The Long View
Good Frodo and Evil Gollum
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:28:00 11/22/2009
IN book two of “The Fellowship of the Ring,” Celeborn, elven co-ruler of Lothl0rien, speaks directly to the readers as much as to the Fellowship when he counsels, “Do not despise the lore that has come down from distant years; for oft it may chance that old wives keep in memory word of things that once were needful for the wise to know.”
Chances are you’ve read or watched “The Lord of the Rings,” Tolkien’s saga in three volumes of how a reluctant hero is tasked with destroying a Ring of Power as a squabbling alliance of Hobbits, humans, dwarves and elves backs him up and fights titanic battles against the evil Sauron and his gruesome dark hordes. The epic is about Good and Evil, and how individuals can be one or the other, or even both, depending on the circumstances.
Some months ago Jim Paredes quipped that Noynoy Aquino is like the reluctant Hobbit hero Frodo Baggins, and that all those flocking to his aid and assistance are like the motley cast of characters that comprised the Fellowship of the Ring.
Tolkien the narrator observes of hobbits, as much as of men, of people in books as much as of people in real life, that “There is a seed of courage hidden (often deeply, it is true) in the heart of the fattest and most timid hobbit, waiting for some final and desperate danger to make it grow.”
In Book Two, the message is amplified in an exchange between Gimli the dwarf and the elf Elrond, representatives of races that do not like each other but now allied in a common quest, yet the two still disagree on how to approach the physical and even moral perils of their quest.
“Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,” the action-oriented Gimli starts off. Elrond the jaded elf replies, “Maybe, but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall.” Gimli counters, “Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,” only for Elrond to pragmatically respond by saying, “Or break it.” This is the eternal conflict between purists and realists.
At a time when there’s a general desire to see righteousness reign in our politics, there is too great a danger of self-righteousness intruding its discordant voice, insisting, on one hand, on impossible standards for individuals while ignoring the need for a common cause to confront the greater danger. This is the danger of pride substituting for true conscientiousness.
Quite early on in Book One of “The Fellowship of the Ring,” in the second chapter, the reluctant Frodo and the wizard Gandalf discuss Gollum, the deranged previous holder of the Ring of Power from whom Frodo’s uncle, Bilbo, had taken the ring; throughout the saga Gollum represents the problem of Frodo the Good, requiring the at times sincere, and most other times, deceitful, assistance of the generally Evil Gollum.
From the very start, Frodo thinks it’s a bad thing to have to engage the help of bad people and tells Gandalf, “He deserves death.” Gandalf’s answer is instructive, laying down a theme that will persist to the end of the saga, as he repeatedly counsels the members of the Fellowship of the Ring against the perils of confusing the righteousness of their cause with the pride of self-righteousness.
“Deserves it! I daresay he does,” Gandalf agrees; but adds, “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many – yours not least.”
Tolkien repeatedly returns to this theme of redemption – whether partial or complete – for the bad, or the merely confused, a possibility that should temper the self-righteousness of characters themselves fully capable of departing – temporarily but at times, disastrously – from the path of righteousness. Pride, he perpetually points out, feeds the divisions self-righteousness creates and which harms Good and promotes Evil.
As the elf Haldir of Lorien, responding to the bickering and simmering tensions between allies, points out in another chapter of Book Two: “In nothing is the power of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that divides all those who still oppose him.”
Gandalf himself, in Book Three, returns to the basic lesson Haldir propounded: “We are all friends here. Or should be; for the laughter of Mordor will be our only reward, if we quarrel.” Something he returns to again, much later on in Book Five, where once again self-righteousness has provoked discord and to which his reply is, “Let us remember that a traitor may betray himself and do good that he does not intend. It can be so, sometimes.”
Hope is what enabled Good to conquer Evil – for at the heart of hope is the humility to give all a chance to help fight Evil, without sneering at motives. A humility based on belief in redemption for those who once served Evil. Frodo could not do it alone, he needed help; help came from all quarters and much of it tainted by mixed motives as shown by the thoroughly bad Gollum.
Every character wrestled with the dilemma of fighting for Good yet being confronted by Evil, internal and external. Hope subdued pride, humility fostered unity and trust in Good allowed individuals as well as kingdoms to conquer the Ultimate Evil, Sauron.
As the fair elven Galadriel had told the impatient dwarf Gimli in Book Two, “I do not foretell, for all foretelling is now vain: on the one hand lies darkness, and on the other only hope. But if hope should not fail, then I say to you, Gimli son of Gloin, that your hands shall flow with gold, and yet over you gold shall have no dominion.”
“If I were Noynoy, I’d just take all the monetary and logistical contributions and win the elections.” – SoP
**************************************************
Pocketing the contributions isn’t as uncommon as some people think, and winning the elections isn’t even necessary.
In 1998, Erap’s campaign was rolling in money from contributions. He was so far ahead of all the other candidates, that he didn’t have to spend all the money. Huge surplus funds ended up in Erap’s pockets after the campaign. Nanalo sya, at kumita pa siya.
JDV, knowing he couldn’t win the presidency in 1998, held back on his campaign expenditures. Being the ruling party’s candidate, he received sizeable contributions for his campaign. JDV lost the elections, but, money-wise, he finished in the positive column.
In 1992, Ramon Mitra knew his presidential campaign was faltering, despite being the then-ruling party’s candidate. Mitra held back on spending, knowing he would lose anyway, and held on to the campaign money instead. Before Cory Aquino assumed the presidency, Monching Mitra wasn’t known as a wealthy man. Yet, after Mitra died in 2000, he left an estate estimated in the billions, which even caused infighting between legitimate and illegitimate children.
We know of the Jose Pidal account, and how it was alleged to be surplus campaign funds. We have seen Mikey Arroyo’s defense of his purchase of a house in the U.S. Bought with left-over campaign contributions. Assuming those explanations are truthful, they only show how elections can be turned into a money-making enterprise. It is even more lucrative for the front-runners, but it doesn’t prevent also-rans from turning a profit from their campaign.
I am wondering why Hermogenes Ebdane is running for President. He knows better than we do that he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to win. But that will be a pretext to solicit campaign contributions. Given his connections with the military and DPWH, many will be forced to give something to his campaign. Not only is it a great way to make money, it’s a great way to launder hidden wealth.
I don’t know why the comment above was posted here. It was meant for the previous mlq blog. Something must’ve gotten mixed up when I submitted the comment. My apologies.
The Lord of the Rings had really evil characters and good characters, unfortunately life isn’t the same as in books, who among the politicians is truly evil and who are truly good? They all seem, to a greater or lesser degree, tainted whether it be the brush of corruption or the color of greed or even the sins of their families.
After all, the biggest problem in this nation is the fact that our politics have long since been dominated by a few, the oligarchic families that keep our nation under their thumbs.
BTW, the person Gimli was talking to in “Twin Towers” which is book 2 of the “Lord of the Rings” Trilogy and not the “Fellowship of the Ring” which is the title of book 1 of the trilogy, was Legolas and not Elrond.
So Noynoy is our so-called Frodo for now. I wonder where are the Gollums? Already surrounding him according to Serge Osmeña?
Noynoy must not do a Frodo, He must do an Aragorn…
I have an entirely different role/metaphor for Noynoy playing in my mind and that is of Aragorn. The Frodos in my story are the Filipino people wanting change but are as confused as Frodo as to how to go about it. Our Frodos need to have an Aragorn to help us vanquish the evils of this country because we have a history of messing things up with our ignorance (remember Frodo trying the ring for size, etc?) Frodo is not a leader. What we need is a leader, one with the vision, power and integrity of a true leader. One who can summon the good to battle the evil. There are too many gollums and Sarumans trying to trick our people into voting for them in the next election by pretending that they are aligned with Noynoy. For him to be a Frodo without the Aragorns and the Gimlies and the Legolases is extremely dangerous. (I know I’m getting carried away with my Lord of the Rings Characters).
If Noynoy can’t be an an Aragorn, he won’t be able to deliver the Frodos of this nation to vanquish Sauron who is now threatening to go to congress and try a different way of getting to the ring of power. With minions now joining Noynoy’s quest who is to say that they won’t turn into more powerful gollums ready to overwhelm (like how they overwhelm impeachment procedures) when Sauron attempts to be prime minister?
Noynoy, son of Ninoy… Return of the King… O di ba 🙂
In the Philippine political setting, there aren’t really genuine “good” guys, just ordinary imperfect humans being asked fo perform extraordinary feats. Inorder for them to defeat evil they have to become evil, consort with evil, use evil’s power against it, etc. Some (most?) were even evil to start with and because of unexplained epiphany suddenly decided to break free from the demon’s chains and are now fighting the good fight. If this were the case all along, well nobody should have the gall to use INTEGRITY, HONESTRY, and all sorts of principles that only the genuine “good” guys possess…we shouldn’t be led through our emotional noses by words…speeches…
Inorder to avoid extreme disappointment, its better to look at all these through the eyes of Machiavelli…and hope that end is really worth the means…
“At a time when there’s a general desire to see righteousness reign in our politics, there is too great a danger of self-righteousness intruding its discordant voice, insisting, on one hand, on impossible standards for individuals while ignoring the need for a common cause to confront the greater danger.”
True. But it’ll be hard to ignore those impossible standards if you, or those around you, have shrouded yourself with the mantle of morality. If you’ve colored this fight as “good vs evil” then by gulay it’s going to be tough not living up to those standards. NOW if it was “mostly good vs partly evil” then Noy would have a better time explaining why it’s still all about choosing the lesser evil, the end justifying the means, and I’d ally with the devil himself if it’s for the greater good…
I’d ally with the devil himself if it’s for the greater good…
—————————————————-
So the devil is that stupid? Well, then there’s nothing to fear then, why didn’t we do this earlier solved our problems a lot sooner?
I dunno, think of Churchill, and his precisely being willing to all with the devil himself if Hitler invaded Hell. Yet Churchill never conceded that his fight was anything but Good vs. Evil.
ramrod, re-check your Machiavelli, even he insisted at all times the appearance of piety must be maintained. you are confusing civic virtues with sanctity.
“Hope is what enabled Good to conquer Evil—for at the heart of hope is the humility to give all a chance to help fight Evil, without sneering at motives. A humility based on belief in redemption for those who once served Evil.”
i suppose this applies not only to ralph recto of LP but also to bongbong marcos of NP?
i’m sorry, but i dont understand the point of this column. would u mind sharing? surely u dont believe that noynoy is frodo. or that redemption is a good reason to vote anyone into office.
i understand the difference between the right-ness of one’s cause, and the sin of self-righteousness.
but i dont understand the connection of these ideas to elections. all candidates are convinced of his/her own right-ness.
but all of them too believe that they are the best people who can accomplish their goals. there is certain amount of self-confidence required when running for higher office.
“Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,” said Gimli. “Maybe,” said Elrond, “but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall.” “Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,” said Gimli. …
Source:Just google it(madami)
“Hope is what enabled Good to conquer Evil—for at the heart of hope is the humility to give all a chance to help fight Evil, without sneering at motives. A humility based on belief in redemption for those who once served Evil.†– mlq3
“i suppose this applies not only to ralph recto of LP but also to bongbong marcos of NP?” – angela
***************************************************
It can be summed up in that tired, old cliché: “Politics is addition.”
Of course, some spin will be necessary to differentiate these political machinations from what the others are doing, and in order to make them more palatable to the public. So in order to make the tired and the old appear like something fresh and noble, this is the message that has to be sent out to the public:
“If our side is recruiting the Evil guys, it’s giving them a shot at redemption. It the other side is doing it, they’re simply advancing the cause of Evil.”
These gradual political accomodations are like “salami shavingsâ€.A little shave of idealism here and there.
Sooner,rather than later,the Liberal Party will be another “Palakaâ€!
The ends justify the means,huh?
ramrod, re-check your Machiavelli, even he insisted at all times the appearance of piety must be maintained. you are confusing civic virtues with sanctity.
—————————————-
Oh, I understand now. Civic virtues are entirely different from sanctity or what John Maxwell referred to as universal principles…government is a necessay evil, and the task of leaders’ is to maintain the “appearance” of piety.
So there is a diferent set of standards for politicians?
…if this is true, I’ll burn my Maxwell books and seminar handouts as they are not applicable to Philippine real life politics…
If this is the direction we are going to, are we progressing or are we justifying lowering of standards to fit reality?
Two points, Manolo. No, three:
1. If the coalition that deposed Marcos was able to take in those previously associated with him at the last minute, then admitting defections from the GMA camp is really nothing at all.
2. Normative standards of propriety are really a subjective thing. Everyone knows that corruption, patronage and rent-seeking permeates the government. Does that mean that everyone who has served in government is tainted? Where do you draw the line in the end to determine what or who is acceptable.
3. The allegory provides a very interesting mental exercise, but let us not get carried away here. I cannot imagine the camp of Noynoy making such decisions for or against something based on a work of fiction, just as I would hate for a justice quoting scripture in justifying his actions.
It’s really the end of the fairy tale, now that Noynoy’s camp is talking to Chiz “Boy Laway” Escudero.
Noynoy is STUPID to be talking to Chiz “Boy Laway” Escudero whose main goal in life is to dumb down the educational system. What is to be gained by inviting that narcissist and his sewage pipe mouth?
“Churchill never conceded that his fight was anything but Good vs. Evil.”
****************************************************
Indeed, it took on not only dimensions of Good vs. Evil, but Life vs. Death, when the German Luftwaffe conducted its Blitz via the sustained bombing of Britain.
More than 50,000 civilian lives were lost, well over a million homes bombed to rubble, and countless military and industrial centers destroyed. On top of all of these, was the constant threat of imminent German invasion of Britain and the deadly V-1 flying bombs and V-2 rocket attacks, precursors of present-day missiles, which additionally claimed almost 10,000 lives.
In the face of being annihilated by the Germans, the entire British nation had no choice but to see the Germans as Evil. Being faced with an existentialist threat to their very survival, gave Churchill and the British people no choice.
I’m just pissed with the movie that they didn’t think to include Glorfindel.
Escudero=Gollum is apt only if no one does a serious intervention on Chiz.
Noynoy actually closely resembles gollum.
Ethics is going to fall by the wayside with a “win no matter what” philosophy.
There is winning well and winning poorly.
The new buzzline I am hearing is this:
What would Ninoy do? Not NoyNoy, Noy is not Ninoy.
Never mind ethics. Just baby win at whatever the cost! Our smart friends in blogosphere can rationalize it for us!
Carl again, no. Because the Germans and quite a few English were prepared to spare the British and their Empire. It was Churchill who insisted it was a fight between Good and Evil to the extent that the British had to fight even if it meant risking annihilitation and loss of empire.
Can’t disagree with your observations or your cautioning against overextending metaphors, Cusp.
Ramrod, no. Let’s separate Maxwell (whom I haven’t read so I can’t comment) from Machiavelli who was interested in power regardless of whether or not a prince was intrinsically good. He recognized goodness required a nod even from evil.
i’m a big believer in redemption, it’s what i’ve been advocating since 2005.
angela, it’s a general parable one can apply to anyone and any cause one believes in also.
From the way NoyNoy handled himself during last night’s interview we could already see a glimpse of his leadership style. Personally, I still adhere to good/bad, wise/unwise, right/wrong, open/close, etc. logic, nothing in between. I find easier to make decisions that way, especially if you use existing policy as basis or an agreement of some sorts. If its not black its white…
If we’re to swim in the same muddy water in the next administration, we might as well swim with the best (experts in swimming in muddy water) swimmers. This is looking more and more to me as someone’s project in image building gone sour (or someone’s half slip showing) and if nobody noticed this before I really don’t know whats going on anymore…
Regardless of what everyone is saying, my personal biases aside, Gibo seems to be the logical and sensible choice. I never liked the guy, then again, I don’t need to like him to admit I’m wrong…
why what did you find objectionable to his responses?
why what did you find objectionable to his responses?
—————————————————
Not objectionable, for the most part Noynoy accomplished what was asked of him…what I see is mediocrity, lack of confidence (as seen in his bearing), lack of focus (as seen in his shifting eye focus), seeming lack of conviction, and incoherence. I had to replay the video thrice before i could get heads or tails of what he talking about…he’s the type of person that I will not hire based on the initial interview alone…what most people I believe are clamoring for is someone with a good heart regardless of past achievements, he hasn’t shown much of this either…he’s not a firebrand like his father nor charismatic like his mother…maybe I’m wrong, maybe I haven’t seen what most people see in him yet…I’ll promise to keep looking…
Winning at any cost has infected all sports.We find it particularly offensive when it involves our political leaders in this country.This mirrors the breakdown in ethics in our culture.
BUT, what is most SICKENING, is when our so-called “idealistic” candidates adopt the same philosophy!
Very well done, Manolo. Amen.
Jhay on, “So Noynoy is our so-called Frodo for now. I wonder where are the Gollums? Already surrounding him according to Serge Osmeña?”
Serge Osmena is the gollum who is both good and evil. His first reference to the evil Mafiosi was the first salvo. As Carl have repeatedly tried to paint Noynoy as Mafiosi based upon Serge Osmena’s Mafiosi claim but failed. It is easy to see that Osmena can no longer define Noynoy nor Gollum can define Frodo.
Ed Ebreo on, “Noynoy must not do a Frodo, He must do an Aragorn”
Despite that Frodo is the principal character of the book, people failed to grasp this and identified more with the flashy character of Aragorn. Simply stated, Aragorn could not do the job of Frodo.
“Carl again, no. Because the Germans and quite a few English were prepared to spare the British and their Empire. It was Churchill who insisted it was a fight”.
This is correct. Lord Halifax and other lords had the appeasement mentality to save British from the inconveniences of war. It would have been more tragic for British and the world if not for Lord Winston Churchill who stood up to the greatest challenge at that time.
“Not objectionable, for the most part Noynoy accomplished what was asked of him…what I see is mediocrity, lack of confidence (as seen in his bearing), lack of focus (as seen in his shifting eye focus), seeming lack of conviction, and incoherence. I had to replay the video thrice before i could get heads or tails of what he talking about…he’s the type of person that I will not hire based on the initial interview alone”.
In short, people are looking for persona like Hitler or Marcos (that can sell an ice to the Eskimo) but not their deeds.
“It’s really the end of the fairy tale, now that Noynoy’s camp is talking to Chiz “Boy Laway†Escudero.”
But this is the persona that voters are looking for. To Noynoy’s credit, these varied personalities can get the vote but they have little to decide on what the president can do or cannot do.
Speaking of evil …. no fantasy, real-life events, Filipinos of Mindanao.
Madasser Mangudadatu, a member of the ARMM-Regional Legislative Assembly . . . said they sent their sisters and the lawyer to file the COC for his brother.
“We were confident that they are not that type of persons (to kill women) so we sent all our ladies, that includes our eldest sister and youngest sister and some of our relatives, all women, believing that they will not kill them because they are women. But we made a big mistake because they did not spare anyone. they killed even the women, and children”.
The victims — women, children, media.
The Maguindanao massacre is the latest tragedy of President Gloria Macapagal administration -unequivocal support behind Governor Andal “Zaldy” Ampituan of Maguindanao. The victims are kins of rival clan who were trying to file COC to challenge the Arroyo’s man in Maguindanao.
Such brazen act stems from political patronage enjoyed by the Ampituans from the President, with Ampituans goons integrated into the Maguindanao police force. Standing order to the military is to prevent retaliation by the rival clan with the state of emergency declaration.
The misplaced order to the AFP is to disarm, instead to capture the perpetrators dead or alive in the interest of justice.
This is how political patronage works for President Gloria Arroyo and her (in)justice policy.
Can GMA redeem herself? Yes but that would entail prosecuting her husband and exposing herself. Would the better nature of her angels allow her to do this?
Not very likely..Her animal nature prevails..
During election season the motto guiding everyone will be “Pragmatism going amuck.â€
Elections is a form of civilized warfare to gain power. When Cory was alive and she saw the need to fight the government she did not hesitate to take to the streets. However she could not get many of the people today gravitating to Noynoy to follow her.
We elect our autocrats every six years. All the minor autocrats know they will have to reposition themselves and bet on who will take the crown.
The one who they perceive will take it all during the last month of campaigning will win the crown. That is when the real shifting will occur. The locals will send the signals during the closing days on who is the more likely to win. The candidate with the most effective communication systems in place will triumph.
Elections are not about ideals and principles. It is simply about fear and greed. Right now there is this underlying fear that we are a ship in tatters without a captain. Every candidate wants to become the pied piper.
One thing we have to thank GMA for is taking this country to the depths of hopelessness about the role of government in the scheme of things.
At a time when effective governments are holding the global economy from disintegrating we are seeing what may be the final disintegration of the Philippine government.
Hence we are looking for mythical personalities to save us.
Cory’s halo covered up many of the sins of her administration.
In short, people are looking for persona like Hitler or Marcos (that can sell an ice to the Eskimo) but not their deeds.
————————————————
Not really. Maybe a Lee Kuan Yew. At least someone with a clear vision, conviction, methodical background, discipline, and the eloquence to communicate all these so that people will follow. Personally, if we didn’t know Noynoy was the son of Ninoy and Cory, would we even follow him?
Gibo could have easily won points by attacking Gloria earlier on and claim epiphany and work for redemption. If he continues to show the same degree of professionalism, win or lose, he is undoubtedly one of those potential leaders we allowed to get away from us.
I sort of agree with those who oppose admitting the gollums of this world, but for a different reason. I personally do not think that the fight is between light and darkness, but that is not to say the majority of supporters do.
I just see this election as a tussle between groups of the elite. Except that the dominant one is using a narrative that has mythical dimensions. So the worst thing that can happen for that candidate is for his narrative/message to get muddled or incoherent.
Meanwhile, you have very articulate candidates on the other end with very coherent messages. In the end, the race could tighten up due to this factor: Noynoy’s message gets bogged down with petty infighting, while the underdogs might sharpen their message and present themselves as honest and/or competent alternatives.
In the end, even if we assume the possibility of “redemption” for the Rectos of the world (something that I don’t think is necessary since I don’t see him as guilty of anything-but that is beside the point), one would have to judge the fall-out of such a move and compare that with the gains brought about, in this case by securing the Batangas and pro-Vilma vote.
I guess as Buth Abad said, it is “case to case”. With each gollum, one would have to determine the baggage and the carriage that they bring in with them to see if it is a “net plus” or “net minus” to the bandwagon.
The way I see it, too many transactions like these could cost Noynoy in the end, in terms of quality support. If gaining power is all that really matters (as the Cojuangcos think – since even after EDSA I, they were willing to accommodate even the worst offenders of 3G politics (guns, goons and gold) into the LDP tent), then you would give equal weight to an idealist vote lost and a purchased vote won through local networks.
“Carl again, no. Because the Germans and quite a few English were prepared to spare the British and their Empire. It was Churchill who insisted it was a fight between Good and Evil to the extent that the British had to fight even if it meant risking annihilitation and loss of empire.” – mlq3
*****************************************************
The pacifists and the appeasers underestimated the fierce pride and nationalism of the British people. This was a very proud nation, which fought off the Spanish empire, rejected the impositions of the Roman Catholic Church, established its own global Empire and took pride of its mastery of the seas. Since the late 19th century, it was already paranoid of Teutonic ambitions, and these proved well-founded with the advent of World War I.
Churchill was among the politicians who understood British nationalism and the mentality of the British people. He knew that the British people would never give in to appeasement, and that they preferred to fight, even if it meant annihilation.
And Churchill was proven right. In the years leading to World War II, Churchill was a washed-up politician. He had seen better years, and was considered a crank and a zealot. Some viewed him as an extremist. But Nazi incursions into Eastern Europe caused the British people to think twice about Churchill’s views. As discontent grew over Lord Chamberlain’s appeasement policy, Churchill became more and more popular, until he took on a larger than life personality as the champion of British pride and nationalism.
So was it a case of the tail wagging the dog? Definitely not. The British people were wagging the tail. Churchill only gave voice to the nation’s proud, stubborn and unyielding character. Churchill had read the sentiments of the British people much better than the other politicians. During that period, he was in synch with the mood of the times.
And, just as Churchill was in synch with the people during World War II, he quickly fell out of step with the times after the Allied victory. In 1945, Churchill was defeated in elections.
there’s an interesting study done by john lukacs of britis public opinion during that time and particularly during what he considers the critical period of may 1940 when britain teetered on the brink of surrender. british public opinion teetered as well; it was churchill who crystallized what the fight was about, on two realms: among his fellow officials and among the public. else the british public was inclined to throw in the towel too at that point.
Well, also, Serge has been pretty unequivocal, he continues to support the Aquino-Roxas tandem, it’s the senate slate he’s distancing himself from.
President GMA is an angel in disguise.
Manolo, ORCS at it again in Mindanao.
Referring presumably to the ‘Isang Tanong Isang Sagot’ program…
Again Noynoy merely accomplished “what was asked of him” in the same way that he now runs for president because it was “what was asked of him”. Nothing new in that concept by now as I believe many have already highlighted this rather glaring trait of his to jump only when kicked in the arse. And as far as arse-kicking goes, Pinoys for their part don’t have much of a foot for it.
Indeed, the more disturbing thing to note now is the nature of the questions that were fielded in this program — something that is highlighted in a recent blog post by BetterPhilipines
If these represent the best of what our “expert grillers” can cough up, one begins to understand why our politicians behave the way they do and get away with as much as they do. They see no reward in performing at a level beyond what is asked of them by their constituents.
Even modern day hero Efren Peñaflorida given the driver’s seat stepped on the gas with a flaccid foot asking the question “How can one be a hero?”
As Borat say, “Izza nicccce.”
Oh, and by the way, perhaps it might be worth noting that these bozos from which we need to select our next leader are major sources of ad revenues for GMA and ABS-CBN.
Sayaw, Pinoy, sayaw. 😀
Apart from the questionable wisdom of using a Tolkein fantasy as a guide to public policy, I’m not so sure the “Noynoy as Frodo” metaphor is all that complementary. The “hero” in this story:
*Is one who, reluctantly, does what he is told to do. After first trying desperately to pass the responsibility on to someone else.
*Nearly succumbs to the temptation of ‘evil’ numerous times, only to be saved in the nick of time by stronger personalities.
*Nearly screws up the whole thing in a variety of other ways, only to be saved by his wiser, more determined friend. (Mar take note: you’re going to be very busy)
*Eventually only succeeds not because he faced ‘evil’ head-on and won, but because a few thousand other people were busy getting killed to keep ‘evil’ distracted so the poor schlub had a chance of making it.
Really, it’s not something that inspires a lot of confidence when the preferred candidate of the author has to be described in terms of a fictional character, and especially not one that has readers of the book and viewers of the movie (I myself am a big fan of Tolkein, but really) either feeling sorry for him or being disgusted with his weak and selfish attitude most of the time.