Lack of thinking and arrogant attitudes are the Philippines’ undoing

In the Philippines, there are many people who claim to have a monopoly on great ideas. They claim to know what is good for you and everyone else. Some of them get very impatient about bringing their ideas into “action”. These people also think that their ideas are superior to other people’s ideas. They quickly dismiss as mere nuisances those who choose to examine things through careful scrutiny of the detail. These people — those who think they are “brilliant” — insist that the time for talking or discussing things is OVER and it is time to bring their ideas to the next level, which presumably is actual “execution”.

His arrogance will be his undoing.
HIs arrogance will be his undoing.
Indeed, in an impoverished country like the Philippines, there is no shortage of supposedly brilliant thinkers whose ideas fail the country simply because they did not want their ideas to be put under the microscope or to be subject to further critical evaluation prior to implementation. In other words, a lot of things in the Philippines — like badly-written legislation — fail because they were not examined well enough to see if they could pass the “So what?” test beforehand.

Don’t get me wrong – it is great to see that there are people who are passionate enough to do something to bring their causes and advocacies to fruition. I think it shows that there are people who have genuine concern for the country and are too eager to get things done. However, there is a danger that they could fall into the trap of wallowing too much in their own pile of crap. This usually happens the minute they stop entertaining new ideas and dissenting views. As they say, arrogance diminishes wisdom. When this happens, the advocacy becomes more about their ego and not about the idea.

When you start thinking that your ideas are always better than others, then that’s when you stop learning. How many times have we seen people proven wrong years or decades later after they arrogantly insisted they were right? The answer: countless times over the history of mankind. We see it happening right before our eyes. A lot of Aquino supporters are notorious for dismissing any suggestions that President Benigno Simeon “BS” Aquino is incompetent and vindictive. They are averse to criticism and other ideas. This will eventually be their undoing.

We must have room for improvement and compromise. We can’t always be right 100 percent of the time. We might see something work in other countries but just because it does doesn’t mean it will work in our own country. Analyzing what works in other places should only serve to give us an idea of what we can do but we might have to alter a few bits and pieces to suit before we can apply it to our local situation. Cultural differences can hamper the implementation of a perfectly-articulated idea that was successfully implemented elsewhere.

To cite an example, there are countries like United Kingdom of Great Britain that don’t even have written constitutions, but their society still functions to optimal levels. Meanwhile, there are countries like our own with voluminous bodies of laws but whose society still fails to function to an acceptable international standard. It could be because majority of Filipinos refuse to follow even simple guidelines, what more a big set of laws?

Opening up the economy to foreign investors to help solve the country’s unemployment is an idea that sounds rational to some but would seem unpatriotic to others. It’s actually funny how some of those who say that a parliamentary system would fit the Philippines cannot even handle a simple online discussion without resorting to name-calling and psychopathic behavior when their views are challenged. Not that I am against a parliamentary system of government for the Philippines, but it’s just plain obvious that Filipinos in general aren’t mature enough to handle opposing views, which is something one should expect in such a system where reality checks on one’s ideas are par for the course. Or take the debate around reproductive health. Giving away free contraceptive pills and making sex education readily-available could be another bright idea to curb high population growth, but these ideas may be absolutely unacceptable to a lot of people due to what they claim is its moral and financial implications.

These are just some of the issues that cannot be rushed by saying that the time for discussion is OVER. All parties need to be satisfied using mature and intelligent discussions prior to arriving at a conclusion as opposed to one party using bullying tactics just to get their way.

Once a bad idea has been implemented, many lives and billions in funds could be lost before its instigators could realize it. It can cause billions more to reverse the damage. Sometimes the damage is already irreversible. Years and even decades could be lost and generations of people’s lives could be ruined before people can begin to wonder how things could have possibly gone wrong. The Iraq war was a bad idea that was implemented even before common folks could get around to thinking about and discussing its possible consequences. Sadly, the Americans are not the only people who will suffer for years to come as a result of the ill-thought-out war.

Recent events have made some people reflect on the legacy of past world leaders and how they affected their society and the world around it. When news of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s death from a stroke at age 87 made headlines around the world, the reaction was mixed. Whether they view her as their greatest or their worst leader, the one thing most people agree on is that she was one of the most “polarizing” leaders of the free world.

To those who laud Thatcher, they saw the Iron Lady’s 11-year tenure in office as the decade that Great Britain kicked some ass, so to speak. After all, the invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982 was thwarted when she ordered the British armed forces to “take care” of the Argentinean forces. She was also said to have been instrumental in that momentous event in 1989, which was the fall of the Berlin Wall. She could arguably have been the inspiration for some of the greatest hits from the United Kingdom. For they say that it was in the 1980s when inequality in the UK began to worsen resulting in the many riots, protests and hunger strikes that marked that decade for the UK. All that 1980s rock-n-roll fuelled by woes and discontent surely paid off in terms of music royalties — for some, at least.

Some financial industry pundits along with Prime Minister David Cameron himself also hailed Thatcher as the one who averted the possible financial collapse of the British Empire had it embraced the Euro. Even before the Euro was born, she was completely against the idea of a single currency for Europe. She was said to have fought a lone battle against adopting the Euro and the accompanying closer political and economic integration of the European nations. Unfortunately, her unpopular views caused factions within her own Conservative party that saw her leadership challenged and eventually led to her ouster in 1990. The collapse of Iceland and Greece’s economy however, vindicated her but not until decades later.

According to an excerpt from her autobiography, Thatcher’s wisdom then which was being made to come across as xenophobic by her critics, was accurate in predicting that a single currency would not be able to “accommodate both industrial powerhouses such as Germany and smaller countries such as Greece”. Germany, forecast Thatcher, “would be phobic about inflation, while the euro would prove fatal to the poorer countries because it would “devastate their inefficient economies”.

To those who loathed Thatcher, her death was a cause for celebration, a time to dance for joy – on top of her grave if it were up to many of them. History had been kind to her despite the fact that her government supposedly initiated Britain’s de-industrialization. Her government cut down on manufacturing jobs and years of social unrest took place as a result. In retrospect, it probably didn’t make sense to a lot of people then that the world’s first industrial nation was trimming down its manufacturing industry. Thatcher’s government rationalized that this would make “industrial companies leaner and release labor to expand businesses in the more lucrative service sector”. Sadly, their prediction was wrong. Those who were laid off found it difficult to find work and some ended up with low paying jobs:

The loss of skilled manufacturing jobs widened inequality, with negative consequences for social mobility. In the 1980s, income inequality between the top and bottom 20 percent of British households widened by 60 percent. Inequality continued to rise, with only minor fluctuations, under Britain’s next three prime ministers, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Basically, the British people lost their jobs even before Globalization – even before outsourcing manufacturing jobs to cheap labourers in developing countries came into vogue. No wonder some people hate her with a passion especially since Germany and France were able to maintain their manufacturing industries and sustained lower social inequality compared to Britain as a result.

It seems that Thatcher didn’t make any apologies for the loss of jobs nor the rising inequalities and the overall consequences of her government’s policies. Some claim that she lacked empathy for the poor and refer to them as “work-shy”. Ironically, her anti-poor policies seemed to have increased the number of poor people in the UK.

It is clear that Thatcher got some things right but she also got some things wrong. Some of her policies had devastating consequences to British society. Her arrogance ultimately prevented her from accepting realities.

We can only learn from the lessons of how arrogance during Thatcher’s and George W Bush’s terms destroyed lives and livelihood. So to the Filipinos who think they are ready to implement their brilliant ideas: think again. Even a luminary like Thatcher fell into the trap of wallowing in her own crap a few times in her career. It seemed to happen when she declared the discussion over.

In the Philippines, public servants quite often make mistakes that affect millions of Filipino lives because they rush into action without even thinking. Unfortunately, their actions reveal they are only concerned about their own personal agendas that hardly benefit the majority of the Filipino people.

print

150 Comments on “Lack of thinking and arrogant attitudes are the Philippines’ undoing”

  1. Thatcher was not vindicated by Greece and Iceland’s collapse. Thacther/Reagan economic policies are what caused those collapses.Privatization, de-regulation of the banking system(transfer of private debt to public debt and then the selling off of the countries assets to Goldman Sachs to further hollow out the economies), getting rid of Union labor and destroying the middle-class in the U.K., U.S.A. and everywhere else in the West. Next up? The N.H.S. in the U.K. is about to be privatized and it will be another disaster for the little people.

    But the above is not really what I want to say about this article. In the Philippines a system is in place that benefits almost none of its citizens. The entire economy is controlled and rigged to exploit the many for the benefit of the few.The country is in a gigantic shit-house of a mess and it is at a point where it is just too far fucked to fix. It is obvious: No one even has a clue as to what the salvage operation is that is necessary to fix the country, and forget about knowing how to implement that operation. Place is fucked!

    1. @Gerry

      Thacther/Reagan economic policies are what caused those collapses.Privatization, de-regulation of the banking system(transfer of private debt to public debt and then the selling off of the countries assets to Goldman Sachs to further hollow out the economies), getting rid of Union labor and destroying the middle-class in the U.K., U.S.A. and everywhere else in the West. Next up? The N.H.S. in the U.K. is about to be privatized and it will be another disaster for the little people.

      You are talking about a different matter altogether. It still doesn’t change the fact that her fight against joining the Euro was a good decision for Britain.

      It is obvious: No one even has a clue as to what the salvage operation is that is necessary to fix the country…

      What’s your basis in saying this?

      1. the current election season see’s a lack of idea’s(candidates not participating in debates is a sign of this) not un-common in places like the Philippines. To make it worse, previous election outcomes resulted in the elected candidates complete failure to implement the platform he/she ran on, or even a reversal of that platform.
        But aside from that, the lack of city-planning for the next wave of typhoons due in a few months, the population explosion and what to do about it (RH bill, LOL!!!), un-employment, poverty, highest electric rates in the WORLD,and , uh…..rampant corruption are a few of the problems NOT being addressed. When they are addressed it is usually through some sort lip-service and nothing tangible comes from it. The problems that beseige the country make the population easier to control, so little or next to nothing will be done about any of the just mentioned problems as well as many others that are only serving the interests of the wealthy.
        These are all obvious and are the partial basis for the above statement.
        A prediction based on historical precedence,TA-DA: little or nothing will change in the Philippines after the outcome of the elections about to be held. After watching what happens with nauseating regularity (its actually predictable) each and every election, do the people have any reason to think other-wise? UH, NO, they do not.

        1. @Gerry

          You shouldn’t expect brilliant ideas from the public servants. They were voted in due to their popularity not because of their ideas or platform.

          Your statement “No one even has a clue as to what the salvage operation is that is necessary to fix the country…” is false because there are people who do have sound ideas but unfortunately they are not in the position to implement it.

        2. @Ilda, I expect nothing from politicians so why you may think I do is beyond me.

          and as far as you labelling what I said as “FALSE”, UH NO, you do not know that. SORRY Ilda but if an idea is untried or not implemented you just do not know if it is a good idea or not. You just don’t know that.I am taking a lot of static from some others here today so I am coming back at you.and just for kicks, name a few of these ‘good ideas’ that no one has implemented

        3. @Gerry

          I expect nothing from politicians so why you may think I do is beyond me.

          If you don’t expect from them, then why did you even point to them when I asked you what your basis was in saying “no one even has a clue as to what the salvage operation is that is necessary to fix the country“?

          Of course there are still people with good ideas in the Philippines. I don’t have time to list them down for you. Maybe I’ll include them in my future articles. Just maybe. 😉

    2. @Gerry

      By the way, I have to point out that had those countries (Iceland and Greece) used sound economic policies in the first place, they would have withstood anything that came their way. There’s no point in blaming their collapse on “privatization, de-regulation of the banking system” supposedly done by Thatcher and Reagan. They should have placed checks and balances to avoid being stuck between a rock and a hard place. How come other countries faired better during the financial crisis? Can you credit that to Thatcher and Reagan?

      1. @Ilda , you are now sounding bizarre.You can not simply state that a countries economy could have “withstood anything that came their way”, as it implies YOU CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE. Now I mis-spoke in the one comments and I realize it now after re-reading it BUT,

        BUT,

        BUT: your comment “they should have put checks and balances in place…” leads me to believe that you do not even understand that the collapse was supposed to happen and the fact that you do not understand that is oh-so SAD! You really don’t know that?
        The same thing that happened in the USA (lets not forget Ireland, Spain either!), the banks did what they did(do I have to explain what they did?) all the while knowing that the house of cards would collapse and right up until the time of the collapse the banks would profit and then in the last act of THEFT they conned/bribed the Congress into turning their bad PRIVATE debts(which they knew were bad all along, and profitted greatly from) into bad PUBLIC debts and thus getting the tax-payers on the hook for over a trillion dollars! and inflicting austerity on the people while bankers get PHAT.it is soooo outrageous, and yet most people do not know the half of it.
        as for the last two sentences/questions: Sadly, your not kidding!

        1. @gerry

          You can not simply state that a countries economy could have “withstood anything that came their way”, as it implies YOU CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE.

          You just took my statement out of context. Your point is now lost.

          The same thing that happened in the USA (lets not forget Ireland, Spain either!), the banks did what they did(do I have to explain what they did?) all the while knowing that the house of cards would collapse and right up until the time of the collapse the banks would profit and then in the last act of THEFT they conned/bribed the Congress into turning their bad PRIVATE debts

          So you’re now saying that they did it on purpose: the banks took the money and then ran to congress.

          Let’s just say that what you are saying is true; but it still takes two to tango.The public servants of the countries mentioned including the US danced the tango too. They either didn’t see it coming or they were in denial that there was a bubble and that the house of cards could collapse. They might have had checks and balances in place but they probably ignored it. They kept rolling out the barrel.

        2. So I guess I’m not the only one asking for proof of vague conspiracy theories.

          Ilda,

          There’s a book entitled “Architects of Ruin” by Peter Schweizer that describes the origins of the current world economic crisis as being the creation of a Robin Hood mentality fueling radical activist government policy in the United States and Europe. Much more logical than a secret cabal of bankers and political power brokers out to control the world.

        3. Ilda,

          No problem. Glad to contribute. It gives an insight into the billions that have been wasted on really bad ideas and worse decisions to spend billions more to clean up the mess. God only knows where this will end up. And the thing is the perpetrators look to be moving to expand their meddling beyond financial systems into the pharmaceutical industry, health care and alternative energy.

        4. Yes Ilda, it takes two to tango, and that is exactly what happened. The banks , in collusion with the gov’t. ran the bigget scamm in history on the people of the USA, and Europe. It has happened in Greece, Ireland(where it is about to happen again),Spain and pretty much all across southern europe.
          The recent wealth confiscation in Cypress is the next wave and it is again done with complete collusion of the gov’t.. I mean unless you care to believe what was reported in the press(as that wise-ass Jony saint does) that the President of Cyprus “just happened'(as in co-incidence) to move all of his and his families money out of the country a mere week before the ‘bank holiday’, without prior knowledge. YEAH, sure.
          The conspiracy that led to the financial collapse in the states is not very complex and can be easily understood by anyone who can comprehend a college level text book. I am not here to enlighten anyone nor try to impress others with my quoting of such publications as the N.Y. Times(which may or may not be true) like others who think they have figured something out, but really are clueless, insulting blow-hards who take what they read as the gospel truth in order to put their ideas ‘into context’ as if it is even necessary to do.What has taken place was measured, calculated and executed in a very precise way by people in places of power and wealth for their exclusive benefit at the expense of all the rest of us. and yes gov’t.s are all involved in it. Right up to their collective asses.

        5. @Gerry

          Everything seems so simple to you. It’s just one big conspiracy. I don’t think you factor in people’s behaviour in your analysis. The people had a role in this too. The people didn’t have to get themselves into debt just because the banks lured them into cheap and accessible credit. It’s not like someone pointed a gun to their heads and force them to buy stuff they can’t afford to pay or invest their hard earned cash in scam investments.

          You can continue to believe in your theories but try not to shove down people’s throats.

      2. So the grand conspiracy is founded in Gerry’s paranoia about the press, the US government and the world financial system. Not in documented events but interpretation of hearsay and rumor.

        1. Gerry lives in a parallel universe playing world domination on his computer with his schizophrenic buddy glenn and stewie griffin.

          What happens when a paranoid has low self-esteem?
          He thinks that nobody important is out to get him.

        2. I wonder why he had to change his name from Glenn to Gerry? It used to be Joe or something else. Gees…

        3. When you are the only one that knows the truth it makes you a target of the worlds superpowers.
          Changing your name will put them off the track. A brilliant cyber disguise!

        4. If you tuned into rttv.ru, listened to the father of ‘Reaganomics’ himself, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, or The Keiser report you could have the same info I have. Just because I don’t feel obligated to throw a link in with my comments does not mean I made the shit up myself, although I have some of my own skepticisms, idea’s as well as evidences. All of what I stated is well documented and I just don’t give a shit if you like it, believe it, or not. Get it douchebag?

          This is an internet blog forum, not the situation room at Malacanyuck. the CIA situation room and (Uh-OH here it comes John-boy, the shockerooo!) is not all too terribly important a place. Why don’t you try to enjoy yourself for once in your life and let others express themselves without stomping all over them when you read something that you do not like? You obviously think you are important,Try to take yourself too seriously. You look like the jack-ass you no doubt are. Seriously dude, I am having a good fuckin laugh at how important you think you are and how oh-so-fuckin wrong you are about several things you posted.

          If you do not understand the biggest robbery in the history of the world and how it has been perpetrated,I do not care if you get up to speed Son.Keep your blinders on coz it ain’t my job to remove them. Personally, I do NOT fuckin like your arrogant ass and would hand you your hat rather rudely if we were to ever meet, that being a large understatement of what would transpire.You should be a little more respectful Sonnny.

        5. @Libertsmartass, I have left a few of your dimber statements alone as you’ve kept ur distance respectful, BUT now you join the ‘band-of-idiots’ and start insulting me too.
          I sourced my info 4 ur d-bucket buddy, and all I stated is fact.
          Make ur sorry li’l jack-ass remarks down at O’Donahughes one of these days….they did not name ‘Kildare’ street for nothing.

        6. Oink oink who let the pigs out.
          Back in your sty
          And write out 100 times ‘i must stop being an obnoxious twat and so pig ignorant’
          Stick to little league and drinking milk.

  2. @Ilda

    “…Whether they view her as their greatest or their worst leader, the one thing most people agree on is that she was one of the most “polarizing” leaders of the free world.

    To those who laud Thatcher, they saw the Iron Lady’s 11-year tenure in office as the decade that Great Britain kicked some ass, so to speak.”

    Something is missing in that remarks. As usual, it’s the context. Who are those people that agrees she was the most polarizing leader in the world and those who lauds her.

    “For they say that it was in the 1980s when inequality in the UK began to worsen resulting in the many riots, protests and hunger strikes that marked that decade for the UK.

    It seems that Thatcher didn’t make any apologies for the loss of jobs nor the rising inequalities and the overall consequences of her government’s policies. Some claim that she lacked empathy for the poor and refer to them as “work-shy”. Ironically, her anti-poor policies seemed to have increased the number of poor people in the UK.”

    Take note that Thatcher became the British PM in 1979.

    Why she would apologize?

    The British economy lost 29.5 million workdays to strikes in 1979. In 1986, at the zenith of her strength, that figure was reduced to 1.9 million.

    You may continue about reading her in this link –

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/08/how-margaret-thatcher-saved-britain-and-changed-the-world.html

    And it would lead you to these other links:

    You Can’t Say Maggie Thatcher Hasn’t Changed Some Things’

    How Margaret Thatcher Won the Arguments That Mattered

    Margaret Thatcher vs. Barbara Frum

    Margaret Thatcher Sounded the Alarm on Climate Change

    Margaret Thatcher Was Right About the Euro

    Margaret Thatcher’s Legacy on Gay Rights

    Context for Margaret Thatcher’s ‘There is No Such Thing as Society’ Remarks

    We Need a Visionary Like Margaret Thatcher for our 21st Century Challenges

    I can agree with you that during her term, poverty and inequality went under her term – from 1979 12.9 (start of her term) to 1980 15.2 high then to 1982 12.1% low then to 1990 22.2% high. Take note that it was 12.8 average after 1980 up to 1984. That was a 4 year stable economy. A predictable performance?

    So what happened in 1985 when it shot up to 14% then to 22.2% high in 1990?

    According to wiki –

    “The early 1980s recession saw unemployment rise above three million, but the subsequent recovery, which saw growth of over 4 per cent in the late 1980s, led to contemporary claims of a British ‘economic miracle’.[75] It is not clear whether Thatcherism was the only reason for the boom in Britain in the 1980s. However, many of the economic policies put in place by the Thatcher governments have been kept since, and even the Labour Party which had once been so opposed to the policies had by the late 1990s, on its return to government after nearly 20 years in opposition, dropped all opposition to them.

    By the end of 1986, Britain was enjoying an economic boom, which saw unemployment go into freefall and drop to 1,600,000 by December 1989.[76]

    1. @gerry

      Take note of this one.

      I don’t have to have all day to explain my position. Just knowing where to search the information I want because I’m familiar with the issue.

      If I’m not, I’ll not let my emotion gets over me.

      I’ll not pretend to know the issue based on my emotion.

      1. Cone you guys,

        dont play it personal.

        We are living in the internet-era. We have access to almost all international newspapers and international magazines (like The Economist, Frankfurter Allgemeine, The Guardian, Washington Post c.s.).

        Its not difficult to find out what caused the Icelandic Save disaster and the Greece aid.

        In my country its all over the TV news and all kinds of “current affairs” tv programs.

        1. @Robert

          Seems to me I’m agreeing again with you.

          Nothing should be personal.

          Let’s be factual.

          And the other commenter is in a meltdown if you have read all his comments in this post.

          Explain it to him.

        2. The problem in Greece started in 2001, G&S moved in and raped the country and steadily did what could look as a corporate take-over( a hostile one). Not all of what happened is available thru the mainstream media. The current situation in Cyprus is the next template being struck to confiscate wealth on a global basis.
          Mr.Haighton, I am sure you understand why I will not explain myself to the clown that always resorts to insults, he truly is a clue-less annoyance.

        3. @Robert

          I just wish some people could put what they’ve read from the news in their own words. It’s hard to filter out what’s their opinion and what’s been copied and pasted. Sigh…

    2. @Trosp

      Something is missing in that remarks. As usual, it’s the context. Who are those people that agrees she was the most polarizing leader in the world and those who lauds her.

      Please tell us what is missing. You do realise that this article only used Thatcher to drive a point, right?

      Are you saying that you are unaware of the throngs of people who celebrated after learning of her demise because they do not like her?

      I find your question a bit silly, quite frankly.You have missed the point of the article, it seems.

      1. @Ilda

        For your comments –

        “Are you saying that you are unaware of the throngs of people who celebrated after learning of her demise because they do not like her?”

        And to add the the remark in your post where I highlighted –

        ““…Whether they view her as their greatest or their worst leader, the one thing most people agree on is that she was one of the most “polarizing” leaders of the free world.

        To those who laud Thatcher, they saw the Iron Lady’s 11-year tenure in office as the decade that Great Britain kicked some ass, so to speak.”

        Factually true.

        So I commented –

        “Something is missing in that remarks. As usual, it’s the context. Who are those people that agrees she was the most polarizing leader in the world and those who lauds her.”

        What if you have written it this way –

        “The throngs of PROGRESSIVES who celebrated after learning of her demise because they do not like her while the CONSERVATIVES respect the solemnity of her demise.”

        (Or we may say “centerists” respect the solemnity of her death.)

        It’s also factually correct.

        But the effect to the readers, I can surmise, will be different.

        1. @Trosp

          “The throngs of PROGRESSIVES who celebrated after learning of her demise because they do not like her while the CONSERVATIVES respect the solemnity of her demise.”

          I cannot assume that all those who celebrated Thatcher’s death are “progressives”. One shouldn’t go into the habit of putting people into boxes. As they say, when we put people into boxes, we narrowly define who and what they are. 🙂

        2. @Trosp

          Well, just because the Daily Mail says they belong to the left doesn’t mean all those who celebrated Thatcher’s death belong to the left. And I didn’t really have to mention their affiliations in my article because that wasn’t really the point of my article.

        3. @Ilda

          “Well, just because the Daily Mail says they belong to the left doesn’t mean all those who celebrated Thatcher’s death belong to the left.”

          Well I googled for the conservatives who celebrated her death and I found, to my expectation, no one. None.

          I do however found some left leaning politicians like Stephen Williams, a Liberal Democrat member of Parliament from Bristol, who said it was “entirely distasteful” for anyone to celebrate “the death of another human being,” whatever their politics.

        4. Like I said, identifying who belongs to the left or the right wasn’t the point of the article. Those who want to celebrate Thatcher’s death are free to do so within the bounds of the law.

        5. @Ilda

          So if it is not the point of your article, then, why even mention it?

          Is it worth highlighting?

          Your article can be read at its merit without mentioning it.

          My another point of argument is your counter-comment-

          ““Are you saying that you are unaware of the throngs of people who celebrated after learning of her demise because they do not like her?”

          I’m aware of it that’s why I have commented.

          And to recap my rejoinder –

          “Well I googled for the conservatives who celebrated her death and I found, to my expectation, no one. None.

          I could say that if they’re not leftists, they’re the progressives. No conservatives.

          I do however found some left leaning politicians like Stephen Williams, a Liberal Democrat member of Parliament from Bristol, who said it was “entirely distasteful” for anyone to celebrate “the death of another human being,” whatever their politics.”

        6. Careful careful… Your level of commentary is approaching the lower limits of what is tolerated here in this forum as stipulated in Section 2.2.6 of our Terms of Service:

          2.2.6. Questions on and challenges to terminology (tolerated to encouraged) – These are seen to be of value to a discussion if the commentor can demonstrate a strong context surrounding the line of questioning and/or challenges being put forth. There is a big gray area between pertinent questions on terminology and quibbling over it. Generally, quibbling is intuitively recognisable and will be dealt with on a case-to-case basis.

          Note too, Section 2.3 and its subsections:

          2.3. Exercise of powers of moderation. The owners, editors, and administrators of Get Real Post will at their sole discretion exercise the following forms of moderation to enforce the above principles and guidelines:

          2.3.1. Deletion of offending user-generated content.
          2.3.2. Deletion of offending user accounts.

          Individual administrators and editors enjoy full discretion as far as the extent of leniency applied in the exercise of the above measures. As such, the extent of said leniency is not subject to any specific or explicit guidelines. Actions taken by Get Real Post administration are always considered final.

          As you continue to remain in our list of commentors of interest, your comments will continue to attract closer scrutiny than than the average commenter until you are able to demonstrate a sustained and consistent improvement in the quality of the content you contribute to this forum after which you may be removed from that watch list. Until then, I suggest you heed these recommendations that you improve the quality of your commentary or face continued discretionary action from the Editors of this forum.

          Thank you.

        7. @Trosp

          Sigh…if I have to explain my purpose in mentioning it, then I’m afraid you won’t get it.

          Why do you insist on labelling people, really? It seems to me that the only reason you want to know is so that you can easily dismiss their opinion as either “leftist” or “progressives”. Like I said, you shouldn’t put people in boxes.

        8. @benign0

          My appreciation that I’m a commentor of interest in this blog as you’ve described me.

          I still will say I’m a visitor of your blog. It’s always your judgment or the lack of it that will have the final say if my comments have to be published. I’ll not whine about that.

          IMO, your blog is a high end category that I can say most comment readers here are intelligent and can discern what is offensive to you or what is not based on their standards. They have their own standards. Just like me.

          The best example is this post.

          Those who can get away and those who can’t based on your standard. standards.

          You’ve also told us here how many times you’re comments have been deleted on other blogs.

        9. @Ilda

          “Sigh…if I have to explain my purpose in mentioning it, then I’m afraid you won’t get it.”

          I wish you’ve explained it.

          Right now I’m thinking it as your potshot to Thatcher as a prelude to the substance of your post.

          “Why do you insist on labelling people, really? It seems to me that the only reason you want to know is so that you can easily dismiss their opinion as either “leftist” or “progressives”. Like I said, you shouldn’t put people in boxes.”

          Haven’t you labeled a group of people in this blog?

          In my case, I’m not just labeling them. I’m calling them for what they are. LEFT LEANING GROUPS.

          And they’re very proud of it. They don’t hide that they’re leftists.

          (The Occupy Movement in US is another example of the proud to be leftists.)

          You still can’t answer my question to you for those other than left-leaning groups who celebrate Thatcher death.

          Who are they?

        10. @Trosp

          Please read the article again because you totally missed the point. You focused too much on Thatcher. I only used her to make a point. Whether the people who celebrated her death are left leaning or not wasn’t the point at all. The fact remains there were people who celebrated her death.

          The End.

        11. @benign0

          “Which is why I put up my own blog. Tough luck.”

          Why tough luck? Am I whining?

          Read my comments about that issue and you’re going to find out your reading comprehension problem again.

          Not unless your “tough luck” thing is addressed to somebody else.

          Can your putting up your own blog be attributed to some sort of emo thing. Like your fear of being rebuked?

          I always noticed that when you’re refuted, you’re usual circumvention is this is your blog.

  3. @gerry

    Can you give us the link of your claim –

    “Thatcher was not vindicated by Greece and Iceland’s collapse. Thacther/Reagan economic policies are what caused those collapses.Privatization, de-regulation of the banking system(transfer of private debt to public debt and then the selling off of the countries assets to Goldman Sachs to further hollow out the economies), getting rid of Union labor and destroying the middle-class in the U.K., U.S.A. and everywhere else in the West. Next up? The N.H.S. in the U.K. is about to be privatized and it will be another disaster for the little people.”

    Seems to me you’re telling the comment readers here an anecdote.

      1. I do not have all day to explain the financial collapse of Greece or Iceland, it well known to anyone who has watched the events of the last 3-4 yrs..

        telling me what to do(as if …) is not going to get me to inform you about what you should already know. do your own homework.

        1. I know how they collapsed but it’s different from what you’re telling us.

          You’re telling us that Thatcher was not vindicated by Greece’s and Iceland collapses.

          Say classy kid. Stick to your anecdote. I’m not telling you what to do. I’m obliging to be upfront.

        2. BTW, I might find your excuse very useful in my future losing arguments –

          “I do not have all day to explain the financial collapse of Greece or Iceland, it well known to anyone who has watched the events of the last 3-4 yrs..”

          He he he.

          I’ll include them in my favorite argument preludes if I want to short-cut the arguments –

          “the experts says”

          “new findings by latest research”

          “people who would not like to be identified”

          “scientific consensus”

          “according to the unidentified source”

          “It is well known to anyone” and some of my neighbors do not even know that there is a an Iceland country…

          Stay classy kid…

        3. its not my job to tell you anything.
          Go ask wikipedia,LOL!!!
          Wikipedia, LOL!!!

          ask wikipedia why the USA and UK are unable to raise interest rates at this time, see what, if anything, they tell you.

          ask wikipedia…HAHAHAH!

          Again, it is not my job to TELL you or anybody else anything.You THINK you know what is going on? Yeah, sure ya do!wikipedia told you!

          The insult is un-wanted too.

        4. @Trosp: I’ve deleted two unnecessarily abrasive comments you made earlier. Consider that a warning. You won’t get another one.

        5. @Benigno, thanks for deleting that guys insults. He is truly a good example of the title of this essay.

        6. @Gerry

          May I know what has insulted you in my comment so that I’ll not use it again in arguing with you?

          All the time I’m giving you comments that are factual.

        1. I saw them in the spam queue but they still did not satisfy my criteria so they’ve been flushed down the hole with the rest of the spam. Your comments are now coming through so hopefully you’ve learnt from this experience. Getting yourself in our spam filter database is a pain in the ass. So try to avoid that next time. As I said in my previous comment addressed to you, you will not be warned again.

        2. @benign0

          So my apology is not enough for you.

          It still did not satisfy your criteria.

          Well, as I’ve said before, I’m a visitor here in your blog.

          I’ll rephrase my comments.

        3. @benigno

          And don’t get me wrong in using a different IP address. My office in Binan has this internet provider down.

          I have to use this globe tattoo.

    1. AAHHH, the jack-ass hath spoken.
      I replied about what exactly I meant to Ilda although it should not have been necessary.I did it as a courtesy to her as she asked nicely.

      The only reason I will not explain anything to you, clue-less one, is because of your wise-alec attitude. That is also what keeps me from feeling oh-so-sorry for your wikipedia quoting sorry-ass.

      1. Maybe the webmasters of this site should install a plug in that automatically replaces slurs and ad hominems with funny words.

        Hahaha!

        1. if you have ever been to scunthorpe it does have a problem and obviously an unfortunate name.
          we could filter out communists and conspiracy theorists – often one and the same, and so easy to spot, and to ignore.

    2. “Thatcher was not vindicated by Greece and Iceland’s collapse. Thacther/Reagan economic policies are what caused those collapses.Privatization, de-regulation of the banking system(transfer of private debt to public debt and then the selling off of the countries assets to Goldman Sachs to further hollow out the economies)…”

      This is a BLATANT LIE. I am not certain what propaganda machine this was regurgitated from but at best it’s a twisted version of the actual events.

      It is overly simplistic and irresponsible to lay the blame for the world’s economic crisis at the feet of two dead politicians when the truth is that the interaction of modern financial systems is a complex matter that transcends national borders. That being said, if we were to pinpoint the start of government assumption of private debt, the precedent would have been set by the policies of Pres. Bill Clinton. A leftist on the OPPOSITE side of the political spectrum from Mrs Thatcher and Pres. Reagan.

      In 1994, Clinton released $20 billion by Executive Order (i.e. without congressional approval) from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Exchange Stabilization Fund. Ostensibly to help the Mexican economy, it was actually done, not for the Mexican banks’ sake, but for the big Wall Street banks — Citibank, Bankers Trust, and others — that were over-exposed to risk for bad loans they made in Mexico. This popularized the term “crony capitalism.” It started the idea that if you are friends with the president, the government will be there with a bailout to prop you up. Incidentally, Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, eventually became a director at Citigroup and served briefly as chairman in 2007.

      President Clinton signed into law the Financial Modernization Act of 1999 in November of the same year. The Act repealed parts of the Depression era Glass-Steagall Act. Clinton remarked that the Glass-Steagall law was no longer appropriate for the economy of the 1990s. The Glass-Steagall Act strictly regulated Bank Holding Companies (BHCs) and the types of assets banks could hold as part of their capitalization. The formal repeal allowed for large banks, such as Goldman Sachs, to form newly created Financial Holding Companies (FHCs) and merge with insurers and other financial institutions with potentially riskier liabilities. By 2008, the result of the repeal of Glass-Steagall was “too big to fail” behemoths like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. The repeal of Glass-Steagall is considered one of the larger contributing factors to the Financial crisis of 2008. (Again: NOT CAUSED by Thatcher’s hard line against unions or so-called “Reaganomics” but by leftist-liberal policies enacted by Bill Clinton and later Barack Obama.)

      Subsequently, Wall Street engaged in ever riskier investments. And why not? Thanks to Clinton, they didn’t have anything to worry about. If they ran into trouble, there’s always the American taxpayer to bail them out.

      1. The way you and the clown ( whose insults were removed) carry yourselves it seems like you think you are the only people with ideas and that only YOU KNOW what is going on, and you express it pretty arrogantly.
        AS IF,PFFFF….

        It ain’t “regurgitated propaganda” BUT it does happen to be way beyond the scope of this article whose title is , rather IRONICALLY, about arrogant attitudes in the Philippines.

        1. Precisely. It is very arrogant of you to drop comments and declare you don’t have to explain your ideas when people challenge them because you can’t be bothered.

          Now it just looks like you won’t reply, cite sources or establish context simply because you don’t like the fact that actual events do not coincide with your beliefs.

      2. if someone is superior to gerry it doesn’t make them arrogant, but just emphasises his low self esteem and place in the world order.

    3. With regards to the fiction of “the selling off of the countries assets to Goldman Sachs to further hollow out the economies,” please refer to this New York Times article from 2010:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/global/14debt.html?pagewanted=1&hp&_r=0

      Since we are on the topic of Greece, it should be noted that the Greek Ministry of Finance points to government deficit spending as one of the key reasons for the collapse of their economy. After the removal of the right-wing military junta in 1974, the government wanted to bring disenfranchised left-leaning portions of the population into the economic mainstream. In order to do so, successive Greek governments have, among other things, customarily run LARGE DEFICITS to finance public sector jobs, pensions, and other social benefits.

      By 2010, in the face of the global financial crisis, there was simply no room for the government to continue running large deficits. The debt was growing to an unsustainable size.

      And where was Goldman Sachs in all this? To keep within the EU monetary guidelines, the government of Greece had for many years misreported the country’s official economic statistics. At the beginning of 2010, it was discovered that Greece had paid Goldman Sachs and other banks hundreds of millions of dollars in fees since 2001, for arranging transactions that hid the actual level of borrowing. Most notable is a cross currency swap, where billions worth of Greek debts and loans were converted into Yen and Dollars at a fictitious exchange rate by Goldman Sachs, thus hiding the true extent of Greek loans. The purpose of these deals made by several successive Greek governments, was to enable them to continue spending, while hiding the actual deficit from the EU.

      As the NY Times reports:

      “In dozens of deals across the Continent, banks provided cash upfront in return for government payments in the future, with those liabilities then left off the books. Greece, for example, traded away the rights to airport fees and lottery proceeds in years to come.”

      Worse, “such deals, because they are not recorded as loans, mislead investors and regulators about the depth of a country’s liabilities.”

      So now, thanks to the collusion between the Greek government and Wall Street, Greece owes $300 billion with the major banks on the hook for most of that debt.

      Is Goldman Sachs liable? Definitely. This is financial fraud on a massive scale. They connived with the Greek government and misrepresented that country’s financial position. If they weren’t “too big to fail” they would already have been seized by the US Federal government. But as part of some nebulous plot to “to further hollow out the economies?” Nonsense.

      1. “please refer to the NY Times article” (from June 2010), sure!

        Goldman Sachs and the hollowing out of the Greek economy started back in 2001. Taking the words of the NY Times in this matter is like asking the fox who ate the chickens in the hen house.

        This is all way beyond the scope of this essay and thanks to the clown and his insults I am just not in the mood, nor do I even give a shit at the moment, to take any more time to explain what happened, who did what, who took what and so forth. But, it is now happening again elsewhere in Europe and it is the same people doing the same thing. With one crucial exception: the Italians and the Spaniards will not roll over and play dead. The Greeks were snuck up on, ambushed, but the cat is now out of the bag. The rioting in the streets of Madrid today is a beautiful thing to see.

        1. There’s rioting on Greek streets too by the way. And again you are quite correct — this is going off on a tangent from the topic of the article. Several books have been devoted to analyzing the phenomenon. Those are the sources I cited above.

          But you did bring up another interesting notion for which you again refuse to provide proof. Two actually. The first is that you seem to be implying the NY Times is involved in spin control for your Goldman Sachs conspiracy. Second, that this is a much wider plot to attack European economic systems. Oh, and that anarchy will be the appropriate response.

          While I vehemently oppose the latter, I have to ask again: Where’s the proof of your conspiracy other than opinion and conjecture?

        2. So now you’re reduced to name calling and foul language. Still no effort to prove your position other than a tantrum because you don’t appreciate other people’s opinion.

          If you were familiar with discourse and rhetoric you’d be aware that the use of proofs to support your argument is the norm. The NY Times article simply describes the events succinctly. It isn’t the only source of information out there. Dropping fanciful notions and fallacies without context doesn’t get you anywhere. And apparently you embody the topic of Ilda’s article. “I don’t need Rex Reed to tell me the plot of a movie” really says you don’t bother to think.

          For the record — I have kicked ass in the parliament if the street. That’s why I oppose it.

  4. Dear Ilda,

    “Once a bad idea has been implemented, many lives and billions in funds could be lost before its instigators could realize it. It can cause billions more to reverse the damage. Sometimes the damage is already irreversible. Years and even decades could be lost and generations of people’s lives could be ruined before people can begin to wonder how things could have possibly gone wrong.”

    – I am just wondering what it will cost to change the Phili constitution and/or a few Phili laws, in order to make same-sex marriages possible?

    – I am just wondering what it will cost to change the Phili constitution and/or a few Phili laws, in order to focus and orient completely on the individual instead of to the family (being the corner stone of the Phili society)?

    I am just thinking out loud, nothing less, nothing more.

    1. @Robert

      I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. Marriage equality is not going to be a priority in the country. They can’t even discuss divorce without getting emotional.

      Unfortunately, the family is what makes the Filipino tick. Without it, he will lose his identity and purpose in this world. It seems majority of Filipinos do not know the concept behind individualism.

      1. So — it isn’t “family” per se. Rather the association with the family name. And all the (imagined) perks that come with it.

        If Filipinos really valued “family” why then is there a high incidence of separations and children born out of wedlock?

        1. @Johnny

          From my observation, most Filipinos cannot do anythng without the approval of their family. I for example, do not care that some of my family members are Aquino supporters. I still write articles critical of the Aquinos. I can’t imagine a lot of Pinoys doing that.

        2. Ilda,

          Waiting for family approval kinda suggests that person’s a mama’s boy don’t it? 😉 Just sayin.

  5. “The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.” – Stone of Tears by Terry Goodkind

    “It sounds a paradox, but kindness and good intentions can be an insidious path to destruction. Sometimes doing what seems right is wrong, and can cause harm. The only counter to it is knowledge, wisdom, forethought, and understanding the First Rule (People Are Stupid). Even then, that is not always enough.”

  6. The title of this article is very descriptive of Da Pinoy’s common behaviors. Pinoy Pride exactly depends on these attitudes. “Who needs thinking? Just be proud! Pinoy tayo! Kami lang ang tama! Lahat ng iba mali!” The picture I made for my old article “Filipinos are not the best things in the world,” will fit this article too.

    1. @ChinoF

      Yes, quite true. I kept looking for a symbol of arrogance to attach to the article and ended up with BS Aquino instead.

  7. GRP, I’d like to ask your opinion involving the theme of this article: What do you guys think of Pixel Offensive?

        1. That’s just it. They haven’t really articulated any kind of coherent ideology. Just a notion that they’re against capitalism and feudalism and host of other “isms.” Aside from seeming to support left leaning ideologues and attaching themselves to populist causes, they have never laid out what they are FOR. Nor have they ever revealed what they are going put in place of the (political and/or economic) system they want to tear down. They make a lot of noise and lame satirical photo montages, and little else of substance.

        1. I don’t really have an opinion about them. As Johnny Saint pointed out, they haven’t really articulated an ideology or position on any matter. I like their art though… 😉

      1. They also advocate protests, convinced that sounding off in front of government institutions will make them listen.

        1. Thanks for sharing the info. I don’t think I have a problem with their group. At least they do not dismiss other groups as mere “noise” or “dak-dak” unlike this other group online who seem to think they have the most “brilliant” ideas compared to others.

          It is becoming apparent that the number of protest groups is growing. It’s an indication that BS Aquino’s government is ineffective.

        2. Peace Walker,

          I have no problem with drawing attention to a legitimate grievance. The danger is in that there doesn’t seem to be any credible solution that they propose. In that sense they’re more like court jesters or late night comedians whose job it is to make fun of politicians and ridiculous social issues. I think we have enough of that.

          But I agree with Ilda that at least they don’t have that holier-than-thou attitude the other group possesses 😉

    1. inoffensive but directionless.
      link up with a compatible group and am sure there would be benefits of synergy, otherwise here today, pixelated tomorrow

  8. There is a view that narcissistic leaders/regimes will always create social unrest and restrict economic progress, as self-interest and self-agrandissment is their primary motivation rather than the greater good, and short term approval is more important than strategic decisions.

    Margaret thatcher was the exact opposite of p-noy, and a rare example of conviction politics combining intellect and integrity with vision and achievement, and with the courage to take tough decisions even in the face of adversity.
    P-noy on the other hand is about as much use and as weak as a roll of cheap toilet paper.

    The cojuangco-aquinos would make for an interesting modern filipino version of oedipus rex. Subtitled p-noy’s women – a tale of love and hate.

    A dysfunctional family who like to perceive themselves as royalty but behave like trailer trash, devoid of principles and values, demonstrating treachery amongst themselves and acting as traitors to the country, starting with aquino sr – the japanese war collaborator – which set the tone/pattern of what was to follow.

    A family member arranging the assassination of the pretender to the throne, and the father of oedipal p-noy, whose dominance by and love for his mother turned to anger and hate, projected onto another woman president, after his mothers death, and his freedom from maternal control. Two presidents – both ends of the love/hate continuum. Both dominant in his life/thoughts.

    P-noy’s subservience to his sisters and especially the extrovert attention seeking kris aquino always made him feel a failure and inadequate in a female dominated household which became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    P-noy’s relentless search for a mother substitute and his need to be loved/approved of, whilst trying to reconcile with his gay tendencies/social anxieties and fear of women – arroyo was his chance to get back at all those women who had controlled his life.
    His inability to cope with pressure and his ultimate despair as all falls around him.

    A study in privilege and opportunity, ending in a sad lonely bitter old man with no friends and no lasting legacy of substance, just COPD from chain smoking.

    The final irony would be an epilogue where arroyo is found not guilty, and p-noy himself impeached, with a marcos obtaining the presidency.

    1. Conviction politics that sent young men to die in a bullshit war because she wanted a distraction at home. A few thousand British descendants on an island on the other side of the world taken only just over a hundred years before when “Britannia rules the waves”. Let’s also not forget Pinochet. In the world history of assholes she’s far from the worst..but

    2. @Libertas

      Margaret thatcher was the exact opposite of p-noy, and a rare example of conviction politics combining intellect and integrity with vision and achievement, and with the courage to take tough decisions even in the face of adversity.

      No doubt BS Aquino is way too far from being half as good as Thatcher. Aquino just comes across as an arrogant fool.

      But in my opinion, Thatcher’s arrogance was a double edged sword. Like what I said, it is clear that Thatcher got some things right but she also got some things wrong. Some of her policies had devastating consequences to British society. Her arrogance ultimately prevented her from accepting realities.

      1. She was the architect of her own downfall once she stopped listening to advice and berating/belittling her cabinet colleagues, and her arrogance led to 2 fundamental errors of judgement in handling her colleagues prior to the crucial party vote. The trip to paris and believing she did not need to campaign, and seeing cabinet ministers individually not collectively – that is the view of 2 of the ministers of the time.

        But i would still prefer honest arrogance to hypocritical tyranny

        “Pride breeds the tyrant”
        Sophocles – oedipus rex

        1. I have to agree that she might have gained some sort of arrogance but if won three consecutive election in a row (even with a weak opposition), a politician’s head will translate it as no-brainer. Of course that didn’t happen. Besides, I think I heard that PMs are just good for two terms. Voters priorities do change during that time.

        2. Understandably her death creates comment – good and bad – and debate for a brief period in time, but relating to the philippines:
          1. Her son or daughter are not suddenly swept to power on a groundswell of sympathy – most people think carol is bright but a bit eccentric, and her son mark an absolute waste of space and now lives outside of the uk, thank god.
          2. There is no ongoing preoccupation with the past, brand thatcher and anniversaries of her birth, death and going to the toilet. The world, and politics in the uk moves on. Only in the philippines is there the need to live in and try to falsely glorify the past as the basis for the present and consequently change nothing, as the power elite like it.

      2. @Ilda

        Can we at least explore this one? It might be contrary to what you’re commenting but at least a good discussion point –

        “The British economy lost 29.5 million workdays to strikes in 1979. In 1986, at the zenith of her strength, that figure was reduced to 1.9 million.

        You may continue about reading her in this link –

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/08/how-margaret-thatcher-saved-britain-and-changed-the-world.html

        And it would lead you to these other links:

        You Can’t Say Maggie Thatcher Hasn’t Changed Some Things’

        How Margaret Thatcher Won the Arguments That Mattered

        Margaret Thatcher vs. Barbara Frum

        Margaret Thatcher Sounded the Alarm on Climate Change

        Margaret Thatcher Was Right About the Euro

        Margaret Thatcher’s Legacy on Gay Rights

        Context for Margaret Thatcher’s ‘There is No Such Thing as Society’ Remarks

        We Need a Visionary Like Margaret Thatcher for our 21st Century Challenges

        I can agree with you that during her term, poverty and inequality went under her term – from 1979 12.9 (start of her term) to 1980 15.2 high then to 1982 12.1% low then to 1990 22.2% high. Take note that it was 12.8 average after 1980 up to 1984. That was a 4 year stable economy. A predictable performance?

        So what happened in 1985 when it shot up to 14% then to 22.2% high in 1990?

        According to wiki –

        “The early 1980s recession saw unemployment rise above three million, but the subsequent recovery, which saw growth of over 4 per cent in the late 1980s, led to contemporary claims of a British ‘economic miracle’.[75] It is not clear whether Thatcherism was the only reason for the boom in Britain in the 1980s. However, many of the economic policies put in place by the Thatcher governments have been kept since, and even the Labour Party which had once been so opposed to the policies had by the late 1990s, on its return to government after nearly 20 years in opposition, dropped all opposition to them.

        By the end of 1986, Britain was enjoying an economic boom, which saw unemployment go into freefall and drop to 1,600,000 by December 1989.[76]”

      3. @ilda. Someone or a part of society will definitely feel the pain but as some of the Brits say in their forums, it has to be the contest of the majority vs the minority. Some people who did feel the pain, took a second chance and become successful. Some wallowed up their misery and preserved their hatred. Leaders are always anxious about their legacies but it the society who needs to adjust. I think her arrogance only plays in her political role, not personal. But I guess he was pretty content on what she has done during her term.

        1. @jeanne

          At the end of the day, it’s always the results we have to look at. Did Thatcher’s policy save the day or did it make it worse? Some say that her economic policies initiated the deindustrialisation of UK, which eventually resulted in high unemployment rate and widened the gap between the rich and the poor years later on.

        2. That’s what the Brits are trying to debate and settle – and perhaps not in the near future. Many people are still not convinced, others are convinced and some are still in the middle. Others prefer to move on. As a debating people, it’s a topic that might last for a long time.

          But I guess what they can agree on is that she has ‘balls’ and conviction – something that their current politicians and ours are lacking of.

          Most of her critics are Labour, which is understandable since they were the opposing party and of course, those people who were greatly affected by her polices.

    3. Good post, Libertas. Completely agree, there is no comparison between Margaret Thatcher and Pnoy. The difference is so extreme, like heaven and hell.

  9. “Ideas make money, money does not make ideas” walt disney

    Creativity is a scarce and prized commodity, especially in business where innovation, development, and problem solving separate the winners from the losers.

    Creativity is also a driving
    force in the economy and there is a clear correlation between creative cultures/countries and economic development. Creative cultures also exhibit higher levels of personal satisfaction/happiness.

    In many respects everyone is born creative but societal and educational systems work against it, stifling rather than developing it, promoting collectivism rather than induviduality.

    The challenge for educational reform in enlightened countries is to ensure that creativity and critical thinking become a natural part of the system/process.

    Parenting and media also play a significant role, but wall to wall karaoke and recycled telenovelas would have stultified even steve jobs or da vinci.

    Companies also need to recognise that they need mavericks who are more challenging to manage but who can make major contributions.

    It is a common complaint that creative people are hard to find.
    The sadness is that they are all around but after years of training people to be ‘assembly line’ robots, it takes time and effort to release the inner artist

    It also takes a particular mindset to embrace change rather than fear it, and strive for excellence rather than settle for mediocrity.

    At the end of the day people have to make their own choice and set their own benchmark. Sadly too many have low expectations not only of others but also of themselves. That is not a team you would bet on, or a company you would invest in.

    “Curiosity about life in all of its aspects, I think, is still the
    secret of great creative people” – Leo Burnett

  10. Having worked in several companies and having had several organizations as clients over the years, one thing I’ve found out is that effective organizations have a lot of individuals who can work together despite differences in thinking.

    The problem isn’t that there IS conflict within the organization, but the members of that organization or teams within that organization that I’ve worked with KNOW how to deal with conflict.. they know how to compromise and how to reach consensus.

    1. It the individual differences/contributions which combine to create the strength of the team. And most corporations invest in training to be effective in groups be it belbins 8 roles, brainstorming, metaplanning etc.
      An essential component of total quality management initiatives and also when working in multidisciplinary teams and across borders/cultures.
      Companies here would do better to utilise/adapt the Baldrige model or european foundation for quality management (efqm) as tried and tested templates for continuous improvement and team working.
      But it only works where there is mutual respect and not an us/them dynamic between management and others.
      In philippines management has to improve first and foremost.

  11. “I keep six honest serving-men
    (They taught me all I knew);
    Their names are What and Why and When
    And How and Where and Who.”
    Rudyard kipling

  12. Hi Ilda,

    Looks like you haven’t lost your touch, hehehe.

    Comparing Noynoy and Thatcher, of course, is commonly thought of as similar to comparing chalk and cheese. In Japanese they term it “undei no sa”, which literally refers to the big difference between clouds (un) and mud (dei).

    Conviction and stubbornness can be often thought of as two sides of the same coin. What, then, is the fine line that separates them?

    Results.

    We don’t have to think very hard who’s gotten them.

    1. Hi FallenAngel

      Thank you. You know dissenters used to inspire me to write conceptual articles but nowadays the likes of Eduardo doesn’t do it for me anymore. It’s because they do not have anything new to say. Just the usual praise for the yellow king and a lot of ad hominem.

      Maybe you can expound on the topic? I think you’re good at that. 😉

      1. @Ilda
        Eduardo is more of a one trick pony.
        Hell, he can’t even prove ANYTHING that he posts here let alone give us any evidence.
        His ilk are a pathetic bunch much like their precious yellow king.
        Although, people are already starting to question Aquino’s performance rating since his latest failure was supposed to help reduce poverty(CCT) yet it still is at a whopping 30%.
        The question is:
        Why was it poorly implemented?
        Where are the list of names of its supposed beneficiaries?

        1. Come on guys, this eduardo is always nice to be around.

          For me, he’s what this Noynoy’s or Penoy’s governance.

          A paid hack. We can dissect from his mind how stupid Penoy is.

        2. @Trosp

          I’d rather dissect eduardo with a really sharp knife while shoving a cactus up his ass than let him troll GRP like a pathetic lunatic.

          Seriously, If I ever catch him in real life, His face will be introduced to my friends, Mr. BAT and Mr.GROUND AND POUND.

        3. I think Ilda has a data base of these commenters. She knows eduardo is fishball or gerry is also glenn etc.

          Their common denominator is they are all shameless.

          On the other hand, perhaps, he’s really a hack. For him, it’s walang personalan, trabaho lang yan.

          We let him earn a living out of it. Feed the troll. His pay depends on how he can agitate us.

          Wala na tayong magagawa kung talagang makapal na ang mukha ng mga iyan.

        4. I think Ilda has a data base of these commenters. She knows eduardo is fishball or gerry is also glenn, etc.

          Their common denominator is they are all shameless.

          On the other hand, perhaps, he’s really a hack. For him, it’s walang personalan, trabaho lang yan.

          We let him earn a living out of it. Feed the troll. His pay depends on how he can agitate us.

          Wala na tayong magagawa kung talagang makapal na ang mukha ng mga iyan.

        5. I don’t have a database of commenters. I don’t have a habit of trying to identify who’s who unless a commenter is violating the commenting guidelines.

        6. @Trosp, AGAIN, you think you know what is going on, BUT you really have NO CLUE. Ilda even states she doesn’t keep track of peoples ID’s.
          You know, you are even dumber than you look! a tragedy for you BUT you deserve to be shown up for the idiotic statements you make. Sure, my name ain’t Gerry, but it ain’t Glenn either and the two are not the same…obviously! whatta jackass, thinking there is somehow something to be ‘shamed’ about on an internet blog forum where no one has to use their real name, nothing stated REALLY matters to anyone at all.
          You are the ‘shameless’ one who thinks, in his grandiosity, that a guy like ‘eduardo’ has been sent to this web-blog to make posts for the President of a country,LOL!
          GET REAL! or even better yet…GET A CLUE!

      2. So you want him to be like that wretched Gollum creature from Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings?” 😉 Always creeping about.

  13. Excellent piece, Ilda. I seriously doubt Noynoy can learn a thing or two from the rise and fall of the late Iron Lady.

  14. Noynoy puts the penis in Penistone and will be at home in Scunthorpe, but his favorite place in England is Banbury after reading the nursery rhyme
    “Ride a cock horse to Banbury Cross”

  15. P: Mommy mommy someone said i have an oedipus complex.
    C: Shut up, and get back into bed.

    P: Mommy mommy do you have one of these things between your legs.
    C: i will once you shut up.

    P: Mommy mommy someone said my sister is a whore.
    C: shut up, a whore gets paid.

    P: Mommy mommy who killed my father
    C: shut up, and hand me your uncle’s gun.

    1. Think its funny to insult people’s Mother’s? I don’t care who it is, or what they’ve done, NO!

      Not cool, not cool at all! and not even close to being funny.

  16. Hi Ilda,
    Never knew that you will mention Mrs. Thatcher in your post. I have been a lurker on the UK forums when the death of Mrs. T happened and I read first hand her polarizing effect on the current citizens of the UK.

    I would like to put up a correction. Mrs. Thatcher was a Conservative PM, not Labour. Conservatives are the favorable lot of the business and capitalists. Labour is the opposite party, the socialists. Her victory as PM was due to the fact that the Labour government was not adept at controlling the strikers in the UK, and what followed was known as the Winter of Discontent.

    Although I will not discuss the legacy of Mrs. T (the Brits have already had trouble doing so and most rightly because it’s their PM), one thing has been told by her critics and her supporters – she almost ever never compromised. Even if people do hate her and probably won’t be satisfied with her death, she was much admired (and probably) loathed because she set herself a goal and never backed down. For many people (opinions that I read), she was the right PM at that time, telling people to stop striking because they could do so and disrupt public services.
    Also, she created a more capitalistic mindset. In that period of very drastic change, some people will rightly affect but I guess most of the responders agree that it is hard for a leader in that time to compromise their policies. Literally a hard rock and hell.

    She changed a country, whether the citizens want it or not. We could all debate as much as we like about Mrs T and her more capitalistic tendencies and politics but I do see a few good kernels. Although many people suffered, the majority of the opinion that I have read seem favorable to her. The current crisis in Europe and America is no means a very good argument about free markets but the extreme side (too much dependence on welfare) is also a bad one. A good balance of both capitalism and socialism is good and more favorable to the people. But I guess, people should still be driven to work for themselves because at the end of the day, the only one to help you is yourself.

    I think I am making the connection that Pnoy and Mrs. T are alike due to convictions and the ‘never say sorry attitude.’ I hope I am wrong because as far as I am concerned, Mrs. T earned their title the Iron Lady. She’s like the bitter pill you don’t want to swallow even if you do think it will be good for you. Her intentions are good but she doesn’t coddle you into it. Even her some of her critics have mellowed out and have agreed her in a later period (for some of the issues). She has the benefit of history and that allow us to see some perspective. In the case of Pnoy, I don’t the same standards should be applied. Pinoys elected their president over morality issues. He isn’t being grilled once a week for his policies and sometimes, his justifications for some policies leaves you wanting. The opposition is hardly opposing the admin because they know the admin is popular and it will hit them in the elections. I am not surprised that if Mrs T was running in our country, she will never win any election.

    I hope the Phils. Won’t experience an UK’s Winter of Discontent nor its banking crisis. But I hope for a leader who can just stick to to their policies and not just do them to please voters. I like a ‘conviction politician’ to a some degree. I think we need some tough love and no way the candidates this election is gonna give that.

    1. @jeanne

      Thanks for pointing that out.Believe it or not I actually knew she was from the Conservative party. Proof is when I mentioned David Cameron. I must have seen Tony Blair’s name then and wrote down Labour instead. My typing is faster than my brain. 😉

  17. Understandably her death creates comment – good and bad – and debate for a brief period in time, but relating to the philippines:
    1. Her son or daughter are not suddenly swept to power on a groundswell of sympathy – most people think carol is bright but a bit eccentric, and her son mark an absolute waste of space and now lives outside of the uk, thank god.
    2. There is no ongoing preoccupation with the past, brand thatcher and anniversaries of her birth, death and going to the toilet. The world, and politics in the uk moves on. Only in the philippines is there the need to live in and try to falsely glorify the past as the basis for the present and consequently change nothing, as the power elite like it.

    1. Have to agree.

      Personally, if we have the Parliament style of the UK, Pnoy will not have a spare minute to campaign. He will be grilled by the opposition for his policies (no matter how moderate or hard core that may be) and I would smile at the moment when an argument backfires on him (proof that he’s still accountable to the people).

      1. I think the parliamentary system – which i prefer – is alone not the answer, and even with its own flaws only works because of political and electoral maturity, ideologically based parties, checks and balances.
        It is really a question of culture – india has a parliamentary system but is as corrupt as the philippines.

        1. I am agreeing with you once more.

          Yes, even the parliamentary system is flawed in some ways but the reasons that I like is that there are two main parties who at least expected to stick to their visions and values (at least in theory) and they can be criticize by not following party manifestos. At least, members stick to the party and not jumping around when it’s election time.

          Another reason is the debate and Question Time where the Head of Government (and his cabinet) is required to answer for his policies. I hate spokespersons. I need the leader to be articulate on what he believes and why he believes it – and of course some good opposition to make the issue more well-rounded.

        2. The Philippines has already experimented with a quasi-presidential-parliamentary hybrid form of government under Ferdinand Marcos. A convoluted thing that served largely to rubber-stamp Marcos’ edicts. Cory junked it not so much because she felt a bicameral congress was more conducive to democracy but that it was a construct of the Marcos era.

          Whichever form you may prefer — unicameral or bicameral — we’re still contending with the same tired, old faces, most notably Aquino, Marcos and Enrile. You are correct in stating that the form of government isn’t the issue. It’s the personalities involved that need to change. And the culture of entitlement that must be corrected.

        3. jeanne,

          “(T)he reasons that I like is that there are two main parties who at least expected to stick to their visions and values (at least in theory) and they can be criticize by not following party manifestos. At least, members stick to the party and not jumping around when it’s election time.”

          Technically, a parliamentary democracy allows for any number of parties to register, campaign, articulate their platform, and get elected to the legislature.

          You mentioned an interesting trait among Filipino politicians: the LACK OF (PARTY) LOYALTY. That really should be addressed. Possibly with penalties. Imagine what would happen if the Philippines had a parliamentary system of government and the member of parliament (from the majority party) now holding the position of, say, Secretary of the Interior decided to defect to a rival party. It would undermine the whole system of government, as the MP would technically support policies and values AGAINST the ruling party. At the very least, that MP would no longer represent the interests of the constituency that voted him/her in.

          Given the ease, and frequency, with which Filipino politicians change party stripes, it would necessitate the implementation of policies penalizing party members who “jump ship.” At its most basic, defection should force politicians who quit their parties to resign from parliament and any government positions they may hold.

        4. we need jeremy paxman to come over and interview the cr@p out of these idiots.
          that would make nancy binay p!ss her pants

        5. “You mentioned an interesting trait among Filipino politicians: the LACK OF (PARTY) LOYALTY”

          I would say it’s basic self-preservation. These politicians does not care for the ideas upheld by their party, they wanna join the most popular (and powerful) party to stay in power. I doubt if they can define ideas upheld by their party.

    2. “I doubt if they can define ideas upheld by their party.”

      They are ALL familiar with the ideals of one political party — the Party of ME, MYSELF and I.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.