eoW pFoE, MuzSTaHh?


‘La lang. I’m tired of posting tweet-like posts. So, I follow the vapor trail of postmortem analyses on the elections. And I say (or you scroll down):

File. Speaking of postmortem analyses, the arrogant critics of the political system SEE THE WHOLE THING AS MORTEM, as always. Shut up.

File. Most of these critics:

- are ARROGANT and suffer from a sense of entitlement and leaps of logic.

- are perched on their ivory towers. E.g., benign0’s claim of pedigree platform that Noynoy only has (if this is not a jocular claim); benign0 even acknowledges that Aquino will be prez, but goes on to say, in effect, Whoa, di ka pa nga presidente, dada ng dada ka na about Corona. BongV: "It’s one of those days when I can just cringe from the thought that I am a Filipino citizen." Benign0: "Can I help it if the most insightful references I could find on most matters happen to be my own?"

- some use SLOPPY LOGIC to criticize the system; this is the very same logic that reinforces the corrupt system. How inconsistent.

E.g., “The alternative to Gloria is him, who could not be corrupt; he broke no law” when “breaking no law” is the recurrent refrain among the corrupt; one must analyze with wisdom, not with the trappings of law.

E.g., “How valid are the SWS surveys when the mock polls say otherwise?” when mock polls = mockery.

E.g., “GMA corrupts and sucks; it was better with Erap” – duh.

E.g., “The existing oligarchy sucks, and Manny Villar is here to expose it” when Villar is one big rags-to-oligarchy story.

E.g., “Noynoy is an abstract construct created by the media” when all the premises they use to argue against or for some issues stem from the very same supposedly questionable media they diss.

E.g., “Monsod is wrong and I am right,” when Barcelona is wrong, too (including his grammar); a narcissist, at that. And then the sense of entitlement of Rick Barcelona is like nails grating on the blackboard.

E.g., “Most voters are really idiots” WHEN – LOOK WHO’S TALKING; ANALYZE FIRST WHY.

E.g., "Gordon, because he helped my family." -- how about others? (Well, the personal is the political.)

Most of these Aquino critics are acting as if they are Jean Grey – they defend their candidates to death as if they knew what’s in minds of the candidates; as if they are the candidates themselves.

File. MOST OF THESE CRITICS PAY LIP SERVICE TO IDEALS AND CHANGE.

THEY PRACTICE THE SYSTEM – IN THE GUISE OF CHANGE AND IDEALISM.

So entrenched are they in the system that they fail to see that it sucks; that even reflex Aquino critics fail to see how sucky the system responds to the suckiness (e.g., “You have to respect the ruling [a ruling devoid of wisdom] of the Supreme Court on midnight appointments.”)

Even topnotchers Marcos and Gibo couldn’t even tell apart what’s corrupt from what’s not.

Even a lot of our government couldn’t recognize the wisdom behind RA 6713. Even the Supreme Court, interpreter of law, couldn’t even understand the wisdom behind the law on midnight appointments, the mitigating circumstances be damned.

THEY SAY GOVERNMENT SUCKS, THEN GO ON TO PROVE HOW TRUE THE SUCKINESS IS BY BEING ELECTED INTO GOVERNMENT.

OR BY VOTING THE CORRUPT INTO THE SAME.

Now that sucks.

MAJOR EXAMPLES of lip-serving mutants #1: GMA and Marcos. They validate why choosing a leader based on intellect and track record (bragging rights) without the necessary context failed us.

Intellect wielded by the exploitative class? Common in the Third World.

Deceptive track records in the Third World? Just as endemic.

MAJOR EXAMPLES of lip-serving mutants LOL #2: A lot of acquaintances are adamant in using the criterion of intellect and track record (e.g., idealism) when choosing the presidential candidate, belittling pragmatism as short of selling one’s soul to the devil, so to speak.

AND LO AND BEHOLD, their choice of candidates at the senatorial or local level betrays a worse form of pragmatism (voting for their godfathers; voting for vote buyers), and choosing the lesser evil or voting against the purer evil. Hypocritical.

MAJOR EXAMPLES of lip-serving mutants #3: ill-disguised apologists of hypocritical values in the history of nations – Catholic Church apologists; Nixon; anti-racist propagandists who turn out to be racists; the French Revolution’s Robbespierre, etc.

MAJOR EXAMPLES of lip-serving mutants #5: It’s laudable that leftists are now participating in mainstream politics at the national level. It might be a sign of our march to maturity, however puny the march is by benign0’s standards.

But when agents of the left criticize Aquino on Hacienda Luisita, then consort with Bongbong Marcos, who maintains that his father violated no law, then I say – WTF, WTF.

One must remember that Satur Ocampo was tortured by the Marcos regime.

(Then again, in the history of nations, political parties even make hardcore porn with the devil in pursuit of supposedly honorable interests. The end justifies – yawn -- the means.)

MAJOR EXAMPLES of lip-serving mutants #6: Anonymous and not-so-anonymous apologists of hypocritical values in the blogosphere. Look at Paul Farol.

Until now, the tongue-in-cheek anonymous narcissist/blogger named Benign0 refuses to divulge his identity. It could be for security purposes. It’s plausible. It could be that, as one blogger noted, “identity in the blogosphere is not as important as the arguments that the blogger purveys.” It’s plausible. Under tyrannical regimes, anonymity promotes free flowing ideas (but cheap words and maybe false allegations, too, like that of the mad Koala bear). Joe America explained aptly the upside to anonymity.

BUT also, I cannot help but worry.

The exact motive to blog is as important as the arguments, too. If we don’t know who’s writing arrogant blogs, how can we be certain of what’s truly motivating them?

Transparency is key in social media. Ghost writers are the opposite. The biggest problem is getting found out. You run the risk of being disingenuous. It intimates that you have something to hide. – blogger Heather Sokol

History abounds well in both ill- and well-disguised apologists of hypocritical values; people who play with our minds and emotions. Shall I cite examples? Did I not before? More:

- Evangelists, especially the homophobic homo pastor named Ted Haggard, a regular customer of prostitute Mike Jones
- Rush Limbaugh on drugs
- the anonymous fake Steve Jobs outed as Daniel Lyons
- anti-prostitution crusader New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was client no. 9 in a prostitution ring
- Laurie David on being going green while commuting between homes on a private jet
- Time magazine on environmental issues when the magazine itself is printed on not so green materials
- Miriam “I liieed!” Defensor-Santiago
- the political whore Loren Legarda
- Wikipedia pseudo-scholar writers
- Noam Chomsky on communism
- Bill Bennett who wrote a book called something “Moral Compass” but lost millions over video poker and slot machines
- athlete Marion “I am against performance-enhancing drugs” Jones,
- America (its founding fathers drafted one of the best constitutions in the world, a study on humanity and the human condition, but America went on to oppress humanity around the world.)
- the anonymous outed as Whole Foods Market founder John Mackey
- the anonymous outed as Rosemary Port
-fraternities
- Magneto

What makes benign0 and his sense of entitlement any different?

What if benign0 is Satan himself?

In that case, Satan stays, because make no mistake about it, the ranting punditry (or bigotry) notwithstanding, I agree -- the political system is corrupt. Duh.
___________________________________________________________________

File. Much as I am a voter, I am also an imperfect student of the history of this nation, an observer of facts that this nation cannot escape:

NATIONS GO THRU STAGES AND PHASES – from complete idiocy to, well, lesser idiocy – and back a wee bit. Then they lurch forward, hopefully. Or cease to exist, hopefully not. Great nations like China, France, UK, and the US are in their stages and phases.

We are in our phase, too, a phase comparable with early post-revolutionary America, for example. (Of course, the comparison is incomplete as America is altogether a different experience.)

On the other hand, our favorite arrogant utopic bloggers Benign0 and BongV urge us to ditch the emo politics of the crowd/flash dance mob mentality ASAP; demand drastic change in the hearts and mind of voters, voters who were oppressed for centuries – the very reason why corruption is so ingrained in our culture (--> voting mentality that’s also centuries in the making).

Verdict: Benign0’s call is quixotic for purposes of the recent elections (it won’t effect change on election day). But it’s good for discussion and advocacy.

File. THE BETTER ALTERNATIVE TO QUIXOTIC CHANGE IS TO MCGYVER OUR WAY IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

File. One possible McGyver moment is to leapfrog or pole-vault ourselves in the phases by listening to Benigno and BongV. Joke lang.

Benign0 and BongV’s arrogance like those of Marx, Mao and Lenin, are fringe. They are unrealistic on the ground (the ground being = centuries of oppression; small middle class; oligarchy’s hold on the media, etc.).

It is only plausible as a position (not the solution) if in the sense that it represents a countervailing force in the plurality of voices.

Benign0 and BongV’s existence is necessary. Without them gloating with a false sense of entitlement, the sloppy logic of other people, who are also gloating with a false sense of entitlement/believe sa sarili, will go unchecked.

BUT FRINGE IDEAS = NOT A MCGYVER MOMENT.

File. ANOTHER MCGYVER MOMENT IS TO STUDY THE EXAMPLES OF POLE-VAULTING AROUND US –

BY NATIONS: Post-WWII Japan and Germany; Taiwan, Singapore, Poland, etc.

BY INSPIRATIONAL LEADERSHIP: Sri Mulyani Indrwati, Lee Kuan Yew, etc.

File. A MCGYVER MOMENT IS INCREMENTAL CHANGE, NOT QUIXOTIC CHANGE, IN OUR MARCH TO BECOME A LESS IDIOTIC NATION – AGAIN, HOWEVER PUNY THIS MARCH IS.

File. GET THIS. THIS IS MY MCGYVER MOMENT: To risk choosing the winnable lesser evil presidential candidate, short of resigning to our fate on election day, in the hope of arm-twisting him to relent to the forces of change, and then – key point – to follow up on the threat of arm-twisting by BURDENING HIM WITH THE HOPES of the millions on day one and beyond (in whatever capacity/means/avenue/medium), including the blogs of benign0 and BongV.

WHY?

Ans. #0. I'd like to think of the presidency as a partnership between the president-elect and the people.

Ans. #1. There is just so much more we can do besides voting, BECAUSE TO BE FILIPINO TRANSCENDS VOTING. Voting is so much ballyhooed as one of the symbols of a democratic process, but it is by no means sacred (ok, yeah, probably sacred in a way). The elections are like Wall Street - they spawned not just the idea of voting but voting derivatives such as vote selling, vote buying, ang vote sa imo. LOL

Ans. #2. I once espoused before the positions of benign0 and bongV, but in my experiences in the workplace, in peace and war, in life and love, and in my study of history, though imperfect this study may be, it’s a no go.

No state of affairs is perfect. Life is sometimes shorter. We are given circumstances, and still, making the most of these (e.g., to McGyver our way) does not necessarily mean that if we can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em. A MCGYVER MOMENT IS A FEASIBLE WAY OUT OF THE SYSTEM, NOT MORAL SUICIDE, NOT JOINING ‘EM.

Only the corrupt twist the meaning of making the most out of a situation.

File. SO I CHOSE NOYNOY AQUINO.

Reluctant, oligarchic, maybe dumb, and with supposedly zero track record, he might brutally, blithely reinforce the status quo (ALL nations in the world are lead in some ways by oligarchs; prove to me w/c one isn’t).

But my gut feel is that Aquino has the lighter political baggage among the candidates who are most likely to lead us (look, the presidency of ideal candidate Gordon is a myth; it doesn’t exist!) -- his heaviest being the error of his kin (Hacienda Luisita; I’m betting to believe his answer that hopefully, he will make up; there are many cases of oligarchs in the world, who tried to make up and succeeded in so doing), the reluctance and the spur-of-the-moment decision to run, and the demands of heroism (in history, the children of heroes always try to live up to their parents’ memory).

AND THEN, IN COMPARATIVE ASSHOLISM, WHY RISK HAVING ERAP AS OUR PRESIDENT AGAIN, AND CREATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS TO END ALL CONSTITUTIONAL CRISES? lol

AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL: WE SHOULD REALIZE BY NOW THAT WE ARE DOOMED TO HAVE AQUINO AS OUR PRESIDENT.

Told you so. DID THE PUNDITRY AND BIGOTRY IN THE BLOGOSPHERE NOT REALIZE THIS BEFORE??? Did they not realize that their abilty to sway public opinion ("to inform the voting public”) is puny, because most of the voting public are not so into blogging? LOL

Did they not realize that there was a risk that Erap could be our president? Pseudos. DO ME A FAVOR: Research the role of surveys in the history of nations (“Surveys should not be released to the public” – but only to the few who think well? How oligarchic! What false sense of entitlement! To my mind, the surveys are like the de facto general election; the election proper itself is the de facto run-off election). Mag-aral nga kayo. Dada kayo ng dada.

Aquino detractors are CONSOLED by the fact that all of us shall burden Noynoy with expectations. The election is only a symbol, vacuous or not, at first. To prove that the symbol means something: on to the real work!

Noynoy detractors always say that they may not be able to effect change on election day (in the sense of helping their candidate win), but their actions reverberate beyond the elections. True. As I said, let’s do our part: on to the real work!

OTHERWISE, WHAT DID YOUR VOTE FOR IDEALISM MEAN, ANYWAY, IF YOU SUCK IN OTHER ASPECTS OF CITIZENSHIP AND NATION-BUILDING?

WHAT DID YOUR VOTE MEAN WHEN YOU WISH THE PREZ-ELECT BAD LUCK?

WHAT IS AN IDEAL VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IF YOU ACTUALLY VOTED FOR VOTE BUYERS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL?

WHAT IS A VOTE FOR GORDON IF YOU ALSO VOTED FOR LITO LAPID?

WHAT IS A VOTE IF YOU DON’T LET THE ELDERLY SIT FIRST ON THE MRT?

TO BE FILIPINO GOES BEYOND VOTING.

CONCLUSION: WTF

Time to read Alex Lacson’s book, pseudos.

__________________________________________________________________________

P.S. My bone to pick with arrogant critics is there is so much conflict theory in most of the way they analyze the data they cull from the media, which they paradoxically criticize. Conflict theory is like this:

It’s like a father suspecting someone who wants to date his daughter as having the ulterior motive of getting into her pants. It’s like always looking at the glass half empty, looking at the personalities as having hidden agendas.

Conflict theory is pragmatic if it serves its purpose – to unravel all the hidden agendas; to find the solution to a sticky problem.

It becomes dogmatic if it doesn’t so. It becomes dogmatic if the response is always fight-or-flight when the situation doesn’t call for it.

A better mindset analyzes the situation from both angles of conflict and structural-functional theories, and compares both vantage points.