'Mali-volent' wars

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

1/21/2013

Daily Tribune

Not until OFWs were reported to be imperiled by another hostage situation did Filipinos here at home realize the existence of a country such as Mali. If current mainstream news accounts were to be the sole gauge, we would be led to believe that Western powers led by France are on a righteous crusade in stemming the rising tide of war in that North African country. A careful study, however, leads back to the recent war on its neighboring Libya.
The late Libyan leader Muammar Kadhafi harbored a third of the Malian warrior tribesmen known as the Tuareg, who lived as citizens — and many as soldiers — of his erstwhile non-discriminatory Libyan state.

After Kadhafi's fall, the black Tuareg came under brutal attack by the victorious Western-backed Benghazi Libyans of Arab decent and were forced out of Libya — but not before carting off thousands of powerful and high tech weapons of Kadhafi, which enabled them to start a Tuareg nation liberation movement in Mali.
Two times the land area of France, Mali's population of up to 15 million consists of seven major ethnic groups, including the Tuareg. Mali was one of the few African electoral democracies until March 2012 when elected president Amadou Toumani Toure was ousted by the military, allegedly for failing to contain the Tuareg rebellion. Interim President Dioncounda Traore took office but was ousted two months later in another coup by the junta that seated him.

Despite its desperate maneuvers, the Mali government continued to lose territory to the Tuareg rebellion — this, as the rebels captured French intelligence agents.
France stepped in with a rescue mission in the second week of January 2013 that ended in a fiasco, leading to the deployment of up to 2,500 French troops in Mali and the expansion of the conflict into Algeria last week. With the US "leading from behind," the French claim they are there to stop the "Islamist terrorists." But this isn't France's first recent misadventure. Aside from its frontline role in the war against Kadhafi, France also intervened in Côte d'Ivoire, installing an IMF (International Monetary Fund) man, Alassanne Quattara, in place of elected President Laurent Gbabo in November 2011.

Is it all good intentions that bring the French, reminiscent of its Foreign Legion, back to action in Africa? R. Teichman writes in Center for Research on Globalization ("The War on Mali. What you should Know: An El Dorado of Uranium, Gold, Petroleum, Strategic Minerals"): "If we are to believe this (French) narrative, we are misled again about the real reasons. A look at Mali's natural resources reveals what this is really about:
"Gold: Mali: Africa's third largest gold producer with large scale exploration ongoing… Uranium … Exploration is currently being carried out by several companies with clear indications of deposits … thought to be 5000 tones… Diamonds … potential to develop its diamond exploration… Precious stones consist of the following… Garnets and rare magnetic minerals … Pegmatite minerals… corindons… pegmatite and metamorphosing minerals… quartz and carbonates… more than two million tons of potential iron ore reserves… Bauxite reserves are thought to be 1.2 million tons … Other mineral resources and potential … Calcarous rock deposits: 30 million tons estimated … Copper… 10.6 MT estimated reserves … Phosphate: Reserve located at Tamaguilelt, production of 18,000 t/per annum and an estimated potential of 12 million … Lead and zinc…

"1.7 MT of estimated reserves … Lithium … Bitumen schist: Potential estimated at 870 million tons… Petroleum potential has been documented since the 1970s where sporadic seismic and drilling revealed probable indications of oil… So here we have it. Whatever is reported by the mainstream media, the goal of this new war is no other than stripping yet another country of its natural resources by securing the access of international corporations to do it. What is being done now in Mali through bombs and bullets is being done to Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain by means of debt enslavement.
"And the people suffer and die…"

Teichman ends with a quote from an African: "God help any country and its people with natural resources to be exploited."

In "2013 and the New Scramble for Africa," Chris Marsden writes: "China has surpassed the US as Africa's largest trading partner with trade of $90 billion in 2009, compared with $86 billion for the US and foreign direct investments of over $50 billion. Bilateral trade topped $160 billion in 2011 and is expected to reach $200 billion this year. In addition, China has proposed or committed about $101 billion to commercial projects in Africa since 2010, of which construction and natural resource deals total approximately $90 billion. Unable to compete economically with Beijing, Washington is once again turning to militarism to secure its advantage."

What the US and the West cannot get by trade, they get by force. This is so typified in this "Mali-volent" African war and in all their malevolent wars across the world.

(Tune in to 1098 AM, Tuesday to Friday, 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.; watch GNN's HTL show, GNN Channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 p.m. to 9 p.m., 11:15 p.m. and Sunday 8 a.m., and over at www.gnntv-asia.com, with this week's topic, "The Criminal Cyber Law" with the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance; also visit http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

Distinguishing image from reality

BACKBENCHER

Rod P. Kapunan

1/19/2013

Manila Standard Today

President Benigno Simeon "PNoy" Aquino III is about to cross the halfway mark of his term, and the people who gave him the adulating mandate are still awaiting some tangible achievements. They have yet to see what that modern-day American philosopher Eric Hoffer said as the "promise of hope" translated to one called "matuwid na daan".

Of course, those who have been lording it over are expected to praise the 7.1 percent increase in gross domestic product as phenomenal. They would be quick to say he surpassed what their favorite whipping boy Ferdinand Marcos had achieved during his time, even outpacing the brisk economies of Singapore – 0.3 percent, Malaysia – 5.2 percent, and Thailand – 3.0 percent. The Philippines has even overtaken the accelerating economies of Indonesia – 6.2 percent and Vietnam – 4.7 percent.

Despite that much-vaunted feat, we remain at the bottom, listed no. 102 in the ranking of real growth rate with the rest of the world. As of 2011, we have a per capita income of $4,100, but remain way below, ranking at 162 in comparison with other countries of the world. Mr. Aquino's hooters also trumpet the low unemployment rate at 7 percent. However, they fail to explain that it is the result of the reclassification of the underemployed, part-time, seasonal workers as employed, while those who have been unemployed for more than a year excluded from the statistics.

The greatest ambivalence is that poverty continues to stalk most of our people at 26.5 percent as of 2009. In the latest survey conducted by the Social Weather Stations, as of the last quarter of 2012 about 16.3 percent or 3.3 million families suffer from hunger. If that figure is multiplied by five, which is the average number of persons per family, that would be equivalent to 16.5 million Filipinos out of a population of 103,775,002 million suffering from hunger.

In fact, there is much doubt in that analysis. The experience of not having to eat once in every three months cannot be termed as hunger, but one we could say a bad day for the family. Hunger is rooted on extreme poverty, and it is a daily occurrence to poor families. They have to hurdle daily to make sure they would have something to share together on the table to go on with life.

This explains why to this date, 54 percent or about 10.9 million families, or equivalent to 54.5 million Filipinos believe they remain poor. Even if we are to take it that this administration is pushing our GDP to such an unprecedented level, the per-capita income, foreign investments which are mostly portfolio investment or casino-like gambling, increase in exports, etc., belie that. The real ledger in measuring progress is when the majority of our people are affected by the transformation in terms of increased income and purchasing power, reduced poverty, and the elimination of hunger and the endemic diseases brought by it.

That now reduces to nothing the 7.1 percent increase in GDP because that contradicts the fact that we remain the highest from among the Asean member countries in terms of economic inequality, according to Xinhua in its August 6, 2011 issue. Moreover, according to the study conducted by the Stratbase Research Institute, the Philippines registered a Gini coefficient of 44 percent in 2010 higher than Thailand with 42.5 percent, Indonesia with 39.4 percent, Malaysia with 37.9 percent and Vietnam with 37.8 percent. According to Stratbase, "the huge disparity in income could breed social tension and political instability."

The prioritized legislation like the Reproductive Health Act, the passage of the so-called "Sin Tax," and the amendment strengthening the AMLA bear the visible markings of subservience to repay debt to those who made possible his election. The questionable agreement with the MILF stands as a sellout than an earnest effort to achieve peace in Mindanao. The manner in which the chief justice was removed and replaced by an unabashed minion was a miscarriage than a vindication of justice.

Even our foreign policy is now perceived as implementing the blueprint of Washington's grand design to contain China. This can be drawn by the routine port of call of US warships, increased joint military exercises with our soldiers living up to their role of scouts, and the senseless purchase in arms that could never tilt by half a degree the balance of power in the region.

The irony in PNoy's success is that it is not borne out of craftsmanship in government, but one prepared for him by his benefactors. Everybody knows that the P2.006 trillion national budget is not the residual result of increased income from production and business activities, but the result of increased and vigorous collection of taxes. The sad part is the small local entrepreneurs and the wage earners are always the ones affected.

Even the constructions being undertaken are mainly designed to complement and enhance foreign and elitist businesses, and not really to open new opportunities for our people to participate. This one can observe by the thrust of those projects, which is to attract tourism, to instill love for luxury, mire our people crass consumerism. Constructions are designed to pave the way for the building of new shopping malls, luxurious hotels, exclusive resorts and restaurants, and condominiums only a few could afford.

The popularity of PNoy is more of an image itched into the ignorant mind of many, and that is precisely designed to generate a bandwagon for which his candidates hope would work. The promise of illusory democracy and freedom is a dead platform. What will be decisive is the question on what they have accomplished, and not on their credentials of being the supporters of the ideology of vengeance. It is not even about the GDP for which many of them could hardly understand. As one cynic would put it, "Yan ba ay nakakain?"

(rpkapunan@gmail.com)

Marx was for the abolition of the wage system

BACKBENCHER

Rod P. Kapunan

1/12/2013

Manila Standard Today

It was David Ricardo who first dissected the concept of wage in relation to labor and commodity. He advanced the economic formula that, "If the quantity of labor realized in commodities regulate their exchangeable value, every increase in the quantity of labor must augment the value of that commodity on which it exercised as every diminution must lower it."

The problem with that formula, as rightly observed by Karl Marx, is that commodity, when sold in the market, was wholly left to the discretion of the producers and/or sellers where labor was undoubtedly added to enhance its value. That was made inseparable to the sanctification of property rights led by John Stuart Mills. That "epochal recognition", as Marx called it, marked the beginning of the exploitative wage system that created a wedge between the owners of the commodity, the value of which was enhanced by the workers who could only sell their labor for value.

The excess value for which the commodity was sold, in the words of Marx, was "pocketed by the capitalists." They had no remorse for that practice because they rightly accepted profit as belonging to them by virtue of their property ownership. However, instead of referring to it as profit, Marx opted to call it "surplus value" because the value for which the commodity was sold in relation to the amount of labor spent far exceeded the amount for which the workers were paid. It was on that huge disparity that compelled him to urge for the abolition of the wage system. He made that clear in his immortal work, The Communist Manifesto.

Unfortunately, many ideologues are ignorant about that stand of Marx. On the contrary, present day communists and progressives are the ones defending the mechanism that made possible the exploitation of the workers. As some political and economic analysts would put it, the unity between the progressive Left and the neoliberals on the issue of wage has become repugnant, with the Left committing sacrilege to Marxism.

To begin with, the system of wage is a euphemistic term for the system of regulated wage. It has no other purpose except to peg the cost of labor to a miserable level. Although property ownership legalized the pocketing of the surplus value, it was wage that institutionalized the pegging in the cost of labor bare human existence.

As historically traced by Marx, wage was first observed by the craftsmen and artisans during the feudal era. Being few and valued for their craftsmanship, they formed their own guilds, specific to every type of industry, to maintain the cost of their labor. The advent of the Industrial Revolution saw the capitalists replacing them with their machines for mass production. As plain workers, they were detached from the commodity for which they work, and invariably in valuing the cost of their labor. It was in that relationship that the concept of wage was formalized.

Thus, from pre-capitalism to the early stage of capitalism, the costing of labor was wholly a private affair between the workers and the owners of the industry. It was a lopsided relationship much that it was the owner or the capitalist that dictated the cost of labor. The surplus of unemployed under that system of laissez faire gave life to profit borne out of scarcity. The small amount of fixed wage given to the workers, as observed by Marx, was a substitute to their emancipation from slavery as when the blacks were freed during the American Civil War.

The master was not obligated to pay his slaves the wage they need, but must provide them the most basic needs—in food, clothing and shelter. The wage system as substitute to their freedom did nothing to alleviate them of poverty. Rather, their condition worsened, for it turned out the pillars for human survival given by the slave-owners, at times including medication, were much greater than the pittance wage they received.

The clamor for higher wages plus the specter of communist revolution carried in the name of the workers forced the government to nationalize the system of wage, meaning that the determination of the amount of wage could no longer be left in the hands of the private employers. The State has to intervene by imposing the landmark "minimum wage law", and other labor laws pertaining to overtime, holiday pay, etc. that made significant adjustments on the cost of wage. The State made uniform the increase in the amount of wage by virtue of an edict.

But through the years, as inflation continues to erode the value of their earnings, viz., the reduction in their purchasing power, the system of regulated wage was no longer working in their favor. The nationalization of the wage system thought by many would work for their welfare is now the same instrument used by the capitalists to push back the cost of wage to a bare subsistence level. This is amplified today by the rampant practice of labor-only contracting or "contractualization". Others call it the revival of a new shade of slavery.

It is on this score any attempt to justify the wage system is to openly admit ignorance of what Marx advocated more than 150 years ago. The system of regulated wage only worsened the problem of unemployment. Maybe the transfer of the wage system from a private to a public concern is no different from the clamor to nationalize the industries that made the State the sole employer. That supposition did not solve the problem because the State as the sole employer failed to deliver what the wage earners thought as their liberation from the yoke of capitalist exploitation.

As it turned out, the State was perceived as the exploiter of its own people because it promised many things only heaven could provide. This now explains why many socialist states collapsed, not because they failed, but because they carried on the role of the private employers in pegging the cost of wage.

(rpkapunan@gmail.com)

Close the PCGG permanently

BACKBENCHER

Rod P. Kapunan

1/5/2013

Manila Standard Today

It is not a question of closing down the biggest money-making agency of the government. Rather, the Presidential Commission on Good Government should never have been created by the so-called "God-sent" hypocritical government. Maybe there was a noble motive, which was to run after the fabled $10 billion loot of former President Ferdinand Marcos, his wife Imelda, and so-called cronies.

Although it managed to recover about P164 billion or $4 billion of the so-called "stashed loot" consisting of prime real estate property, jewelry, paintings, and bank deposits, the agency has yet to convict a single accused despite claims of overwhelming evidence. This in the 26 years of its existence with all the plenary powers vested unto it.

It is this paradox of having recovered portions of the alleged ill-gotten wealth and the failure to convict that has led our people to wonder. They wonder because the rudiment of due process taught them that sequestration could only proceed once the accused has been convicted. Their conviction is the ligament that will serve to resolve the status of those sequestered properties as either stolen or ill-gotten wealth. Without it, they ought to be returned to the owners. They can never be declared res nullius nor can be summarily classified as "ill-gotten".

But in its inability to convict the accused, the court proceeded instead to convict the property and the money just for the PCGG to get hold of them without having to prove anything. That resulted in the denial of due process to all the accused. PCGG chairman, Andres Bautista, despite his extraordinary powers even inverting the time-honored principle that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused is on the accuser, now admits that it is next to impossibility to convict the accused.

Even if there was prima facie evidence to justify the temporary confiscation of those properties pending the final outcome of the case, not one of those accused has been convicted. Yet, many of those items that were arbitrarily taken from them have been either been sold, dissipated or simply bubbled out into thin air. This uncanny circumstance now leads many to suspect that the hypocritically honest government was only after the money.

Despite the fact that those cases have been dragging on for two decades and six years, the possibility of convicting anyone is nowhere in sight. Suffice it to say that the body of the crime or the corpus delicti—the sequestered properties—have long evaporated. Yet, the presidential good-for-nothing commission persists in prosecuting the accused, knowing that the property in question is no longer in their custody and could no longer be presented in court.

Cocky as ever, the government— with the collaboration of the courts— proceeded instead to convict the money and the property, thereby allowing the PCGG to justify its continued sequestration.

For instance, to make sure the Marcoses would not be able to have a legal standing in the very court where they were charged; for them to rebut all the allegations, the court made mandatory the imposition of docket fees to party-litigants without qualification. Failing to cough up that huge amount for them to contest the move of the corrupt Arroyo government to withdraw the $687-million escrow deposit made by the Swiss government with the PNB, the court promptly declared them in default.

The clever scheme thus converted the trial to one of a circus called summary proceedings with the court given a free hand to render a summary judgment on the basis of ex parte proceedings. That in effect resulted in the absurd conviction of the money, and not of the accused. In the end, the corrupt Arroyo government was able to circumvent the condition of the escrow agreement that demanded a final criminal conviction of the accused for their release.

While nobody would want to argue on the rules set by the Supreme Court, the people at the least want those rules to be logical. This they insist because what they perceive as just and equitable must reconcile with logic or should not run counter to common sense. This they say for how could the court demand from the Marcoses the docket fee when it was obligatory for them, as accused, to answer the petition? Yet, for failing to pay the docket fee, they were denied of their right to appear and testify by declaring them in default.

It did not even seep into the crevices of their skull that they were appearing in court essentially as respondents. The issue of ownership has, at the outset, been resolved by the condition in the escrow agreement, viz that failure to secure a criminal conviction against the Marcoses by final judgment meant that the deposit should be returned to their rightful owners/depositors. The Marcoses, on their part, were not asking for the release of the deposits, or were demanding damages, but merely arguing on their defense as accused/respondents, they having made to answer.

For that, the court brazenly short-circuited their right to defend themselves, to confront he witnesses against them, and to present evidence in their defense. Many were shaking their heads because it was an obligation set by the court itself; that failure to answer could result in their being declared in default.

Moreover, the PCGG should have been disbanded upon the ratification of the Constitution in 1987. Section 26, Article XVIII provides that "The authority to issue sequestration or freeze orders under Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 in relation to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth shall remain operative for not more than eighteen months after the ratification of this Constitution. However, in the national interest, as certified by the President, the Congress may extend said period." In addition, "the sequestration or freeze order is deemed automatically lifted if no judicial action or proceeding is commenced as herein provided."

Instead of observing that constitutional mandate, the Cory-appointed constitutional commissioners drafted a provision giving President Aquino the authority to certify to the reconstituted Congress to pass a resolution extending the life of the PCGG. That provision repeated the idiocy in having to prohibit political dynasties, but conditional to a law which Congress has yet to enact.

(rpkapunan@gmail.com)

Politics by accommodation

BACKBENCHER

Rod P. Kapunan

12/29/2012

Manila Standard Today

Today's practice among politicians to vaingloriously accommodate all their constituents has greatly weakened, if not distorted altogether, the whole concept of governance. This, we categorically state for even if governance has to adjust to the so-called "wishes of the majority", it must be calibrated so as not to affect the order of society, which is primordial to any system of government. Such is given because our democratic process of electing our leaders means that they have to balance between the wishes of each sector or class from that of balancing those demands by the exercise of authority given them.

However, when our elected political leaders succumb to the parochial demands of every sector, the system of governance is reduced to one of "politics by accommodation". Instead of governing society, they tend to accommodate every demand which is plainly in pursuit of that sector's interest. Invariably, they all end up in the clash of interests for what is beneficial to one could be detrimental to the others. Thus, instead of enforcing laws and ordinances of general application, they are compromised just to give way to the demands of the few. No sooner, the process develops to one of contradictions that at times turn to one of violent conflict.

It is through this misplaced practice that "politics by accommodation" creates a serious imbalance in our system of governance. Once that becomes deeply rooted, no sooner will it develop to one of corruption that through the years is accepted as part of the "system." Having become endemic and pervasive, elected political leaders now fear to translate their mandate to one of authority. The paradigm, upon which the mandate to govern is based is thus radically altered. Politicians now govern to please those whom they can accommodate, and not one based on the common good or summum bonum. They become puppets to every blackmailing constituent. Coupled by the licentious interpretation of freedom, they refuse to exercise their legitimate authority for fear of being accused of authoritarianism.

As a result, political leaders take power without any qualification, and it becomes their channel to commit corruption. Only the more powerful groups who have access to the "politics by accommodation" or at times called "cronies" are benefited. Such is the case but always at the expense of the many groups also seeking to be accommodated. On the whole, it is not the people in general that is benefited, but only the handful few. As the people acquiesce in to this practice, the government is unable to function on what it is supposed to do until society descends to one of anarchy. The mantra of discipline has wrongly been given the meaning of authoritarianism.

This now explains why in the course of time many of our laws have been tailored-fit to accommodate every form, type and class interest, self-serving and is heavily soaked with that political vice called "epalism." The primordial concern of promoting and protecting the interest of the people and society has now been substituted by the habit of promoting a system of compartmentalized interest. The more powerful and influential have even become bold to demand the abrogation of existing laws, which were originally meant to benefit all the people or designed to put order to society, just to give way to their demands. Such is symptomatic of a society about to break up.

One good instance of politics by accommodation is a case here in Quezon City. City officials, in their bid to secure the votes of the vendors and their local brokers, illegally appropriated the side walk along Commonwealth Avenue near Tandang Sora St. and a portion of the national highway in Barangay Commonwealth also along Commonwealth Avenue. Ostensibly, their motive is to give our nomadic vendors and hawkers a chance to earn during the holiday season. But behind that gesture is their motive to generate more revenues, irrespective of whether that would partake of an extortion considering that the permit given is patently illegal.

It is "politics by accommodation" because greedy and corrupt politicians in Quezon City knew it is illegal for them to appropriate a road, even for temporary use, and convert them for a different purpose like converting that into a public market. It is doubly illegal because that road belongs to the National Government. The fees or rent which the city government collects cannot even be classified as illegal but an outright extortion because they are collected on a piece of property not belonging to them.

While the general public acknowledges it as the duty of the national, as well as the local government, to build public markets for the vendors to sell their produce and wares, the process of giving them the opportunity to earn must follow certain rules and regulations if we want to maintain order in our society. To deviate from that responsibility is to create chaos because unregulated public markets eventually become public nuisance. The place could even become a breeding ground for criminality, a hazard to public health and safety where stench, pollution and traffic combined, cause untold inconvenience to the general public.

The Quezon City government headed by Mayor Herbert Bautista, Vice Mayor Joy Belmonte and those petty bureaucrats committed the meanest form of graft and corruption that need not be explained and need no evidence to show proof to justify their being thrown to jail. In fact, many wonder why the Ombudsman has not acted to numerous complaints of roads being appropriated as public market, converted to makeshift funeral parlors, or a place to hold public meetings. It is "politics by accommodation" at its worst because corrupt politicians give way to every demand just to be assured of votes, while milking the people dry to at every opportunity to fund their already bloated pork barrel.

The unique American dilemma

BACKBENCHER

Rod P. Kapunan

12/22/2012

Manila Standard Today

On December 14, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Adam Lanza started indiscriminately shooting 28 people, including his own mother. This is the latest massacre that took place in the US. Twenty of those killed were below 11 years old. The incident serves to highlight anew the danger posed by unrestrained freedom, in this particular instance amplified by the usual invocation by the Americans of the Second Amendment of the Constitution giving them the "right to bear arms."

Despite the numerous incidence of senseless killings carried out by psychotic individuals, Americans, to this day, continue to debate on whether or not to strictly limit gun control.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 has done little to restrict the sale of guns. On the contrary, it loosened the sale and acquisition of automatic firearms or assault rifles. This, despite the fact that the US now ranks as among the highest in the incidence of senseless killings, claiming 11 out of the 20 worst mass shootings over the last half century, according to Newsweek. The debate is not on how many more lives would be snuffed out by bullets fired by roaming homicidal maniacs, but on their fear that restricting them would violate their Constitutional right. Some even interpret that as an infringement of their right to property.

As posted by Think Progress Justice, a US-based nongovernmental organization which has for its advocacy gun control, it states, that people killed in the US by the use of guns is 19.5 times higher than similar high-income countries in the world. In the last 30 years since 1982, America has mourned at least 61 mass murders.

Citing a few:

1. September 27, 2012, Andrew Engeldinger shot to death 5 at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis. Engeldinger ultimately killed himself;

2. August 5, 2012 US Army veteran Wade Michaela Page killed 6 Sikh temple members at gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page killed himself later;

3. July 20, 2012, during the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, James Holmes killed 12 wounded 58;

4. April 2, 2012, One L. Goh killed 7 at Oikos University, a Korean Christian college in Oakland, CA.;

5. October 14, 2011, Scott Evans Dekraai killed eight in Seal Beach, CA.; 10) September 6, 2011, Eduardo Sencion shot 12 people in a restaurant in Carson City. 5 died, including 3 National Guard members;

6. August 3, 2010, Omar S. Thornton gunned down Hartford Beer Distributor in Manchester, CT. 9 were killed, including Thornton;

7. November 5, 2009, Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan at the Fort Hood army base in Texas killed 13;

8. April 3, 2009. Jiverly Wong opened fire at an immigration center in Binghamton, New York before committing suicide. He killed 13;

9. March 29, 2009, eight died in a shooting at the Pinelake Health and Rehab nursing home in Carthage, NC.;

10. February 14, 2008. Steven Kazmierczak opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University, killing 6 including himself;

11. December 5, 2007, Robert Hawkins, shot up a department store in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, NE. Hawkins killed 9 before killing himself;

12. April 16, 2007. Virginia Tech became the deadliest school shooting in US history when Seung-Hui Choi, gunned down 32;

13. October 2, 2006, an Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster, PA was gunned down by Charles Carl Roberts. 5 young girls died, while Roberts committed suicide afterward;

14. March 21, 2005 Jeffrey Weise killed his grandfather and his grandfather's girlfriend before opening fire on Red Lake Senior High School, killing 9 on campus. Weise killed himself;

15. March 12, 2005 church member Terry Michael Ratzmann killed himself after executing the pastor, the pastor's 16-year-old son, and 7 others;

16. July 29, 1999, Mark Orrin Barton murdered his wife and 2 children with a hammer before shooting up 2 Atlanta Day Trading firms. He killed 12 including his family before killing himself;

17. April 20, 1999, teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Kiebold shot up Columbine High School in Littleton, Co. They killed 13 and later killed themselves.

Despite such horrors, the National Rifle Association of the US that was headed for a long time by famous American actor Charlton Heston has been consistent in opposing gun control laws. They have succeeded in placing at a higher pedestal the right to bear arms than the value of life itself. Maybe it was on this assumption why the US Supreme Court has consistently upheld their stand.

Many Americans would seldom give it a second thought that their appreciation of freedom is only as good as when they continue to live, nor would care to think that freedom is worthless when those who are supposed to enjoy it are no longer around. Such is the belief that now prevails because anti-gun controls lobbyists have instilled the idea that disarming the citizens is tantamount to depriving them of their defense and protection without them ever thinking that behind that right is the billions of dollars raked in by gun manufacturers.

They have even forgotten that what their founding fathers had in mind was the right of the citizens to defend themselves against their colonial oppressors, the British redcoats. The right to bear arms was for the purpose of safeguarding their individual liberty and the independence of the breakaway colonies. Certainly, they would not have conceded to the idea of using guns that would result in the senseless bloodletting of their own people. More so today that the US has become so powerful. It is no longer a case where they would fear losing their independence, but the hubris of wanting to impose their will on other states by the naked use of arms and violence.

(rpkapunan@gmail.com)

'Sheep justice' vs cyber freedom

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

1/18/2012

Daily Tribune

While the battle over the Cybercrime Law rages on in the Supreme Court (SC), with Internet freedom hanging in the balance, the first global martyr for information freedom has emerged. On Jan. 11, 2013, as the world was still basking in the afterglow of New Year revelries, Aaron Swartz died by hanging in his New York apartment after two years of struggle against the US Department of Justice's persecution over his core advocacies. As to whether or not it was a suicide is still in question. Twenty-six-year-old Swartz was a prolific American computer programmer and Internet activist, co-founding Internet systems such as the Rich Site Summary or RSS (which allows users to retrieve select news updates without having to visit many sites), Reddit and Infogami, aside from joining the Harvard University Center for Ethics and co-founding Demand Progress (which campaigns against the Stop Online Piracy Act).

Over two years ago, on Jan. 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested by federal authorities for systematically downloading millions of articles from Journal Storage (JSTOR)'s library of academic journals and charged with violating federal hacking laws. JSTOR's practice of compensating corporate publishers, instead of authors, out of the fees it charges for access to such works was, to Swartz, an undue limitation on public access to academic materials produced at American colleges and universities that taxpayers pay for anyway. For doing something that writer Stephen Lendman likens to merely "checking out too many library books at the same time," Swartz was charged with "unauthorized (computer) access" under the Computer and Abuse Act.

The authorities claimed Aaron intended "to distribute material on peer-to-peer networks," which was something that he never did. In July 2011, a Massachusetts grand jury indicted him and was later arraigned in a Boston District Court. With Swartz pleading not guilty to all charges, he was freed on a $100,000 unsecured bond. He faced up to 35 years in prison and a $1-million fine if convicted.

To learn more about Aaron Swartz, let's read some of his own words in his Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto, where he begins by saying, "Information is power… But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves…
"The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier. There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it…

"Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to children in the Global South? It's outrageous and unacceptable. 'I agree,' many say, 'But what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights. They make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it's perfectly legal — there's nothing we can do to stop them.' But there is something we can, something that's already being done: We can fight back. Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world…

"Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends. But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It's called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral — it's a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy. Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can make copies.

"There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture. We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerrilla Open Access. With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?" What a stirring clarion call, indeed! But will the Philippine SC heed it?

Sadly, the sanctimonious "Sheep Justice" still quibbles over the alleged need "to regulate certain freedoms that have the potential to inflict harm on others, or infringe on other people's rights" while her fellow sheep justices "baa-baa" about "Internet bullying," when all the harm and bullying are being committed by the oligopolistic corporations and tyrannically corrupt politicians they cavort with!

(Tune in to 1098 AM, Tuesday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m.; watch GNN's HTL show, GNN Channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 pto 9 p.m., 11:15 p.m. and Sunday 8 a.m., and over at www.gnntv-asia.com, with this week's topic, "City and National Reform Movements;" also visit http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

Just a priest?

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

1/14/2013

Daily Tribune

A Jesuit priest recently passed away and the mainstream media and members of "civil society" were full of glowing obituaries for him.
When I was a college student, I also had been an innocent admirer of the man since everybody else was. College life in exclusive Catholic schools generated such kind of enthusiasm, in that "elite" students were made to patronize the stage plays produced and conducted by this priest in his exclusive girls' school down in Malate. You were "in" when you could sing lines from his version of Carousel and other Broadway plays and musicals. As he was knighted by mainstream media's celebrities as a "mentor to generations," who would ever question the shining aura of this priest?

Still, there is one facet of this character that should be retold — that of the celebrated rape case against Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith. It began on Nov. 1, 2005 with four US Marines out to have a good time in Olongapo. In the course of their merriment, the four got embroiled in a case that would grip Philippine media for at least five years. It was "People of the Philippines vs Chad Carpentier, Dominic Duplantis, Keith Silkwood and Daniel Smith," in a criminal rape case involving Nicole (not her real name) who accused them of gang rape. Later Nicole zeroed in on Daniel Smith as the rapist (while the rest cheered) in a moving Starex van at Alava Pier in Subic. The US Marines' defense was that the sex was consensual.

That Smith gained "carnal knowledge" (as the narrative quaintly states) of Nicole was beyond any doubt, with the accused claiming "consensual sex." Thus, the tug-of-war for the public's sympathy, bolstered by Nicole's statements, as well as support from militant nationalist women's groups, raged. Throughout that time, the recently deceased Jesuit openly sided with the US Marines and cast offensive aspersions on Filipino nationalism and women's advocates. After countless court hearings, in December 2005, Judge Benjamin Pozon of Makati City Regional Trial Court Branch 139 found Smith guilty of rape, sentencing him to life imprisonment as the prescribed by law. No American soldier had ever been convicted of raping a Filipino woman until then.

After the conviction, Smith was whisked off to the US Embassy instead of a Philippine jail. From beginning to end, the controversy became all the more explosive in light of the VFA (Visiting Forces Agreement), as it highlighted the abusive and iniquitous treatment the Philippines receives from its "partner," the US of A.
The role of the Jesuit in question is underscored by an article dated Sept. 5, 2006 by noted US journalist Seth Mydans, entitled, "Is he really just a spiritual adviser?" Mydans writes, "Leaning forward in his wheelchair at the front of a courtroom is a small, bald man in a crisply ironed white cassock, his eyes darting from witness to judge to angry lawyer, drawing his own conclusions. 'I think it was seduction,' said the man in the cassock, James Reuter, of the highly charged case…" The declaration, "I think it was seduction," Mydans argues, "(has) a discordant ring in a trial that has been cast by nationalists and women's groups as a symbol of US abuse and exploitation. This was made especially so, Mydans adds, since the priest had "no formal role in the case but has taken it upon himself to be not only a spiritual adviser but also an energetic advocate for the marines."

Mydans thus saw Reuter "gambling away his goodwill," quoting Evalyn Ursua: "I feel pity for Father Reuter… I think he is allowing his position to be used as a propaganda ploy to deodorize the accused. And for that reason alone I have lost all respect for him. Obviously his nationality is a paramount factor…"
Reuter replied, "I'm not doing this because I'm an American," yet immediately countered this by saying, "Now I'm asked by an American. Am I going to say no?'"
In the countless US servicemen's rape cases, I don't recall Reuter ever lifting a finger to help any of the Filipino victims, unlike others like Fr. Shay Cullen. Mentoring "collegialas" is great, but what about poor Filipino women who have to decide between selling their bodies and keeping their souls?

Reuter said of the marines, "They're nice guys, clean cut guys," even though they cheered on Smith. About the nationalist rallies, he said, "They bring a mob." And of Filipinos, he had this to say, "The (Filipino) people… are very prayerful." Then he ended by suddenly including himself into the picture. "Are we poor?" asked Reuter. "Yes we are. Are we getting poorer? Yes we are. How is it going to be getting better? I don't know… It seems a discouraging assessment after nearly 70 years in the Philippines… That doesn't sound like an economic plan, but that's what I think."

Over a century of US domination and 70 years of the Jesuit Reuter teaching the Philippine "elite" to sing and dance to Broadway may well account for why the Philippines, with its leaders aping their colonial overlords, still has no economic plan to speak of.

(Tune in to 1098 AM, Tuesday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m.; watch GNN's HTL show, GNN Channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., 11:15 p.m. and Sunday 8 a.m., and over at www.gnntv-asia.com, with this week's topic, the "Quezon City Revolution" with Johnny Change of MBQC and Kapatiran;" also visit http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

Drones: A rain of terror

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

1/11/2013

Daily Tribune

The recent discovery by fishermen off the island of Masbate of a US drone focuses our interest on the drone wars of the US.  Before this latest news of the mysterious US drone, another US drone made the local and international news in February 2012.  Jacob Zenn wrote in Asia Times, entitled "US drones circle over the Philippines" and reported on a drone attack in Mindanao that killed 15 Abu Sayyaf elements, including three most-wanted by the names of Zulkifli bin Hir, Gumbahali Jumdail and Mumanda Ali who are all wanted by the US with prices on their heads amounting from $50,000 to $5 million. The attack highlights the role of the US in the operations of the Philippine military against its targeted enemies, as well as raises the question of who really controls the Philippine military operations.

The Philippine military says the drone found off Masbate does not appear to be a surveillance drone, which we take to mean that no camera of any sort was found on it. Some reports claim it is a BQM-74e Chuka, a model produced by Northrop and used as targets for anti-aircraft shooting practice. I researched the drone photo, it also looks like a Hunter, a small drone used for communications relay or monitoring. It was later reported that the US claimed the drone was used and was lost in a naval war game outside Philippine waters, and drifted into Philippine waters. I don't expect that we'll ever really know the truth as there is no reason for the US to level with the Philippines anyway.

As Jacob Zenn wrote, US drones, with emphasis on the plural, already circle the Philippines and few are aware of them until they crash or kill somebody.
Drones are still strangers to the Filipino's consciousness. We should be thankful for that. In many other countries the impact of constant drone flights cause sleepless days and nights, fill wedding celebrations or community meetings with anxiety in countries experiencing US drone strikes.

US drones have been used extensively by the US the past two decades, from the war in the Balkans and Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya and Pakistan, and probably Syria soon from the late 90s to this day. Today, not only the targeted countries of US military adventures are affected by fear of these terror drones, even US citizens are fearful of drone flights over their own cities and communities, as highlighted by the article by Susanne Posel in Occupy Corporation entitled "Drone Over American skies: Obama is Watching You."

The highly controversial The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by Obama that endorses detention of suspects, even US citizens without charge also "established six national drone test sites where the unmanned planes could fly through civilian air space."  Posel cites congressional representatives' concerns about drones in civilian airspace: "The potential for invasive surveillance of daily activities with drone technology is high." In February of 2012, Congress demanded the Federal Aviation Administration to create "rules to guide domestic drone flights," which ironically paved the way "for defense and aerospace lobbyists to vie for profits amid the hopes of using drones against American citizens…" from the acquisition of drones by the anti-terror Department of Homeland Security (DHS). People can never really know when drones are already hovering above and targeting them. They fly so high up that people won't know if their conversations are already monitored, pictures taken, e-mails or short message texts recorded, or dive bombing already under way on targets beside innocent peoples' activities and taking them down as "collateral damage." 

That's what drone do to people in Pakistan or Afghanistan — traumatizing communities that never know when their mothers and daughters, brothers and/or grandparents are going to be killed in a wedding rite where suspected Talibans may just happen to be walking by. But the drone masters may also be its ultimate victims, as US studies have shown — drone use is backfiring on the US and Obama, victims of backlash and backfire.

A study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law put the percentage of "high-level" targets killed by US drones in Pakistan at only about 2 percent. From June 2004 through September 2012, various drone strikes killed between 2,562 to 3,325 people in Pakistan. The most evil part of the US drone war led by the CIA, is the "double-striking…. moments after the initial hit" killing those extending help. One Pakistani is quoted, "Before this we were all very happy… But after these drones attack a lot of people … have lost members … family. A lot of them, they have mental illnesses."

Drone uses desensitize war and killing, making it a video game for the US war machine and soldiers. With its drones, the US wages a reign and a rain of terror over the World.

(Tune to 1098AM, 5 to 6 p.m. Tuesday to Friday; Watch GNN Ch. 8, Saturday, 8:15 to 9 p.m., 11:15 p.m. and Sunday 8 a.m., and at www.gnntv-asia.com: this week "Gun Ban"; tune to 1098AM radio Tuesday to Friday 5 to 6 p.m. and visit http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

Gun ownership is a right?

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

1/7/2013

Daily Tribune

Are the guns used in the Cavite massacre and the New Year's Eve "to whom it may concern" celebratory gunfire killing of Stephanie Nicole Ella registered or unregistered firearms? In the Cavite case, it should be easy by now for the authorities to announce the legal status of the firearm since the pinpointed gunman who was shot dead after the rampage was quickly identified, with his firearm purportedly recovered by the police.

In the stray bullet shooting case, the slug that killed young Nicole has also been in police possession and one would assume that forensics is being applied on it.
However, scanning as many news reports of both cases, I am perplexed to find no mention yet of whether the guns used in the two cases are registered or unregistered; whether these are regular branded firearms or paltik. If these were unregistered or paltiks, then the real issue is failure of enforcement by the authorities. The defense of legalized gun ownership advocates is that banning legal gun possession by citizens would result in only criminals or potential crazies owning guns; leaving honest, law abiding, peaceful citizens defenseless when under threat from these elements.

It is likely that there would have been fewer casualties in the Cavite rampage if there had been citizens with arms right there at the scene to defend the community even before the police arrived. Against the "to whom it may concern" shooters, such as in the case of Nicole, there is no defense except community conscientiousness and vigilance in restraining drunkards and irresponsible, crazed revelers from firing guns randomly into the air without a thought for the random reentry of the bullets to the heads of human beings.

The gun ban controversy was still raging in the US when the Philippines found itself in a similar situation. The Sandy Hook massacre of 20 tots and six teachers by an Asperger-stricken young man spurred anti-gun citizens and US politicians into a frenzy of initiatives to amend or repeal the "second amendment" to their Constitution guaranteeing citizens "the right to bear arms."

The historical experience and principle behind that Constitution's second amendment is the deep distrust of governmental authority, emanating from that country's experience with British colonialism and oppression, a powerful argument which the gun advocates have raised again. Thus, despite the wave of strong anti-gun sentiments, which even Obama openly supports, second amendment advocates are fighting back with cogent arguments.

Anonymous Coward posted an article that spread on the Internet, entitled, "Why Americans must NEVER relinquish their weapons!!! DEMOCIDE WILL be the result," with "Democide" now added to my lexicon as the "genocide of a people and democracy." The article provides a list of historical "Democides," a few of which we quote here: "1911 — Government in Turkey disarmed its citizens, and between 1915–1917 murdered 1.5 million Armenians; 1938 — Government in Germany disarmed its citizens, and between 1939-1945 murdered 16 million Jews, Hungarian Gypsies, mentally disabled, physically disabled; 1956 — Government in Cambodia disarmed its citizens, and between 1975-1977 murdered 1 million educated people, identified as those wearing glasses; over 2000 Australians were SWAT-teamed since their government hijacked the country and took their guns."

In my own discussion with colleagues, I added the cases of Indonesia where 800,000 unarmed peasants, many Indonesians of Chinese descent, were massacred by the Indonesian military under Suharto; and Rwanda where Hutus massacred a million defenseless Tutsi men, women, and children mostly with machetes. The argument can precisely be made that firearms possession in the homes of the Hutus, for instance, could have equalized the fight for the weak.

There are many "do gooders" in Philippine society who have a "shoot from the hip" to citizens' right to own firearms for self-defense. Among the gun-control measures gathering dust in Congress is the proposed Citizen's Protection Act of 2010 filed by pro-life groups and signed by 86 Roman Catholic bishops, along with Aquilino Pimentel Jr. and Wigberto Tañada, who had said, "Possession by civilians or private persons of such deadly weapons is not a matter of right…"

It is my belief that the citizen's right to possess arms is a right because of the inherent right to "life and liberty." It is just too easy to succumb to the anti-citizens' gun right hysteria over the multiple killings of 26 in Sandy Hook and of eight in Kawit, Cavite; or the 77 killed by Anders Breivik in Norway. In these cases, scores needlessly died but, when citizens are defenseless, millions can even die from organized armed forces.

Just think about it: One of the worst massacres of innocent civilians in Philippine annals, the Ampatuan Massacre, may have turned out very differently if some of the journalists in the entourage had been armed.

(Tune in to 1098 AM, Tuesday to Friday, 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.; watch GNN's HTL show, GNN Channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 p.m. to 9 p.m., 11:15 p.m. and Sunday 8 a.m., and over at www.gnntv-asia.com; and visit http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

Taxpayers pushed off 'cliff'

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

1/4/2013

Daily Tribune

The Establishment-controlled US and RP mainstream media make it appear that a great deal by Obama and the Republicans was achieved to keep the US operational without new debt, taxing only the rich and without increasing fiscal burdens on the people. But the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) itself says that the "deal" results in $620 billion in tax hikes over the next decade offset by $15 billion in spending cuts now" as many critical American blogs like Zero Hedge reports. This is happening because "millions of wage-earners, will see a smaller paycheck as a result of the lapse in the 2 percent payroll-tax cut, enacted in 2010, which lowered the employee portion of the Social Security tax from 6.2 to 4.2 percent." That's $125 billion annually taken from the tax cut intended to help beleaguered Americans after the 2008 Financial Crash. In the end, the people are being made to pay again.

The Philippine mainstream media have seen written opinions "welcoming" the "fiscal cliff" deal. The opinions range from claiming that the resolution should help keep US investments coming, to a sigh of relief that the Philippines will continue to benefit from the US "recovery." Such raw views based on deliberately half-baked news and information from US mainstream reports and analysis simply miseducate and mislead the Filipino public. The reality is, Obama and the Republicans just gave another, maybe final shove to the teetering US economy and the tail-spinning purchasing power of the US consumers (read "US Holiday Sales disappoint" — various business news) and further pressure on employment and economic recovery. US investment in the Philippines, the lowest in the region, will not see any uptick; that's an illusion as many RP commentaries believe about the US.

The Obama-Republican deal on the "fiscal cliff" was a big farce, a cliffhanger to enrapt the US public to portray a working democratic political system where debates on crucial policies are engaged, similar to the Bush versus Democrats drama over raising the debt ceiling earlier. But, as we see with the CBO's report, in the end the oligarchy controlled government will return to taxing the people, robbing the future of the working class and the nation to pay for their profligacy. What profligacy will see no cutback? The most vital issue that a fall of the US government (not the taxpayers) over the "fiscal cliff" would have been the cut back in "war spending" by the US government which will cost the US "at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project 'Costs of War' by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. – Reuters."

The US and Philippine governments are controlled by global financial and banking mafias, and their various alliances, intertwined with major transnational corporations into a whole gamut of industries, from the arms industry to giant pharmaceuticals. Archetypal of such mafias is the Carlyle Group which, Wiki reports, invests in "aerospace and defense, automotive, consumer and retail, energy and power, health care, real estate, telecommunications, media." In the US Carlyle will benefit again from the fiscal cliff deal as taxes from US working classes will go up while the defense budget stays as is (US will not leave Afghanistan voluntarily, strategic goals are at stake) while in the Philippines Carlyle lurks somewhere behind the labyrinth of contraceptives and tobacco companies that will rake in P10 billion annually from the new Reprodcutive Health laws and billions more from cigarette smuggling to the RP.

They, the oligarchy, when they control government will always tax the people, US or RP or in the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) to feed the corporate financial and banking beast. They will always push the people off the cliff, lest they themselves be made to jump over the chasms they create. Mainstream media are the oligarchy's handmaiden in all the swindle of all the peoples of the world, brainwashing, diverting attention and focus, browbeating with misinformation and disinformation overload to deaden the protesting minds of nations, and for those that continue to resist there is the final enforcer — the mercenary, professional, pay-rolled-form the taxes military and police forces. The only alternative for the people, and we quote co-organizer of Occupy Wall Street Kevin Zeese: "People can expect much worse in the months to come unless they get organized and mobilize against austerity in a big way. Elected officials will need to be scared by the public in a big way to stop the bi-partisan assault on the people." 

(Tune to 1098AM, 5 to 6 p.m. Tuesday to Friday; Watch GNN Channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., 11:15 p.m. and Sunday 8am, and over www.gnntv-asia.com; tune to 1098AM radio Tuesday to Friday 5 to 6 p.m. Visit http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)