Home
| Initial Response to Nery |
|
Your reply to our criticism of the Jesuit guidelines for action was to label us Armchair Radicals. You wrote, “Buencamino and Sta. Ana have committed the old crime known in the free-spirited Sixties as libel by label; it will do all of us who take part in the public discourse good if we say so plainly—and call them to account for their intellectual dishonesty…The thrust of the Buencamino and Sta. Ana critique can be summed up neatly enough in the label in its title: “Jesuitic placebo.” Essentially, they criticize the guidelines as an exercise in casuistry, in merely clever double talk.” Eto yun. Unang una, libel is committed against a person not a thing. Our article, Jesuitic Placebo, criticizes the statement of the Jesuits. If after reading our criticism you concluded we were calling the authors of the “guidelines” a bunch of switiks eh that’s because it’s impossible to separate an author from his creation…unless, of course you use switik methods. To reiterate, Jesuitic Placebo is an apt description of the “guidelines. ”That was a direct assault on the Jesuit paper. The authors were collateral damage only. On the other hand, the title of your piece “Armchair Radicals,” was a direct assault on us. Our piece was the collateral damage, if at all. Nga pala, thank you for saying the thrust of our article “summed up neatly enough in the label in its title: “Jesuitic placebo.” Your title didn’t match your piece at all. I couldn’t find any armchair or radical in it. All I found was a good little Ateneo alumnus seated safely on his mentor’s lap and calling us names. “I think the guidelines bring us to a position I’ve staked out before: It’s “2010 or earlier.” What the document does is to describe each option as realistically as possible. This is the same tactic Buencamino and Sta. Ana use, to try to discredit such options as the naming of an independent counsel. Should we privilege their reading of reality over that of the Jesuits, simply because of what they think of their ex-mentors? (Mine too.)” Pweh. Your position “2010 or earlier” is ridiculous. The only option is “earlier” because if she stays on until 2010, it proves crime pays. Eto pa. “I myself do not agree that resignation is not a real political option; if the rambunctious world of Philippine politics has taught us anything, it is that we must be open to surprises. (How many of us, to give a small example, actually thought Benjamin Abalos would resign from his post?)” Maybe you should have asked yourself what would have happened if Abalos decided to tough it out and hang on to his post no matter who got hurt. Then maybe you wouldn’t have been surprised by his resignation. Do you actually believe he resigned on his own? Better if you just admitted that you, like your mentors, prefer to believe Gloria might still be persuaded to step down voluntarily instead of wimping out with a statement like “I myself do not agree that resignation is not a real political option…” Wimp. Eto pa. “My point: Buencamino and Sta. Ana do nuance too. (Here’s a risible example: “The independent counsel is just another name for the Ombudsman, an office that didn’t even need to be created if the Department of Justice was doing its job in the first place.” Apparently, in their reading of the Constitution, they scanted Article XI.)” For your information. Sabi sa Wikipedia, “In general, 'ombudsman' refers to a state official appointed to provide a check on government activity in the interests of the citizen, and to oversee the investigation of complaints of improper government activity against the citizen….The major advantage of an ombudsman is that he or she examines complaints from the outside of the offending state institution, thus avoiding the conflicts of interest inherent in self-policing.” Eto naman ang sabi ng DOJ sa kanilang website: "The mandate of the DOJ is to uphold the rule of law. "Its mission is to establish and maintain a just and orderly society through an effective, speedy, and compassionate administration of justice." Naintindihan mo na ang ibig namin sabihin na hindi na dapat may Ombudsman pa kung ang DOJ ay tapat sa kanilang mission? The sight of a grown man being bounced on his mentor’s knee, that’s risible. Ngayon eto personal sa akin. Sabi mo, sinulat ko: “In his initial response (as far as I know, and taking colleague Manolo Quezon’s word for—or rather hyperlink to—it), Buencamino takes issue with several aspects of the Jesuit document. Two struck me in particular. "First, his blithe dismissal of the guidelines’ preferential option for the poor: 'Prioritize the poor' reinforces a mistaken belief that justice etc. are luxuries only the well-fed can value … Filipinos have become apathetic not because they are more concerned about feeding themselves but because the system is unresponsive … But that’s just me and that’s just them.” Eto ang sinulat ko: “Section g. “Prioritize the poor.” reinforces a mistaken belief that justice etc. are luxuries only the well-fed can value: “If many Filipinos seem to be uninvolved or uninterested, it is primarily because of an overriding concern for economic survival during very hard times.” If you did not leave out that part, it will be clear that my beef was against the Jesuit’s analysis of why the poor are uninvolved and not against prioritizing the poor. But, from where you sit, I can understand why you blithely ignored the key piece of my argument. Here’s more from you: “Second, his eye-for-an-eye reading of the nonnegotiable principle of active nonviolence—This 'shackles the opposition more than it does the administration. It allows the ‘State’ to defend itself through whatever legitimate means necessary. But if you believe the administration is illegitimate then no self-defensive action other than preventing wanton vandalism and violence is permissible.' Two quick replies: It is the poor, always, who end up the victim of violence. And the people power Buencamino and Sta. Ana claim to know so well is in fact the highest expression of active nonviolence. Rushing to EDSA in 1986 to serve as a shield—some shackle.” This is what your teachers wrote in the “guidelines” regarding People Power: “People Power. People power is a precious legacy from the struggle against the dictatorship and the restoration of democracy in the Philippines. EDSA I was the culmination of a long process of political education, organization and mobilization throughout the martial law years and especially during the nearly three years after the assassination of former Senator Benigno Aquino. Active nonviolence was a defining characteristic of EDSA People Power. It is enshrined in the Constitution, which values initiatives from below as a way of harnessing the direct participation of the people in politics and governance. In its current usage, however, it is problematic because it is often equated with popular insurrection and takeover as a method of regime change. This creates a dynamic where crisis situations continue to be resolved through extra-constitutional means which are not predictable, weaken democratic institutions and install leaders with questionable mandates. Thus an endless series of EDSA’s spells serious instability.” They dichotomized People Power into “a precious legacy from the struggle against the dictatorship and the restoration of democracy in the Philippines…” and “In its current usage, however, it is problematic because it is often equated with popular insurrection and takeover as a method of regime change.” Ano yan, an adaptatiion of the “Two Philippines” theme? You have to relabel People Power para mailusot ninyo yun argument against using people power to oust Gloria? Rushing to Malacanan in 2008 to serve as a shield is some shackle indeed. But that’s just you, the teacher’s pet. Lux in Domino, a favorite Jesuit line, refers to light in God not the soap brand you use to clean up your mentor’s shit. Pweh! Write Comment
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6 |
||||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|