napakaganda ng gusto nyo iparating sa bansa natin, maganda ang hangarin ninyo.
sana lahat ng pilipino katulad nyo magisip. para kahit papaano malaki ang tsansa ntn magbago.
kaso ang majority ng mga pilipino, kulang sa aral, nakukuntento sa kung ano ang nasa harap,
walang pakialam, mas gusto ang kanya kanya. marami sa kanila ang hindi alam kung bakit sila
boboto at para saan ang boto nila. sana ngayon eleksyon ngitian mo naman ang pilipinas panginoon.

Gabby has a point. And about the g.d. stupid triumphalist no-content commercial? Don’t expect that one to like that of others, full of beautiful, heavenly promises and perfectly made slogans and matching letters (airing more than dive times a day in primetime slots) but does not assure of being implemented/delivered because there is still a question if they are competent to put up an honest and competent government, not just government brought about by politics of patronage and convenience and cash gifts (inside a paper bag).

That’s still b.s., Gabby. Abad is free to present whatever definition he likes, that is true, but having done so does not make him automatically right. He has to demonstrate in some way how his definition is better than another, especially since it’s not even a real word (Check out my friend Nick Nicholson’s blog. He made a YouTube video of himself trying to find “fiscalizer” in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. 404). Kang’s definition is, at this point at least, the better because he said, “This is what fiscalizer means in the Philippine context, based on these dozens of repeated examples throughout 70 years of Philippine government”. Whereas Abad’s definition is, “This is what fiscalizer means because this is what we want it to mean”, which doesn’t match the evidence presented by his manok’s record.

And again, let me ask, as directly as I can, you and other Noynoy bots who care to accept the challenge: Are we obliged to “interpret” your candidate, or is he going to tell us what he intends to do? And just to save you time, skip the nonsense about “the campaign period hasn’t started”, because if the Noynoy machine was even being halfway honest about that idea they would pull the g.d. stupid triumphalist no-content commercial I’m already getting sick to death of seeing.

butch abad DID present a definition of fiscalizer.

you, however, reject it and prefer the definition of mr kang. you are free to do so, but know this: abad used that word without referencing kang’s definition. this is taking mr abads own words out of context.

abad is free to put words in the context he wants to. We need to interpret this in the light of that context.

see, kang’s definition of fiscalizer is not the same as “define red”. mr kang’s definition is more like a generalization, than a definition — a definition is a term that is true for all cases. A generalization is not true for all cases.

First of all, what makes you think I’m not open-minded? I searched for what ‘fiscalizer’ might mean, that’s how I found Kang’s book. And I balanced all the available interpretations – one from a dictionary, one from a scholar of Philippine politics, and one from the candidate himself – and guess what? The definition of what Noynoy is – based on his record and his own words and behaviour – is best described by the scholar’s definition. I say again: anybody thinks I’m wrong, or more specifically, Mr. Kang is wrong, present a better, evidence-based definition. And, btw, I didn’t see the dictionary definition you feel my article is lacking in your comment, either, so…your appeal to my open-mindedness is a little hollow in that respect.

All that aside, I’ll go back to another of my previous points: why should anyone at all be obliged by the candidate to interpret what he is and what he stands for? Shouldn’t he just be able to tell us plainly?

Kang is an expert one but don’t just base your judgment on his definition or perspective. i know you are an intelligent man, please be open-minded and not just kang-minded. Btw, in your article
“Want to Run for President? Start by Buying a Dictionary”, there was no single definition nor concept taken from a (not kang-minded) dictionary.

I will rather go for a fiscalizer (which may not be meant as kang meant it, since he is not a perfect being) than a secretary (who is called a “PRINCIPLED MAN”) who just remained silent and looked on his boss’ wrongdoings.

Kang’s definition is based on a record of behavior of Philippine politicians that spans the history of the Republic. If anyone – Butch Abad, Noynoy, you, or whoever – wishes to refute to it, present evidence of another definition. Blue does not mean red just because someone says so.

I’ll assume Noynoy didn’t actually do his homework, and even look up what “fiscalizer” means and how the concept is perceived – Kang’s book is pretty close to the top of a Google search of the word.

And yes, I do have a big problem with Noynoy taking a contrarian point of view, and to be fair to him, he’s not the only one with the problem. Too many candidates running by being “against” something, and not bothering to tell us what they’re “for”. “Transparency” and “defending democracy” and similar b.s. doesn’t count — those are prerequisites, not attributes.

From Patricia Evangelista’s Jesus in Yellow on the Inquirer.net:

In a nation where government responsibility has shifted to the media, and calls for aid are directed to newsroom desks instead of the hotlines of the National Disaster Coordinating Council, this sort of move isn’t particularly surprising. A united GMA7 and ABS-CBN may seem like the best of metaphors for a united nation, but it says very much about the sort of man Noynoy Aquino is. Flanked by stars, surrounded by celebrities, content to ride on the waving banner stamped with his parents’ faces. There is no message, other than that personality is king. There are no voices, not even his. His defenders say it’s not the time for campaign—and yet that video rolls on and on in prime time television. You are not alone, they say, but who stands with you? Anne Curtis? Ate Shawie? Marielle Rodriguez? Just recently, Noynoy promised to give up his share of Hacienda Luisita, and yet denies knowing of eviction notices to farmers even while the case sits in the Supreme Court.

Noynoy represents the privatisation of accountability and its outsourcing to Media. He is the new breed of Pinoy politicians — relegated to making appearances whilst the parasites that surround him (his “supporters” are pretty much at liberty to spin all sorts of bull**** that pass of as his “message” to his constituents).

A commentor described the veneer of “substance” that surrounds bozos like Noynoy quite well on Peyups.com:

celebrity-laden but message-less mtv-like campaign ads

Very little to work with — that’s Da Pinoy.

he doesnt? wow, word nazi! i guess its a definition of a word that doesnt formally exist — you or i may reject or accept as we see fit. Just as you accepted kang’s definition, but reject butch abads. fine. but i do agree he must at least be consistent…

also, you dont like the word “contrarian”? or you think contrarian = rebellion? the dictionary disagrees w u buddy!