The Inquirer.net editor really gets into gear in the race to evacuate the minds of a population already reeling from an emptiness-induced headache. Standing on that lofty soapbox today, he (or she — who the hell cares?) makes the sort of bleeding-heart citation that we have come to expect of minds imprisoned in so-last-Century emo politics:
Our Constitution enshrines People Power in the manner eloquently put forward by our founding chair, Eugenia Apostol: “Vigilance and active involvement on our part are the best way to level the playing field so to speak. In so many words, the 1987 Constitution says that People Power is the hallmark of good citizenship.”
The only thing that is enshrined in the vacuous chatter that we call the Philippine National “Debate” is what is encapsulated in the above moronism — that “People Power” or whatever the hell that 1986 phenomenon was labelled or branded by the Philippine Media back then (and so shrewdly turned into a lucrative Aquino franchise) is being misconstrued on a massive scale as some sort of perverse license to rule the country with a lynch mob. Last I heard “good citizenship” involved upholding the Law and contibuting to the strengthening of legitimate state insitutions. But that’s just me.
Nonetheless, moronisms have all but engulfed the venerable rag…
From Neal Cruz in “Cardinal Rosales is no Cardinal Sin“, Inquirer.net
Had the people not followed Jaime Cardinal Sin’s call for People Power in l986, we would still be reeling under the dictatorship of the Marcoses, and Cory Aquino could not have been President. If People Power was correct under Cardinal Sin, why is it not correct under Cardinal Rosales?
Jeez, that is just one massive logical fallacy there. How exactly are the circumstances in 1986 similar enough to those of 2010 to warrant an assertion that “People Power” (a.k.a. Ocho-ocho “revolutions”) are applicable NOW as they were THEN?
And if you think THAT is stoopid, check out this ululation:
From Conrado de Quiros in “Differences“, Inquirer.net
Then Marcos didn’t just steal the country’s money, he stole the country’s light, the country’s hope, the country’s possibility, the country’s life, the country’s soul, the country’s future. Not a single institution of society was left unsullied, least of it the military, which suffered the greatest perversion of all. Here was a rule hated beyond measure, the people wondering when it would ever end.
Now Arroyo hasn’t just stolen the country’s money, she has stolen the country’s light, the country’s hope, the country’s possibility, the country’s life, the country’s soul, the country’s future. Not a single institution of society has been left unsullied, least of all the Catholic Church, which has suffered the greatest perversion of all. Here is a rule hated beyond measure, the people wondering when it will ever end.
Cruz’s reverse-contribution to the national “debate” can be considered to be quaintly hollow-headed. But de Quiros’s is quite simply downright nefarious.
He forgot (or, more likely neglected) to mention that during Marcos’s time, the press and just about every other personal freedom was suppressed. Compare that to the freedoms enjoyed by everyone (including a legislative body whose officers are all duly elected by popular vote) during Arroyo’s administration. An exercise of even just a tenth of the freedom we exercised under Arroyo’s rule would’ve gotten us thrown into jail during Marcos’s time.
People like Conrado de Quiros do UNSPEAKABLE damage to Philippine society through the dimwitted and moronic ideas he publishes on a newspaper and news site that exerts powerful influence over the minds that constitute an already intellectually-bankrupt society such as ours.
Conrado de Quiros rather than contribute to the collective intellect of humanity actually SUBTRACTS from it with every word he writes.
When the people hit the streets post May of this year in response to all of the above in-your-face inciting of ocho-ocho rebellion, the world will be watching (albeit most likely in bemused silence — another difference between this year and 1986, by the way).
Even back in 2001, The New York Times already had something really insightful to say about Pinoy-style people power “revolutions”:
Filipinos were thrilled at the peaceful ouster of a president who had become an embarrassment — a lazy, hard-drinking womanizer who had allowed the economy to collapse and had, according to testimony in the Senate, engaged in systematic corruption.
But if they expected cheers once again from around the world, they were instead hurt and infuriated when People Power II was met with doubt and criticism, described by foreign commentators as “a defeat for due process,” as “mob rule,” as “a de facto coup.”
This is the one time that our renowned colonial mentality may actually be of benefit to us. Rather than heed the words of the local talent in our Media industry, perhaps it is time that we take a more outward perspective and start listening to the collective voice of the world out there that had always been around to show us the better way.