Comments on: Hobson’s choice

By: cvj

cvj — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:54:26 +0000

Shaman, by sustainability, i was thinking of a scenario similar to what happened back in EDSA3 when the INC made themselves scarce towards the end. In any case, for now, i’m just glad they are on the right side of the issues.

I agree that it is not feasible to have direct intervention by the people all the time because we either have our day jobs (or are looking for one). But, as i told Rego above, the public’s mistake after the two successful EDSA’s was to let down its guard. Especially after EDSA2, the weakening of the public sphere was compounded by the entry of civil society into the State and their resulting corruption. (That is why, as i mentioned before, it is important for civil society members to get out of government and go back to their respective advocacies.)

I believe, that the quality of the State institutions can only be enhanced and maintained if it genuinely interacts with an active public sphere via NGO’s and People’s organizations. Involvement by a broad segment of the public will, in turn, energize these NGO’s and people’s organizations and will prevent them from degenerating into narrow special interest groups.

By: Shaman of Malilipot

Shaman of Malilipot — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:03:56 +0000

Cat and cvj, I do not expect direct intervention by the sovereign people in the day-to-day affairs of the government, if that’s what you mean by “sustainability”. I expect the people to intervene directly in matters of immense significance to our public life. Cheating in the elections by a President is one. Railroading of Charter change for a power grab is another. We cannot be going into the streets for every corrupt act committed by our public officials. Sustainability means that we should not stop demanding for GMA to fully account for the “Hello Garci” tapes instead of evading the issue. Sustainability means that we should not stop concerted effort until GMA, JDV, and their cohorts permanently abandon their plot to ravage the Constitution to suit their self-serving agenda. And the rallies are part of this concerted effort, admittedly to be participated in by sinners.

By: Shaman of Malilipot

Shaman of Malilipot — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 03:38:26 +0000

Speaking of short cuts, the impeachment of GMA should have been allowed to go its full course. But because the process was cut in the bud by the House majority through the sheer tyranny of numbers, in the same way that they tried to ram through the Con-Ass, the question of GMA’s legitimacy won’t go away. In a way, the public outrage is a bit late in coming. It should have come when the first attempt to impeach GMA was cut short. But I guess public outrage has a way of compounding first before it finally explodes.

By: inidoro ni emilie

inidoro ni emilie — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:05:17 +0000

rego said:

“And that is why Manolo peopel are saying Ã¢â‚¬Â No more short cuts. Period!”

this should have been your attitude taken before having thought of joining edsa 2. i abhored erap, but i would have wanted the impeachment process completed more than anything else rather than taking short cuts through text party in the streets. great concert it was at edsa shrine, wasn’t it then?

By: baycas

baycas — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:01:10 +0000

here rego again, choosing the lesser of two evils…

By: cvj

cvj — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:24:23 +0000

Rego, as a fellow participant in EDSA and EDSA2, i think the problem was not the people’s ‘emotionalism’ during the events themselves. After all, it was emotions as driven by our convictions that motivated us to act. Rather, we in the public lacked follow through afterwards. Once everything was back to normal, we let the politicians revert to their usual form. As the past few weeks’ turn of events have shown, to check the abuses of the State, an actively engaged public sphere (e.g. INC, CBCP, B&W)is needed. We should not let the disappointments of the past numb our sense of justice or else, as freeloaders, we become part of the problem.

I agree with Ca T that the issue is sustainability in the face of leaders who may waver (or be co-opted by GMA), but that is something that remains to be seen.

By: The Ca t

The Ca t — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:24:18 +0000

My issue on questioning the motive/agenda of the leaders versus the real reason of the prayer/for/luck/ prosperity-motivated flock is the sustainability of the issue.

To keep the fire burning, the ember should be always flamed. I wrote “politically motivated” religious leaders because that’s what they really are. The political motivation is not to condemn what is right and what is wrong. For their own and not for the sake of the people. My goodness sake.

Deals and no deals have always been their game. So now I am thinking of another agenda. What is it that they like in order to stop prayer rallies? A juicy government position for a congregation’s member? A tax-exemption for some favored firms ?
Or the freezing of some resolutions that would be soon passed as a law that affect the congregations/church? Or the proclamation of the law suspension. (remember the death penalty and the population control measure).

The moment they get their objective(and they always do), they become silent again. So is the “flock”.

By: sparc

sparc — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:18:19 +0000

If erap or say fpj is in malacanang right now, i wonder where you and bong will be.

By: sparc

sparc — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:01:18 +0000

Democracy they say is rule of the majority. But if the majority becomes a dictator and abuses their “majority rule” just like what happened in congress, then we all have a problem. Its everybody’s problem and its more than enough reason to be outraged else, they will have more than enough reason to be abusive than ever. I guess you just want them to abuse you more.

By: rego

rego — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:39:54 +0000

ay aparc sparc ….. walang nakakatawa, wag malilito….at wala ring nag dedeny…wala ring inconsistency

simple lang yan, i had my outrage then in EDSA 1 and 2, I learned that solving the country problem (especially about leadership) through emotionalism ( which to me peopel power is really an emotional approach rather that objective) is is not working. That why I dont wamt want people power anymore. Learning is a process naman di ba and sometime you learn from your mistake.

That is why I choose not to be outraged this time….

gets mo na? sige ka pag di mo pa na gets yan baka mas ikaw ang pagtawanan…..