HATER ( ANGELO E LANUZA )

HATER ( LETECIA LANUZA )

FILIPINO MAYOR AMONG 4 SHOT DEAD AT MANILA AIRPORT

December 20, 2013, 10: 38 AM


Philipine Mayor Ukol Talumpa picture in Labangan on April 7, 2013  (AFP photo)

A Policeman inspects the crime scene after gunman opened fire outside Manila International Airport on December 20, 2013 (AFT Photo)
A gunman attacked a Philippine mayor as he left the country's main airport on Friday along with crowds of Christmas travelers, killing him, his wife, a child and another man, authorities and witnesses said.

The gunman fired on Labangan Mayor Ukol Talumpa outside Terminal 3 at Manila's Ninoy Aquino International Airport, named after President Benigno Aquino III's father, who was assassinated there 30 years ago. The terminal handles international and domestic flights, and is supposed to be a relatively well-guarded facility. Talumpa had arrived from Zamboanga del Sur, the southern province where Labangan is located.
There was no word on a possible motive, but violent attacks linked to political rivalries, family feuds and business disputes are common in the Philippines, and have left hundreds of people dead over the years. Talumpa himself had survived at least two earlier assassination attempts, according to local media reports.
The mayor and his wife were declared dead on arrival at a nearby hospital along with a 1 1/2-year-old boy and a 25-year-old man, said the airport's general manager, Jose Angel Honrado.

"It's extremely deplorable that even the wife, grandson and a staff (assistant) were also killed."

An airport policeman, who asked not to be named, told AFP he was on duty about 10 metres (33 feet) away when the mayor and his party were attacked.

"I heard gunshots so I whipped out my pistol and ran to the area. But the gunman had fled. He had an accomplice on a motorcycle," said the officer.
"People were shocked and just stood there so I could not shoot," he added.

"We tried to chase them in a police van but got caught up in the traffic," he said, adding the gunman was wearing a police cap and a blue jacket.

Brutal brand of democracy

Talumpa, an opposition leader who was the town's former vice mayor, had defeated in the May 2013 elections the incumbent mayor who is a political ally of President Benigno Aquino.

 

He had earlier survived a grenade attack that injured a police bodyguard on the troubled southern region of Mindanao in September last year, and also escaped an assassination attempt in Manila in 2010, provincial officials said.
The Philippines is infamous for a brutal brand of democracy where politicians -- particularly at local and provincial levels -- are willing to bribe, intimidate or kill to ensure they win.
More than 60 people were killed in last May's elections, when 18,000 posts from provincial governor to town and city mayors as well as city and town executive councils were contested.
Talumpa and his party were attacked Friday as they stepped out of the passenger terminal shortly after getting off a flight from the southern Philippines, Manila airport general Angel Honrado told reporters.
Four people were killed and four others wounded in the broad daylight shooting, he added.

 

Honrado said the authorities did not know the identity of the gunmen nor the motive for the attack.

In the footage obtained by GMA, which it said was taken by a bystander, spilled luggage and trolleys lay scattered on the curb on both sides of the gunned down man.

Two other people were shown crouching on the curb, while the voices of screaming men and women could be heard.

A taxi cab and four vans, all their doors open, were stopped on the driveway, with the hazard lights of one van still blinking on and off.

"This is a very unfortunate incident that did happen at Terminal 3," Honrado said.

"Government agencies are trying their best to determine the perpetrators and bring them to justice."

He appealed to other passengers who witnessed the shooting to help the police identify the suspects.

A spokesman for the provincial government of Zamboanga del Sur, which includes Labangan, told reporters that Talumpa, a member of the Nationalist People's Coalition Party, had flown to Manila earlier in the day with his wife, two nephews and six other people.

Philippines: BOMB AT NEW YEAR'S EVE PARTY

VOA News,  January 01, 2014

 

Six killed in New Year's eve bomb blast in Philippines

Six revellers were killed and six others wounded in a bomb attack on a New Year's eve party on a volatile southern Philippine island

A bombing at a New Year's Eve party on a southern Philippine island has killed six people and wounded at least six others.

The Philippine military said an improvised explosive device was used in the attack, which hit the town of Sumisip, on Basilan island.

Sumisip, Philippines

There has been no claim of responsibility and the motive for the attack is not known.

Militant Islamic groups, including the notorious Abu Sayyaf group, which has links to al-Qaida, are known to operate on the island.

Abu Sayyaf has been blamed for a wave of bomb attacks, kidnappings and beheadings in the southern Philippines.

The group has been fractured by a government anti-terror campaign in recent years, but continues to carry out attacks.

RUDE AND UNDISCIPLINED FILIPINOS

Posted in the Philippines Forum
Pinoys are rude:
1. they have no sense of personal space.


 
2. they don't know how to stand in line.
 

3. they stare at people.



 


4. they don't know how to keep right in escalators and stairs.
5. they are pushy at the grocery checkout line and can't wait until the first buyer has moved before crowding their purchases on the cashier counter.

6. they rush into elevators even if it has not yet emptied.


7. they don't hold doors open for the one following them.




PINOYS ARE SO PROUD THAT THEY ARE HOSPITABLE, BUT IN ALL OTHER ASPECTS WE ARE A VERY RUDE, IMPOLITE AND ILL-MANNERED RACE.

A REVEALING MAP OF THE WORLD'S MOST AND LEAST ETTNICALLY DIVERSE COUNTRIES

• By Max Fisher  May 16, 2013 at 12:33 pm
  Max Fisher is the Post's foreign affairs blogger. He has a master's degree in security studies from Johns Hopkins University

Ethnicity, like race, is a social construct, but it's still a construct with significant implications for the world. How people perceive ethnicity, both their own and that of others, can be tough to measure, particularly given that it's so subjective. So how do you study it?
When five economists and social scientists set out to measure ethnic diversity for a landmark 2002 paper for the Harvard Institute of Economic Research, they started by comparing data from an array of different sources: national censuses, Encyclopedia Brittanica, the CIA, Minority Rights Group International and a 1998 study called "Ethnic Groups Worldwide." They looked for consistence and inconsistence in the reports to determine what data set would be most reliable and complete. Because data sources such as censuses or surveys are self-reported – in other words, people are classified how they ask to be classified – the ethnic group data reflects how people see themselves, not how they're categorized by outsiders. Those results measured 650 ethnic groups in 190 countries.
One thing the Harvard Institute authors did with all that data was measure it for what they call ethnic fractionalization. Another word for it might be diversity. They gauged this by asking an elegantly simple question: If you called up two people at random in a particular country and ask them their ethnicity, what are the odds that they would give different answers? The higher the odds, the more ethnically "fractionalized" or diverse the country.
I've mapped out the results above. The greener countries are more ethnically diverse and the orange countries more homogenous. There are a few trends you can see right away: countries in Europe and Northeast Asia tend to be the most homogenous, sub-Saharan African nations the most diverse. The Americas are generally somewhere in the middle. And richer countries appear more likely to be homogenous.
This map is particularly interesting viewed alongside data we examined yesterday on racial tolerance, as measured by the frequency with which people in certain countries said they would not want a neighbor from a different racial group.
Before we go any further, though, a few important caveats, all of which appear in the original research paper as well. Well, all except for the report's age. It's now 11 years old. And given the scarcity of information from some countries, some of the data are very old, dating from as far back as the early 1990s or even late 1980s. Conceptions of ethnicity can change over time; the authors note that this happened in Somalia, where the same people started self-identifying differently after war broke out. And so can the actual national make-ups themselves, due to immigration, conflict, demographic trends and other factors. It's entirely possible, then, that some of these diversity "scores" would look different with present-day data.
Another caveat is that people in different countries might have different bars for what constitutes a distinct ethnicity. These data, then, could be said to measure the perception of ethnic diversity more than the diversity itself; given that ethnicity is a social construct, though those two metrics are not necessarily as distinct as one might think. Finally, as the paper notes, "It would be wrong to interpret our ethnicity variable as reflecting racial characteristics alone." Ethnicity might partially coincide with race, but they're not the same thing.
Now for the data itself. Here are a few observations and conclusions, a number of which draw from the Harvard Institute paper:
• African countries are the most diverse. Uganda has by far the highest ethnic diversity rating, according to the data, followed by Liberia. In fact, the world's 20 most diverse countries are all African. There are likely many factors for this, although one might be the continent's colonial legacy. Some European overlords engineered ethnic distinctions to help them secure power, most famously the Hutu-Tutsi division in Rwanda, and they've stuck. European powers also carved Africa up into territories and possessions, along lines with little respect for the actual people who lived there. When Europeans left, the borders stayed (that's part of the African Union's mandate), forcing different groups into the same national boxes.
• Japan and the Koreas are the most homogenous. Racial politics can be complicated and nasty in these countries, where nationalism and ethnicity have at times gone hand-in-hand, from Hirohito's Japan to Kim Il Sung's North Korea. The lack of diversity perhaps informs these politics, although it's tough to say which caused which.
• European countries are ethnically homogenous. This is, to me, one of the most interesting trends in the data. A number of now-global ideas about the nation-state, about national identity as tied to ethnicity and about nationalism itself originally came from Europe. For centuries, Europe's borders shifted widely and frequently, only relatively recently settling into what we see today, in which most large ethnic groups have a country of their own. That developed, painfully, over a very long time. And while there are still some exceptions – Belgium has ethnic Walloons and Dutch, for example – in most of Europe, ethnicity and nationality are pretty close to the same thing.
• The Americas are often diverse. From the United States through Central America down to Brazil, the "new world" countries, maybe in part because of their histories of relatively open immigration (and, in some cases, intermingling between natives and new arrivals) tend to be pretty diverse. The exception is South America's "southern cone," where Argentines and Chileans, many of whom originally come from the same handful of Western European countries, tend to be more homogenous. I was surprised to see Canada rate as more diverse than the United States or even Mexico; it's possible that the survey counted Quebecois as ethnically distinct, although I can't say for sure.
• Wide variation in the Middle East. The range of diversity from Morocco to Iran is a reminder that this part of the world is much less monolithic than we sometimes think. North African countries include large Berber minorities, for example, as well as some sub-Saharan ethnic groups, particularly in Libya. The diversity of Jordan and Syria are reminders of their internal complexity. Iran, with large Azeri, Kurdish and Arab populations, is one of the region's most diverse.
• Diversity and conflict. Internal conflicts appear on first blush to be more common in greener countries, which might make some intuitive sense given that groups with comparable "stakes" in their country's economics and politics might be more willing or able to compete, perhaps violently, over those resources. But there's enough data here to draw a lot of different conclusions. One thing to keep in mind is that ethnicity might not be static or predetermined. In other words, as in the case of Somalia, maybe worsening economic conditions or war make people more likely to further divide along ethnic fractions.
• Diversity correlates with latitude and low GDP per capita. The report notes, "our measures of linguistic and ethnic fractionalization are highly correlated with latitude and GDP per capita. Therefore it is quite difficult to disentangle the effect of these three variables on the quality of government." As above, keep in mind that correlation and causation aren't the same thing.
• Strong democracy correlates with ethnic homogeneity. This does not mean that one necessarily causes the other; the correlation might be caused by some other factor or factors. But here's the paper's suggestion for why diversity might make democracy tougher in some cases:

The democracy index is inversely related to ethnic fractionalization (when latitude is not controlled for). This result is consistent with theory and evidence presented in Aghion, Alesina and Trebbi (2002). The idea is that in more fragmented societies a group imposes restrictions on political liberty to impose control on the other groups. In more homogeneous societies, it is easier to rule more democratically since conflicts are less intense.

Here's the money quote on the potential political implications of ethnicity:

In general, it does not matter for our purposes whether ethnic differences reflect physical attributes of groups (skin color, facial features) or long-lasting social conventions (language, marriage within the group, cultural norms) or simple social definition (self-identification, identification by outsiders). When people persistently identify with a particular group, they form potential interest groups that can be manipulated by political leaders, who often choose to mobilize some coalition of ethnic groups (“us”) to the exclusion of others (“them”). Politicians also sometimes can mobilize support by singling out some groups for persecution, where hatred of the minority group is complementary to some policy the politician wishes to pursue.

RACIST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tbud8rLejLM

Da Pilipins Is One Of The Most Racist Countries On Earth

Thank God, somebody from GMA News have already written this type of article which was once being isolated to mostly realist websites in the country. Some people are familiar with Anti Pinoy especially this article discussing the rudeness of the Filipinos. As expected, it have received a lot of negative response from Filipinos, but several defended the article as true and without biases. Thanks to Washington Post, at last this type of news became mainstream at last for our local media.
To read the article, click here. Seriously, I am not surprised to hear that. Filipinos are racists on other cultures. If you look the Taiwan crisis today, you will see some comments that can be categorised as racist towards the Taiwanese, same goes with Malaysians and the Chinese. The big question is: why do Filipinos tolerate racism at a young age?  The answer lies on our childhood experiences.
When we are kids, when we see a person of either Arabic or Indian descent, we are told that they have bad breath and body odour, when we see or hear a person speaking Visayan, we will laugh at them and make fun of their accents, when we see Muslim people, we say murderers, terrorists or Abu Sayyaf in front of them, when we see black people, we say nigger so on and so forth. Sadly, this type of stereotyping are passed from generation to generation.
Is there a problem about our values? Yes, there are lots of issues like scaring us with some stupid bullshit to follow them, conformity, half truths and their apparent consumerism. These values have probably molded the majority into narrow-minded, racially and religiously intolerant people.  Take example from Nancy Binay. I hate Nancy because she is incompetent for the job and avoiding debates but some people are making fun of her skin.  I consider this criticism as childish and immature.
Sigmund Freud will be scratching his head of the causes why the majority of the people in the Philippines have turned into a bunch of racist fuckwats. But when a foreigner makes, writes or speaks a negative remark about our country, we will cry racism and demand a public apology. Sometimes, we labelled these folks as persona non grata. Most Filipinos will not even give a shit about thinking. They will even organise protests because of the ‘defamation’ of the Filipino ‘race’.
Education also plays a role for this problem. The current educational system of the Philippines is backward compared to other countries. We lack teachers, facilities, educational tools but most of all teachers who can teach children critical thinking and an unbiased view of our history. Most of our history textbooks are either authored by Teodoro Agoncillo or Gregeorio Zaide. The former was known for his primitivistic view of the Filipino society and staunch anti-foreign attitude and the latter was known for his anti-Spanish but pro American stance.
These two factors combined with our dysfunctional family values and lack of regard for thinking and the tolerance of the media regarding this issue, have resulted into a twisted version of our history and the world. Most Filipinos still believe that we are being exploited by American ‘imperialists’ and other foreign powers. I am not surprised in this revelation because I already knew it for some time. Our education needs a hell of overhaul to prevent the future generations to become ignorant, racial and religiously intolerant douchebags.
I repeat race was already debunked by the Human Genome Project. The concept of sub species were made by white supremacists to justify the slave trade and denying emancipation to the Africans. I can clearly say that majority do not know the definition of satire and sarcasm and most of us are a bunch of insecure people. Why? Insecurity is a product of low intellectual capacity, and the Filipinos have an eventual habit of disregarding rationality.
The sad thing is these idiots always win. They pressure media giants and companies to apologise to them, they are always forced to apologise. After that what now? There are still a lot of baboons in our government and clergy, stupid masses voting stupid people, extreme poverty, political incompetence, a biased media and our short term happiness with Pinoy Pride.  The Filipinos are like sending this message to the world.
Filipinos are the only ones that can be racists and we justified the derogatory remarks against Indians, Chinese etc but when we face the same insults, we will act like a bunch of pathetic crybabies. We are always getting butthurt when hearing the truth. Here is an example of that type of Filipino:

“This is dumb. Filipinos are the least racist people that I know. There is no such thing as racially motivated crime here at all, and Filipinos are all too willing to help other people of different races or backgrounds as long as they are nice.”

This guy is a total denier of reality. He probably smokes “katol” to escape the hard, painful and cold reality of our society. Majority of the Filipinos are also acting like that guy. The guy even pointed out that Westernisation is bad. Seriously, does this guy knows what he is talking about?
Take Japan for example. They were a feudal backwater before the arrival of Commodore Perry at Edo, literally at the Shogun’s doorstep and demanded opening the country for trade. The Japanese gave in and they also signed treaties with other foreign powers. It had a share of positive and negative changes. The modernisation of Japan helped the Satsuma and Choshu to modernise their army and navy. Thanks to the maneuverings of the Japanese liberal Ryoma Sakamoto, the Satcho alliance was formed. It was the most successful Imperial force under the banner of sonno joi (Revere The Emperor, Expel The Barbarians) and the restoration of the Emperor as the head of state.
In 1868, the Boshin War began. The Shogunate attempted to mobilise its modernised army and navy in an offensive. They suffered a catastrophic defeat at the battle of Toba Fushimi, where the smaller Imperial army drove the Shogunate out of Kyoto and Osaka. Edo fell quickly and the remnants of the Shogunate Army had either joined the Northern Alliance or Vice Admiral Takeaki Enomoto. The Northen Alliance was crushed swiftly but Enomoto’s Republic of Ezo lasted until 1869. The Meiji era was the era that had shaped and modernised Japan after that war.
Back to the topic, majority of the people in this country are nothing but sheer hypocrites. Some people will defend the defects and turn the other way around. Arguments like “what did you do for your country” are so common that it is so easy to refute and humiliate the people who used that argument. Some argued that it is a hindrance to change. Seriously most Filipinos are resistant to change, they exhibit an anti intellectual and anti progress mentality, so the latter argument is pointless. Looks like Filipinos prefer ignorance than rationality at all.
So to Filipinos who are butthurt with racial jokes, consider this. You are also racist. Everyone is a little bit racist. Do you think that you have fooled them? No they are only pitying us because of our desperation to stand out in the rest of the world. We are always forcing our country to stand out, but how many times did we smashed the flagpole because we are making our own humiliation that the international community will just laugh at? Respect is not demanded, it is earned. Accept the reality that we are currently the Sick Man of Asia, lagging behind the progress of the world.
It is the time to reconsider our values and culture, and if necessary discard the ones that are anti progress and anti intellectual. The world is changing very fast and we cannot cope up with the march of civilisation. The Filipinos need a rebirth, a Renaissance, an Enlightenment. I see you guys on my next article. This song by Avenue Q fits the article correctly:

By A Chronicle of the Da Pinoys and Da Coconut Repablik of Da Pilipins

WENDEN,
Philipine

why we became a racist if you ask me why we became racist, for my point of view is
1) inferiority complex due to colonial master. Spanish is not a good colonial master, there treatment to us, and there attitude of pointing fingers is one thing that stick into our mind. We tend to point somebody if there are failures…..the power of the church centralize all the power within the state serves also the attitude of filipino that if you are in the central seat of power in the Philippines you belong to the elites. This is a classic example of you came from the visayas or mindanao or even a indigenious group of people you are in lower bottom of the society. It is been a practice for a long time. Thank god that the americans arrived but they also are not a good colonizer either but at least they gave us education.
2) Communism and anti-western propaganda…..since the dawn of the communism in the philippines, filipinos slowly hate western people. especially the propaganda of the government against communism and in return the counter propaganda of the communism against the western people….filipinos bended and started to hate western people…..
3) We are divided by dialects and border….philippines is a country with many ethnic group. with a sea apart it is very hard to communicate without a proper infrastructure.atleast today we have the means to communicate even without leaving one place. and intermarriage between ethnic groups is open today than 30 years before so gap of not knowing each other is slowly getting thinner.
4) Religion this is the factor that there has been a strife between the ethnic groups since the spanish era….catholics before is very different as of today.
5) Big gap in the society, poor vs rich people this one is also the factor….
6) Lets admit we were once a bully, copied from our colonial master…..we were once 2 most economically stable next only to japan….we had a mighty armed forces you can ask our grandparents for this one.
So I could say that I believe the article 50%, I agree that filipinos are racist especially toward other filipinos especially living in Manila. But I agree with the statement
“This is dumb. Filipinos are the least racist people that I know. There is no such thing as racially motivated crime here at all, and Filipinos are all too willing to help other people of different races or backgrounds as long as they are nice.”
Why, majority of the filipinos due to various conflicts that we encounter we learn the word RESPECT. If other citizen knows how to respect us, then we will respect in return. Even towards other ethnic group in the philippines. But yes there are many pain in the ass filipino that do not know respect.

The Beauty Queen Vs. Bashing Queen and The Pions

Cyber Crime!!! Led by Alika Z*** Vs J.J

Nowadays, people become so smart, talented, and awesome in creating something. Their intelligence not only used in positive ways but in negative ways either. It's proved by utilizing of the social media internet "Facebook" ; they're using language and communication skills in English; then applying to facebook fanpage for making some jokes that include discrimination race and bashing each other. We could categorize this as "Cyber Crime".

This cyber crime had happened by caused effect of bashing each other. A named from Indonesia Alika Z** had been starting the war by made a fanpage "The Real Faces of Fillipinos" https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-real-faces-of-filipinos/594664060569189with a purpose to open Pinoy's eyes not to big headed. This page contained the natural faces of Philippines beauty Queen without any editing and personal touching. It had been successfully hurting several of the pinoys especially the fanatic supporters philippines pageant.

The next day, led by Jamie Stockinger(this account had Changed name to Jamie Horan, Angel Guapa her other facebook account, then knowing her real name Janna Jerome, called JJ); an islamic pinoy-Turkey girl (as her confession); she had made similar moron fanpage to Alika Z** as her sweet revenge "The Real Beauties of Indonesia 1.0" https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Real-Beauties-of-Indonesia-10/579100025496375 contained the harassing posts by editing Indonesian beauty Queen pictures, posting unappropriate statement and celebrity pictures. JJ was also said that she wanted to reconcile Malaysia and Indonesia that in reality has no war at all. Otherwise, she's become the one unsafe between them. She also liked being provocateur, bring religion and race to underestimate and insult Indonesian National as General.

Now, we could see the comparison between these two fanpages which one is just showing the natural pictures of the faces and convince to their supporters that their Queen not as beautiful as they talking so they shouldn't be over-confident and big headed of their achievement and the other one is perfectly harrassing, downing image of the nationality, and the most sarcastic page ever.

However, these two fanpages are unappropriate for readers. How about your judging?

HATER ( Jevie Banluta )