My Inquirer Current entry today in a sense, takes off from my Arab News column for this week, Blunders Allied With Crimes. An article in Slate today tackles how the United States tackled the Philippines and you can contrast this with an article in The Objective Standard as to why the United States is bogged down in Iraq, with no successful end game in sight. The analogy here is that neither America nor the AFP are countering insurgencies here at home or Iraq as they did at the turn of the 20th Century: and thus both are failing to meet their objectives.
Using force isn’t necessarily proof of either will, or genuine strength. It can be a sign of weakness or, something just as bad, a kind of selective blindness.
Take the President’s response to the latest survey on self-rated poverty. The President suggests people should take a second look at how their prioritize their spending, but at the same time, the government announces more casinos. And along the way, contradicts the very things that enabled the economic statistics in which she takes pride: had people not been smoking as much, or sending it out zillions of text messages, her raising taxes (not a reform, as she claims, but the logical question of her over-spending) would not have been able to compensated for what came before. Her laying it on thick on Tony Lopez also belies her claim to not being obsessed with politics, when as any president does, so does her cabinet: and what are Raul Gonzales (whose job is the Justice Department) and Ricardo Saludo (whose job is to be Secretary to the Cabinet) doing but politicking?
But of course it all makes perfect sense if you don’t deviate, one bit, from Palace-supplied talking points. It depends on a literal reading of the laws and an unsophisticated attitude towards the exercise of power. But we all know what is legal isn’t necessarily right, and what is possible isn’t necessarily what should be done. See the account in Newsbreak of where the culpability of the executive department lies. In cops misrepresenting themselves. In delays that are in themselves, violations of justice. the point is not that people have no right to sue, they do -but should they be suing all the people who get sued, and on the grounds used to justify the suits, and should the manner in which cases are filed and the police enforce warrants and so forth, be accepted without any questions? I think not, and that’s the whole point.
there’s an interesting editorial from Business Mirror, on the chance the President might veto portions of the national budget, which has been waiting for the President’s signature since February 22, but which will only be signed today (after the campaign has started, which meant the campaign began with budgetary breathing room for the Palace).