WORM'S EYE

Ramzi Ahmed Yousef Mr. F's note: "Yousef is the man who planned the terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center.... . If only to learn the mind of a terrorist in order to develop defenses against it." _______________________ "You keep talking also about collective punishment and killing innocent people to force governments to change their policies; you call this terrorism when someone would kill innocent people or civilians in order to force the government to change its policies. Well, when you were the first one who invented this terrorism." "You were the first one who killed innocent people, and you are the first one who introduced this type of terrorism to the history of mankind when you dropped an atomic bomb which killed tens of thousands of women and children in Japan and when you killed over a hundred thousand people, most of them civilians, in Tokyo with fire bombings. You killed them by burning them to death. And you killed civilians in Vietnam with chemicals as with the so-called Orange agent. You killed civilians and innocent people, not soldiers, innocent people every single war you went. You went to wars more than any other country in this century, and then you have the nerve to talk about killing innocent people." "And now you have invented new ways to kill innocent people. You have so-called economic embargo which kills nobody other than children and elderly people, and which other than Iraq you have been placing the economic embargo on Cuba and other countries for over 35 years... " ______________ Waiting for someone to rebut the argument of this evill terrorist!

Why They Hate Us, Really April 21, 2004 By WALTER RUSSELL MEAD New York Times For the last five weeks I have been traveling through the Middle East, meeting diplomats, officials, policy experts, military leaders, students and ordinary citizens. I learned something very important: the greatest single cause of anti-Americanism in the Middle East today is not the war in Iraq; more surprisingly, it is not even American support for Israel, per se. Rather, it is a widespread belief that the United States simply does not care about the rights or needs of the Palestinian people. "The Palestinian issue is really what discredits the United States throughout the region," a senior Western diplomat with years of experience in the Middle East told me. Or, as one student after another put it after the university lectures I conducted across the region: "Why do Americans have to be so biased?" In Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and other countries, the large majority of people I spoke with are ready to tolerate the Jewish state - most even understand that the final boundaries of Israel will include some of the heavily settled areas beyond the pre-1967 borders. They also understand that few if any Palestinians will return to the homes they lost after the war that erupted when Israel declared its independence in 1948. And they are prepared to accept, though not to relish, America's close relations with Israel. Beyond that, they want increased American support for their domestic political reforms and for initiatives to enhance regional cooperation for economic growth and fighting terrorism. But one thing sticks in their craw: Why doesn't America care more about the Palestinians' future? They have a point. America's Middle East policy is unnecessarily zero-sum. We can be more pro-Palestinian without being less pro-Israeli. Indeed, to the degree that American policies help create support for compromise among Palestinians, pro-Palestinian initiatives can help Israel too. Take compensation. United Nations resolutions call for financial compensation for Palestinians who cannot return to their family homes in Israel. Israel's position that it cannot accept millions of refugees and their descendants is reasonable enough, and the Bush administration's support of it is nothing new. But we should be equally clear about compensation. Many questions need answering: where can Palestinians go to have their claims for lost property adjudicated and certified? What tribunal will hear these claims? What principles will guide its deliberations? Where will the money come from to pay the claims when peace is finally made? The United States can and should take the lead in building an international consensus on the compensation issue and, working with allies in Europe and elsewhere, help raise money to ensure that it is more than a pious wish. There is more we can do. Millions of Palestinians are now stateless. (Jordan has integrated the refugees within its borders; other countries have not.) When peace comes, all Palestinians should be citizens of some state with full economic and social rights. The new Palestinian state will need financial help to absorb many of these refugees; and neighboring states who agree to integrate Palestinians should also receive international aid. In addition, while many Palestinians are well educated, many others are poor and lack skills. They depend on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for basic services and support. Who takes the agency's place when peace comes and the Palestinians aren't refugees anymore? Taking the lead on these and other issues vital to the Palestinians would not bring quick progress toward peace in the region, nor would it undo overnight the consequences of decades of suspicion and resentment. But it would help to reduce anti-Americanism in the Muslim world and beyond, as well as to advance the cause of peace. Walter Russell Mead is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of "Power, Terror, Peace and War: America's Grand Strategy in a World at Risk." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/opinion/21MEAD.html?ex=1083586660&ei=1&en=72f908a7232ecd64 http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF ________________________________ Mr. RT's poliically incorrect comment: "I have doubts about this. The Arabs are experts at disguising their motives. I remain with David Pryce: "The Closed Circle." To put it more generally Arabs are motivated by envy. Envy that such a tiny state humiliated the Arabs in War and in Peace. In Peace, is what really counts. Israel is a thriving civil society. Is there any Arab country which is a democracy?"

Assassin's History By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective Tuesday 4 November 2003 "Robert Kennedy died last night. Martin Luther King was shot a month ago. And every day my Government gives me a count of corpses created by military science in Vietnam. So it goes." - Kurt Vonnegut Benjamin Disraeli, in a speech before the British Parliament, once said, "Assassination has never changed the history of the world." Some terrible decades later, the sentiment was repeated by Robert Kennedy, who commented upon the death of his brother with the Disraelian observation, "Assassins have never changed history." Benjamin and Robert were both wise men. Both were completely wrong in ways difficult to measure. Robert, specifically, was not just wrong, but dead wrong. Very soon now, newspapers and magazines and television screens will become filled with images of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The 40th anniversary of that deadly day in Dallas approaches, and so we will see the Zapruder film again and again, see his head blasted open, see Connolly bellow from the front seat, see Jackie crawl desperately across the trunk of the car to retrieve pieces of her husband's skull. We will hear, of course, all of the theories that have surrounded his death. It was Oswald, acting alone. It was the Cubans. It was the Mob. It was the CIA. It was all of them together. At the end of it, however, there is a truth that sets the theories aside. The shooting of President Kennedy was Act Two in a five-scene opera of death and ruin that has forever changed the face and nature of this nation and the world. Benjamin Disraeli was wrong. Assassination changed history, and we are the poorer for it. The first act came in a driveway in Mississippi, on the night of June 12, 1963. Medgar Evers was an African American activist fighting for equal rights for his people in the South. He opened a chapter of the NAACP in the heart of Mississippi, investigated acts of violence against African American citizens, organized boycotts of local merchants who practiced segregation, and brought national attention to the civil rights struggle while fighting to get African American James Meredith admitted to the segregated University of Mississippi. Medgar Evers was shot in the back and died in front of his wife and children on that night in June. He was 37 years old. The second act took place in Dallas on November 22, 1963. John Kennedy, the youngest President in American history, was shot down in a public execution that remains veiled in mystery to this day. What is no mystery is the aftermath of his death. Kennedy had been committed to extracting the United States from the nascent conflict in Vietnam he had inherited from Eisenhower, and to ending the Cold War by creating a level of cooperation between the superpowers that would have terminated the nature of that struggle. Upon his murder, Lyndon Johnson dramatically stepped up American involvement in Vietnam, unleashing a hurricane that blew away his Presidency, shook this country to its foundations, and added dramatically to the 58,000 names now listed on a black monument in Washington DC. John Kennedy was 46 years old. The third act unfolded in a Manhattan ballroom on February 21, 1965. Malcolm X, the firebrand Muslim and former member of the controversial Nation of Islam, was never one to go gentle into that good night. As a leader within the civil rights struggle, his theme song was not "We Shall Overcome" but "We Shall Kick Your Ass." After a transformative pilgrimage to Mecca, Malcolm began moving towards a more racially inclusive breed of activism, eschewing his former separatist rhetoric and preaching his message to all races. One week after his home was firebombed, Malcolm X was shot fifteen times while giving a speech. As with Medgar Evers, Malcolm's family was present to witness the slaughter. He was 39 years old. Act four took place on a balcony in Memphis, Tennessee on April 4, 1968. Martin Luther King, Jr. was by far and away the most prominent, and important, leader in the struggle for African American civil rights. As an organizer, King was gifted. As a public speaker, he was and remains without peer. Arrested over 20 times, assaulted at least four times, his courage in the face of violent racism knew no bounds. King's organizing principle for the movement centered around the non- violent confrontations practiced by Gandhi in India. His work earned him the Nobel Peace Prize; at the time, he was the youngest man ever to receive the honor. Running through his work for civil rights was a larger struggle for social justice across the entire racial spectrum; King was far more of a radical than our children are taught about in school today. He was shot down while preparing to participate in an action with striking garbage workers in Memphis. He was 39 years old. The final act came on the evening of June 4, 1968, in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. Robert Kennedy, brother and Attorney General to the slain 35th President, had just won the California primary in his own drive for the White House. Kennedy had become a beloved leader for those fighting for civil rights, and against the war in Vietnam. On the night of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, Kennedy was speaking to a large crowd in Indianapolis. All across the nation that night, furious riots broke out, killing 43 people and injuring thousands more. Kennedy gave an impromptu speech calling for the reconciliation of the races in the aftermath of King's death, and Indianapolis was quiet that night. On June 4, Robert Kennedy was shot in the back of the head. He died on June 6. His body was carried from California to Massachusetts by rail, and all 3,000 miles of the journey found Americans standing in silent respect by the tracks as his train passed. He was 42 years old. From June of 1963 to June of 1968, a string of bright lights became forever extinguished. The hopes and prayers and optimism of millions and millions of Americans were poured out in the life blood of these men on the streets of Mississippi, Texas, New York, Tennessee and California. There is no calculating the damage that came because of their absence. None of these men were even 50 years old when they were killed. All of them would have entered the 1970s, 1980s and even the 1990s as activists, elder statesmen, and spokesmen for the most righteous progressive causes imaginable. Imagine the good Medgar Evers could have done in the civil rights struggles in the South. Imagine the understanding a newly tolerant Malcolm X could have given Americans about the true nature of the Muslim faith. Tremble at the magnificence of what Martin Luther King Jr. could have done with forty or fifty more years to work. Tremble again at the thought of Robert Kennedy given the same opportunity. What kind of world would this have been had these men lived? Would Ronald Reagan have even bothered to leave Hollywood? Would Richard Nixon and Watergate have happened? Would the rampant ignorance and selfishness that is the standard issue attitude for most Americans today been allowed to flourish as it has? Would George W. Bush be anything more than a thrice-failed oilman in Texas? No. No and no and no. The murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy forty years ago has, beyond question, done more damage to this nation and the world than we can possibly imagine. Though Kennedy was a Cold Warrior for the ages, his commitment to radically changing the nature of that conflict would have saved us vast amounts of grief. His committment to reverse America's course in Vietnam and remove all troops by December 31, 1965 would likewise have avoided the spilling of rivers of blood and tears. Imagine a world where those 58,000 Americans had also been allowed to live out the fullness of their days. Imagine what they, too, could have accomplished. An end to the Cold War would have allowed us to avoid spending trillions of dollars on a suicidal nuclear proliferation that has left the planet littered with the deadliest of weapons. What other good could that money and ingenuity have been put to? An end to the Cold War would have meant that the United States would not have armed, funded and trained Osama bin Laden and his cadre of extremist warriors in our proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The two soaring Towers in New York City, not even conceived when Kennedy was cut down, would still be standing today. An end to the Cold War would have meant that the United States would not have armed, funded, given aid and intelligence to Saddam Hussein in Iraq, as we would have had no need to fashion that dictator into a counterweight against Soviet actions in Iran. There would have been no second, nor even a first, Gulf War. The trajectory of the bullets that tore through John Kennedy did not stop, but arced through time and space to cut down Paul Velasquez, Algernon Adams, Michael Barrera, Isaac Campoy, Aubrey Bell, Jonathan Falaniko, Steven Acosta, Rachel Bosveld, Charles Buehring, Joseph Guerrera, Jamie Huggins, Artimus Brassfield, Michael Hancock, Jose Mora, John Teal, John Johnson, Jason Ward, Paul Bueche, Paul Johnson, David Bernstein, John Hart, Michael Williams, Joseph Bellavia, Sean Grilley, Kim Orlando, Jose Casanova, Benjamin Freeman, Douglas Weismantle, Donald Wheeler, Stephen Wyatt, James Powell, Joseph Norquist, Sean Silva, Christopher Swisher, Spencer Karol, Kerry Scott, Richard Torres, James Pirtle, Charles Sims, James Blankenbecler, Analaura Gutierrez, and Simeon Hunte. These are the names of the American men and women who died in the month of October in Iraq. Added to this list are nearly 400 more names, now including nearly 20 more who died on Sunday when their helicopter was blasted out of the sky. Like Medgar, like John, like Malcolm, like Martin, and like Robert, none of these men and women were above the age of 50. Most were hardly into their 20s. What great or simple good could they have done in this world? What great or simple good could have been done by the Iraqi civilians and Iraqi soldiers killed in this conflict, and the last conflict? What great or simple good could the millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian civilians killed in that conflict have done? What great or simple good could have been done by the thousands of Afghan civilians killed in our Cold War proxy fight, and in our more recent conflict there? What great or simple good could have been done by the thousands of American civilians and soldiers slaughtered on September 11? We are forty years gone from answers we will never know. The assassins stole from us all, and God help us because of it.

Poets Die Young - U.S. Study Wed Apr 21, 5:06 PM ET By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Poets die young -- younger than novelists, playwrights and other writers, a U.S. researcher said on Wednesday. It could be because poets are tortured and prone to self-destruction, or it could be that poets become famous young, so their early deaths are noticed, said James Kaufman of the Learning Research Institute at California State University at San Bernardino. For the report, published in the Journal of Death Studies, Kaufman studied 1,987 dead writers from various centuries from the United States, China, Turkey and Eastern Europe. He classified the writers as fiction writers, poets, playwrights, and nonfiction writers. He did not study the causes of death. "Among American, Chinese and Turkish writers, poets died significantly younger than nonfiction writers," Kaufman wrote in the report. "Among the entire sample, poets died younger than both fiction writers and nonfiction writers." Because Kaufman studied some writers who lived hundreds of years ago, it is impossible to compare their average age of death to that of the general population. "On average, poets lived 62 years, playwrights 63 years, novelists 66 years and nonfiction writers lived 68 years," Kaufman said in an interview conducted by e-mail. Kaufman has also studied poets and mental illness. "What I found was pretty consistent with the death finding actually, female poets were much more likely to suffer from mental illness (e.g., be hospitalized, commit suicide, attempt suicide) than any other kind of writer and more likely than other eminent women," he said. "I've dubbed this the 'Sylvia Plath Effect."' Sylvia Plath was a poet and novelist who killed herself in 1963 at the age of 30. There could also be a more benign explanation for poets' early demise, Kaufman said. "Poets produce twice as much of their lifetime output in their twenties as novelists do," he said. So when a budding novelist dies young, few people may notice. "A great novelist or nonfiction writer who dies at 28 may not have yet produced her or his magnum opus." Kaufman said poets should not worry, but should perhaps look after their health. "The fact that a Sylvia Plath ... may die young does not necessarily mean an Introduction to Poetry class should carry a warning that poems may be hazardous to one's health," he said.

Suprahuman, Subhuman

When Metro Manila Becomes Unlivable

The sudden death of media bigwig Carlo "Caloy" Abrera should put a high-profile face to the risks and dangers of living in the metro. Abrera, a "travel show pioneer," was the husband of McCann Erickson's Emily Abrera and father of TV show host Paolo Abrera (and in-law of Suzi Entrata), died in an unthinkable manner - get struck by an oncoming train and dragged several yards or so away. And we thought only balut vendors and drunkards get run over that way.

Jessica Zafra's Manila, with all its manananggals and stolen skyway railings, may be the perfect training ground for world domination or the perfect planning conference site for terrorist attacks. ("You survive Manila, you could survive anywhere.") But the risks of dying on the job is so high, you know. Let me get down to business here: No human being should live close to those tracks in the first place!

It's easy to blame overpopulation for the resultant fiasco that is urban-planning in a place designed for 18th century living. But shouldn't we look instead at the reasons why people from the countryside are migrating en masse to the big city? As I see it, the culprits are obvious: An almost conspiratorial scheme to keep the provinces underdeveloped. Of course it doesn't help that Dean Jorge Bocobo's favorite terrorists, the NPAs and their revolutionary tax, are intransigent about thwarting whatever government works or private investments are being initiated in far-flung places. The result: Those places seem decidedly impervious to progress.

"Serve the country by becoming an entrepreneur," Mr. Gokongwei says, in a speech. Great idea, I say, but like how? Given these appalling conditions, especially in the countryside?

Faced with a problem that appears insurmountable at their level, local politicos in the metro could perhaps only coddle the ensuing colonies of squatters. I guess they are torn between helping out and getting new votes. I guess their hands are tied, too, as to whether to declare illegal sidewalk vendors as indeed illegal. Etc.

s I hope Abrera's tragedy will also steal the limelight away from political issues - which are essentially personality issues, and focus on the urban reengineering direly needed for our premier city. Since we almost cannot do anything about provincial politicos' pork barrel ending up in private pockets instead of being invested in public infrastructure, we can in the interim think of ways of alleviating our urban and suburban sufferings. (Wow, I'm becoming more positive! I'm improving.)

But let's have the statistics first:

- Did you know that a place like St. Dominic Village in Novaliches (near the Deparo-Cabatuan Road) has no running water? How can something like this happen in a place like that?

- I've read Johnny Litton somewhere proposing that the overabundance of buses should be regulated in EDSA. I agree. Get rid of those ugly rickety buses, too!

- Neal Cruz is right. There are a lot more buses, jeepneys and tricycles than we actually need. He forgot to mention the phenomenon of artificial shortages during rush hours and when you need these utilities the most. This practice of "cutting trip" is immoral and criminal and no one is doing something about it. Drivers always blame the heavy traffic ahead.

- I am actually a formidable defender of capitalism, but now, I'm wondering like Ronnel Lim whether privatizing utilities is such a bright idea. Government has long proven to be inefficient in handling public utilities, but in the selfish hands of private individuals, we are all held hostage and left at the tender mercies of the bottom line. For the first time, I am left wondering whether the Left is right.

- Do you ever cross a four-lane street everyday to get to your job? And risk being run over not only by buses and jeepneys but monstrous trucks after 9 PM? Now that the MMDA has railed commuters in, jaywalking is no longer the problem. The problem is, since urban planners and engineers are the types who have never tasted public commute in their privileged lives, they never take into consideration the plight of millions of commuters at the drawing board, AT THE OUTSET. The result is criminally dangerous roads and highways and jaywalkers who have no choice but defy the city ordinances. Classic cases: Bicutan Interchange. Magallanes Cloverleaf area. Alabang Interchange.

- I like MMDA chair Bayani Fernando because he has demonstrated in Marikina and the rest of Metro Manila what a bare-faced lie our lying leaders' insistence that some things are impossible to do. Fernando showed 'em all: Political will spells the difference. Take the case of Baclaran and Novaliches, the worst hellholes in the metro, many parts of QC -- these are direct after-effects of Fernando's vision and political will - that is, if he has still not given up the fight. He has even shown that squatter colonies can be dealt with, in a way that won't make them cry "Kawawa naman talaga kami!"

- Contrast, mayoral candidate Alma Moreno cheekily cashes in on the plight of her beloved poor illegal vendors and we all turn sympathetic. Have she and the rest of her colleagues heard of the phrase "wala sa lugar"?

- I haven't been to Kalookan of late, but the thickness of the crowd there has convinced me that we should really start considering a network of subways as options. Or building a floating city, or continue building 'up,' like they reportedly do in Tokyo, New York and Hong Kong.

- Otherwise, we really have to fight for massive infrastructure development and job creation in the countryside. (Of course, with sustainable development and environmental impact taken into consideration.)

My condolences to the Abreras. Let no one else die from being struck by a speeding train again. (At the time of writing, two more fatalities have been reported.) I am quite certain the perils and follies of inordinately-scaled urban architecture do not constitute the will of God.

'The Media and the Transformation of Philippine Society'

(A startlingly accurate lowdown on Philippine media, from academic Raul Pertierra, Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City - R.)

Randy David made important claims in a recent newspaper article. He argued that the masa vote is a new phenomenon as expressed in their support of President Estrada. Prior to this, the masa were divided by local and hierarchic loyalties, supporting ward leaders or powerful patrons. According to David, this important transformation from local loyalties to a national perspective was the product of the mass media, in particular television. In its quest for wider audiences, television developed a national viewership by using Tagalog, and thereby creating a common linguistic perspective. Other factors, such as the massive movement from the countryside to the cities (including OFWs), have added to this increasing shift from the local to the national and the global. The same may be said of the cinema, whose leading stars quickly transformed themselves into household names, replacing earlier idols closer to home. It was only a matter of time before such stars converted their popularity into votes. Rogelio de la Rosa in the fifties was the first to do so and since then many celebrities have converted their media appeal to gain political office. President Marcos also tried to cultivate a cinematic adulation from Filipinos by using the media to generate mythology, history and ideological legitimacy. Imelda supported the arts and constructed impressive monuments as part of a world that combined practical utility with the fantasies of Hollywood. They failed because reality somehow always gets in the way of make believe. But the importance of fantasy and simulacra also characterize the shift from a local experience to a national imagination. Henceforth, realpolitik and reel politics merge imperceptively. Direct experience is complemented, if not replaced, by representations and images whose origins lie elsewhere. Globalization pushes these origins even further resulting in absurdities such as a local housing company advertising its products as a house so continental, you feel like youre in another country. The future has arrived and it isnt here.

Since the masa constitute 75% of the voting population, democracy produces a supreme irony because those with the least stake in the social order decide who its leaders will be. This may explain why this choice seems so irrational to those with larger stakes in maintaining the status quo. Older democracies took the precaution of ensuring that their poorer members had a modicum of education as well as an investment in preserving the social order. Moreover, in those early days, the mass media did not have as informative an effect on daily life as it does presently. As David says, everyone now, including the masa, has an opinion on everything. The old certainties have gone and people try hard to make sense of a world characterized by information overload. No wonder many prefer to stick to old truths, converting fundamental beliefs into fundamentalism.

The latest and perhaps the most effective of the new media are the cellphone and the Internet. While the latter is only accessible to a small (8%) number of Filipinos, cellphones have taken the country by storm, exceeding the wildest predictions. Presently about 30% of Filipinos own or have access to cellphones. No other technology has been accepted with such enthusiasm. It took television nearly fifty years to reach a penetration rate that cellphones achieved in 5 years. Moreover, cellphones are not only mobile, allowing perpetual contact, but highly interactive. They connect to virtually all existing electronic services. Even television has had to adjust to the cellphone. While the earlier communicative technologies (e.g. print, radio, television, cinema) were mainly disseminative, the cellphone empowers its user to express and share opinions, perspectives and strategies. The social, cultural and political implications of these new local, national and global interactions may transform the Philippines from being a conservative, elitist and poor society to a more open, egalitarian and dynamic one. But, as a word of caution, the transformative potentials of earlier technologies were quickly controlled by conservative power holders to ensure their dominance. Existing cellphone services are mainly geared to the entertainment sector, encouraging private consumption rather than public commitment. Nevertheless, there are also signs that this technology will upset traditional hierarchies by subverting old verities and leveling access to the public sphere. Spreading gossip, rumor and scandal as well as the capacity to mobilize and network are greatly enhanced by this technology.

Before accepting the arguments above, we have to examine them more closely. Does masa as a category have much explanatory value? By masa, we mean people sharing extreme economic deprivation, perhaps leading to collective political acts, social responses and cultural choices but what exactly these are remain highly speculative. Surveys indicate that the masa vote is almost evenly divided between GMA and FPJ perhaps because the former represents immediate gain (e.g. pork barrel grants) while the latter promises trust. Both are important to the masa. People without a future cannot have a consciousness of it but are condemned to live in a continuing present (isang kahig, isang tuka).GMA addresses this continuing present while FPJ, however vaguely, promises them the basis for a future.

While the masa have access to television, it is difficult to relate their viewing preferences to their political practices, social relationships or cultural values. There is no reliable research in the Philippines examining the relationship between television habits and their consequences in other areas of life. Overseas research shows that the relationship is weak at best. Nevertheless, shifts in taste are occurring, from early Hollywood soapies to Spanish telenovelas and their Asian counterparts. However, it is too early to predict the political or cultural implications of these shifts.

The mobilizing potential of cellphones was shown in EDSA 2 and 3 but their effects have been greatly exaggerated. Their greatest use still seems to favor private rather than public networks. This is because Filipinos have very low levels of trust and are unlikely to accept information from unknown sources. Politicians have to be careful in exploiting its potential knowing the irreverent sense of humor of Filipinos when provoked.

David is right in pointing out the persistence of local political loyalties, making celebrities unlikely to succeed unless they play by local rules. Nora Aunor, relying mostly on her movie appeal, lost in Bicol, while Lito Lapid and Vilma Santos complemented their popularity with local issues and networks. As David points out Sharon Cuneta and Vilma Santos played crucial roles in the political success of their spouses, both of whom were running for national office. Realpolitik works locally while reel politics exercises it appeal nationally. Their conjuncture in contemporary politics makes for unstable alliances, incoherent programs and short-term plans. This situation becomes more complicated when we include the millions of OFWs, with their experience of global life.

Local media (mainly radio in the vernacular but also newssheets) produce strong reactions. I am not aware of any national media personalities killed for their views, while many local media commentators have paid with their lives. Marcos jailed members of the national media but he acted more like a local politico than a defender of the state. Confronting the interests of realpolitik is more dangerous than challenging representations of national life. In the end, the latter seem unreal compared to the former. The gains of EDSA were quickly undone by strategic interests and the status-quo-ante was re-imposed with a vengeance.

But the national media can also disrupt local power structures. The cases of Congressman Jalosjos, Mayor Sanchez and Ecleo are examples of this influence. Media support against the impeachment of Chief Justice Davide, indicate that national exposure can undermine parochial interests. The cellphone and the Internet play significant roles in connecting private networks to the public media. But these interventions relate to specific and contingent events rather than to local power structures. Jalosjos still retains his popularity in his congressional district and Ecleo wields power among his local followers.

Are the media more effective in influencing national rather than local perspectives? Tagalog news readers often employ traditional rhetorical intonations rather than an objective and neutral voice. Talk shows, televised debates and commentaries sound and look like local intramural events. Metropolitan newspapers read like small town dailies reporting parochial news, including self publicity, assuming that everyone else is interested. People living outside Manila quickly get the feeling that everything of importance takes place there - only local catastrophes deserve metropolitan attention. What passes for a national media is just reportage of Manila centered events. Paraphrasing David, we have at most a national media in itself but not yet for itself. But the new interactive media may yet change this.

The politics of personality still dominates both the local and national spheres. The ability to entertain, amuse or intimidate provide the most viable political skills. While some actors have managed the change from stage to politics, others have failed. The present political spectrum looks remarkably like the days of the trapos and political kingpins. While some things have undoubtedly changed, others have remained stubbornly the same. This is not to deny the 'performative' character of contemporary politics, with politicians pretending to act and look like movie stars, while the latter use their cinematic skills to seduce the voters. But this seduction only works on the national and not the local scene, where voters are generally better informed and already committed to existing networks.

Pierre Bourdieu, the French sociologist, pointed out that intellectuals often convert their models of the world into the world of their models. The latter are invariably much simpler and more predictable than the real thing. They are also often wrong. Let us not convert the model of the masa as a singular, cohesive and uninformed bloc to predict their voting behaviour. The votes of the masa are invariably as complex, differentiated, strategic and self-interested as any other votes Instead, we should ensure that they share the same interests in maintaining a system that protects their rights and allows them the opportunities available to their social superiors.

We should also not give direct agency to technology. Its potential for change is always dependent on social, political and cultural elements. Earlier technologies mainly reinforced the privileges of the rich and powerful. The present media is highly centralized and controlled; ensuring that only sanitized information is disseminated to the public. Once more, cellphones and the Internet, with their global connections, may provide alternatives.

Filipino social scientists are constantly faced with the lack of basic information governing political, social or cultural structures. Lacking a rational and empirical base, the only possible response to societal problems consist of unexamined alternatives (e.g. parliamentary government), sermonizing admonitions on how to improve our lives or motherhood statements about caring for the poor rather than practical and informed programs for addressing the nations problems. The conditions for a knowledge regime are not yet present in the Philippines but I wonder how much longer we can just muddle along before the final catastrophe strikes. In these complex times, the only viable basis for exercising and administering power is through appropriate knowledge structures.