Is the Philippines Now Paying the Price for Child Sexual Abuse?

Mar 23

Apart from the interviews with his family members, the most important revelation of Richard Paddock’s March 21, 2017, New York Times profile on President Duterte was the fact that as a child he was apparently much affected by the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of Mark Falvey, a Jesuit priest, that he took revenge by spraying other priests with black ink with a water gun, for which he was expelled from the Ateneo de Davao. (Duterte revealed during the campaign that he had been abused by Falvey.) Falvey was eventually transferred to Los Angeles, where he continued to abuse other chIldren, unrestrained by his religious order. Given the massive psychological damage inflicted on victims of child sexual abuse, it is certainly relevant to ask to what extent the country is now paying for the acts of a sexual predator as Duterte engages in his interminable killing spree? The Church hierarchy must really police its ranks more effectively and discipline predators and turn them over to the legal system for the punishment they deserve instead of covering up for them, like the Jesuits did in the case of Falvey. How many more Dutertes are there out there waiting to explode owing to rage created by childhood abuse? Of course, Duterte is responsible for his own acts and must be held accountable for them; the point is one’s experiences as a child contribute to the formation of one’s personality, character, and values. Here is an account of what Falvey went on to do in the US after abusing Duterte and perhaps many others in the Philippines. Jesuits agree to sex case payout Nine people who say they were molested by Father Mark Falvey between 1959 and 1975 will divide $16 million from the order. May 18, 2007|John Spano | Los Angeles Times Staff Writer The Jesuit order has agreed to a tentative payout of $16 million to settle claims that one of its priests sexually abused nine Los Angeles children over 16 years ending in 1975. Mark Falvey was accused of molesting four girls and five boys between 1959 and 1975 at Blessed Sacrament Roman Catholic Church in Hollywood. Falvey died 31 years ago and was never charged with...

Read More

Keynesianism and the Great Recession: An Interview with Walden Bello

Mar 02

From Triple Crisis “We need to work towards a post-capitalist system that aims at promoting equality, enhances instead of destroys the environment, is based on cooperation, and is engaged in planning to achieve short term, medium term, and long-term goals. In this scheme, finance would function to link savings to investment and savers to investors, instead of becoming an autonomous force whose dynamics destabilizes the real economy. A post-capitalist society does not mean the elimination of the market. But it does mean making use of the market to achieve democratically decided social goals rather than having the market drive society in an anarchic fashion.” This interview with Walden Bello is based on the study “Keynesianism in the Great Recession: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Cure,” available here from Transnational Institute. Q: What were the main ways in which neoliberalism created the Great Recession? A: Neoliberalism sought to remove the regulatory constraints that the state was forced to impose on capitalist profitability owing to the pressure of the working class movement. But it had to legitimize this ideologically. Thus it came out with two very influential theories, the so-called efficient market hypothesis (EMH) and rational expectations hypothesis (REH). EMH held that without government-induced distortions, financial markets are efficient because they reflect all the available information available to all market participants at any given time. In essence, EMH said, it is best to leave financial markets alone since they are self-regulating. REH provided the theoretical basis for EMH with its assumption that individuals operate on the basis of rational assessments of economic trends. These theories provided the ideological cover for the deregulation or “light touch” regulation of the financial sector that took place in the 1980s and 1990s. Due to a common neoliberal education and close interaction, bankers and regulators shared the assumptions of this ideology. This resulted in the loosening of regulation of the banks and the absence of any regulation and very limited monitoring of the so-called “shadow banking” sector where all sorts of financial instruments were created and traded among parties. With so little regulation, there was nothing to check the creation and trading of questionable securities like subprime mortgage-based securities. And with no effective monitoring, there were no constraints...

Read More

March, but mourn not the demise of EDSA Republic

Feb 24

originally published by Rappler.com The EDSA Republic’s failure to live up to its promises spawned Dutertismo The EDSA uprising was a memorable step in the Philippines’ struggle for democracy, and for this reason alone, it would be important to pencil it in as a red letter day for the country. Remembering the EDSA uprising, however, should not mean celebrating the EDSA Republic to which it gave birth, as has been the practice institutionalized by the Yellow Establishment over the last 30 years. EDSA was a flawed victory, and its flaws eventually led to its replacement by President Rodrigo Duterte’s barely disguised fascist rule. Indeed, the EDSA Republic’s failure to live up to its promises spawned Dutertismo. There were three unhealthy birthmarks that marred the EDSA Republic: the role of the military, the intervention of the United States, and the leadership of the elite. The prominent role of the military rebels in triggering the insurrection gave them a sense of having a special role in the post-Marcos dispensation. Only after seven failed coups was civilian constitutional rule stabilized. But, in retrospect, military discontent was not as damaging to the EDSA Republic as US patronage and elite hegemony. A US protectorate The US was not only a player; it was a decisive player. Even before the Aquino assassination in 1983, Washington sought to nudge Marcos and the elite opposition to arrive at some compromise. These pressures escalated in 1985, resulting in Marcos’ calling for the snap elections that became the vehicle for the mobilization of the middle class and some of the popular sectors against the regime and paving the way for the military mutiny. At that point powerful forces in Washington overcame President Ronald Reagan’s reluctance to cut Marcos loose and moved to directly remove the dictator from the scene. At an off off-the-record briefing at the State Department in Washington on April 23, 1986, to which I was mistakenly invited, Undersecretary of State Michael Armacost openly boasted of how the US moved during Marcos’ last months in power: “Our objective was to capture… to encourage the democratic forces of the center, then consolidate control by the middle and also win away the soft support of the NPA [New People’s...

Read More

The Original Fascist

Feb 12

The Original Fascist

“When it comes to fascism, we’re not copycats. We’re original. In fact, our Fuhrer is a model for would be fascists elsewhere. To borrow an image from Quentin Tarantino, he’s not just a natural-born killer. He’s a natural-born fascist.” From my talk at a seminar on “Fascism Today” at Doshisa University, Kyoto, Feb 12,...

Read More

Statement on filing my candidacy for the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines

Oct 13

Statement on filing my candidacy for the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines

When I resigned from the House of Representatives last March in protest against President Aquino’s double standards in his good governance policy and his refusal to accept command responsibility for the Mamasapano tragedy, I thought I was saying “goodbye to all that.” I was looking forward to a quieter life devoted to researching and writing a book on one of my favorite subjects: the current crisis of the global capitalist economy Over the last three months, however, an ever widening network of groups and individuals has snowballed into a movement to get me to run either for the presidency or the Senate. That draft has proven to be implacable and irresistible. I have accepted their challenge to run for the Senate. I am running to promote an electoral insurgency against politics-as-usual, injustice, inequality, and corruption. I am running because people demand a representative with high ethical standards, who’ll go to hell for them, and who won’t bullshit them like most politicians do. I am running because because I hate power and the only ones you can trust with power are those who hate power. I am running because I can no longer stand by and allow our people to be constantly fooled, betrayed, and devoured by the very people they elect to public office. I am running because we need to dismantle this awful system of traditional politics in which our people are trapped. I am running to oppose a foreign policy that makes our poor country hostage to the machinations of aggressive superpowers. I am running to help liberate our economy from neoliberal policies imposed by a global capitalist system that has condemned our people to greater poverty and inequality even as it enriches our greedy elite and foreign corporations. I am running to end the criminal debt slavery, to which our sellout elite is complicit, that turns over 34 per cent of the annual government budget to insatiable foreign and domestic banks and creditors. I am running on a platform that will, among others, promote security of tenure for workers; complete agrarian reform; promote and protect the rights of women, indigenous peoples, and the LGBT community; protect the rights and advance the interests of our millions of...

Read More