Jaime E. Masagca
@ Boracay Island Resort
This shared post came across my wall:
"BAKIT KA NAGAGALIT?
Totoo naman naman talaga yung pag pili mo ng KANDIDATO ay salamin ng iyong PAGKATAO? Bakit ka pipili nga MAGNANAKAW, LIAR, DRUG ADDICT, BOBO, TAX EVADER, kung ang tingin mo sa sarili mo matino ka?"
(WHY WOULD YOU BE ANGRY?
When it's true that when your choice of a candidate is reflective of your PERSONALITY? Why would you choose a THIEF, LIAR, DRUG ADDICT, FOOL, TAX EVADER, when you think of yourself as rightful?")
Of course, how can such a proposition be harshly rejected without being out of logic? The syllogism is valid in the proper perspective, but not in the given political circumstances and issues, not and never when the allusions are prefaced on the unfounded, on myths and lies, statements under the clout of hatred, and even out of desperation.
The only similarity is maybe just narrowed in the choice of fictional superheroes or movie stars when psychologically the choice will often be based on the desire within the subconscious to be in a better social situation as the role model symbolizes.
Voting intelligently for a leader, our choice should be beyond self-interests, and detached from regionalism, from ego, from myths of the past where “we crave permission openly to become our secret selves... 'No special privileges for flesh-and-blood relations! Darlings, we much on flesh, and blood is our triple of choice.” (Ahmed Salman Rushdie, The Moor's Last Sigh)".
The choice of a president perceived to be a thief, tax evader, etc. ad nauseam, over another packaged as "unblemished, experienced, properly educated (never mind if the listed Doctoral Degrees are conferred as honoris causa), and capable of leading a nation sans possible ridicule from the community of nations. "Reality is a question of perspective" but "not all possibilities are open to us (Salman Rushdie)."
Unfortunately, the carefully conceptualized political marketing strategies and wrappers are not visible nor effective. Instead, public speeches are punctuated by bloopers or gaffes that are dyed-in-the-wool, even with the aid of an idiot board, that the greater majority rejects such claims with laughter. The ensuing hostile reaction is a manifestation of the theory that the "freedom to reject is the only freedom" (Salman Rushdie, The Moor's Last Sigh)".
Nobody is exempt from flaws and sins of indiscretions in the past, but the leading candidates are in the past tense, while the blunders of the runner-up are present progressive, or continuing, by grammatical analogy.
There's is this Latin maxim, "res ipsa loquitur", or simply "the thing speaks for itself", that is applicable in the marked distinction between one and the other with alleged spurious academic credentials, a dullard, tax evader, and son of a thief and dictator.
The pseudo-intellectuals subscribe to the remnants of the myths woven for the "Filipino people to hate Marcos more" while propping up in futility the insubstantial.
Well settled is that the power of EDSA 1 was nothing but faux courage manifest in the church and oligarchs-sponsored propaganda that succeeded to oust the Marcos Regime. Indeed, "language is courage, the ability to conceive a thought, to speak it, and by doing so, make it true (Salman Rushdie, Satanic Verses)".
Unfluctuating since the period preceding the filing of Certificates of Candidacy, the same disparagements and call for apologies persisted. What is there to return and how when assets were already frozen or sequestered bereft of a court order; what is there to apologize for when reparation only comes after judgment? Sadly, even the truth had fallen victim to the influence of the download and copy-paste generation.
Legal and tax experts have already come up with their treatise on the issues that it would be absurd and superfluous to further take any discourse on disputes that after over three decades past administrations have failed to enforce.
Everyone in the other parlor has virtually become lawyers, accountants, or tax experts, expecting that their delusions can make others swim in ankle-deep waters. Talking to them would now be like whistling against the wind, or akin to a banker talking to a fisherman about notes rediscounting, or a fisherman talking to a mogul about large-scale business operation, or a boxer ridiculously challenging an Oxford-educated ex-Senator to a debate, even granting arguendo that the latter has not earned a proper degree.
Many vocal critics, of the present administration included, are wanting in the knowledge of government budgeting, judicial procedures, public procurement procedures, and socio-economic-political strategies in international relations, and still breathe in the neo-colonialist mentality that any alliance outside of the United States of America poses perils to the interests of the Philippines.
What is there to apologize for when one's family has turned out to be the victim of a denial of judicial processes? The 1977 Constitution was clear on the mode of Presidential succession, and there's nothing about popular uprising. The purported massive electoral cheating in the "Snap Presidential Election" was unsubstantially proven, yet someone was proclaimed to take the helm of the government and even hailed as "an icon of democracy". The 1986 change in government was out of hysteria, emotions, and ambitious greed, rather than on legal processes.
God in the book of Genesis was not readily judgmental, unlike the pinks. Even with His omnipotence, God did not instantaneously expel Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. But instead, He has first "inquired". Thus, "the Lord God called to the man, 'Where are you? Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
The dictatorial States still exist either as constitutional, counterrevolutionary, or fascist dictatorships. More so, "many countries which are seen as otherwise democratic are dictatorships because there has yet to be an alternation in power since their incumbent government has never lost an election", often the classification depends on a political analyst's viewpoint which has triggered a "popular uprising" in 1986.
A political science professor, a student of the late Jose P. Laurel in the School of Law, once narrated that when they asked the latter what is the best form of government, the reply was "absolute dictatorship, provided there is an angel on the throne."
To apologize for another, even as a gesture of moral goodwill, is to allow the critics to virtually make a noose to hang the former. Call it a political lynching, or "of a mob kill someone, especially by hanging, for an alleged offense with or without a legal trial (Definition from Oxford Languages)"
From disillusioned EDSA People Power I to the present campaigns, the other parlor had sought the blessing of the Catholic Church that has appalled other parties when such church has allowed itself to be political and allowed political events to be held inside sacred places. A sacrilege that certainly Jesus of Nazareth won't be pleased with.
"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves (John 2:13-16)". Without a doubt "from the beginning men used God to justify the unjustifiable (Ahmed Salman Rushdie, Satanic Verses)."
Similarly, "Anyone who reads my work will see that there are often difficult relationships between fathers and sons". for “a poet's work is to name the unnamable, to point at frauds, to take sides, start, argument, shape the world, and stop it from going to sleep", that in the process we may ask "what is freedom of expression? 'Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist. 'Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. 'Free speech is life itself (Ahmed Salman Rushdie)."
In personal stands, even friendships, family relations, and faith are not exempt from these strains of free choice that we can just sigh and ponder, but "a sigh isn't just a sigh. We inhale the world and breath out meaning. While we can. While we can (Last Sigh of the Moor, by Ahmed Salman Rushdie)."
Notes:
“Sir Salman Rushdie is an award-winning British Indian writer. His novels, which have been translated into over forty languages, include Booker Prize-winning Midnight’s Children, Grimus, Shame, The Satanic Verses, The Ground Beneath Her Feet, and Two Years Eight Months and Twenty-Eight Nights. Rushdie has also written a collection of short stories, multiple works of non-fiction, and adapted Midnight’s Children for the stage.”
I have a penchant for his writings as his satirical and "allegorical novels examine historical and philosophical issues by means of surreal characters, brooding humor, and an effusive and melodramatic prose style".
No comments:
Post a Comment