Comments

1. oggie says:
   March 8, 2010 at 12:42 pm

   Di ba, alam na natin akong ang standard in bible regarding prophecies???

   Jeremiah Chapter 5
   31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love [to have it] so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

   Jeremiah 14:14
   Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets PROPHESY lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they PROPHESY unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

   Jeremiah 14:15
   Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that PROPHESY in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed.

   Jeremiah 14:16
   And the people to whom they PROPHESY shall be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and the sword; and they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters: for I will pour their wickedness upon them.

   Jeremiah 23:16
   Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that PROPHESY unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, [and] not out of the mouth of the LORD.

   Jeremiah 23:25
   I have heard what the prophets said, that PROPHESY lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed.

   Jeremiah 23:26
   How long shall [this] be in the heart of the prophets that PROPHESY lies? yea, [they are] prophets of the deceit of their own heart;

   Jeremiah 23:32
   Behold, I [am] against them that PROPHESY false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.

   Jeremiah 25:30
   Therefore PROPHESY thou against them all these words, and say unto them, The LORD shall roar from on high, and utter his voice from his holy habitation; he shall mightily roar upon his habitation; he shall give a shout, as they that tread [the grapes], against all the inhabitants of the earth.

   Jeremiah 27:10
   For they PROPHESY a lie unto you, to remove you far from your land; and that I should drive you out, and ye should perish.

   Jeremiah 27:14
   Therefore hearken not unto the words of the prophets that speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon: for they PROPHESY a lie unto you.

   Jeremiah 27:15
   For I have not sent them, saith the LORD, yet they PROPHESY a lie in my name; that I might drive you out, and that ye might perish, ye, and the prophets that PROPHESY unto you.

   Jeremiah 27:16
   Also I spake to the priests and to all this people, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Hearken not to the words of your prophets that PROPHESY unto you, saying, Behold, the vessels of the LORD’S house shall now shortly be brought again from Babylon: for they PROPHESY a lie unto you.

   Jeremiah 29:9
   For they PROPHESY falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the LORD.

   Jeremiah 29:21
   Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, of Ahab the son of Kolaiah, and of Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah, which PROPHESY a lie unto you in my name; Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall slay them before your eyes;

   Reply
2. Jonathan says:
   March 7, 2010 at 10:23 pm

   As Christians, wala tayong ibang goal kundi ipakilala kung sino ang Diyos sa buhay natin, as to bro. Eddie’s concern, yes he has been a good leader, he has been a good christian, pro minsan there are things na inaakala nating tama sa pananaw natin pero hndi na inaccordance sa gusto ng Lord, minsan ang sinasabi nating will ng Lord eh will lang pla natin. Why is it easy to say that it has been Bro Eddie’s will and not the will of God?
   - If it was God’s will,then there’s no reason for losing the last election. I read someone says here, “Gusto ni Lord ng righteous leader for our country” Kung gusto nga ng Lord, bkit ndi nanalo si bro eddie? hndi na ba kayang gawin ng Diyos ang gusto niya?
   - Yes there’s the word WAITING; there is waiting pero kung mron man, dpat hndi nagmukhang talunan ang mga anak ng Diyos last election, dpat hanggang ngayon nandun parin ang burning desire to support bro eddie, pero bakit some denominations ay kumalas na? It’s because hndi na yun ang layunin ng Spirit for every Christians, because if it is, wala ng pagtatalo talo ang Christians who to vote.
   - If this is the will of God, panong naatim ni bro eddie na mag-organize ng prayer rally sa edsa shrine? to think na napakalaking pagkakamali ng rebulto ni Maria dun. Again, he is blinded by his will and not the will of God.Nakakaya na niyang isa alangalang ang knyang belief for his personal will.
   - If it is the will of God for him to be the next president, bakit kelangan ni bro eddie makipag ugnayan at maging isa with the muslims, catholics and other non-protestant religion? Talo-talo na ba ang beliefs na pinaghahawakan natin pagdating sa pulitika?
   - Sa maraming beses na sinasabing prophecy, bakit walang tumama kahit isa? kung nakausap nya tlga ang Lord, dpat naging totoo ang mga sinabi niya. O baka naman because of his personal goal eh he concluded that his will is the same as the will of God?
   - Sabi sa bible dapat hndi tayo against sa annointed person ng Lord, simple lang pag ang isang bagay ay hindi natin nakokontrol, then God is the one controlling it. We only have one vote last election, ang pagsasama sama ng boto ke may dayaan man o wala ay si Lord ang nag organized because He is in control. Ngayon, GMA is our president that only means God let GMA to be our president, IF WE THINK SHE IS CORRUPT OR WE HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST HER, WE MUST COME TO PRAYER TO GOD FOR HIM TO CHANGE OUR GOVERNMENT, SINCE WE BELIEVE THAT PRAYERS ARE POWERFUL ENOUGH AND THERE IS NOTHING IMPOSSIBLE TO HIM. But bro eddie encourages filipinos to be against GMA. Is rebellion God’s will or is it Bro. Eddies will?
   - As of now, bro eddie is no longer act as a pastor of JIL, a vocation of which for decades he hold in his heart as his calling and will of God for him, in that manner I believe it is God’s will kaya nga nagprosper ang JIL eh because it’s God’s will. Pero ngayon ang pagtalikod nya sa “calling” nya ay isang manifestation na hindi na tlga will ng Lord ang gngwa niya. It’s just personal pride and personal will.
   Today, election is fast approaching, all of what God did for Bro Eddie in the past decades are now being used by Bro Eddie to put credentials to himself. The leadership, ideas, and his skill in speeches are all attributed to him and God was put aside. If again it is God’s will, people must not see bro. Eddie as the one who can change the Philippines but it must be God. And God alone.
   Honestly I don’t want to see Bro Eddie lose again this up coming election, there just too many prophecies na hndi nagkatotoo and the God that we exalt has been humiliated by other filipinos for His incapability to let His son win.
   Our God is almighty, he is so powerful that no one in us can comprehend his mind. I believe that being a president is someone’s destiny. It is not aspired. God puts the leader he wants. Ninoy was our hero, he aspired for presidency, he has the ideas and all good qualities of being a leader of his fellow people, but then God did not let him be our President.
   Prophecies are said as the manifestation of our great faith and relationship with God. PROPHECIES ARE MEANT TO COME TRUE. PROPHECIES IN THE BIBLE ALWAYS PROVE HOW MIGHTY GOD IS. BUT PROPHECIES ABOUT BRO EDDIE AND HIS OWN PROPHECIES WERE ALL MEANT TO PROVE THAT HIS WILL IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOD’S WILL.
   We must pray for bro eddie for him to see what he is really doing kase sayang naman kung mababaon siya sa shame brought by his prophecies. He must humble himself before God. Let us pray for this very good leader of us.

   Reply
   • braveheart says:
     March 24, 2010 at 3:29 pm

     Di mo ba alam kung bakit natalo si brother eddie in 2004?? Dahil sa mga taong kagaya mo.. A person who profess to be a Christian but rather vote other candidates with no true moral convictions! Dahil nabibilib sa karunungang pangsanlibutan lamang. Alam mo namang hindi dictador si Lord. He respects our thoughts that is why He is giving us a free will.. God’s perfect will for us to have a country that is progressive and everyone living in harmony and abundance.. But because we choose to believe and support the wrong ones, this is what we become now! God’s permissive will.. He permits things to happen because we fail to see the ways of the Lord.. gusto kasi ng mga kristiyanong kagaya mo na instant happiness kaagad.. Ang pagbabago ng bansa hindi lamang nakasalalay kay bro. eddie kundi sa lahat ng mga Kristiyano. Brother Eddie cannot even truly run a good government if there is no Spiritual backing of all Christians! How can he win if we do not support him? when all the legions of evils are in all out support to their candidate???? Haven’t you heard how the devil works overtime just to prevent the spread of Christianity and morality?? Haven’t you heard we only have two choices in this world? Either you choose God or the devil! Evil or Righteousness! So tell me, among all those candidates, who do you think is for God? at lubos na nakakaintindi sa will ng Panginoon para sa ating bansa??

     Sometimes kasi, people like you forgets that God’s ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts higher than our thoughts. People like you and Oggie here are so bound to all your human ideologies and engrossed with worldly wisdom.. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight (Isiah 5:21)

     Do not deceive yourselves. If anyone of you thinks he is wise by the STANDARDS OF THIS AGE, he should become a fool so he may become wise (I Cor.3:18)

     Sabihin nyo nga sa amin kung sino pinagmamalaki nyo apart from brother Eddie??? and tell me also kung ano na ang nagawa nyo para sa bayan natin aside from being critics??

     Im not a JIL but to Christians like you, nakakahiya kayo! Ano bang maipagmamalaki nyo sa Panginoon?

     Reply
     • braveheart says:
       March 24, 2010 at 3:54 pm

       If Christians fail to see God’s purpose, He can use unbelievers this time for the fulfilment of His promise to our nation. Just the same that if we won’t worship God, He will cause the stones to worship Him instead. Si Kristo na lang ang pag asa ng ating bayan wala ng iba.. Pero hindi naman pwedeng bumaba si Jesus at maging presidente natin, yet, He can put a man like Mosses to be used to turn our nation upside down. Just this once so that His name will be glorified unto all the nations of the world.. During the battle of the Israelites in the time of Mosses, Israelites won if Mosses lifts God’s rod, but if he puts his arm down, they lost. That’s why Joshua and helped him carry the rod up to win the battle. That’s why victory is not achieved with brother eddie alone.. He needs us to back him in prayers and fasting! and our votes! Dahil sino pa ba sa kanila ang pinakamalapit sa Diyos? Idilat nga natin ating mga mata at buksan ating mga puso at isipan, sino pa ba sa kanila ang alam mo na may Diyos sa puso.. If all of them you think are evil, then I would choose the lesser one.. but brother Eddie is not one of them.. and i choose him.. and let God do the rest.. God can do beyond what our mind can conceive.. just have faith!!!

       Reply
3. oggie says:
   March 7, 2010 at 2:32 pm

   Inside Risks 197, CACM 49, 11
   COTS and Other Electronic Voting Backdoors
   Rebecca Mercuri, Vincent J. Lipsio, and Beth Feehan

   During the U.S. 2006 primary election season, there was a flurry of media attention about electronic voting, when it was revealed that Diebold Election Systems had erroneously reported to a testing authority (CIBER) that certain Windows CE operating system files were commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) but in fact also contained customized code. This is important because, remarkably, all versions of the federal voting system guidelines exempt COTS hardware and software from inspection, whereas modified components require additional scrutiny.

   This loophole is anathema to security and integrity. In other critical computer-based devices (e.g., medical electronics or aviation), COTS components may be unit-tested once for use in multiple products, with COTS software typically integration-tested and its source code required for review. In contrast, for voting equipment, this blanket inspection exemption persists, despite having strenuously been protested by numerous scientists, especially in the construction of guidelines authorized by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) [1]. Nevertheless, special interests have prevailed in perpetuating this serious backdoor in the advisory documents used for the nation’s voting system testing and certification programs.

   Indeed, Diebold dismissed the discovered customizations as presenting only “a theoretical security vulnerability that could potentially allow unauthorized software to be loaded onto the system” [2]; a Diebold spokesman commented “for there to be a problem here, you’re basically assuming … you have some evil and nefarious election officials who would sneak in and introduce a piece of software. … I don’t believe these evil elections people exist.” But such naivete is laughable, as there is a long and well-documented history of such “political machines” and operatives in the U.S.

   Uninspected COTS has caused other serious voting equipment problems to go undetected, even if tampering is not an issue, as reported in 2001 to the U.S. House Science Committee by Douglas Jones, when he related a 1998 example of “an interesting and obscure failing [with the Fidlar and Chambers EV 2000] that was directly due to a combination of this exemption and a recent upgrade to the version of Windows being used by the vendor … the machine always subtly but reliably revealed the previous voter’s vote to the next voter.” [3]

   The strong resistance to closing this COTS backdoor was illustrated by the activities of the IEEE’s P1583 Voting System Standards working group, while they were drafting a document to be submitted as input to the Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) Technical Guidelines Development Committee. A Special Task Group (STG) was formed to resolve COTS-related issues in the draft. Although all issues were resolved with strong consent by the STG’s members [4], P1583′s vendor-partisan editing committee unabashedly repeatedly refused (even after having been confronted before the entire working group) to incorporate any of the substantial COTS review requirements into the draft. Therefore, the version of the document released to the EAC still contained the exemption for COTS components, even though the working group had decided otherwise.

   Numerous other aspects of America’s voting equipment certification process are similarly lax. Another P1583 working group member, Stanley Klein, repeatedly pointed out to the EAC that the legacy low 163-hour Mean Time Between Failures rate specified in all versions of the voting system guidelines translated to an election day malfunction probability (potentially resulting in unrecoverable loss of votes) of 9.2% per machine, to no avail. Attempts to require a Common Criteria style evaluation were frustrated. Bizarrely, the guidelines allow for the risky use of wireless transceivers in voting machines, but do not require that the ballot data be provided in a format such that it is independently auditable. And although there is a federal certification process, there is no provision for decertification, even when a major security flaw has been exposed. The fact that any changes, including security-related ones, require recertification, has even been used as an excuse to avoid making needed updates. Indeed, the nature of U.S. elections is such that federal certification, as poor as it is, is not mandatory; one-fifth of the states have chosen to disregard it, some in lieu of even more haphazard and obfuscated examination processes.

   This distressing situation will likely continue until large numbers of citizens, especially those with technical expertise, hold government officials accountable. You can help by communicating with your elected officials, beseeching them to do something about this now.

   Beth Feehan (bfeehan@comcast.net) is a researcher focusing on HAVA implementation issues. Vincent Lipsio (vince@lipsio.com) is a software engineer who specializes in real-time and life-critical systems. Rebecca Mercuri (mercuri@acm.org) is a forensic computing expert who has been researching electronic voting since 1989.

   1. Charles Corry, Stanley Klein, Vincent Lipsio, and Rebecca Mercuri, Comments to the Election Assistance Commission’s Technical Guidelines Development Committee, December 2004. http://www.vote.nist.gov/ECPosStat.htm
   2. Monica Davey, New Fears of Security Risks in Electronic Voting Systems, New York Times, May 12, 2006.
   3. Douglas Jones, Testimony to the U.S. House Science Committee, May 22, 2001. http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/congress.html
   4. IEEE P1583 working group. http://www.Lipsio.com/COTS, http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc38/1583/

   Reply
4. oggie says:
   March 7, 2010 at 2:31 pm

   Inside Risks 183, CACM 48, 9
   Risks of Technology-Oblivious Policy
   Barbara Simons and Jim Horning

   Many readers of this column have tried to influence technology policy and had their advice ignored. Politics is frequently a factor, but another reason for our failure is that we don�t do a good job of explaining the roots of computing-related security and usability issues to non-technical people.

   People who have never written code do not understand how difficult it is to avoid and/or find bugs in software. Therefore, they don’t understand why software patches are so dangerous. They have a hard time believing that it’s possible to conceal malicious code in large programs or insert malware via a software patch. They don’t see why it is so difficult even to detect malicious code in software, let alone locate it.

   The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which became US law in 1998, is illustrative. The most controversial portions of the DMCA, the anti-circumvention and anti-dissemination provisions, did not come into effect until 2000. It was only by chance that we learned why the delay occurred. (Stop reading, and see if you can guess why).

   The delay was included because lawmakers believed that aspects of the DMCA might criminalize work on securing software against Y2K problems. Y2K was not the only software security issue that would require this kind of code analysis, but Congress didn’t know or didn’t care. Computer security experts and cyberlaw professors had not been quiet about the risks of the DMCA. There were several letters, including one signed by a large number of experts in computer security and encryption http://www.cerias.purdue.edu/homes/spaf/WIPO/index.html, warning that the anti-circumvention provisions could criminalize some standard computer security techniques. Our warnings were ignored.

   One consequence of the poorly-drafted DMCA is that the anti-circumvention provisions are now preventing independent experts from inspecting and testing voting machine software to check for bugs or malware. Who would have thought that a law pushed by Hollywood would be used to protect the insecure and secret software deployed in voting machines?

   When the computing community started warning about the risks of current paperless electronic voting machines, we encountered outright hostility from some election officials and policy makers. We were accused of being “fear mongers” and Luddites. On Election Day 2004 a lobbyist for voting machine vendors claimed that “Electronic voting machine issues that have been cited are related to human error, process missteps or unsubstantiated reports.” How would the lobbyist know? And why did anyone believe him, rather than the experts?

   To counter unrealistic claims about the safety or robustness of software, we need analogies that help people gain insight into the complexity of large programs. Analogy is a poor tool for reasoning, but a good analogy can be very effective in developing intuition.

   One possibly useful analogy is the US Tax Code. Americans have some sense of its complexity and the large number of people employed in its interpretation. Tax loopholes are analogous to hidden malicious code or Trojan horses in software.

   The tax code resembles software in other ways as well: It is intended to be precise and to interface with messy realities of the real world. It has been developed in multiple iterations, responding to changing circumstances and requirements. The people who wrote the original version are no longer around. No one understands it in its entirety. It can be hard to infer intent simply by reading a section. There are people who actively seek to subvert it.

   Of course, there are also major differences between the tax code and software. The tax code is relatively “small”; although it runs to several thousand printed pages, Windows XP has 40 million lines of source code. The tax code is interpreted by people, which introduces both the possibility of common-sense intervention and the possibility of human error.

   We have failed to effectively explain the risks of inappropriate, careless, or poorly designed software to the general public, the press, and our policymakers. But good analogies can help us communicate. The issues are too critical for us to be shut out of the debate.

   Barbara Simons (simons@acm.org) is a former president of ACM. Jim Horning (horning@acm.org) is a Chief Scientist at SPARTA, Inc.

   ========================================================

   Reply
5. oggie says:
   March 7, 2010 at 2:31 pm

   Inside Risks 176, CACM 48, 2
   Responsibilities of Technologists
   Peter G. Neumann

   Around the world, our lives are increasingly dependent on technology. What should be the responsibilities of technologists regarding technological and nontechnological issues?

   * Solving real-world problems often requires technological expertise as well as sufficient understanding of a range of economic, social, political, national, and international implications. Although it may be natural to want to decouple technology from the other issues, such problems typically cannot be solved fully by technology alone. They need to be considered in the broader context.

   * Although experts in one area may not be qualified to evaluate detailed would-be solutions in other areas, their own experience may be sufficient to judge the conceptual merits of such solutions. For example, demonstrable practical impossibility or fundamental limitations of the concept, or the existence of serious conflicts of interest of the participants, or an obvious lack of personal and system-wide integrity might be considered as causes for concern.

   * Ideally, we need more open and interdisciplinary examinations of the underlying problems and their proposed solutions.

   The challenge of ensuring election system integrity illustrates these points. The election process is an end-to-end phenomenon whose integrity depends on the integrity of every step in the process. Unfortunately, each of those steps represents various potential weak links that can be compromised in many ways, accidentally and intentionally, technologically or otherwise; each step must be safeguarded from the outset and auditable throughout the entire process.

   Irregularities reported in the 2004 U.S. national election span the entire process, concerning voter registration, disenfranchisement and harassment of legitimate voters, absence of provisional ballots (required by the Help America Vote Act), mishandling of absentee ballots, huge delays in certain precincts, and problems in casting and counting ballots for e-voting as well as other modes of casting and counting votes. Some machines could not be booted. Some machines lost votes because of programming problems, or recorded more votes than voters. Some touch-screen machines reportedly altered the intended vote from one candidate to another. The integrity of the voting technologies themselves is limited by weak evaluation standards, secret evaluations that are paid for by the vendors, all-electronic systems that lack voter-verified audit trails and meaningful recountability, unaudited post-certification software changes, even run-time system or data alterations, and human error and misuse. (Gambling machines are held to much higher standards.) Other risks arise from partisan vendors and election officials. Furthermore, unusually wide divergences between exit polls and unaudited results created question in certain states. [A Diebold agent was suspected of possible tampering with the recount in Ohio, although the situation may be less sinister than that --- albeit irregular.] All of these concerns add to uncertainties about the integrity of the overall election processes.

   Some of you may wonder why, with modern technology, the voting process cannot be more robust. Whether the potential weak links are mostly technological or not, the process can certainly be made significantly more trustworthy. Indeed, it seems to be better in many other countries than in the U.S.; for example, Ireland, India, and the Netherlands seem to be taking integrity challenges seriously. As technologists, we should be helping to ensure that is the case — for example, by participating in the standards process or perhaps by aiding the cause of the Open Voting Consortium. However, the end-to-end nature of the problems includes many people whose accidental or intentional behavior can alter the integrity of the overall process, and thus contains many nontechnological risks.

   Similar concerns also arise in many other computer-related application areas, such as aviation, health care, defense, homeland security, law enforcement, intelligence, and so on — with similar conclusions. In each case, a relevant challenge is that of developing and operating end-to-end trustworthy environments capable of satisfying stringent requirements for human safety, reliability, system integrity, information security, and privacy, in which many technological and nontechnological issues must be addressed throughout the computer systems and operational practices. Overall, technologists need to provide adequate trustworthiness in our socially important information systems, by technological and other means. Research and development communities internationally have much to offer in achieving trustworthy computer-communication systems. However, they also have serious responsibilities to be aware of the other implications of the use of these systems.

   Peter G. Neumann moderates the on-line ACM Risks Forum (http://www.risks.org). Its annotated index (http://www.csl.sri.com/neumann/illustrative.html) includes many cases with technological and nontechnological causes.

   ========================================================

   Reply
6. oggie says:
   March 7, 2010 at 2:30 pm

   Inside Risks 188, CACM 49, 2
   Trustworthy Systems Revisited
   Peter G. Neumann

   System trustworthiness is in essence a logical basis for confidence that a system will predictably satisfy its critical requirements, including (for example) information security, reliability, human safety, fault tolerance, and survivability in the face of wide ranges of adversities (including malfunctions, deliberate attacks, and natural causes).

   Our lives increasingly depend on critical national infrastructures (power, energy, telecommunications, transportation, finance, government continuity, and so on) — all of which in turn depend in varying degrees on the dependable behavior of computer-communication resources, including the Internet and many of its attached computer systems.

   Unless certain information system resources are trustworthy, our critical systems are at serious risk from failures and subversions. Unfortunately, for many of the key application domains, the existing information infrastructures are lacking in trustworthiness. For example, power grids, air-traffic control, high-integrity electronic voting systems, the emerging DoD Global Information Grid, the national infrastructures, and many collaborative and competitive Internet-based applications all need systems that are more trustworthy than we have today.

   In this space, we have frequently considered risks associated with such systems and what is needed to make them more trustworthy. This month’s column takes a higher-level and more intuitive view by considering analogies with our natural environment — expectations for which are rather similar to expectations for trustworthy information systems. For example, pure air and uncontaminated water are vital, as are the social systems that ensure them.

   Although poorly-chosen analogies can be misleading, the analogy with our natural environment seems quite apt. Each of the following bulleted items is applicable to both trustworthy information systems and natural environments.

   * Their critical importance is generally underappreciated until something goes fundamentally wrong — after which undoing the damage can be very difficult if not impossible.

   * Problems can result from natural circumstances, equipment failures, human errors, malicious activity, or a combination of these and other factors.

   * Dangerous contaminants may emerge and propagate, often unobserved. Some of these may remain undetected for relatively long periods of time, whereas others can have immediately obvious consequences.

   * Your well-being may be dramatically impeded, but there is not much you as an individual can do about aspects that are pervasive — perhaps international or even global in scope.

   * Detection, remediation, and prevention require cooperative social efforts, such as public health and sanitation efforts, as well as technological means.

   * Up-front preventive measures can result in significant savings and increases in human well-being, ameliorating major problems later on.

   * Once something has gone recognizably wrong, palliative countermeasures are typically fruitless — too little, too late.

   * As we noted in Optimistic Optimization (CACM, June 2004), long-term thinking is relatively rare. There is frequently little governmental or institutional emphasis on prevention of bad consequences.

   * Many of the arguments against far-sighted planning and proactive remediation are skewed, being based on faulty, narrowly scoped, or short-sighted reasoning.

   * Commercial considerations tend to trump human well-being, with business models sometimes considering protection of public welfare to be detrimental to corporate and enterprise bottom lines.

   In some contexts, pure water is becoming more expensive than oil. Fresh air is already a crucial commodity, especially for people with severe breathing and health problems. Short- and long-term effects of inadequately trustworthy information systems can be similarly severe. Proactive measures are as urgently needed for system trustworthiness as they are for breathable air, clean water, and environmental protection generally. It is very difficult to remediate computer-based systems that were not designed and implemented with trustworthiness in mind. It is also very difficult to remediate serious environmental damage.

   Anticipating and responding to compelling long-term needs does not require extraordinary foresight, whether for air, water, reversing global warming, or trustworthy systems upon which to build our infrastructures. Our long-term well-being — perhaps even our survival — depends on our willingness to consider the future and to take appropriate actions.

   Peter Neumann moderates the ACM Risks Forum. He is Principal Scientist in the Principled Systems Group of the Computer Science Lab at SRI International. This column was inspired by an article by Tim Batchelder, “An Anthropology of Air”, Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, pp. 105–106, November 2005. “Because [air] is negative space, it is difficult to see the value in preserving it.”

   ========================================================

   Reply
7. oggie says:
   March 7, 2010 at 2:29 pm

   Inside Risks 209, CACM 50, 11
   Risks of E-voting
   Matt Bishop and David Wagner

   Electronic voting has spread throughout the U.S. and the world without sufficient attention to reliability, security, or transparency. Today’s e-voting systems use proprietary code, and vendors have often asserted the confidentiality of this code when independent reviews of certified systems were requested. This confidentiality conflicts with the transparency required for public elections.

   In order to provide an independent assessment of the voting systems certified for use in California, Secretary of State Debra Bowen initiated a top-to-bottom review of those e-voting systems. She asked us to recruit a team of experts and gave us access to all the equipment, source code, and technical information that the Secretary of State’s office had.

   The results showed that the systems appeared not to be designed or implemented with security in mind. The design and implementation ignored basic security principles, and we found serious security vulnerabilities in all three vendors’ systems. The security flaws were systemic and surprisingly similar across the three systems.

   For example, malicious code could exploit vulnerabilities in the voting software to spread virally from machine to machine. As a result, when the voting machines return results to election central to count the votes, a virus could infect the county’s election management systems. At the next election, the infected election management systems could then infect every voting machine in the county.

   This virus could be introduced at several points in the process. An attacker could tamper with an e-voting machine while it is stored unattended overnight in a polling place. For some of the systems, a voter could introduce malicious code in under a minute, while voting.

   Many flaws resulted from elementary mistakes such as straightforward buffer overrun vulnerabilities and flawed cryptography. One piece of voting software appends a three-letter suffix to a password and sends this “encrypted” result over the network. Another has encryption keys hard-coded in the source code, meaning the keys are the same for all machines using that software — an obvious security flaw. One of the manufacturers used its own name as a hard-wired password. Our public reports had to be written carefully to convey the depth of the problem without providing a “road map” for attackers.

   We drew several lessons from this exercise.

   First, the national regulatory system has not worked well. Federal testing repeatedly failed to detect flaws in voting systems. Election officials relied in good faith upon these certifications when they purchased, deployed, and used these voting systems. They, and voters, deserve better.

   This should provide a strong impetus to reform the oversight system so that states do not have to bear the cost of securing voting systems one state at a time. Vendors will build whatever the regulatory system allows and the marketplace demands. So far these forces have failed to weed out flawed voting systems.

   Fortunately, the results of the top-to-bottom review give us an opportunity to change the regulatory process to make it effective. Federal officials are currently preparing a major revision of the federal voting standards, and we encourage the computing community to become more involved.

   Secondly, applying technology to solve one problem may introduce other problems. E-voting systems were introduced to eliminate paper and problems such as hanging chads. However, without paper, voters cannot check that their vote is correctly recorded and cannot independently validate vote totals. Thus the solution to one problem introduced another: the violation of a fundamental tenet, that there must be an independent means for verifying results.

   This problem can be mitigated with voter-verified paper records that election officials audit after each election. However, only 16 states currently require this. The security vulnerabilities we found highlight the importance of election auditing: without audits, there may be no way to rebut suspicion of tampering.

   Electronic voting systems form a critical part of the election process. We have far to go to ensure they are a transparent and secure part of that process.

   Matt Bishop (bishop@cs.ucdavis.edu) is a professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of California at Davis. He teaches and does research in computer security and information assurance. David Wagner (daw@cs.berkeley.edu) is a professor in the computer science division at the University of California at Berkeley, a cofounder of the ACCURATE center on voting, and a member of the federal advisory committee charged with helping draft the next-generation voting standard.

   Reply
8. oggie says:
   March 7, 2010 at 2:28 pm

   Inside Risks 169, CACM 47, 7,
   Insider Risks in Elections
   Paul Kocher and Bruce Schneier

   Many discussions of voting systems and their relative integrity have been primarily technical, focusing on the difficulty of attacks and defenses. This is only half of the equation: it’s not enough to know how much it might cost to rig an election by attacking voting systems; we also need to know how much it would be worth to do so. Our illustrative example uses the most recent available U.S. data, but is otherwise is not intended to be specific to any particular political party.

   In order to gain a clear majority of the House in 2002, Democrats would have needed to win 13 seats that went to Republicans. According to Associated Press voting data, Democrats could have added 13 seats by swinging 49,469 votes. This corresponds to changing just over one percent of the 4,310,198 votes in these races and under 1/1000 of the 70 million votes cast in contested House races. The Senate was even closer: switching 20,703 votes in Missouri and New Hampshire would have provided Democrats with the necessary two seats.

   Of course, it isn’t possible to anticipate exactly how much fraud or undetected error would alter the winner of each race. It would also be suspicious if Democrats won 13 districts by exactly one vote. As a result, a modest number of additional votes would need to be changed. In 2002, fraud that changed 2% of the votes in a few contested races (or 1/250 of the total votes) would have completely changed the balance of power in Congress.

   According to the Federal Election Commisssion, some House candidates spent up to $8 million in 2002, although expenditures of $3 to $4 million were typical. Thus, it is easily worth $3 million for a candidate to change a race from a statistical dead heat into a certain victory. Each 1% that is added to a candidate’s odds of victory (and hence each 1% removed from the opponent’s odds) is worth $60,000.

   The outcomes of the 13 closest Democratic losses in 2002 would have changed by swinging an average of 3,805 votes each. If shifting 5,000 votes is worth $3 million, each vote is worth $600. A discount is required to reflect the additional legal risks and moral problems involved in committing fraud, although these effects depend on the people and situations involved. The following analysis makes the conservative assumption of $400 per vote.

   So, what is it worth to compromise a voting machine? Suppose one machine collects 250 votes, with roughly half for each candidate in a close election. Rigging the machine to swing all of its votes in one race would be worth $50,000. To avoid detection, fraudsters may be less greedy. Swinging 10% of the opposition’s votes on any given machine would be worth $5,000 in a close race. Thus, it is necessary to assume that attacks against individual voting machines are a serious risk, particularly if a few dozen machines could be affected. For example, machine tampering is worthwhile if machines are stored without strong physical security.

   Election data is also useful for understanding the threats against voting machine designs. Any voting machine type deployed in 25% of precincts would register enough votes that malicious software could swing the balance of power without creating detectable statistical abnormalities. According to the FEC, Congressional candidates together legally raised over $600 million in 2002. One might conservatively estimate that stealing control over the House of Representatives is worth over $100 million to the party that would otherwise lose. (Of course, official candidates and parties need not be involved or even aware of fraud; unscrupulous “supporters” can make the arrangements.) In practice, the threats are even greater, since one attack could affect many elections.

   Who are the adversaries? Elections face threats from system developers and election insiders, foreign governments, radical extremists, partisan operatives, and others. Voting systems must be able to withstand attackers with extraordinary creativity and dedication — much more so than the rather simplistic and unmotivated creators of viruses and worms — because there are strong rational (though perverse) motives for election fraud. Compared with violence and other illegal activities extremists use, electoral fraud is much safer and much more likely to have a desired effect.

   The evidence clearly shows voting systems must be designed to counter very well-funded and sophisticated opponents, including those with massive financial resources and the ability to join design teams, infiltrate manufacturing facilities, fabricate malicious integrated circuits, tamper with compilers, and mount a wide range of other attacks. Checks and balances, such as local party observers, help against some attacks but not others. The threats are real, and openness and verifiability are critical to election security.

   Paul Kocher heads Cryptography Research Inc. (paul@cryptography.com); Bruce Schneier is CTO of Counterpane http://www.schneier.com.

   ========================================================

   Reply
9. oggie says:
   March 7, 2010 at 2:27 pm

   rom: http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/insiderisks04.html

   Inside Risks 173, CACM 47, 11, November 2004
   Evaluation of Voting Systems
   Poorvi L. Vora, Benjamin Adida, Ren Bucholz, David Chaum, David L. Dill, David Jefferson, Douglas W. Jones, William Lattin, Aviel D. Rubin, Michael I. Shamos, and Moti Yung

   The recent spate of security issues and allegations of “lost votes” in the US demonstrates the inadequacy of the standards used to evaluate our election systems. The current standards (the FEC Voting Systems Standards) along with the revision being developed by IEEE 1583 ([Deutsch and Berger, CACM, October 2004]) are poor from another perspective: they establish a single pass/fail threshold for all systems, thereby eliminating incentives for existing suppliers to improve their products and rendering the market unattractive to new entrants. Moreover, they fail to precisely define the properties that should be required of a voting system. Instead, the standards rely on specific designs that are more than 15 years old. These legacy designs handicap promising new approaches, such as the various voter-verified printing schemes. New systems are unnecessarily burdened, while their substantial advantages go unrecognized.

   A set of well-defined properties would encourage the development and commercialization of better voting systems, especially when combined with objective ways to measure performance with respect to those properties. The overall result would then resemble the quantitative Federal ratings for automobiles, where features such as vehicle safety and fuel efficiency form a basis for Consumer Reports-style comparative tables. Similarly, specific performance rating guidelines for different aspects of voting systems would provide meaningful metrics upon which system developers could compete. Decision makers, both regulatory and purchasing, would then be free to establish their own minimums for these metrics. Such a rating system can thus cleanly disentangle the development of the technical evaluation process from the various political and regulatory processes.

   The Chair of the EAC (US Federal Election Assistance Commission), DeForest B. Soaries, Jr., recently asked the technical community for assistance in determining a new standard. This community is no stranger to the area of voting system properties and standards: a number of authors have tried to characterize requirements, and, in 2002, the Workshop on Election Standards and Technology, sponsored by NSF, AAAS, and CalTech/MIT, addressed similar issues.

   The performance properties for voting systems might include essentially the following: integrity of the votes (both voter verification, “I can check that my vote was captured correctly” and public verification, “anyone can check that all recorded votes were counted correctly”); ballot secrecy (both voter privacy and resistance to vote selling and coercion); robustness (including resistance to denial of service attacks); usability and accuracy (including access for the disabled); and transparency (both of mechanism and election data).

   The inherent differences in system architectures can be characterized abstractly on two levels. First, architectures are compared by how well each can satisfy the overall properties. Then, they are characterized by the kinds of building blocks they need and by the assumptions they need to make about those blocks. At a more concrete level, a standard should provide an objective way to measure, for a particular actual system implementation, how well its building block instances ensure the properties required of them by the architecture of that system.

   Suitable performance evaluation and measurement standards already exist for several types of building blocks: FCC 47CFR shielding and emissions, FIPS rating of tamper-resistant equipment, and the Common Criteria for software. For some properties, objective and repeatable measures of overall performance can be defined. For example, the accuracy of a user interface in capturing voter intent can be experimentally tested in a practical and repeatable manner, with the result expressed as an error rate. “Tiger team” and code review security evaluation (while certainly not foolproof) should play a role along with ordinary reliability testing. Ideally, this process of developing the properties and characterizing architectures would be exceptionally transparent, such as that for Internet RFPs, and would be subject to appropriate peer review. The refinement and adaptation of the measurement techniques would proceed as an ongoing parallel activity.

   The EAC’s request for assistance is a unique chance to positively affect the quality of our election systems, by tackling this new scientific and technical challenge and building a solid foundation. The aim should be to impact the 2006 elections, though the timing is already tight: the EAC is required to present technical recommendations to the House Administration Committee in April 2005. We, the technical community, are faced with a significant need, a rare opportunity, and a growing urgency for coordinated technical effort in this area. (See Voting Systems Performance Rating at http://www.vspr.org. for further details.)

   ========================================================

   =======================================================

   Inside Risks 167, CACM 47, 5, May 2004
   Artificial Stupidity
   Peter J. and Dorothy E. Denning

   (The Year is now 2100.)

   “Great-Grandma, my history teacher mentioned computers today. What were they?” So asked Ancath.

   “Yes, I remember them. They were among us when I was a child. My own grandfather was among the original inventors. They were everywhere and calculated everything. They were part of life. The biggest invention of all was called The Internet. It connected all computers in our homes, our towns, our cities, and even our colonies on Moon, Mars, and Europa.”

   “But Great-Grandma, what happened to it all?”

   “It was a sad story. From the beginning, the inventors dreamed of building computers that would be like people — thinking, reasoning, understanding. They predicted they would achieve such artificial intelligences by 2030, when they expected to be able to build computers the size and power of a brain. Yet, no matter how hard they tried, it seemed that every computer did really stupid things, making mistakes that injured people, confusing their identities, or putting them out of business. In their endless quest for an artificial intelligence, the inventors started with simple things for everyday business and personal life: automated chauffeurs, pilots, radar cops, toll collectors, voice- menus, receptionists, call directors, reservation agents, help technicians, and complaint specialists; but these computers were invariably uncompassionate, insensitive, and error-prone. At first they thought the problem was a lack of computing power and an insufficient experience database. But by 2025, they had more computing power than any brain and more data than could be stored in a brain; that did not help. Believing that the problem was too few computers connected, the inventors offered their talents to the US Government, which in 2025 announced its intention to fully automate. They automated entire bureaucratic departments, replacing staffs of thousands with a single computer that did the same job. When the first chip containing the algorithms of government came off the production line, tongue-in-cheek politicians announced it as an historic breakthrough in the long quest to shrink government. They hailed it as an important step toward efficiency and cost-saving. Hundreds of thousands of Federal workers were laid off in 2030 when the automated government system came on.”

   “That sounds pretty incredible, Great-Grandma!” said Ancath. “But what happened to it?”

   “As it turned out, they had created not artificial intelligence, but artificial stupidity. Soon the automated DEA started closing down pharmaceutical companies saying they were dealing drugs. The automated FTC closed down the Hormel Meat Company, saying it was purveying spam. The automated DOJ shipped Microsoft 500,000 pinstriped pants and jackets, saying it was filing suits. The automated Army replaced all its troops with a single robot, saying it had achieved the Army of One. The automated Navy, in a cost saving move, placed its largest-ever order for submarines with Subway Sandwiches. The FCC issued an order for all communications to be wireless, causing thousands of AT&T installer robots to pull cables from overhead poles and underground conduits. The automated TSA flew its own explosives on jetliners, citing data that the probability of two bombs on an airplane is exceedingly small.

   “Within ten years, the automated Federal Government had made so many mistakes, bankrupted so many businesses, and messed up so many lives that a great economic depression came upon the world. People everywhere were out of work; pollution, crime, homelessness, and hardship ran rampant. Finally, in 2050 a group of graybeard programmers — who remembered enough about the programming of the automated Government system — created a solution. They built an Automated Citizen, which they trained to be helpless and adoring of authorities, and they installed one on every Internet port. Soon the automated government was completely occupied with taking care of automated citizens; and it left all the people alone. With the Government out of their lives, people forged a new, free society, enabling us to celebrate this lovely Christmas here today.”

   “Oh Great-Grandma, that is so wonderful! What a great story and happy ending! I love you!”

   …

   ABOT1: I think I’m finally getting the hang of programming inter-citizen interactions. What do you think?

   ABOT2: It is stupid.

   Peter J. Denning is Chairman of the Computer Science Department at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is a past president of ACM. pjd@nps.navy.mil

   Dorothy E. Denning is a Professor of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. dedennin@nps.navy.mil

   =======================================================

   Reply
10. oggie says:
    March 7, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    WORLD NEWS:
    January 25th, 2010
    Philippine Bishop Not Yet Satisfied With Guarantees Of Reliability, Integrity Of Automated May 2010 Election
    AHN Staff

    Manila, Metro Manila, Philippines (AHN) – Attendees of The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines are not yet convinced about the reliability and integrity of the forthcoming automated May 2010 election. The Filipino bishops, who are attending the conference’s 100th plenary assembly in Manila, issued their concern in a two-page statement released Sunday.

    The bishop came out with the statement despite assurances from the Philippine government and the consortium that will provide the technology for the country’s first national automated election on May 10, 2010 that the system is hack-proof and the results could not be manipulated electronically.

    The bishops pointed out having automated polls will not result in the election of good public officials.

    The bishop’s statement said, “We are asked to first articulate the key values and principles by which we can evaluate individual candidates across political parties. This is the kind of politics in which Gospel values form the bases of our choice of candidates and not party or family loyalties.”

    The bishop also encouraged Filipino voters not to be influenced by election surveys or political advertisements, but they should rather follow their conscience after prayers and discernment. They also ditched the chances of winning as a criterion for picking candidates.

    In the wake of pre-election violence – like the Maguindanao Massacre – which influences the decision of some voters, the CBCP said private armies, loose firearms and political dynasties are obstacles to the growth of a true democratic system.

    The CBCP suggested that there should be a plan B which could be put in place quickly if the automated election system fails.
    Article © AHN – All Rights Reserved

    Reply
11. oggie says:
    March 7, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Computer Professionals Call for Technical Review of Automated Election System, Not a Hacking Contest

    * automated elections
    * comelec
    * elections 2010
    * ICT4dPeople

    “A scientifically rigorous analysis and not just a hacking or cracking contest should be done on the Automated Election System (AES),” said Rick Bahague, the National Coordinator of the Computer Professionals’ Union (CPU) as a response on a statement issued by Sen. Allan Cayetano which proposed an amount of Php 100 million to a person who can successfully hack the AES.

    Bahague stresses the need to address the issues on insider threats, software programming limitations, network vulnerabilities and voter verifiable audit-trail in order to assure the Filipinos the credibility, reliability and integrity of the AES.

    “Instead of awarding the Php 100 million to the successful hacker of the AES, Sen. Cayetano should propose that this budget be allotted to gather and mobilize Filipino computer scientists and professionals to asses the AES’s security, accessibility, usability, reliability, accuracy and protection of ballot secrecy,” adds Bahague. “We are not trying to catch a fugitive such that a reward money is needed.”

    The AutoMagic Election System, a paper published by CPU (www.cp-union.com), cites a “Top to Bottom Review” of the AES conducted by the State of California in 2007. The review required a scientifically rigorous analysis of its AES including: analysis and testing of security features; review and analysis of relevant source code for the AES software and firmware; review of the vendor’s system documentation and specifications; independent examinations and testing of the certified and similar versions of the system; review of available data related to the actual deployment and implementation of the system; and testing and observation to evaluate accessibility features for voters with disabilities and alternative language requirements.

    This kind of review would require collaboration between vendors, the COMELEC and third party reviewers.

    CPU states that a transparent, credible, fair and accurate AES can only be achieved if the following are considered: technical assessments on the AES; the AES should be reviewed by a large number of outside security experts with knowledge in computer security and cryptography; and the source code of the system should be open and available to the public. Furthermore, the AES should have voter-verifiable audit trails for reference. It should accurately capture the voters’ intent to actual tally. The AES should be secured such that ballot secrecy is protected and tampering is made difficult. It should be able to effectively handle a large number of voters and it should release report faster than the manual elections.

    “AES should be analyzed following appropriate test plans to point out its vulnerabilities but even with a good system, a trusted agency that runs the elections is a prerequisite for it being transparent, fair and credible,” concludes Bahague.

    The Computer Professionals’ Union (CPU) is a nationwide organization of computer professionals, students and enthusiasts working in advancing information and communications technology for the people.

    Reference:
    Rick Bahague rick at cp-union dot com 09178840096

    Reply
12. oggie says:
    March 7, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    To vote or not to vote — that’s the question!

    To be bought or not to be bought — that’s another question!

    Unless it can be proven clearly scientifically with all undeniable proofs (e.g., mathematically, statistically, computationally etc.), the reliability, credibility, and integrity of the upcoming AutoMagic Election Stupidity are highly questionable and very debatable issues and such nagging problems for academics like me who has many research colleagues in the computer and computational science and engineering in Utopia Academia!!!

    Try to do your own research regarding these issues, particularly, on the recent AutoMagic Election Stupidity of the US Presidential elections!!!

    A sample below of such question posed by academics:

    ***********************************************

    Inside Risks 166, CACM 47, 4

    Coincidental Risks

    by Jim Horning

    The story of the Aceville elections has received some attention in the national press, but it is worth considering from a Risks perspective. This column is based on reports by AP (Affiliated Press, Unusual Election Results in Ohio Town, 2/30/04) and Rueters (Losers Question Ohio Election, 2/30/04). The Aceville, OH, municipal elections last February — the city’s first time using the SWERVE electronic voting system — led to the election of the alphabetically first candidate in all 19 races. This is an astonishing coincidence. Furthermore, every winning candidate, and Measure A, garnered 100% of the votes counted.

    “I am extremely gratified by this mandate,” said mayor-elect Neuman E. Alfred, who received 7,215 votes in a town with 7,213 registered voters. “This is the greatest electoral landslide since the re-election of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.”

    Byron Augusta, CEO of Advanced Automatic Voting Machines (AAVM), which supplied the SWERVE system, denied that there was anything suspicious about the coincidence that Alfred was also the AAVM technician in charge of the new voting machines. “We are confident of the integrity of our employees, which is reflected in their unblemished record of electoral success. Reports that Alfred installed undocumented `software patches’ the day before the election are completely unfounded. We could prove this to you, except that the machines now contain the software upgrade that Alfred installed the day after the election. Anyhow, our software was once certified tamper-proof by the Federal Election Commission. Any suggestion of hanky-panky is scurrilous and un-American. We were unquestionably the low-cost bidder.”

    Ohio Supervisor of Elections Ava Anheuser expressed no surprise that the alphabetically first candidate won every race. “Don’t you believe in coincidence?” she asked. “This is an example of Adam Murphy’s Law: `If it’s logically possible, sooner or later it’s bound to happen.’ AAVM downloaded the totals from the voting machines three times. There’s nothing else to recount.”

    Rueters reported that several voters claimed to have voted for losing candidates, including mayoral candidate Zeke Zebronski, who said, “I know this election was crooked. I voted for myself three times, and still got no votes.” However, the Aceville Advertiser conducted an investigation and concluded that the complaints were the work of “a small group of out-of-town academic Luddites with a paper fetish,” and “an even smaller group of agitators for `alphabetic equality’.” “They should remember that `America’ starts and ends with A,” chided Advertiser Editor-in-Chief Ada Augusta.

    Pundits are divided on whether this election was a statistical fluke, or is the harbinger of a statewide, or even national, trend. But many politicians are taking no chances. The Democratic Party is scrambling to find an A presidential candidate. “We just don’t see how Clark or Dean can beat Bush in this environment,” said party spokeswoman April Brown. The newly-renamed All American Party’s entire Ohio slate has filed to legally change their names, to Aaron Aaren, Abigail Aaren, etc. “It’s like one big family,” said party secretary Absalom Aaren, “and we expect to do very well in the next election.”

    The American Association of the Mentally Challenged has pressed for national adoption of the SWERVE system. Spokeswoman Ada Augusta stressed that “This is the only available system that guarantees that your vote will be counted, whether you can cast it or not. And it will bring jobs to Aceville.”

    Measure A provided tax-exempt bond funding for the Aceville Automation Park, which will house new headquarters for both AAVM and the Advertiser.

    On a lighter note, the American Automobile Association was elected Dog Catcher, even though it wasn’t on the ballot. “This seems to be the first time a write-in candidate has been elected without any write-ins,” said an AAA insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    Regular readers of “Inside Risks” know that there is an important distinction between coincidence and causality. The fact that A preceded B does not mean that A caused B. The order of the candidates probably didn’t influence enough voters to change Aceville’s landslide results. However, “out of an abundance of caution,” election officials should have followed the advice of People for Randomized Alphabetic Ballots (PRAY4Ps). Putting names on the ballot in random order preserves faith in the fairness of the election. Of course, it is still possible for a random permutation to leave names in alphabetical order. Wouldn’t that be a coincidence? I’d be happy to Risk It.

    Jim Horning is a member of the American Association for April Foolishness, and a co-founder of PRAY4Ps.

    ========================================================

    Reply
13. oggie says:
    January 19, 2010 at 5:52 pm

    Aside from poverty, and graft and corruption in government, a very big problem the Philippines is its debt servicing. As we know, our country is practically an economic colony of the Superpower hegemonic USA, since the time it was taken from the Spanish during the Spanish-American War. Our society and culture is practically Hollywoodized, and even the Evangelical religion is so influenced by the Utopia Pax Americana.

    Can Bro. Eddie bring our country out of the imperialistic clutches of its colonizer? And help our country be delivered from economic slavery to the American economy?

    Reply
    • curious reader says:
      March 6, 2010 at 12:28 am

      Hi there oggie .. I hope your still around even after how many months of this thread being idle.

      your posts are really impressive and proves to come from an intellectual mind… mind that thinks and analyze…

      now.. if you are not for Bro. Eddie.. whose your presidential bet then? …convince me to vote for him/her, I’m sure you’ve already thought about it.. If you will not go for Bro Eddie … whose the blessed candidate that made it through your analytical mind and passed all your standards?… I’m sure that you will vote for that person because you are so convince that he/she can solve all the issues that you’ve raised in this thread..I’m also sure that .. that person is more “christian” than Bro. Eddie right?

      So.. convince me to vote for your candidate…please..

      I can also raise issues, argue and discuss things about biblical principles ….. But in a crucial time like this.. I’d rather come to the Lord with an open heart… look beyond the things that are natural… and find where the Hand of the Lord is moving… it’s the fate of my beloved country, the future of my children and the generations to come. So if you know a candidate who is more Godly and trembles at the feet of the Lord… tell me please…. if none… then please explain the objective of your posts.

      Reply
14. oggie says:
    January 19, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    We should be very careful of hero worship, especially in political and religious leaders!!!

    Reply
15. oggie says:
    January 16, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    Bro. Eddie should be like Daniel as not to bow nor kowtow to any Nebuchadnezar who would control his decision making process. He should be like Daniel to pray and wait for God’s guidance in leading his people.

    Reply
16. oggie says:
    January 16, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    from: http://www.bibleed.com/bibleteachings/pamphlets/politics.htm#9

    For the true Christian, nothing is more important than the coming Kingdom and our personal preparation for it.

    A Prime Example: the Apostle Paul

    The apostle Paul is just one of many examples of disciples who followed this teaching of their Master. He was involved in politics as much as any man could be. As Saul of Tarsus, he advanced his career by persecuting the followers of Jesus. He was an energetic member of the most active party in the Jewish political world and was almost certainly the holder of a key party office, a kind of roving representative of the Sanhedrin (the top governing body of the Jews in the first century AD). He may even have been a member of the Sanhedrin itself, even though he was still comparatively young. Yet this same man was completely changed by his conversion to Christianity. Once he became a disciple of Christ, his only ambitions in life were, as he put it, to “win Christ” and to “attain unto the resurrection of the dead” (Philippians 3:8,11). As an active disciple of Christ, Paul had no time for anything else. He willingly let go a promising political career to devote himself wholly to Jesus.

    As we read Paul’s words, it is important to remember that he was an inspired apostle. He wrote as the mouthpiece of Christ and his words are part of the inspired Scriptures. He told of many aspects of the true Christian life, including this issue of whether or not we should become politically engaged in our own day. He said that his words were a matter of commandment – not just some kind of optional advice as to whether we follow the example of Jesus or not. Rather, as he put it in his Letter to the Philippians:

    “Let us hold true to what we have attained. Brethren, join in imitating me, and mark those who so live as you have an example in us.” (Philippians 3:16-17)

    Paul warned that there would always be those who refused to behave like Jesus and the apostles; and he characterized them very accurately for us:

    “For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things .” (3:18-19)

    Those who are more interested in the things of this present world are the enemies of Christ, however hard this may appear to be. But for those who, like Jesus, look for a kingdom “from another place”, Paul’s reminder is a great comfort, and a helpful guide to what our Christian outlook on the modern world should be.

    “But our commonwealth (citizenship) is in heaven, and from it we await a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself.” (3:20-21)

    True Citizenship

    The Christian’s allegiance is to Jesus Christ as God’s appointed king. “Our citizenship”, for the time being, is in heaven, where Jesus is. We know he will return to this earth to fulfil all God’s promises which are centered in him. These promises, given first to the fathers of the Jewish race like Abraham and David, explain that God intends to center His worldwide Kingdom in Jerusalem, with His laws improving the lot of the world’s population. He sent Jesus to prepare for this time by overcoming sin and death, and promising life and immortality to all who follow him. The political powers of the earth, as the Bible tells us so clearly, are helpless to improve the earth and to bring about the glorious transformation which God has sworn to make.

    Psalm 72 speaks of the wonderful things Christ will do at his return. “He shall …” it says, as it records a time of prosperity and peace, of justice and righteousness that the Son of God will bring about on this earth. This is the manifesto worth voting for and giving all of our time and energy to. When he comes it will be the time spoken of by the apostle John:

    “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever.” (Revelation 11:15)

    Allegiance to Christ

    In the meantime, the true Christian belongs wholly to Christ, not half-heartedly to this passing world. If he or she is wise, they will give their allegiance to no-one else. Only one man who has ever lived is worthy of such confidence and trust: only Jesus Christ is capable of always doing the right thing and of consistently making the best decisions on our behalf.

    It stands to reason that we cannot faithfully serve two masters. So let us make our choice between Christ and the leaders of this world. And if we really want results on which we can depend – peace of mind now, and eternal happiness to come – let us choose Christ as our representative and cast our vote for him, and him alone.

    Reply
17. oggie says:
    January 16, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    The people should pursue the rule by principles, not the rule by personalities. Hopefully, by laws based on the ethical and moral principles, like in the Judeo-Christian principles, from which the constitutions and laws of many democratic governments are based upon. And leaders should not be put above the laws, since if they will be put on pedestals as if they are some infallible popes, the abuses of power and authority would lead to other forms of corruptions that can decay and devolve a nation!

    Reply
18. oggie says:
    January 16, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    You would know what it is to fight a dictatorship or a stupid leadership if you were in the frontlines during the EDSA I and EDSA II Peaceful Power Revolutions. Unfortunately, the heroines from those politically changing revolutions both turned out to be dismally, disappointingly, and disillusioningly failures of what they were supposed to be fighting for the Filipinos, since the country has not really significantly improved from its previous situations. The cancer of corruptions especially in the government have never been excised from our cultural psyche. What we have now are the same differences, if not, much worse than those situations during the Marcos’ fascist regime!

    When will the Filipinos ever learn to transcend from its historical lessons?

    It seems that the Filipinos are so afflicted with some kind of amnesia or alzheimer’s disease of its historical lessons, particularly, on graft and corruption of its kleptocratic and kakistocratic governement!!

    Reply
    • Vince says:
      January 18, 2010 at 8:33 am

      Bro. Eddie himself was a fighter against dictatorship. And he is one of those people who have been imprisoned because of that.

      Reply
      • oggie says:
        January 19, 2010 at 11:57 am

        Ironically, many of those who fought Marcos’ dictatorship, when they came into power, were worse than Marcos’ dictatorship. Many of those who fought the very evil they despised became the very evil they fought.

        Case in point:

        One very vocal critic and activist against Marcos’ fascism is the former powerbroker of the communists in UP. He was imprisoned in Bicutan, already slated to be executed by Marcos, but when he became president of UP, after he played polticis with Erap, wowowowowwwww!!! He was more than fascistic and dictatorial than Marcos, and only he and his croonies aggrandized their powers, positions, and possessions at the expense of the people.

        In short, there are many Machiavillian villains, who pretend to fight for the people’s rights and freedoms, but when they will come to power, wwwowowowwww, with their philosophy of

        “The end justifies the means”

        they can be worse than the very evil they fought before. And that case I just mentioned, he is not the only one among many communists who were imprisoned by Marcos, but when they came to power, they have been worse than the evils they fought!!!

        Indeed, Lord Acton is so correct to lament about human corruptiveness with his famous:

        “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!”

        And this is an example of another evil messianic/utopian demagogue who promised the moon and the stars, but only deliver more chaoses:

        http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/01/18/nearly_half_polled_say_obama_not_delivering_on_promises/

        Reply
19. oggie says:
    January 16, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    Clearly, you didn’t experience Marcos’ Martial Law dictatorship! Either you were not yet born or too young when he was ousted in power. With his absolute power, the Philippines was like being under a Hitler with his autocratic power. And if Filipinos forget that legacy, that can repeat again, if there will be no democratic checks and balances of abuses of power, which may happen to any leader and in any organization or country. That’s why, we should never, never, never forget lessons from the past, because repeating them would only mean we would deserve what we would get!

    Reply
    • Vince says:
      January 18, 2010 at 8:32 am

      Of course I didn’t experience it. But I was already human before People Power 1.:) And I still have some glimpse of my memories on that despite that I was still too young.

      I would fear Martial Law all the more with all other candidates, than Bro.Eddie.

      Reply
      • oggie says:
        January 19, 2010 at 12:00 pm

        Anybody who will become the president has the power to declare Martial Law, be it justified or not!

        Reply
      • oggie says:
        January 19, 2010 at 12:03 pm

        It was even speculated that GMA has been considering to declare Martial Law by creating some chaos, so that she can perpetuate herself in power!!!

        Power is so addictive, more potent than an aphrodisiac, said one politician. The tendency to be corrupted is an old as Lucifer’s temptation before his fall!!

        Reply
20. Vince says:
    January 15, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    “Those who forget the past are cursed and so bound to repeat it!!!

    What we can learn from history is that we don’t really learn anything at all — we can keep repeating it.

    If we don’t learn from the miserable mistakes of the past, then we are most likely continue the vicious cycles of our history!!

    We should learn from earlier examples and models to avoid repeating the same stupid mistakes we did in the past. Else, we would deserve what we will get …”

    Ans. So, what would it be, to repeat Biblical history or to repeat your “Nazi Example’s” history? As far as I know, Hitler IS NOT A RELIGIOUS LEADER.”

    If you are talking about the Popes, many popes has been extremely corrupt even in the early years of Christianity after the recognition of the Roman empire as their religion which is predominantly Catholics.

    Bro.Eddie’s situation is totally different.
    First, JIL though one of the biggest group, definitely they are not the biggest. And still remains nominal.
    Secondly, Bro.Eddie is a Christian. And I believe you and I would agree that your example of person is not.
    Third, Bro.Eddie was evil who found God. While the other one is supposed to be following GOd yet rebelled with God.
    Fourth, Bro.Eddie is not running for Government for religious reasons to proliferate his group JIL, he is running for moral change in politics.

    Now, if you are afraid of “ala-martial law” style of governance and is all about religion, then I believe you wrong. I really don’t see it as part of the plan of Bangon Pilipinas. Furthermore, I believe Filipinos know that they can overthrow an abusive president and I believe Bro.Eddie knows that.

    Well for me, comparing Bro.Eddie with the pope and Nazi leader Hitler is a non-comparable matter. I would rather compare him with the kings of Israel who walks rightly in ways of the Lord.
    .-= Vince´s last blog ..Clothed With Humility =-.

    Reply
21. oggie says:
    January 14, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    The statements below contradicts Bro. Eddie’s being an “ordinary” person — i.e., he is extra-ordinary!!!

    “Let’s go and check who is Bro. Eddie. Bro. Eddie is the CEO of Zoe TV. He is a businessman, the CEO/Senor Pastor of Jesus Is Lord, the CEO of Bangon Pilipinas Political Party, an economist by profession, a former activist, a professor of Polytechnic of the Philippines for years without asking for any payment. A student of law in UP College of Law.

    Let me just make this clear. Bro. Eddie is not a dumb candidate. If the late President Cory Aquino, a plain housewife was able to survive several cou attempts, I believe Bro. Eddie stand a FAAAAR better chance against it. Bro. Eddie is a man with experience in leading people. We are not talking about leading a few hundreds, we are talking about millions of people.”

    Reply
    • Ptr. Vince says:
      January 15, 2010 at 9:51 pm

      Well, if you believe he’s not ordinary, then it would elevate him to have more qualifications isn’t it?

      Having such experiences and background is enough to hold a position of the the president.

      Reply
    • Vince says:
      January 15, 2010 at 10:05 pm

      Furthermore, I am referring to the human nature of being ordinary and not ordinary in the position.

      Reply
22. oggie says:
    January 14, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Being a religious leader entering the bloody, ugly, and dirty political arena, he is walking on a very tight rope, and also like walking on thin shells. Any slight misstep would really make him fall down to compromises in one form or another. We are living in a very imperfect and unstable world, and other than Christ, our true Messiah, no political messiah can really bring in some kind of utopia without possibly falling into convenient compromises for pragmatic purposes of political efficiency and effectivity, as the path of least resistance.

    Unless the religious/political leader would be like a Joseph or Daniel in character, it would be not surprising if they would fall into compromises that can smear his integrity and credibility!

    Reply
    • Ptr. Vince says:
      January 15, 2010 at 9:54 pm

      K.Ogs, even if you are not in politics, Christians should be living in way as if walking in a tight rope. Even if we are just an ordinary member or a leader, all of us should walk in way fitting to be called Christians.

      Yun lang, medyo mas kapunapuna if he is in politics. But such a lifestyle is not new to Bro.Eddie since he has been a leader of one of the biggest religious group in our country. He has been walking on a tight rope long time ago.

      Reply
      • oggie says:
        January 16, 2010 at 6:03 pm

        The tight rope walk of leadership has significant repercussions and impacts on nation’s life and history, not only during the regime of the leader, but can even extend after his regime.

        Reply
23. oggie says:
    January 14, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Regarding the answer:

    “Concerning his statements which contradicts to the faith that he profess, well, Bro. Eddie is just an ordinary person. He commits mistakes. Who hasn’t? I believe even those who criticize him committed mistakes too. To his critics who attacks him with this, “let him who have not committed a mistake throw the first stone at him.” ”

    Comments:

    Being the Head Pastor (ala the “pope”??) of the JIL does not make Bro. Eddie an “ordinary” person!!!!!! Leadership of such big denomination can not be easily done by just an “ordinary” person. To have a command and authority over his underlings would not make him “ordinary”.

    Being a leader of a big Evangelical denomination should make the leader be very careful of their public and recorded statements, which surely can have and give significant impacts on the hearers. Remember the power of words, especially over those who are ruled over.

    One’s integrity and credibility as religious leader, as well as political leader, should be upheld to the highest standards and premiums. Else, if a leader has such problems in the area of integrity and credibility, his leadership is so doubtful and dishonorable. Many religious and political leaders, like in the US, lost their prestigious positions, e.g., in presidential impeachments, when they fell from such high standards.

    Committing mistakes are so much part and parcel of our fallen humanity. The crux of the matter is what kind of mistakes one commits. Egregious evil mistakes should not qualify anybody aspiring for leadership positions.

    Proverbs 14:34
    RIGHTEOUSNESS EXALTETH a nation: but sin [is] a reproach to any people.

    Just because we are imperfect human beings so as to commit mistakes should not be used an a very convenient excuse to say commit egregiously evil crimes, especially in leadership positions!!

    Reply
    • Vince says:
      January 15, 2010 at 10:12 pm

      So let’s us say Bro.Eddie is guilty of making wrong statements… Then let him who is not guilty throw the first stone.

      I think the main problem with Christians is making their leader as the ultimate model. The Bible teaches us to focus on Christ. Church leaders, denominational leaders, all kinds of religious leaders are simply human.

      Again, being “righteous” or “living righteously” DOESN’T MEAN “living perfectly”, or being “perfect”.

      You are right in saying to the highest standards. But that’s not only applicable to leaders, but to each Christians. If we will only put that for the leaders, it would imply that members could do everything they want and that they can live a carnal life isn’t it?

      Does living righteously was only given to leaders? It was given to leader then to each member. Just like Moses was instructed and pass it to the Israelites.

      Reply
      • oggie says:
        January 16, 2010 at 5:52 pm

        The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!

        Reply
      • oggie says:
        January 16, 2010 at 6:00 pm

        The rise and fall of nations are led by the leaders, not by the followers, who only follow the leading of the leaders. If the leaders are righteous, their righteousness can exalt their nation, but if the leaders are so abusive of their powers and authorities, their sins can ruin their nation. The followers can’t do anything that would not be in line with the leaders’ leading, since continuous dissidence between the leaders and followers would lead nowhere.

        Just consider the decadent prelude to a society’s collapse due to egregiously evil kind of leadership in this very historically notorious figure:

        http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational_and_howto/watch/v18605691xarZ3tkM

        Reply
24. oggie says:
    January 14, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    Indeed, political candidates should be very careful to claim that they are the messianic hopes of our nation. Just consider Obama’s hubris during his presidential campaign, and look now at what’s happening to the USA, even right after he sat in power.

    Reply
    • Vince says:
      January 15, 2010 at 10:31 pm

      I haven’t seen Bro.Eddie to have a Messianic claims.

      If he will do that, then he would be like Quiboloy. Then if he is like him, I doubt if he is my brother.

      But so far, there is no such claim.

      Reply
      • oggie says:
        January 16, 2010 at 7:36 pm

        There are many forms of “messianism”. Quiboloy is clearly of the crazy kind. Politicians like Obama make messianic and utopian promises, but they always fail to deliver the proud claims. Bro. Eddie should be very careful not to do such kind of messianism to promise utopia, but later will only bring dystopia!

        Reply
25. oggie says:
    January 14, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    Regarding the doubt:

    “Bro. Eddie doesn’t have an experience in running the government.”

    Comment:

    Cory Aquino was only a plain rich housewife before being catapulted to power by the EDSA I Peaceful People Power revolution. And we know from history of how her regime transpired.

    Question:

    Could Bro. Eddie do better than a Cory legacy??

    Reply
    • Vince says:
      January 15, 2010 at 10:32 pm

      What do you think? Ikaw na rin nagsabi, he’s not ordinary.

      Reply
26. oggie says:
    January 14, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Regarding your answer:

    “We have David, we have Solomon (at least in his early days), we have Josiah, Moses, Joshua, etc. All of them were leaders not only of a religious group but a nation called Israel. And so far, there is no clear proof that the Bible prohibits a religious leader to become a political leader.”

    Those leaders were leaders of a theocracy/monarchy form of governments. Just how can we transcend or make such argument relevant to our democratic form of government, where there is separation between the church and state powers? Not all Filipinos are regenerate believers of God’s words to expect them to follow and obey biblical commands. Some are non-believers, like Muslims, Buddhists, and many other kinds of belief systems, and not all Filipinos are democractic themselves in their political beliefs.

    Reply
27. oggie says:
    January 13, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    Religion was used by Hitler to make the Germans submit to his fascist ideology. The Christian Church at large did not resist his Nazism, which led to the Holocaust. Only very few Christians like this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

    sacrificed his life in the Christian resistance.

    How would Bro. Eddie be careful not to use religion to submit to fascist tendecies in ruling the gov’t? What would be his system for checks and balances, since like when state and church married under the Roman Catholic system, the church can be prostituted to the state’s control of the populace??

    Reply
    • Ptr. Vince says:
      January 14, 2010 at 8:21 am

      I would not rather answer those complicated questions. Why don’t you ask him by attending a meeting de avance. I heard that Bangon Pilipinas will be coming to Tacloban by next week.

      However, I think (I just think lang ha, meaning personal opinion). The government already have a good system. The main problem is the “connivance” of the people in government and not implementing the rules and the law due to “utang na loob”, “padrino”, and greed. At ito yung area where change should be seen.

      By the way, here’s the Bangon Pilipinas Platforms. If you have further question about what kind of governance will he make, simply put a comment in their blog.:)
      Here’s the link: http://bangonpilipinas.com/2009/07/bangon-pilipinas-platform-of-government/

      Reply
      • Vince says:
        January 14, 2010 at 8:32 am

        Here’s another link in for the updated platform:

        http://www.jilsurigao.org/whatsnew/the-new-bangon-pilipinas-platform-main-goal
        .-= Vince´s last blog ..God’s Requirements for Drawing Near =-.

        Reply
      • oggie says:
        January 14, 2010 at 2:19 pm

        So, the Filipinos are so good in making rules, but so bad in breaking them???? So, how would Bro. Eddie reform and transform such kind of cultural cancer??? Does he have the political will, without sacrificing democracy in the process of national and cultural transformation??

        Could he protect and preserve the thin line of separation between the church and the state???

        We know from history that when the church and state would be married, each of them corrupts the other with the abuses of power of both institutions. Egregiously evil example are the Muslim nations ruled by ayatoullahs, as well as Roman Catholicism as given by:

        http://www.mtc.org/inquis.html

        http://www.remnantofgod.org/blackpope.htm

        Reply
        • Vince says:
          January 15, 2010 at 10:37 pm

          Concerning the separation of Church and State, I believe I already have answered it well. Please read the post again.

          I also have previous post mentioning about it:
          http://thedisciplers.com/why-and-why-not-brother-eddie-villanueva/

          Again, Bro.Eddie is not violating any law. If he did, then he would have been disqualified since 2004 elections.

          JIL is not running for the presidential position, only Bro.Eddie.

          Bro. Eddie is not a Church since the church is a group of people and Bro.Eddie is only one person.

          Bro. Eddie would resign for being the Senior pastor of JIL and pass it to their other leaders, to focus on the government matters.

          I do believe that this “point” of comment has already been answered well and the matter is very weak that we should stick with it.
          .-= Vince´s last blog ..Clothed With Humility =-.

          Reply
          • oggie says:
            January 16, 2010 at 5:26 pm

            Indeed, unless Bro. Eddie would resign as Senior Pastor of JIL on the event he would win the Presidency, he would be walking on a very tight rope and on eggs shells, since any misstep of such walk would plunge him into the chaos of church-state separation, since we should avoid repeating what the pope did during the Reformation, when he was considered absolute in power and authority, even over kings and nations of the earth, with his arrogant claim of having the divine right to rule over the earth as the Vicaar of Christ!!!!

            And if he would win, he should be very careful not to be drawn into the vortex of the Illuminat-New World Order agenda of forcing nations and people into a One World Government-One World Religion-One World Economy kind of Tower of Babel system. Many leaders of the world’s systems of government, finance, economy, businesses, etc. are already so enmeshed in the enslaving web, a prelude to the Anti-Christ system of fascist dictatorship of the world!!!

            Reply
28. oggie says:
    January 13, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    Would Bro. Eddie impose theocratic changes at the expense of democratic processes???

    Reply
    • Ptr. Vince says:
      January 13, 2010 at 6:51 pm

      I believe Bro.Eddie is pro democracy. But democracy with morality and uprightness, and not like exercise of Freedom that destroy moral values, just like what is happening to America.

      Reply
      • oggie says:
        January 14, 2010 at 2:30 pm

        I hope that would be the case, since power is intoxicating!!!

        Even those righteous (e.g., David) can get corrupted with power, and the intoxication or amnesia that power can corrupt the powerbrokers can make them forget their ideals, visions, and missions.

        Lord Acton is so right when he satirically warned (referring to the papacy during the Inquisition):

        “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!”

        And no one is immuned to the corruptive power of power, especially when people, persons, politicians, priests, popes, pastors, and even prophets would prostitute precious prime principles for their personal and political profits!

        Reply
        • Vince says:
          January 15, 2010 at 10:02 pm

          Yes you are right, nobody is immune to it. However, you are missing the point, it’s not only Bro.Eddie should be careful not to be corrupted, but all of us.

          As we can all agree, change should be done by all and not only by one person.

          Reply
29. oggie says:
    January 12, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    We should be very careful to define what kind of changes we really want as a nation!!! Not all kinds of changes are good in the long run!!!

    Reply
    • Ptr. Vince says:
      January 12, 2010 at 1:21 pm

      The change that we are talking here is the moral uprightness of public governance. Corruption the main disease of this country. Yes, all politicians claim to hate corruption. Unfortunately, that’s only in the outward. It’s because they don’t fear God in way a real Christian do. I strongly believe if our officials will only live and govern in a righteous way, I believe Philippines will be able to rise up.

      The problems that we are suffering right now like poverty, enormous debt, lack of education, and almost everything can be attributed to corruption. We are not talking a wide variety of change here. But we are talking about the change that must take effect in the hearts of men especially in the hearts of the ruling body.

      Reply
      • oggie says:
        January 13, 2010 at 6:33 pm

        Is this the kind of governance that Bro. Eddie would implement, assuming he will win?

        from: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/John_Calvin#Civic_Governance

        Civic Governance

        Calvin played a major part in drafting the City’s statutes. These established the Consistory as an ecclesiastical court consisting of the elders and pastors, charged with maintaining order in the church and among its members.

        For Calvin, the key to both good civic and good church governance was the responsibility of the leaders towards the led. The magistrates exercised power, but the church possessed the spiritual weapon of God’s word. Calvin maintained that power comes from God, and civil officials must also “think of Him whom they serve in their office…[They must] procure the welfare and the tranquility of their subjects, both in public and in private.” Citing the Bible, Calvin believed that ultimately, a magistrate who fails in their duty can be disobeyed, since “it is necessary to obey God rather than men” (Acts 4: 19) (238).

        Two magistrates and a minister regularly visited every parish, to make sure all was well. Offenses ranged from propounding false doctrine to moral infractions, such as wild dancing and bawdy singing. Public houses were shut and replaced by Christian refreshment places, where alcohol could be drunk while listening to Bible readings. Wine was healthy but not when drunk in excess (he made a similar comment on sex) (see Bouwsma, 52). Typical punishments were mild—an offender might be required to attend public sermons or catechism classes. It is important to bear in mind the broader geopolitical context of this institution before passing judgment. Protestants in the sixteenth century were particularly vulnerable to the Catholic charge that they were innovators in doctrine, and that such innovation led inevitably to moral decay and, ultimately, the dissolution of society itself. Calvin was keen to establish the moral legitimacy of the church reformed according to his program, but also to promote the health and well-being of individuals, families, and communities. Recently discovered documentation of Consistory proceedings shows that body’s concern for domestic life, and women in particular. For the first time men’s infidelity was punished as harshly as that of women, and the Consistory showed absolutely no tolerance for spousal abuse. The role of the Consistory was complex. It helped to transform Geneva into the city described by Scottish reformer John Knox as “the most perfect school of Christ.” Some clergy were elected to the Consistory. The idea was a partnership of equals between the church (in which some magistrates were also elders) and the city government, with the former providing the moral guidance and the latter ensuring discipline. The moral code was derived from the Bible. It favored sobriety, hard work and penalized drunkenness, dishonesty, and immoral conduct.

        Reply
        • oggie says:
          January 13, 2010 at 6:40 pm

          Or, something like this?

          from: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/John_Calvin

          Calvin committed some excesses in his leadership at Geneva, but set out to create the perfect society under God’s ultimate rule. His covenantal or contractual view of church and of society as voluntary associations, with rulers (magistrates) and those who lead chosen by and accountable to the members became the basis of civil society and eventually of political organization in Europe, North America and elsewhere. On the one hand, Calvin recognized social responsibility; on the other he stressed individual responsibility to live a good, productive and moral life before God. Stressing the dignity of man, Calvin’s social reforms included relief for the poor, construction of hospitals, schools (which were free), new prisons, consumer protection laws, provisions for refugees, and a sanitation system that made Geneva one of the cleanest and healthiest cities in Europe. Calvin was morally strict but humane, almost a humanist in his concern to reach the heart not only the mind of men and women.

          Reply
        • Ptr. Vince says:
          January 13, 2010 at 6:53 pm

          I believe, it would be better not to pinpoint or assume anything on what kind of governance will it be. Let us not make things more complicated.

          Simple lang, revival of moral values inside the political arena.

          Reply
          • oggie says:
            January 14, 2010 at 2:23 pm

            Those who forget the past are cursed and so bound to repeat it!!!

            What we can learn from history is that we don’t really learn anything at all — we can keep repeating it.

            If we don’t learn from the miserable mistakes of the past, then we are most likely continue the vicious cycles of our history!!

            We should learn from earlier examples and models to avoid repeating the same stupid mistakes we did in the past. Else, we would deserve what we will get …

            Reply
30. oggie says:
    January 12, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    Politicians always clamor for change, and usually, they claim to have utopian and messianic solutions to the problems their country faces.

    Just like with the case of the messianic Obama, consider how others in his country perceive of the “changes” he promised with his rhetorical:

    “Yes, we can … yes, we can … yes, we can ….”

    with the disillusioned only get this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

    Reply
    • Ptr. Vince says:
      January 12, 2010 at 1:26 pm

      Obama is totally different from Bro. Eddie. I believe Messianic solution is out of the main topic here. It is all about credibility. Politicians try to cure symptoms, but not the disease which is corruption and political degradation.

      I simply believe that among all the candidates, Bro. Eddie is the most credible candidate for the moral change of our government. I am not saying others can’t do it. But I would rather believe a proven moral person.

      BTW, I don’t like Obama. Hehehe…

      Reply
      • oggie says:
        January 19, 2010 at 5:44 pm

        Very surprising backmasking of Obama’s mantra:

        “Yes, we can … yes, we can … yes, we can …”

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gjMHJ8Y90s&feature=related

        Another backmasked mantra that can really blow one away:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-TMKUea87E&feature=related

        What can you think????

        Reply
31. oggie says:
    March 24, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    sikat ah!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply

Trackbacks

1. What Bloggers say about Bro. Eddie… | says:

   March 23, 2010 at 4:10 pm

   [...] http://thedisciplers.com/answering-doubts-for-bro-eddie/ [...]

   Reply

Speak Your Mind Cancel reply

Name *

Email *

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail

This site is using OpenAvatar based on