Imagining our nation

We are, by nature, prisoners of our bodies and its position in space and time. A change of location affords a different perspective about one's object of inquiry. From my current perch, my mind's eye contemplates our nation as a stranger might a foreign land. Having been removed from its urgency, its demands, its paranoia, I see her as she sits, hands placed demurely on her knee, naked.

As I attend to my life here in the land of zero politics, she flutters in the periphery, her full-throated laughter alternating with wails of despair. While my conscious must set her aside, I see her still in the literature I read. I read her in my newsfeed. I recognize her in the face of a yaya walking her charge to daycare. She sits there alternately mocking, pleading, begging my attention. Mi patria adorada.

What makes a patriot? What makes a Filipino? Must I be home? Must I answer her calls? Can we not imagine her from where we are, wherever we are on the planet? I used to dream of her once, dressed in the best possible garb of hope. Justice, love and wealth deferred. She was, then, too from a distance, a bundle of potentials. I came home, for a while, and lived her existence. There I sat, steeped in her urgency, her demands, her paranoia. A dutiful daughter can only take so much.

Can we not imagine, together, a nation on the brink? Can we not tell this story, our story, from where we are on earth? What do you see from where you are today? How do you see? How would you, with the luxury of distance, write our story? How would you imagine our nation?

----

I am happy that Filipino Voices is back on the interwebs. And I am happy to be writing for FV again :-)

A Politics for Hope

If the writing is exceptional it shakes one's complacence, not make one roll one's eyes. It makes one want to act, not vomit. Reading should make one think and reflect. Like this 20 year-old Roselle. On the EDSA Revolution she writes:

Perhaps the error was in reinstating into power the very same bloc that dominated the pre-authoritarian clientilist State. Perhaps the blunder was in the return to State strategies that employed both discursive and actual violence that muffled alternative voices in the ground. Or did we perhaps commit a mistake in waging the Revolution, as it was just a blanket of fictitious hopefulness for the country? Reverting to the final explanation is dangerous: it invites the notion that revolutions are mere fantasy formations conjured out of thin air—a transitory drug that sterilizes dismal conditions in order to prepare for a bigger, brighter future where there can no longer be any faults. This perspective snatches away the interwoven narratives, experiences and struggles that lead up to a political revolution. Moreover, it relegates the animating spirit of revolutionary action into a mere mechanism of governmentality. In defining revolutions as such, we are courting the specters of anti-democracy—its ethereal charm, its powerful guarantees, its poisonous evocation of ungrounded victory—back into the polity. In contrast to all of these, revolutions are political encounters, exchanges, and even opposition by warm bodies in the public space.

In retrieving the spirit of the democratic revolution and allocating it to our own political topography, there is a supplemental need to reappraise our notions of hope and change. A metaphysics for these concepts is inspiring and a good critical juncture at best, but if we leave them hanging within the ranks of collective highfalutin phantasmagoria we betray the struggle purportedly waged in the name of politics. Freedom and democracy are far from empty words: they are charged with the baggage of history and a responsibility for the future. What is asked from us by the active reminder of our revolutionary past is a response in the form of a politics for hope—one that harks back to the past either to ensure that unfreedom will never happen again or to learn valuable lessons from it; one that toils with and for others at the present; and one that commits itself to a future that does not dictate a singular end. The radical democratic spirit solicits much from the ethos of revolutions (though not exclusively); hence, our commitments for democracy must go beyond the realm of attitudes and structures that coddle us from the ruggedness of genuine political life so that we may bring about a transformation of the very processes that shape our constitution as individuals and as a people.

See? She is critical minus the self-loathing. Substantial. Maybe a little difficult to read. And she doesn't make tautological explanations that essentially say - you're stupid because you're dumb!

My greatest pet peeve is writing with a sneer. Some people are able to carry it off because they're brilliant. Some just make me want to roll my eyes. Oh lordy, why do I have to suffer such affront. But hey, the web allocates space for bad prose and even worse political analysis. It is a democracy so all sorts are welcome. Now if only the voices amplified spoke on behalf those who can't and not waste space screaming you're stupid because you're dumb!

Notes from Fanon

“Intellectual alienation is a creation of middle-class society. What I call middle-class society is any society that becomes rigidified in predetermined forms, forbidding all evolution, all gains, all progress, all discovery.” – Frantz Fanon

Is it not possible to celebrate the self without false aggrandizement? To celebrate the self without auto-castigation for perceived overreach or exaggeration?

For the young to be so full of cynicism is a sin committed by those who have come before. For received claims of knowledge to be recycled, and with which to pummel ourselves in perpetuity is my generation’s greatest tragedy. Would some have us in a rotoscope loop to live and re-live the same piece of narrative over and over and over?

To make these claims would have our people frozen in time. If we cannot tell new stories, new stories of and for ourselves, then we should lay down our arms and cease to write.

I’d rather thought this anguish over self-identity was dated. But for it to be exhibited in a 21 year old shows me it is not.

Forgive me Iya, I no longer watch TV

My rejoinder was too philosophical and the kids seemed to have missed the point. So, here is a less abstract reply to a young disciple of Manong Benigs.

“Arnel Pineda, Charice Pempengco, and boxing champion Manny Pacquaio, these are the few world-renowned Filipinos who have instigated a sense of so-called “Pinoy Pride” among the attention-seeking Filipinos who, after realizing within themselves that as a state, we have achieved practically nothing, would bask in to the achievements of the individuals mentioned in order to feel some sense of self-worth. However, I do not blame people like Pacquaio for precipitating a false sense of pride among the Filipinos. After all, it’s not their fault their “kababayans” have a distorted culture.”

- It seems Ms. Justimbaste has been remiss in her history books. Her professors should be castigated. If she wants to measure Filipino pride on personalities, then let us mention a few Filipinos who are “world-renowned.” Let’s start with the first guy to use the word “Filipino” to mean all inhabitants of the Philippine islands – Jose Rizal. Indonesian revolutionaries greatly admired him long after his death. There are still Indonesians who name their children Rizal. There are scholars on either side of the Atlantic who have written about him and the Philippine revolution. Then there’s Cory Aquino. People Power is a big deal. We invented it. It is a formula that has been used successfully and unsuccessfully around the planet. Google “Tiananmen Square” and “Velvet Revolutions.” Cory was also one of the first female heads of state.

Preying on the Weak

Every once in a while, our version of reality blurs and we get a glimpse of what its like in the 'real' world.

J of thenutbox recounts the nightmarish ordeal his mother went through, allegedly, at the hands of some police officers stationed in Talipapa, Novachiles, Quezon City.

Last April 14, my mother went to visit a friend named Janet who lives in a slum area in Tandang Sora, Quezon City. That friend owes my mother some thousands, which my mother decided to collect because she needs money for her medication. My mother was accompanied by an old friend, Maximo Gabriel.


At around twelve noon, just when my mother and Gabriel were about to leave Janet’s place, two plain-clothed policemen- one called Allan and another named Mar Palic- approached them, accusing them of drug possession. My mother and her friends aghastly denied this, and before the two cops could search them they showed their bags to the police officers and emptied their pockets to show that there was nothing incriminating inside. Still, the cops “invited” them for questioning. 

Read the rest here.

Its an extraordinary story. Most of us would never dream of such a thing ever happening. But these insects - they prey on the weak.

Diagnosing Symptoms

A new discovery, UP Prof. Bong Mendoza's blog. Don't be intimidated by the tone of the language (just keep plugging on), this is an excellent summary of what is wrong with the Philippines'...


economic system:

The failures of the Philippine state and politics are highlighted by the inability to sustain and realize a promising economic growth potential (as of the 1950s) when the country was supposed to be second in Asia only to Japan in terms of economic development.  At the core of this failure is inconsistency and incompatibility of economic policymaking with the requirements of sustainable growth since 1946.

...The source of policy inconsistency is identified in the literature as reflective of incomplete elite class differentiation in the country.  For example, as the country’s elite groups are involved in almost all lines of business such as external trade (imports and exports), real estate, commercial agriculture, manufacturing, and finance—there has been for a long time no elite consensus on trade and foreign exchange policy.

Calling on all Readers of Political Blogs

Dear All,

If you have a few minutes to spare, you might consider being a participant in Grace Mirandilla's research on political blogging. For details, see below. Cheers!

--------

A Call for Survey Respondents: Filipino Blogging and Political Participation Study

Good day! Do you read political blogs*? Can you spare 10 mins. to answer a survey? Then, please read on.

My name is Mary Grace P. Mirandilla, an independent researcher conducting a study on "blogging and political participation among Filipinos,” which is funded by the SIRCA** grant program of IDRC*** Canada. This research wants to look at (1) why Filipinos read political blogs; (2) how they participate in politics--both online and in the real world; and (3) whether and how political blogs affect their participation.

I’m looking for respondents to answer a survey that inquires about these research questions. If you want to participate, you must be Filipino, at least 18 yrs old, and read political blogs (or have read them at some point during the past year). It only takes 10-12 minutes to answer the survey, which will be administered via email.

If interested, please send me a PM or email me at mg(dot)mirandilla(at)gmail(dot)com. Rest assured that your identity and response will be kept confidential.

I hope to hear from you by April 15. Thank you very much.

Regards,
Grace Mirandilla

The Spirit of the Law and the Ghouls of Arroyo

There are two ways of looking at a country’s legal system. One is that it embodies a set of rules that regulate actions of those bound by the law – legal personalities who inhabit the country in question. It is ‘unlawful’ or ‘illegal’ to steal from your neighbor. The capacity to say that it is wrong to commit such an act shapes the behavior of those who commit themselves, as citizens, to the legal community (i.e. country). To add teeth to the law, there are also all sorts of punishments levied upon those who transgress what is lawful or legal. You pay a fine, you do community service, your liberty is taken away. Seen this way, laws are a set of rules designed to regulate or harmonize a community. They assure order and a measure of peace so that citizens might go about their daily lives with as little hassle as possible.

But what makes stealing unlawful? Or killing? Or rape? These are not ‘unlawful’ just because. The rules by which we abide are moral judgments. It is morally wrong to steal, kill and rape. Why? Because those who have drafted these laws and the community which protects and/or abide by them have put value on one being able to keep one’s possessions and one not being killed or raped by any random person. These values, in turn, are also underlined by a chain of other values – the sanctity of private property, the sanctity of life, the sanctity of dignity. And so on.

Cyberprotest Blogaction Day against Conass

I have made my abundantly clear why I oppose ConAss in:

In the Grip of Electoralism
Castrated by Vacuous Argument
Yes, 1109
Proxies and Avenues of Dissent

----

More badges at Bloggers Kapihan

Clarity from the Left

Epistemological rifts, far from the domain of those who make it their business to study how we know, are significant once their implications in the real world become apparent. I do not claim to have any intimate knowledge of these rifts among leftists in the Philippines. Given this caveat, let me explain the utility of asking questions such as those I have asked Kapirasong Kritika.

Like any student, we often frame reality through the lenses of our discipline. The existence of disciplinary myopia is a human limitation we cannot possibly overcome. We are not omniscient. Neither are we omnipresent. The postmodern intervention is useful in this aspect. Let us acknowledge that the things we know and believe are a sum of our own limited human experience.

Now, science is a human endeavor that aims to build knowledge. Scientists have their theories and hypotheses and aim to test them through experiments. Through rigorous methodologies scientists have proven many things we now know to be true. It is absolute truth that gravity exists. It is absolute truth that once we throw a rock up in the air it will fall back to earth. This is true back in Isaac Newton’s time. It was true a thousand years before that. It will be true a thousand years from now, given that the Earth continues to exist.

Now, what is the difference between a piece of rock and Aling Juana, proprietor of a sari-sari store? Well, while Aling Juana’s physical components may not significantly alter in the course of her lifetime, given she does not meet an accident that will deprive her of limbs or any one of her senses, will her attitudes and beliefs remain the same? It is true today that Aling Juana hates mangoes. This is her attitude. There are many reasons why she hates mangoes – all uniquely her own. The consequence of her belief will drive her not to ever purchase mangoes. Theory translated into action. Will she continue to hate mangoes tomorrow? Who knows? In twenty-four hours a thousand things could happen that might change her mind. That is the difference between a rock and Aling Juana. It is the difference between the study of inert, non-sentient objects and the study of human subjects.

I am reticent to accept willy-nilly any body of knowledge claiming to have the answers to problems besetting the human condition. Largely, this comes from my own positioned study of critical political economy. There are many theories to explain why the Philippines is poor compared to, say, the United States. Can any one theory or any one body of knowledge claim to have the absolute truth as an answer? A RESOUNDING YES animated the ideology of a whole generation of decision-makers among the powerful who sought to shape the world. Theirs was the fool-proof answer to the developing world’s poverty. This failed ideology, as Kapirasong Kritika will probably be familiar with, comes from the discipline of economics – a science of human beings that pretended to have the exactness of the most numeral of sciences – physics. Their claim to absolute truth led to the immiseration of millions around the world. The ill effects of this ideology’s prescriptions, KK will agree, can still be felt today.

I think KK will also agree that there are many ways to interpret the unfolding of politics at any level. He will agree that the dominance of one interpretation over one is necessarily a political struggle. A useful postmodern intervention is this acknowledgment. “Theory is always for someone and some purpose” writes political economist Robert Cox. The science of his vaunted predecessor, to which he and a whole generation of other scholars including this one owe much, is bound by its historical specificity. Karl Marx is not omniscient and omnipresent. He sought to uncover ‘laws’ of Capitalism much in the same manner that his contemporaries sought to uncover ‘laws’ explaining the natural world. As I said, a rock is not a human being. A collection of human beings – in a societal unit such as a country for example – will not be forever cemented in one mold. “Classes” in the specific historical context of nineteenth century Britain cannot be made to function as concept in twenty-first century Philippines. It is testament to Marx’s brilliance that much of his contribution to the body of human knowledge has withstood the test of time. A century and half since the publication of his oeuvre Das Kapital, millions upon millions of events have transpired to change the conditions in which Capitalism, his object of study, functions. For this reason, and as good historical materialists, we need to be critical of these changes.

I have written countless times about the depoliticizing tendencies of biting the postmodern apple hook line and sinker. If everything is relative, as postmodernists say, then what can we believe in? And if we believe in nothing, what do we fight for? I believe that there are certain absolute truths pertaining to the human condition that will apply to all human beings regardless of hue, gender or creed. For example, I hold true that all human beings deserve to live in dignity. My politics will stem from a belief in this truth claim. Now this relates to a value system to which Kapirasong Kritika and I can inter-subjectively agree.

The De-politicizing Tendencies of the Hyperreal

As we spend many of our conscious hours in virtuality, there is a temptation to overstate the importance of goings-on in cyberspace. I say yes, swim in the text, but keep your head above the liquidity and the unmoored relativity of language.

Marocharim, in his posts The Slacker Effect and Mona Lisa Overdrive, questions the triumphalist tendencies of social media over the realm of the real. In a nutshell, he does not think that ‘cyberactivism’ is a substitute for agency in the real world. I will be the first to agree with him, but I do not think that agency in either world need be mutually exclusive. Isn’t the divide between the real and representation artificial? And do they not mutually bleed into each other?

But do let us acknowledge the de-politicizing tendencies Marocharim has pointed out. Here the battle is drawn between the Word and the Flesh - the materiality of modernity and the fluidity of postmodernity.

The debate between structuralists (modernists) and post-structuralists (postmodernists) is not new. The first rests on the certitude that there is truth to be known and all knowledge builds foundations to seek truth. Politics then proceeds from this quest. For example, it is true that that Democracy is a good way of governing a self-ascribed community. It is ‘good’ because it rests on principles of equality and justice. Equality and Justice are truths that rest on the material. They are universal values that must be sought and upheld by all humankind.

The second school has attempted to unravel many of the claims of the modern era. Post-structuralists argue that there is no truth – at least no single version of it. Democracy, at least the dominant version of it, they will argue, is a construct unique to the history of a specific place and time. The specificity which lays claim to universality is a dominating and destructive act. While the work of post-structuralists is useful in revealing the heretofore hidden modes of control and domination in knowledge, the uncertainty this has unleashed has destroyed many of the bases from which we as subjects act. If we are unsure about the values ‘equality’ and ‘justice’, whether it is good or bad given the specificity of this place, time and context, what would motivate us to act? What makes us political?

Another triumph of modernity is placing history in a linear continuum, thus the belief in ‘progress.’ One progresses from point A to point B to point C and so on. Implicit in progression is an assumption that point B, is ‘better’ than point A. Thus we can conclude that progress has eliminated slavery. Slavery is bad. Equality is good.

These are some controversies, for decades still unresolved, between the modern and the postmodern, between the Flesh and the Word.

So let us go back to the earlier problematic posed. Is agency or conscious action in the ocean of texts, that is, the cyberworld, a substitute for conscious action in the real world? Obviously not. It is good (see, I’m making a modernist argument here) to acknowledge the limits of cyberactivism. It is good to acknowledge that the Word will not, by itself, transform the world. A simple reality check will alert us to the fact (again a modern invention) that there are still places in this country with no electricity!

Before we become dispirited about the inherent limits of the Word, let us not forget those who read and write it. To read and write constitute conscious acts. To read and write about politics are political acts. But it is important to note that these are beginnings, not ends in themselves.

The Dilemma over People Power

The short Twitter exchange between myself and Doc Emer was taken out of context in Ms. Veneracion’s column on Manila Standard. For the past week I have been glued to the revolution unfolding in Iran. And I tweeted that People Power is one Philippine export our people could be proud of, to which Doc Emer replied “No. They're sick and tired of people power.” I tweeted back, “A shame then. How can people be sick and tired of fighting for freedom?”

Ms. Veneracion in her column reiterates the People Power was not a mass-initiated event. No account of EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 would claim otherwise. I certainly don’t. I also agree with her on the narrowness of People Power’s aims:

Third, the 1986 Edsa Revolution, a.k.a. People Power, was a fight for freedom only in a very narrow sense because its proponents were fighting to free themselves primarily, and the country secondarily, from the tyranny of Marcos.

I would not go so far though, to claim that People Power was manufactured to suit these ends:

It was merely about booting out some people and placing others in their stead. It was never about a long-term empowerment of the masses but merely a monitored empowerment that lasted only long enough to install new protagonists in key positions in government.

I understand Ms. Veneracion’s fear of ‘People Power.’ More than two decades later, the promise of EDSA has been frittered away. It is arguable whether we are better off today than Filipinos who lived through the Marcos regime. She is fearful of what might result from another EDSA revolt, fearful most of political opportunists who might take advantage. We need only look at Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to see that the consequence of our action has installed a President who now rivals Marcos in her hunger for absolute power.

This points then to the limits of People Power, what it is and what it is for. I agree with the characterization of Joel Rocamora, when he says it is a symptom of our ‘low intensity democracy.’ Because our institutions are far from democratic, they are open to monopoly by power holders. The current push for constitutional change, which all political observers interpret to be Arroyo’s bid to remain in power, is testament to this susceptibility to monopoly.

While we can debate over the consequences of People Power, that is, the citizens’ recourse to action when our major institutions – the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary, are co-opted by non-democratic forces - can we cast doubt over the utility, indeed the reason for being, of People Power itself?

I say no. For as long as our political institutions continue to be hi-jacked by a few, for as long as our government cannot and does not reflect what we citizens deem to be good and just way of governing, then the Filipino ought to have recourse for People Power. It ought to remain a legitimate means to air our grievance especially in times of crisis. When our institutions are open and accessible to the will of all, then we may lay the parliament of the streets to rest.

The question then is not whether Conass will trigger People Power, as Ms. Veneracion asks. The question is why must we resort to People Power at all? Why if we have the trappings of a democratic society, must we resort to unleashing the Power of the Powerless? That is, the act of articulating, whether it be on blogs, on Twitter or out on the streets, that the Empress has no clothes?

Bloggers on Conass

Alterted by Manolo, and further prodded by Nick of Filipino Voices, I went to Bastusang Pambasa yesterday to tweetcast what was a sorry excuse for deliberations on House Resolution 1109. See also @mlq3's tweetcast here. Pages in the session hall are usually snooty, but I thank the cosmos a kindly one passed by when I needed to plug my computer in one of the two power outlets that can be accessed from the gallery. To this unnamed page, my many thanks.

My liveblog on Filipino Voices can be read here. Manolo and Mon Casiple lay the political landscape vis-a-vis conass. Filipino Voices contributors Cocoy and Marocharim have also said their piece. FV welcomes new contributor Rep. Ruffy Biazon. He writes:

The passage of House Resolution 1109 proposing to amend the Constitution is another blow to the already tarnished reputation of the House of Represenatives. It is appalling that the leadership ignored the sentiments of the people which reject moves to amend the constitution at this time. It gives the House the image that it is callous to public opinion and will only give due attention to matters that pertain to its members’ personal and political agenda.

Ceci publishes the Akbayan Executive Committee statement on the resolution here. Notable in the statement:

Under conditions of legality, if the Supreme Court does what it is supposed to do, it should be easy to stop HR1109. Because Gloria has a long record of illegal moves, in the end, Gloria’s chacha can only be stopped politically.

Jericho asks, "Should we allow ourselves to be conned by these asses?" Indeed. Bikoy recounts how security made it difficult for some to enter the session hall last night, even going so far as to say the session was over when they weren't. Ms. Dado calls on all to oppose cha-cha and lists all signatories of HR1109 here.

From the Student Council Alliance of the Philippines:

SCAP...reminds solons that young people will not hesitate to go out in the streets again to show their indignation of this government’s outright mockery of our country’s democratic institutions and processes.

Dona Victorina gives Adel Tamano blog space. Tamano claims GMA forces in the lower house ultimately want to remove the Senate from the picture. Given their performance on the Hayden Kho scandals and now investigating jewelry scams on socialites, Senate seems to have its collective head up its ass. But Senator Gordon assures us Senate will not allow unicameral action on cha-cha.

Snow World also does a roundup of what happened yesterday. MavEqualizer believes Gloria Arroyo wants to stay on as Prime Minister. Eric says last night was a preview of how Congress will act in a unicameral setting.

From Assembly, the Ateneo political science org:

THE ASSEMBLY standing firmly as an organization in support of a democracy as the rule of the people, grounded upon the Christian value of preferential option for the poor, VEHEMENTLY REJECTS the junking of the land reform bill and the persistent efforts of Arroyo’s allies to change the constitution. The subsequent moves of the House of Representatives, first in the shifting of gears in its legislative action from CARPER towards Cha-Cha, then to the subsequent silencing of mainstream media, employing its capitalist properties to alter the dynamism of our political atmosphere all constitute a violation of authentic community-building and are an affront to human dignity.

For THE ASSEMBLY, however, the issue is not just about the legality or constitutionality of what has happened today. What has happened today is another manifestation of the crisis of the country’s liberal democratic institutions. In fact, the very reality that members of Congress can easily dispose of the people’s agenda in exchange for their own vested interests highlights precisely the problem with the structure of liberal democratic politics – the narrow and highly restricted notion of what constitutes public interest.

This move for charter change proposes a notion of finality in political citizenship by claiming that a change in the constitution will finally resolve issues of injustice. It does not only deepens the chasm between man and his community, but also leaves him docile, acquainted to this solitary polity, creating a majority that is fundamentally fragmented yet legally represented by a House that claims sovereignty from a ghastly constituency.

Politics is a facet of humanity that belongs to the people, not to the institutions that govern them.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

A migrant worker in Hongkong, Jon Mariano wonders what ordinary citizens can do, if they care at all. Sonny Melencio proposes to blockade the House and to not allow member to convene during Sona in July. I sort of like this idea. Like a sit-in. Wexistence remembers Rizal, "This is what Jose Rizal meant when he said an immoral government is matched by a people without morals; an administration without conscience, by grasping and slavish townsmen."

Ivy Eclairs declares an end to apathy and Dementia vehemently says no to it. Woot! TatayK has a cool anti-chacha poster of Concerned Artists of the Philippines. The Mindanao Examiner on anti-chacha mobilizations in Mindanao.

Arnold Padilla says what happened last night was a scandal far worse than Hayden Kho videos. Siyetehan credits Hayden for lack of media coverage last night. Alex Maximo also laments the sad state of coverage.

Samjuan implores us:

Sabi na nga ba masamang pangitain ang paghahain ng mga kaguluhan hinggil sa hayden camera scandals na kumalat sa inarnets eh. Ayan ayan, kaninang madaling araw dito, kagabi sa Pinas, gumuho ang natitirang mga pundasyon ng paguho nang demokrasya ng PIlipinas- Inaprubahan ng walanjong Kongreso ang Con-Ass (Constitutional Assembly). Wooh. Nakakakulot to ng buhok sa kili-kili pramis.

Sana may gawin ang mga tao ditto. Sana naman mabawasan yung mag nagsasabi na pagod na sila sa pulitika, sa rallies, sa pagrereklamo, sa pakikialam sa bayan kahit na wala pa naman silang nagagawang alinman sa mga nabanggit na hakbang ever. Sana di pa lamunin ng lupa ang Pinas. Uuwi pa ako. Anakngteteng umayos ka nga Philippine Government!

Iamstaying alive is not a little mad:

Pakingshet naman tong mga kongresistang to eh ginagawa tayong tanga! Hindi kailangan ng mataas na pinagaralan para malamang ang pagmamadali nilang maging pinal ang House Resolution 11-09 ay may nakapaloob na motibong palawigin ang termino ng pakingshet nating presidente!

Jobarclix announces Rocked's mobilization on Sunday, June 7 at Baywalk.

Meanwhile, I am scratching my head over Arman Gavino's proposed solution to this crisis. Superficialistics fears a return of martial law.

Splice makes his feelings for member of the House explicit. Maybe a little too explicit, lol:

For this inspired madness that will go down in history as one of the worst kinds of legislative proceedings, I salute those behind HR 1109 with both middle fingers, one up the nether region of their body where the sun never shines, and another just in case the hole is too wide for one.

Edicio discloses his literally murderous thoughts about what happend in Congress last night. Rhona Tolentino usually blogs about everyday stuff, like crushes, but today she could not contain being affected.

Hansley Juliano posts tomorrow's forum on HR 1109 in the Ateneo.

CON ASK: A Forum on HR 1109 Possibilities & Challenges on June 04, 2009 (Thursday), 4:00-5:30 pm. at the Colayco Pavillion, MVP Student Leadership Center, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City.

The forum’s main speaker will be former Ateneo Law School Dean and constitutional law expert Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.

The forum will be followed through by a noise barrage to express our indignation on HR 1109 at Gate 2.5 of the Ateneo de Manila campus from 5:30-7:00 pm.

For more information about this forum, you may call us at 426-6001 local 4644 and look for Michelle Avelino.

You can get No to Conass badges at Alleba Politics. And La Nueva Liga Filipina on how to hold virtual protests.

Hurrah for Podcasting

A shoutout to the Pakbets :-)

Credibility and Authority

I do not pretend to know the history behind Reyna Elena’s tirade against Filipino Voices, but I hope the blogger appreciates the fact that writers for this blog aggregation do not see eye to eye on many things. I do not think it is fair to lump all writers together when Reyna Elena specifically targets only one or some of the contributors.

That said, I think it is an absolute shame that words like credibility and authority are being bandied about as if they were magic talismans to ward away evil. This statement is particularly grating:

This is not to say that only people with credentials make sense, but given the experience and education, they become far more likely to be trusted by readers and opinions respected. Now, those are the ones who are more than likely to be effective lecturers. Sure, people with no credentials could still make sense. There are good writers after all. Agree?

I am afraid this is a telling sign of the disproportionate regard we Filipinos have for appearances rather than substance. If denizens of the blogosphere wanted to hear the expert opinions of decorated academics and practitioners of whatever discipline, then they might care to go to public lectures of universities – institutions of higher learning and diploma mills alike. That or read the latest issue of the Philippine Political Science Journal.

Credibility is nothing more than believability. Again, this is something any writer has no control over, it is something you gain irrespective of your credentials – who you are, what you do, etc. We can name some public figures who have letters after their name and who have been dabbling in politics all their lives. How many of them are ‘credible?’ Gloria Arroyo went to an American ivy league school and is a PhD of the University of the Philippines. Her ‘credentials,’ to uncritical observers, are impressive. Do you believe her? The same question may be asked about the credentialed, be-lettered, experienced political experts running this country. How many of you believe them?

To mine delicate ears, Authority screams top-down imposition of behavior, norms and ways of thinking. The beauty of the internet is its democratic nature. It eliminates the monopoly of knowledge by ‘gate-keeping’ hierarchies and institutions. True, there are many Filipinos who to this day have no running water and electricity, let alone internet connection. And the blogosphere, so far, is peopled by the blogging middle class. But this is our dialogue. Our discourse. To my mind, the blogosphere should be free of ‘who.’ It should be filled with ‘whats’, ‘hows’ and ‘whys.’

Blogging at Pulitika

Isang sagot kay Reyna Elena.

Ang blogging ay ‘di iba sa pagtitipon-tipon ng mga mamayan sa mga kapulungan noong mga panahong wala pang mass media at lalo na ang internet. Sa aking wari, isa itong paraan upang maipahayag ng kahit sino’ng kabilang ng isang komunidad ang kaniyang saloobin ukol sa pamamamaraan ng pamamalakad ng kaniyang pamahalaan.

‘Di dapat gawing sukatan ang antas ng edukasyon o karanasan sa ‘pulitika’ ang karapatang mag-blog ukol sa pulitika. Kung lahat tayo’y nagbabayad ng buwis, mula sa mga CEO ng mga kumpanya hanggang sa mga nagtitinda na taho sa kalye (na nagbabayad din ng VAT), lahat ay dapat bigyan daan upang mag-hayag ng hinaing o pagsang-ayon sa ating buhay pulitikal. Ang kayod nating lahat ay sinsamsam ng estado, sa gusto man natin o hindi. Lahat tayo ay napapailalim sa mga batas na nililikha ng estado, sa gusto man natin o hindi.

Isang mahalagang elemento ng demokrasiya na pakinggan ang mga haka-haka at kuro-kuro ng lahat. Kakabit nito ang pagtanggap na lahat ay may kakayanang mag-isip para sa kaniyang sarili patungkol sa mga nilalaman ng balita halimbawa o sa mga desisyong ipinatutupad ng Malacañang. Dahil ang Pilipinas ay isang mahirap na bansa, at karamihan sa mga mamayan nito ay salat sa pormal na edukasyon, ang ibig ba’ng sabihin nito ay dapat na isawalang-bahala ang boses ng nakararami? Para ano pa kung gano’n ang eleksyon? Para ano pa kung sa gano’n ang pagbibigay ng mga baseng karapatan sa bawat Pilipino, lalo na ang karapatan ng malalayang pamamahayag o free speech?

Sa pamamahayag ng ating iba’t-iba at madalas ay nagbabanggaang opinyon, nalalaman ng madla ang mga sala-salawing panig. Sa gayon ang madla ay maaaring makapagpasya kung anumang panig ang kanilang kikilingan o hindi.

Ang pagiging ‘intelketwal’ ay isang pang-uring ‘di saklaw ng kung ilan lamang. Lahat tayo ay nag-iisip. Maaaring iba’t-iba ang ating pagtingin ukol sa pulitika, at sa gayon ay iba’t-iba rin ang ating mga hinahangad ukol sa pagpapatakbo ng mga bagay-bagay at kung sa’ang direksyon patutunguhin ang bayan. Ang mga hinaing at kuro-kuro halimbawa ng isang accountant sa Makati ay iba sa mga hinaing at kuro-kuro ng nagtitinda ng samalamig. Hindi dapat na bigyang higit na timbang ang isa sa isa dahil tayong lahat ay nabibilang sa isang pampulitikong komunidad.

Ang kredibilidad sa pamamahayag sa media ay inaani mula sa iba, hindi ibinibigay sa sarili. Sa kauna-unahang pagkakataon – lahat ng mga mamayang Pilipino na may kakayanang magsulat at mag-access ng internet ay maaaring mag-blog at maghayag ng kanilang saloobin ukol sa Pilipinas, sa gobiyerno, sa kapwa Pilipino. Sa kauna-unahang panahon, maaari tayong gumawa ng diskurso at pakikipagtalastasan bilang mga mamayan sa labas ng saklaw ng organisadong mass media at ng kung anumang opisyal na pagtingin ng mga makapangyarihan.

Ang mahalaga siguro ay ang makinig sa isa’t-isa, kumalap ng makabuluhang impormasyon at magpasiya sa ikabubuti ng lahat. Ang impormayson ay maaaring manggaling sa napakaraming panig. Mas mabuti na sigurong mas maraming panig kaysa sa nag-iisang panig. Ang pagtiyak kung ano ang malaman o hindi, ang may bias o hindi, ang kapaki-pakinabang o hindi, ay nakasalalay sa ating sariling kunsensya at pag-iisip.

On Prostitution

Corollary to the BBC brouhaha, Jeg writes a post on the world's oldest "profession":

Not one to pass on the chance to defend scantily-clad women, I asked why is it sexploitation. Those dancers were not being coerced. They freely chose their profession and are being paid for it. And with that I think it is time to come to the defense of what is called the World's Oldest Profession, the prostitutes, those purveyors of venereal services that society has maligned; indeed our legal system considers their profession illegal. A prostitute is here defined as one who engages in sexual services for a fee.

A slippery slope we have here. I can only think of more questions in response to this post. Does anyone willingly choose to become a prostitute? As a worker who engages in the labour market, what does a prostitute offer? Sex as a service? Her body as a commodity for consumption? Both? Can we compare services rendered by, say, a call centre agent to that of a prostitute? A call centre agent sells his time, his expertise, his skills as service. This does not include his body for exploitation (i.e. use) and consumption.

A prostitute's body is a fictitious commodity. It is is not "produced" for consumption in the market. Like bags and tupperware. When her body is consumed - like agriculture, her value is "renewable." Her body as commodity does not disappear. However it "depreciates" because her customers put value in pliable, wrinkle-free flesh. Is her body a public good then? Like clean air and public order? A private good by definition must only be consumed by one.

And what about the value of her service? Why do societies around the world normally equate prostitution with women? Do women not require sexual release without strings attached as men? There is a stastic somewhere that in the US at least as many as 60 percent of men who hire prostitutes do not engage in intercourse. They talk. He confides in her. She listens. In this case, what kind of service is she offering? Care? Attention?

We go back to the issue of motivation - is it her own free will to engage in prostitution? Can anyone think of any other work where a human being sells both his service (i.e. labour) and the use of his body in a transaction? Hm...acrobats maybe?

Cross-posted at Filipinovoices.

Carlos Celdran - Abortionist?!?

I am pressed for time, and so I cannot write a proper post to laud Carlos Celdran's one-man effort to help. But this came out on Inquirer Sunday magazine today. Click photo to enlarge.

Infinitube

Highly recommended, mad genuis Luis' new webtoy - Infinitube. For those of us who have not watched TV in a looong time, and who would like background noise in the house. Infinitube plays continuous YouTube vids. Just enter a search word - and presto!

Ninotchka Rosca

First, the name. What a journalist would give to have been born with a name like that. Its intriguing. Is it a man or a woman? Is s/he Russian-Spanish? Romanian (for the perfect blend of Slavic and Latin)? Then Butch tells me she used to be Joma Sison's lover and wrote his biography. My interest was piqued. The lover of the Communist Party's exiled leader who was imprisoned during the Marcos regime. For someone who was born after the First Quarter Storm, I have no memory of Rosca. All I know of her was her article on Ambassador Lauro Baja which came out on the front page of the Inquirer a week ago. A follow up, adds a bit more credibility to her story.

When her first story came out, I thought, wow this person must have balls to write something that could potential destroy a decorated diplomat's legacy. But then looking at Rosca's own achievements, her credentials are nothing to scoff at.

Ah, yet another one of our own, lost to the world, and found again through the www.

Rosca blogs here.