telecommunication companies, in order to improve their services at the least cost to consumers.
The company of course could, as PLDT and Globe massively do, get loans from the financial markets to fund its operations and capital expansion. But these aren’t free, obviously: the interest cost is ultimately borne by the consumer, which partly explains why we have among the most expensive telecoms and especially internet costs in the world.
Relying more and more on borrowings, PLDT’s debt-to-equity ratio has risen from a low of 0.7 in 2007 to 1.4 as of June 2017. That of Globe has gone up from 1 in 2009 to 1.9 last June. Because of its need to finance its operations while it gives out as much dividends to its owners, PLDT for instance borrowed P15 billion to be paid in seven years from the retail market in 2014, at an interest rate of 5 percent, the cost of which is tacked on to the cost of mobile-phone and internet service.
The data shown in the table is astonishing—and depressing for us consumers. While we have a telecoms industry that is below par with the world average, PLDT and Globe are the most profitable companies in the country, both in terms of the amount of money given to their shareholders and how big a part of the companies’ earnings these are.
Can you believe that PLDT’s dividends from 2005 to 2016 totaled a colossal $6.4 billion—P294 billion at the peso’s average international value for those years—more than four times bigger than the $1.5 billion and $1.2 billion given to shareholders, respectively, by Sy’s SM empire and San Miguel Corp., the country’s biggest industrial enterprise?
In fact, in my sample of 30 of the country’s largest firms, only PLDT and Globe—and another public utility, Meralco—have average dividend-payout ratios of over 50 percent, with all of the other firms’ ratios at 37 percent and below. That means unlike the dominantly foreign-owned PLDT and Globe, these Filipino firms reinvest 60 percent of their profits back to their firms. It is really quite amazing:

Source: Company reports
How can PLDT and Globe make so much money? First, the two make up a monopoly, with their prices basically the same, and with a market that is captive. Their competition has not involved prices which would have benefited consumers, but only marketing —how many stores they have, their various (confusing) promos, and advertising.
Second, they exploit a natural resource without the fees that is required in all countries for such exploitation of a limited, natural resource.
What limited, natural resource? The radio spectrum, which is the exclusive property of a sovereign country. Australia as an example last year auctioned for $400 million its 1800MHz spectrum to three telcos. Here, our valuable cellphone and internet spectra have been given out to dominantly foreign-owned PLDT and Globe.
Indonesian tycoon Salim

PLDT has been such a big money-maker for its biggest stockholder, the Hong Kong-based First Pacific Co. Ltd. of Indonesian tycoon Anthoni Salim, the heir of strongman Suharto’s biggest crony. Profits from PLDT from 2000 to 2016 totaling $2.4 billion, according to First Pacific’s reports, have eclipsed those from Indofood, the world’s biggest noodle maker that used to be the jewel in Salim’s collection of firms.

The Spanish-American Ayala elite is usually described as “property-based,” with its collection of malls and posh residential villages. Yet Globe Telecom, in which the Ayalas are the second biggest stockholder, had dividends from 2005 to 2016 of $2.4 billion, more than three times bigger than Ayala Land’s $705 million.
What a telecoms industry the past three administrations have created. We suffer from lousy and expensive mobile-phone and internet service, while the owners of the PLDT and Globe monopoly are raking in money by the tons. Our telecoms industry won’t ever be world-class if the owners of our telcos are such greedy capitalists.
Something is terribly, terribly wrong. Even the poor now are using cellphones so much it is eating up a big part of their very meager earnings. And they are paying at rates that are among the most expensive in the world.
There is worse news: the biggest owners of PLDT and Globe, profiting so much from our suffering, aren’t even Filipino. Maybe that explains why they’ve been milking the two companies as fast and on the biggest scale that they can. That—reason two—for next week.
Email: tiglao.manilatimes@gmail.com
Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao