From: francis@mpl.ucsd.edu (Francis C Felizardo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.filipino
Subject: Re: Re:Chinese Filipino kidnappings (2/2)
Date: 5 Nov 1992 18:24:43 GMT
Organization: Scripps Institution of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: kiko.ucsd.edu

Lew wrote:

>Again here are the statments which lead support to my assumptions:
>>>1. A substantial amount of the violent crimes have been committed around
>>>the Caloocan and San Juan, Little Bagiuo areas.  Caloocan because of
>>>the Filipino-Chinese business's and San Juan because of the prominent
>>>Filipino-Chinese schools and communities around greenhills area.
>>>San-Juan is know as a Estrada town. If he cannot stop the violence there
>>>he might as well "throw the towel in" and concede his situation
>>>to the powers that be.
>I'm not trying to say that Ramos is directly responsible for masterminding
>the any of these crimes. This is indeed proposterous idea, and political
>suicide if tried.

I'm sorry. Let me rephrase the question: Your argument is that Ramos is 
ignoring the CF kidnapping problem. Then you are saying that Estrada is 
being used as a scapegoat. Fine. Now let's look at this argument. You add: 

>I was trying to suggest that Estrada was being used as a scapegoat.

Ramos appointed Estrada BEFORE the kidnapping in San Juan took place. The 
only way you can use this as evidence that Ramos was setting up Estrada 
for a fall is if Ramos knew that the SJ kidnap were to take place after 
Estrada was appointed. You claim that you think Ramos knew all the 
conspiracies in the AFP, therefore he should have known this one. But that 
argument is easily rebutted by the extent of the previous coup attempts, 
which shows that Ramos does not know all the conspiracies in the AFP.
Hence, this 'evidence' means nothing.

>If he fails to negate the violence in his own terf he might as well
>concede defeat. Estrada being in the "spot-light", a "prominent"
>and very public appointment as you suggest, may loss some support
>from his constituency since he did not accomplish his goal.  Who gains
>from this? Other politicians.  

While I concede that the SJ incident was embarrassing to Estrada, we 
all know that SJ is part of a bigger Metro Manila where CF kidnapping 
is a problem. Since many rich CF live in SJ, e.g., Greenhills, it is 
ludicrous to not expect that kidnappers will not try to abduct someone 
there.

If you expect Estrada to throw the towel in because of ONE SJ kidnapping, 
then he doesn't deserve the job in the first place. Of course we both know 
better than that. Estrada did not expect the crime job will be a cakewalk.

>Ramos
>can claim that he believe in opinion of many of Estradas "pundits"
>and thereby deflect most of the blame back onto administration of
>his appointed  "crime czar". 

I disagree. The decision to hire Estrada was Ramos', not the 'pundits'. 
Pundits like you and me can criticize and express our opinions. But 
if Ramos made the wrong appointment, it will look bad on him and he 
bears the SOLE responsibility for making that mistake. He is the boss. 
Ramos cannot pass the blame.

   - Ramos controlled the military argument deleted -

>- stuff deleted since subject already addressed above -
>Ditto. (Perfect score arguement.)

Same here. Needless military deaths and destruction argument to rebut this.

   - stuff deleted -
>
>>In your first post, you held Estrada up as the only bright light in the 
>>whole mess. Now you argue that he is incompetent. And I still don't see how 
>>appointing Estrada proves Ramos is behind all this.
>
>Yes, I believe Estrada is doing his best to combat these elements but
>his efforts maybe in vain.  In general, the lack of support from other
                                         --- ---- -- ------- ---- -----
>auspicies of the government (military and police) 
 ---------
I don't know where you get this. Who do you think does the dirty work, 
Estrada himself? Who captured and killed the already arrested suspects? 
If not the police, then who?

>and Estrada's legal
>difficulties have curtailed the effectiveness of Estrada's campaign.

Please elaborate on this because I don't know what you're referring to.

>It is obviously to Estrada's benefit to do the best he can, since he
>is a politician, who's career lives and dies by his public ratings.
>Again the point was making Estrada the "fall guy".  

But Estrada is not stupid. If he and his advisers knew he was being set up, 
or if he felt that Ramos was not giving him the resources to do the job, 
then he can quit or at the very least demand more powers as condition 
to accepting the appointment. Do you have any information that Estrada 
is complaining that Ramos did not give him enough powers (sources please) 
or do you just think that Estrada is simply too stupid to see what is plain 
and clear to you?

>I do not believe
>that just because they are in the same administration (-an administration
>not of personal choice) does not mean that their political faiths and
>aspirtions are tightly coupled - to borrow your phrase "Philippine politics"
>runs "along personalities rather then political principle".

That is your belief. Mine is that both Estrada and Ramos have a personal 
stake in the success of the anti-crime program - Estrada because he can 
use his success to bolster a run in 1998 and Ramos because the success of 
his presidency depends on how well the law and order situation is resolved.

>>I have stated my opinion of Estrada earlier. I would also like to point 
>>out that Estrada's appointment to the position was hailed by many pundits 
>>as a good move. Many people believe Estrada has what it takes to do the job.
>
>And if he failes in his mission one could equally blame his supporters
>- his so called pundits. Ramos could say "I thought he was what you said
>he was...I'm sorry. I'll make a better appoitment next time".  

It doesn't work that way. Ramos cannot pass the blame because only 
he and he alone can decide who he appoints to his cabinet. If he blames 
newspapermen for his appointment mistakes, he will be laughed off as a weak 
president.

>And I believe
>the public will accept this apology.  

Well I DON'T believe the public will accept this kind of apology. I think 
the public will think he is such a sissy for blaming the media for his 
problems. This is political suicide for him.

>>>4. Why did he let Gen. Cesar Nazareno, the national police chief, and
>>>many other accused and lower ranking military and police walk 
>>>away so easily?
>
>>Although I read a couple of news reports implicating the General and Major 
>>Pring, I don't have the facts. Give me facts. Cite your sources. Make the 
>>case.
>
>I think you can find this is the net-news posting and other UPI sources as
>well
>as other press releases from Manila.  I believe it is readily available.
>Look them up.

Come on Lew, you don't expect me to do your homework for you. You are the 
one making the argument. The burden of proof is on you. By the way, I do 
read the news. I just don't know which news items you think support your 
argument.

>>>5. The lack of support from the Filipino-Chinese business' leaders in
>>>the last election, and his narrow victory at the polls, may have alienated
>>>the minority in his eyes.
>
>>You are passing pure speculation as proof. 
>>In the first place we do know that many CFs supported him. Second, CFs 
>>constitute < 2% of the voting public. Even if all CFs voted against him, 
>>Ramos would still win. If Ramos were out to *get* a particular group, the 
>>Tarlaquenos, Batanguenos, Warays, the home provinces of his other 
>>opponents would be easier and likelier targets. 75% of the country voted 
>>for candidates other than Ramos. Is he trying to *get* them too?
>
>Yes, but it was you who said Ramos needed Cory's support.  You have
>insisted that she carried a large enough Filipino-Chinese vote which
>you suggest tipped the scales in Ramos favor. 

Wrong! He needed Cory Aquino's support because she had broad support from
the Filipino people in general. With respect to the CF community, I argued 
that it is a small electorate and in any case does not vote as a block 
anyway.

>I was a extremely tight race and every vote counted.  You are
>also running on the premise that Filipino-Chinese lobby makes up only
>a "<2%" voting block.  I think this is not quite the case.  A political
>lobby can influence voters in many ways. 

Wait. So are you saying that the CFs are a powerful voting block or not? 
If you are saying they are NOT, then it's not clear to me why you think 
Ramos bothers to 'punish' them. It also contradicts your last paragraph, 
i.e., that they have a greater influence than their numbers suggest. 
If you are saying that they ARE a powerful voting block, then it is 
inconsistent with your next two sentences.

>Besides, the Filipino-Chinese
>are the easiest of groups to subjegate.  They really don't have
>to many political advocates unlike the other groups in the country.

So which one is it? Powerful or not?

>>>What I am suggesting here is that the governments indifference, 
>
>>You already admitted that the government has a high-level program 
>>to combat the CF kidnapping problem.
>
>I believe there is a charter in place but I also believe that it is
>ineffective.  Yes, I agree with you, if what you mean by "high-level
>program" is media coverage in the creation of the PCC.

Good! We agree on something. Now I'd like to see that the basis of your 
allegations that the crime program is ineffective is real crime statistics 
rather than your own personal biases. I have an open mind and I am more 
than willing to listen.

>>the presidents policy of lightly slapping accused military and police
>>officals,
>>Cite facts and source. 
>
>I already name some names.  
>
You named one - Nazareno. But you didn't really tell us who accused him, 
what he is being accused of, the credibility of his accuser, what the 
government has done so far about it, corroborating evidence, his modus 
operandi, etc. Can you tell me how many of the suspects are in prison or are 
being charged? Can you tell me how strong the evidence on them really is? 
>
>If you are interested look up the sources
>I mentioned above. Its not that hard to get it, especially if you are
>close to university setting, large public library, or have electronic
>news.
>
Again, you're asking me to do your homework. You made the allegation, you 
back it up. Mind you, I read as much news as I can myself and I still 
can't form an opinion on the effectiveness of the PACC that I can publicly 
defend.

>>>his picking of Estrada as a probable scapegoat if the 
>>>situation gets uglier, 
>
>>Pure speculation being passed as proof.
>
>If I had concrete proof, Ramos administration would be in rocky straits.
>It is hard to prove intentions and bias'.  And if this could be proven
>beyond the shadow of a doubt, what stops Ramos detractors from using this.
>However, the situation and circumstances stated above do lead to this
>conclusion.

Who said 'beyond reasonable doubt' is the test that we are requiring here? 
All we want is 'preponderance of the evidence'. All I see is speculation 
and a 'Procrustean bed'. You have a theory and any evidence that is 
inconsistent with it is tossed or modified.

>>It is believed by many pundits that Estrada has what it takes to do the job. 
>>You yourself praised a major accomplishment of his.
>
>He saved the woman, but to say he is winning his current crime battle is 
>something else.

But weren't you the one who said that he was 'effective'? And is that his 
only accomplishment?

>>and his being a former chief of staff of the AFP
>>>Which proves what?
>
>He knows more about the working and doing of the AFP bar none.
>
Agreed.
>
>He may know more about these conspiracies, their authors, then he lets on.
>Ditto. (Perfect score..network of people agruement)
>
I have already rebutted this. He may have a network of people there but 
the fact that in the last coup, he had his people die, the DND HQ bombed, 
Malacanang bombed, Makati occupied by rebels, sniper fire on the streets 
of Manila, coup leaders escaping, military bases taken over, etc. 
proves that there are many conspiracies in the AFP that he is not privy to.

>>may have some common tread. 
>>Coincidence? Maybe.
>
>>The premises are bad and your conclusion is non sequitur.
>
>I'm sorry you couldn't follow the line of arguement. 
>
Not really. Since every bit of 'evidence' you cite is easily rebutted, then 
you have no valid premise and therefore no valid conclusion.
>
>>An analogy: A woman at the airport was smelling a snuff box she claims 
>>wards away elephants. A man says, 'Lady, there are no elephants in the 
>>airport.' She says, 'See, it works!'
>
>Maybe the man should bring in the elephant to disprove the ladies assumption.
>
Well if you are willing to buy that kind of argument, then let me tell you 
about a bridge in New York that you can buy cheap....
>
>>>The fact of the matter is the frequency of these violent crimes have
>>>increased,
>>>due to an ineffective crime program and policy of the present government.
>>>It is reported that many more gangs are now involved.  The cycle of violence
>>>is perpetuated due to inept policy and resolve.
>>I may or may not disagree with you here. I do not have enough info 
>>to assess the success of the governments anit-crime program. However, 
>>your allegations require facts. Cite stats from a credible source, then 
>>we'll talk.
>
>Look at the recent New York Times, the widely circulated Chinese 
>"World Journal", the UPI notes on this SCF net, and look at the local
>paper like the "The Star","Bulletin", etc... add to this fact, stories
>from friends, fellow alumni and relatives who have been directly and
>indirectly
>affected by these crimes.  
>
Like I said, I can't prove your allegations for you. Since you are making 
them, the burden of proof is on you. If you would like to post crime stats 
before and after the introduction of the PACC, I'd be more than happy to 
discuss them with you. Apparently, how we read the news and how our CF 
friends perceive Philippine society is different.
>
--- deleted our childish bickering deleted -----
>
I'm glad.
>
   - stuff deleted -
>
>>This was under martial law, Marcos had absolute power and a controlled 
>>press. Ramos is operating under a democratic constitution with checks and 
>>balances and a very free press. 
>
>We are hopefully at the beginning of a new political era in the Philippines,
>these checks and balances have been dead for more then a decade, and some
>would argue even longer.  Justice and compensation has still not been 
>accorded to many Filipinos who were oppressed and brutally abused under the
>past dictatorship.  So far I've only seen the legistative body of government 
>being effective on behalf of special interest groups.  It is far from a
>true democratic system of checks and balances, this is not to say that
>the reforms instituted by the previous administration will not come to 
>fruition in the future. 
>
That the political era is new I agree. But to argue that:
>
>Therefore a political power structure can exist
>whereby an unopposed executive branch of government truly dictates policy
>(similar to the situation in Lee-Kuan Yu's government).
>
is to ignore the last six years. If this were true, then the US Bases Treaty 
which the Aquino government negotiated should have passed. It did not. All 
the previous presidential appointees should have been approved. They were 
not. The most prominent reject is Miriam Defensor-Santiago who I thought 
would have done a great job. If the executive is unopposed, then all 
the cases against Imelda Marcos would have been resolved by now in the 
government's favor. They have not. And if the executive is unopposed, then 
there would have been no unflattering articles on the Aquino government and 
no reports of scandals in the media. There were and there were a lot. These 
are but a few examples where the legislature, the judiciary and the media has 
checked the executive.
>
>>Incidentally, Marcos targetted his political opponents - Aquino, Lopez, 
>>Jacinto, etc. - not the CF as a community. In fact, a few CFs themselves 
>>benefitted including Cojuangco, Consunji, Dewey Dee, Ongpin, Sycip, etc.
>
>Maybe in the beginning this was the case, but near the end of dictatorship,
>Cocoy, Imelda and cronies were targeting other smaller outfits as well,
>most of which were run by Filipino-Chinese families. 
>
Which acquisitions of Imelda and Kokoy were race motivated? Please cite them.
>
>(I'm not familiar
>with the cases of Ongpin and Sycip. You are talking about the
>late Jaime Ongpin 
>
No, Roberto, who was the Minister of Commerce if I remember correctly and 
the de facto governor of the 'Binondo Central Bank'. Remember him?
>
>and the Sycip brothers -i.e. SGV are you not?).
>
Right. Henry Sycip's company got the auditing contracts of many of the crony 
corporations and government corporations. 
>
>Yes, a few supposed Filipino-Chinese families benefited from the
            -------- what does this mean?
>Maros era, but so did their are a countless other families like the
>Benedictos,
>Disinis (herdis group of companpines fame), Romuldezes, Gapuds, 
>all Imdela's "Blue Ladies" etc...etc...etc.. But I am straying from my point,
>the fact is a lot of Filipinos were hurt economically ( and a few 
>physically) the previous dictatorship- Filipino-Chinese included.
>
That's right. But this laundry list was in response to your statement:
>
Me:> The CF community has substantial economic and political power. He would 
Me:> be stupid to try to cross them.
>
You:> It has been done before under the Marcos regime.  
>
You gave me the impression that you thought CFs were targetted as a 
community. It was not. What was targetted was Marcos' opponents, CF or 
nonCF. If you were on the right side, you would have prospered regardless 
of ethnicity.
>
>One should also note, that there is factionalism within the families
>you mentioned above (i.e. Danding vs Cory's side, Imelda's side
>vs the other Romuldezes, one side up while one side down).
>But the point is that a lot of smaller fish were squeezed by the
>Mine-ning that went on in the last stages of the dictatorship and
>that's one reason why the events in Edsa occured.
>
I think the pattern of events that led to EDSA was much more complex than 
that. It deserves a separate discussion by itself. However, I do agree with 
the essence of the last paragraph. It seems to me that both of us agree on 
many things. It is when you begin to paint the issues as a pattern of 
racism against the CF community that we begin to part company.
>
>>>It could be argued that inorder for these Filipino-Chinese leaders to be
>>>loyal supporters of his policies, they would first have to be whipped into
>>>shape. This may be the communities rude-awakening call: Shape-up or
>>>ship-out.
>>Are you kidding? They're Filipino citizens......
>
>No. I'm not kidding.  It you felt that your family was in critical danger
>wouldn't you want to carry them to safety and avoid the danger.  It is
>a normal instictive response. And yes they are Filipino citizens and
>they should be not abused or intimidated in this manner.
>
When you said 'shape up or ship out', I was of the impression that you 
thought that Ramos was going to ship out all these CFs out of the country. 
Obviously, Ramos can't do this because 1. there will be a huge outcry 
and 2. He will be shipping out (voluntarily or not) a big proportion of 
the national capital and economy.
>
The fact that you cannot cite a Philippine precedent for this doesn't 
impress me.
>
   - stuff deleted -
>
>>Did Marcos do this? Aquino? Macapagal? Has this 
>>threat been issued?..................
>
>A Threat doesn't have to be personnally broadcast inorder for it to be felt.
>
>I believe the question you need to ask is did Marcos, Aquino, or
>Macapagal feel they had the loyalty of the Filipino-Chinese community?
>I believe all three felt that they had nothing to fear from the FC
>community. In Ramos case?...I doubt if he feels the same way.
>
I think he does. Many of the CF are businessmen and merchants. He knows that 
political, economic and social stability is important for them and their 
business. He knows that they know that the best way to achieve this is 
by cooperating with and not antagonizing each other.
>
>Remember, Ramos won by such a narrow margin and even now he is jaunting
>from province to province (i.e. the "Economist" had an article 
>pertaining to this) as if he was still campaigning, feeling where
>he is weak, trying to pacify his critics if possible 
>
All presidents do this. Ramos has to be popular to be effective. But he 
cannot pacify his critics unless he resolves the crime problem. So solving 
it is obviously a priority. And he cannot be popular if he antagonizes 
groups of people.
>
>and maybe
>coerce loyalty if necessary.
 ------ -------
>
This is an oxymoron. Loyalty cannot be coerced. It can only be earned. And 
to earn the goodwill/loyalty of the CF community, he has created the PACC 
and made the kidnapping problem a top priority.
>
>>How well do you really understand current Philippine 
>>society? 
>
>Well enough to debate the subject with someone who thinks he knows something
>about it.
>
Then it really baffles me how you got to arrive at those conclusions.
>
>>The easiest and most effective way for Ramos to gain and keep the loyalty 
>>and cooperation of the CF community is to show that he is genuinely trying 
>>to address their concerns.
>
>I agree. But I cannot speak for the President.  I can only judge him
>through his actions or inactions.

I can understand if you feel he has not done enough to earn the goodwill 
of the CF community. That is only fair. But to argue that he is trying 
to coerce the CF community into submission requires a leap of faith that 
your arguments so far cannot justify.

>>And you still haven't responded to my point. If Taiwan, HK or Singapore 
>>believe that the CF community is being targetted by the Ramos 
>>administration, they will take their money elsewhere and Ramos' national 
>>development plans will go to waste. So why would Ramos want to ignore 
>>the CF kidnapping problem?
>
>Again you point out the ethinic link in all of this, but a corollary
>to my statements would suggest that Ramos will eventually deal with the
>problem but not after he attains confidence that the Filipino-Chinese 
>vote will go his way in the future.
>
What future? What does he need the CF vote for? He can't run for reelection 
anymore. The constitution limits him to one term. 
>
>As far as Taiwanese, HK and Singaporian investment, A large Taiwanese 
>company coupled with a Filipino concern have won the bid and have already
>agreed
>to invest in a portion of the subic-bay facilities.  It seems that government
>assurance has placated their doubts already.

Exactly. All those businessmen believe that inspite of all the 
well-publicized problems in the Philippines, Ramos is trying to address 
their concerns. They obviously don't subscribe to your view that Ramos is 
trying to 'coerce the loyalty' of the CFs. With all these Chinese 
businessmen betting their money on a Philippine government and economy 
despite the alternatives, doesn't this suggest to you that perhaps Ramos 
is indeed sincere in trying to address their concerns? Or maybe you believe 
that all these Taiwanese businessmen are gullible while you, a smart 
engineer from Motorola is the only one who can see through it all despite 
the second hand info that you have.

>>Wrong! Ramos is ultimately responsible for the success and failure of his 
>>government and policies. When we had all those brownouts early this year, 
>>we did not blame the head of the National Power Corporation (who is he 
>>anyway?) It was Aquino who got all the flak. Ramos can ax Estrada if he 
>>does not deliver but Ramos will always be blamed for the law and order 
>>situation. In fact, you're doing that now.
>>As I have said, Ramos has a big interest in maintaining law and order 
>>under his administration.
>
>Yes, Ramos will correct the situation in his on time and to his liking.
>Ditto ( when he feels confident of loyalty arguement).

The time is now (or since June). He only has six years to his term. Every 
publication I read says the perceived law and order situation in 
the Philippines is driving investors away. Ramos knows that law and order 
is very important in his presidency which is why he created the crime czar 
job and appointed Estrada right at the very start of his administration. 
He knew this was a priority.

>And I doubt this "love embrace" picture you depict of Ramos and Estrada -
                   ------------
>this one goal, one mind and one job thing.  

You're the one who keeps trying to portray my views that way. All I'm 
saying is that both Ramos and Estrada have a personal stake in getting 
the crime issue resolved. Ramos because peace and order is important to 
the success of his presidency, and Estrada because he can use his 
role as crime czar to bolster his presidential bid in 1998.

>As you said Politics in the
>Philipines "runs across personalities" and all bets are off if you
>believe that.

Clarify what you mean. If by this you mean Ramos does not want Estrada to 
gain enough stature to compete with him in the next presidential elections, 
then you're off here because Ramos cannot run for another term.

>And you're right when you said Aquino got the flak. But the head of the
>NPC is not in the public eye unlike Estrada who lays prostrate to the
>medias lens. It's easier to point the finger at someone you can see.

Like I said, if Estrada felt that Ramos was just using him, then he would 
not have accepted the appointment or quit a long time ago. He did not have 
to take the job. Besides, Estrada has his own admirers. It would be easy 
for them to raise a stink in the media if they felt that Ramos was 
obstructing him. I don't think Estrada is as weak as you portray him to be.

   - stuff deleted -

>>As can be expected, criminals will try to place roadblocks in the government 
>>effort to solve the problem. And perhaps the PCC may have overstepped the 
>>bounds of the law too. I am not familiar with the facts of the issue. But 
>>Estrada is not a helpless neophyte. Give him credit.
>
>Well, it sure looks like his efforts are being snuffed.  
>
Please elaborate.
>
>And yes he
>looks like a neophyte "crime czar" - This is not to say he is trying
>and that he isn't a capable politician.  But it seems like he may be
>in over his head with all these internal conspiracies and road-blocks.

Weren't these your words:

>Only recently has effective action taken place under the leadership 
>of Vice-President J. Estrada.

It seems to me that you began backpedalling on this when you realized that 
this didn't fit your theory.

   - stuff deleted -

>>I don't understand what you mean. Ramos was elected president. Estrada was 
>>elected VP. Ramos CANNOT promote or demote Estrada from his VP job. But 
>>the PCC is a Ramos creation and he can appoint whoever he wants to head it. 
>>If in his opinion Estrada is not delivering as a crime czar, he can remove 
>>him. 
>Didn't you just say that "Ramos can ax Estrada if he does not deliver".
>I guess I was referring to his appointment. I'm sorry if you got lost.

Well you lost me when you wrote:

>>It would be 
>>better if people clamoured for Estradas demotion rather then looking like
>>a disaffected politician in ordering his replacement when his popularity is
>>at a high.  Ramos and Estrada were both elected to office by the people 
>>(Estrada winning by a big margin in his race) and it is up to the people
>>to decide "yea" or "nay". 

It is NOT up to the people to decide "yea" and "nay" on the crime czar job. 
It is up to Ramos alone. He can appoint to his cabinet anyone he likes.

>>>The hypothesis is that Ramos is practicing his one-up-manship tactics-
>>>consolidating his position at the expense of other parties.
>>In short, Ramos is no different from any other politician in the world. 
>>However, this has nothing to do with the CF kidnapping problem.

>No. What I have been trying to suggest is that this has everything to do with
>the Filipino-Chinese kidnappings.  The policy that the administration exposes
>derives from Ramos playing his one-up-manship game. He is consolidating his
>position at the expense of other parties - other competitors ( politicians)
>and the Filipino-Chinese community.

And I've been trying to say that despite the torrent of words, you have 
not established anything. The premises that you used to arrive at that 
conclusion are all easy to rebut. 

- deleted quibbling -

Comments welcome.

   - Francis
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Francis C Felizardo                             francis@mpl.ucsd.edu
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 0213	      (619) 534 1085
La Jolla, CA 92093-0213