WE STILL NEED YOU, MR. SAGUISAG.

 

THE FILIPINO PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE A PRINCIPLED MAN LIKE YOU.  NOT AT THIS TIME. 

GET UP.  STAND.  CONTINUE THE FIGHT.

(picture above taken from pcij.org) 

IS JUSTICE BLIND? OR ARE STARS BLIND?

PARIS IN JAIL:  THE MUSIC VIDEO 

 

Nope, this is not a philosophical question.  I just couldn’t think of a better title.  LOL. 

TATSULOK

 

Totoy bilisan mo, bilisan mo ang takbo
Ilagan ang mga bombang nakatutok sa ulo mo
Totoy tumalon ka, dumapa kung kailangan
At baka tamaan pa ng mga balang ligaw

Totoy makinig ka, wag kang magpa-gabi
Baka mapagkamalan ka’t humandusay dyan sa tabi
Totoy alam mo ba kung ano ang puno’t dulo
Ng di matapos-tapos na kaguluhang ito

Hindi pula’t dilaw tunay na magkalaban
Ang kulay at tatak ay di syang dahilan
Hangga’t marami ang lugmok sa kahirapan
At ang hustisya ay para lang sa mayaman

Habang may tatsulok at sila ang nasa tuktok
Di matatapos itong gulo

Ngunit ng suminag,kay daming mga tao,
At ang dating munting bukid, ngayo’y sementeryo
Totoy kumilos ka, baliktarin ang tatsulok
Tulad ng dukha, nailagay mo sa tuktok

Hindi pula’t dilaw tunay na magkalaban
Ang kulay at tatak ay di syang dahilan
Hangga’t marami ang lugmok sa kahirapan
At ang hustisya ay para lang sa mayaman

Habang may tatsulok at sila ang nasa tuktok
Di matatapos itong gulo

JUSTICE CRUZ RETORTS

In what could be a sharp rebuke against the weeklong attacks to his person and to his credibility as a writer, Justice Isagani Cruz retorted back, using MLQ3’s initial reaction as a starting point for his brief but direct-to-the-point rebuttal. Here are excerpts of that article entitled NEITHER HERE NOR THERE which came out in the Inquirer yesterday, August 20, 2006:

He calls me a hate-monger for deriding the vulgar practices of his kind and says I have no right to say what is tasteless and intolerable. Who has—he? Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that freedom of speech includes not only the right to express the thought that agrees with us but also the thought that we abhor. Voltaire was grandiloquent: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Again, this is not to defend Mr. Cruz. But this is what I’ve been saying all along — that in a democracy where freedom of expression is an indispensable ingredient, ideas — good or bad, innocent or malicious, revered or despised — should, as a general rule, be allowed to flow uninterrupted. Mr. Cruz aptly notes:

Criticism is normal in the free society and is available to everyone right or wrong. The ideas that may be expressed under this freedom are not confined only to those that are sympathetic or acceptable, for that would make the freedom more shadow than substance. To be really meaningful, it should permit the articulation of even the unorthodox view, though it is hostile to or scorned by others. One of the purposes of this freedom, in fact, is to invite dispute.

Unfortunately, instead of answering Mr. Cruz head on, SOME of them responded by literally asking for his head on a silver platter. And to vent their ire on a man whose greatest sin was probably his use of the words pansy, vulgar, queer, siyoke, third sex, binabae, fairies, sexless persons and bading, they lashed out at him with equal if not greater intensity, SOME of them even wishing he is better dead than alive. Let’s look at what they had to say:

sounds to me like the pathetic rantings of someone who can do absolutely nothing about the passage of time. and like the dying gasps of an impotent old fool, he shakes his fists at the heavens, cursing his fate.

i hope the newspaper gets a lot of feedback from this. i hope they get the right feedback… and have the guy fired. i wouldn’t be surprised if the faerie boys and girls lynched this old man to death sometime soon.

Mr. Cruz is ignorant, stupid, bigoted, and yes, cruel… As far as this senile old man is concerned, all gay men are weak sissies. He should be neutered so he can’t reproduce and spread his “macho” genes anymore.

Permanent retirement? I can’t wait to see that man go six feet under the ground!

Even I, a mere bystander, was not spared by the bigotry. So angry were their responses that to my surprise, they practically mouthed the same diatribes against my person:

OMG, are you stupid? The fact that he is “Justice Cruz” doesn’t excuse him for being a geriatric bigot whose morals have obviously withered with age… So please stop your pathetic attempts of defending this old lemming.

Oooohhh. Tough guy aren’t you. By the way, I’m Larissa de Ocampo, a 19-year old college student. Oh and yeah, I’m a lesbian. So here I am “man” enough to give you my real name, you chauvinistic pig… I couldn’t care less what happens to this man whom you oddly care about so much.

Which brings me to mind one poignant entry from another blogger who rationally dared to go against the tide of outrage and exaggeration. He said:

Bigotry cuts both ways. If you are intolerant of the opinions of others insofar as your orientation or personality is concerned, then that is fine; provided that you engage him properly. There are certain lines we don’t cross. Name-calling and personal attacks are good examples. Telling me that: “well he played dirty first, doesn’t that give me the excuse to also play dirty?” just means that you are sinking to his level, and, assuming that his bone is already as black as tar, then doesn’t that also make your bones dark, or gray at the very least? Please don’t attack the person who made those arguments without even considering what this guy had done or had been through. A blind attack on his credibility as a writer and his worth as a human being reeks of bigotry, albeit on a smaller level.

…Assuming that his opinions were ghastly, obnoxious and crude, would you sentence this man to eternal damnation and the fiery depths of hell just because he lived in an entirely different era, his mind shaped by an entirely different set of traditions and ideas through no fault of his own? What should you do? Do you stop him from writing? Prove him wrong by engaging him in a contest of name-calling? Sink to his level and also be stubborn, commit huge leaps in our senses of logic, and come up with irrational generalizations? Or do you need to become more mature and level headed, and begin your constructive rebuttal systematically and effectively? Does fighting fire with fire solve anything? Or is it more fun for us spectators to see who gets burned first?

What struck me most was this:

It’s funny that the gay community has reacted so harshly insofar as this opinion is concerned. When the Inquirer personnel for Reader’s Advocacy was interviewed she expressed horror in the fact that the letters sent to their office as a result of the said column was unprecedented, even more e-mails than the Garci controversy? You mean Mr. Cruz’s actions were more horrific and objectionable compared to what our “leaders” do? There’s the rub. Allow me to digress a bit. That brings me to our problem as individuals, we Filipinos only tend to focus on sensationalism and not substance, on interests of one particular group, but not that of the entire nation and future generations as well, on so-called controversial and sensitive issues per se, but not on controversial and sensitive issues that should involve the entire civic community. But hey, though we are one nation (see any recent encyclopedia), we should look after the more important interests of our own constituents and our own factions right? But that is another post. My apologies for ranting. I just have a thing for sense of priorities.

I think he’s right. Indeed, we are so eager to express our tirades against an old man’s opinion but play deaf and blind to the cheating, lying and stealing of our supposedly honorable political leaders. We are so sensitive about an octogenarian’s irresponsible comments yet display a cold shoulder toward the systematic murders being perpetrated on a nationwide scale. We tend to hold the mindset that as long as our interests are not affected, we don’t give a damn to the more glaring injustice pervading in our society. And to me that is wrong. Utterly wrong.

Going back to Justice Cruz, he further laments:

Mr. Quezon compares me to the tyrants in the police states where unacceptable identity or thought is systematically exterminated. In the free society, ideas are countered with ideas, not pejorative names. For criticizing his kind, Mr. Quezon likens me to the Nazis and the Reds and brands me a hate-monger.

I am a hate-monger against grafters, murderers, rapists and other criminals, but I only dislike the coarse homosexuals he defends, as is his right. Also disagreeable to me are straight persons who wear loud clothes, flunkies, hypocrites, humbugs and other unpleasant figures, male and female, in our imperfect society. I have the right to criticize them even as they have the right to reply in the common exercise of our freedom of expression.

It all depends on what and whom you hate. If I criticize homosexuals who disgrace their sex with their tasteless practices and appearance, any one among them can rise in defense and say why they should not be called obnoxious. But not in an obnoxious manner.

Finally, he stressed this point in a rather sarcastic fashion:

Mr. Quezon faults me for disagreeing with some practices of his kind that I find intolerable and insists that they have the fundamental right “to those we choose to love, to have relationships with and with whom we aspire to share a life marked by a measure of domestic bliss and emotional contentment.”

Who’s interfering with your romances? As long as you are not violating the law, you are free with your liaisons, and I for one do not pry into your amorous affairs. Nor do I want to.

The important thing is that you have no right to demand that I agree with your pleasures or to forbid me from criticizing your “emotional contentment” if they offend the public interest. You cannot claim a preferred treatment because you are what you are even as you say you should be treated like the rest of the people despite what you are.

Finally, rejecting my reservation that my criticisms are only for the distasteful among you, you piously declare: “I will not embrace him, not for that, much less shake his hand or offer him the opportunity for civilized disagreement.” That opportunity is not yours to give, Mr. Quezon, and as for not embracing me—thank God.

Ouch. That kinda hurt.

But seriously, there’s no denying that Mr. Cruz was also obviously offended by the onslaught of personal insults he received from self-righteous and self-styled individuals (straights and gays alike) who overreacted to what could have simply been dismissed as an old man’s archaic concepts on homosexuality.

Messing with a retired Supreme Court Justice is not as easy as they think. The man surely knows how to fight back.

WHO IS THE REAL BIGOT?

The past several days have been abuzz with blog posts and comments lambasting former Supreme Court Justice and now PDI columnist Isagani Cruz for his August 12, 2006 article entitled DON WE NOW OUR GAY APPAREL. The gays in particular were aghast at the seeming homophobia of Mr. Cruz that they couldn’t help calling the old man all sorts of names just to express their disgust over what they described as plain and simple bigotry.

In Cheche Lazaro’s show Media in Focus over at ANC last night, I saw a fuming John Silva aggressively demanding the PDI that Isagani Cruz be severely censured or if not, booted out as a columnist for his alleged scathing remarks on the gay community. He went on further to state that if PDI does not do something about it — meaning, retiring the old man — there will be a backlash from the gay population from whom the newspaper draws quite a substantial part of its revenues. In other words, he wants PDI to dismiss Cruz or face the consequences of a decrease in advertising income!

I would have no longer wanted to talk about this issue because the same has been exhaustively discussed in other blogs. However, with this latest brouhaha by a certain John Silva, I couldn’t resist the temptation to ask: WHO IS THE REAL BIGOT?

A bigot, as far as my brain cells are concerned, is simply a person who is intolerant of opinions and beliefs other than his own. Granting for the sake of argument that Justice Cruz crossed the line when he ridiculed some members of the so-called third sex, is that fact alone sufficient to engender a conclusion that he is intolerant of beliefs associated with homosexuality in general?

Homosexuality, according to Wikipedia, represents a sexual desire for others of the same sex or gender. Did Mr. Cruz question, much less oppose that fundamental need common to virtually all gay men? His distinction between those who have conducted themselves decorously, with proper regard not only for their own persons but also for the gay population in general and those vulgar members of the gay community who have degraded and scandalized their group may have bordered on the irrational and I substantially agree with MLQ3 when he underscored that obvious blunder. BUT I cannot agree that just because Mr. Cruz scoffs at the sight of SOME gays in scandalous apparel or warns of the onslaught of gays with similar tendencies, he’s already a bigot. He was not being intolerant. He was merely expressing an opinion which unfortunately has been blown out of proportion by individuals who may have been hurt with his choice of words and brutal candidness.

If you analyze closely, Justice Cruz was basically comparing how homosexuals were treated during his time and how they are being regarded now. He even acknowledged the improved status of gays when he said:

The change in the popular attitude toward homosexuals is not particular to the Philippines. It has become an international trend even in the so-called sophisticated regions with more liberal concepts than in our comparatively conservative society. Gay marriages have been legally recognized in a number of European countries and in some parts of the United States. Queer people — that’s the sarcastic term for them — have come out of the closet where before they carefully concealed their condition. The permissive belief now is that homosexuals belong to a separate third sex with equal rights as male and female persons instead of just an illicit in-between gender that is neither here nor there.

In the hope of not offending their feelings, Mr. Cruz categorically stated at the outset:

I offer abject apologies to those blameless people I may unintentionally include in my not inclusive criticisms. They have my admiration and respect.

Read in its entirety, Cruz’ column should not in any way be construed as an indictment against the entire gay population. Let us not outrightly condemn the man simply because he may have issued statements deemed offensive by some quarters. Just as there are straight people who scandalously project themselves before the public, it cannot be denied that there are gays who likewise do the same, which to me, was what Mr. Cruz wanted to point out. You may not agree with my definition of what is scandalous or not but mind you, I WILL KNOW ONE WHEN I SEE ONE.

It is ironic that some of those who condemned Cruz for his intolerance are themselves “guilty” of the same intolerance for which they are precisely outraged about. The Philippine Daily Inquirer, known for the diverse opinions of its columnists, should not allow itself to be cowed by threats masquerading as principled objections. To unceremoniously dismiss former SC Justice Isagani Cruz solely for this article is not only a curtailment of the old man’s fundamental right to free speech — it is the highest form of bigotry.

Note: You can also read other blogs that discuss the same topic. Check them out here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. (photo above courtesy of islaternura.com)

SELECTIVE CONDEMNATION

Mareng Winnie Monsod’s condemnation of the ChaCha Initiative in her article in the PDI is certainly a welcome development to all the anti-ChaCha and anti-GMA forces who have long been wanting to put some sense to the consciences of these self-righteous intellectuals who still cherish the myth that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is the last best hope of the motherland! Whether we admit it or not, Mareng Winnie does wield some degree of influence to those who read her columns, and the very fact that she has expressed her opposition to Charter Change, not so much on the subject of Charter Change per se but more on the motives of those who are behind it, shows that there might still be some hope for our apathetic countrymen to come to their senses that there is no more glory under Gloria.

But just like Prof. Edwin Lacierda and Dean Jorge Bocobo, I too have doubts on Mareng Winnie’s sudden transformation from a perceived GMA defender to one who instantly became more oppositionist (at least as regards the issue of ChaCha) than Chiz Escudero and Etta Rosales combined.

And what are these doubts?

While it was so easy for Mareng Winnie to condemn the immorality of the government-sponsored people’s initiative, she found it difficult to condemn the immorality of those who allowed themselves to be corrupted into dismissing the impeachment complaint against GMA. “Do your homework!”, is what she usually tells the opposition without batting an eyelash, yet forgetting the fact that GMA moved heaven and earth to sway these Congressmen to her side.

While it was so easy for Mareng Winnie to condemn the use of government resources in railroading the people’s initiative, I have yet to hear from Mareng Winnie condemn with equal intensity the alleged use by government of fertilizer funds to finance the electoral campaign of GMA and her administration allies.

While it was so easy for Mareng Winnie to condemn the fraud in the conduct of the people’s initiative, it was so hard for her to condemn the same fraud in the Presidential elections of 2004. In fact, up to now, she has not retracted her earlier position that GMA won fair and square.

While it was so easy for Mareng Winnie to condemn JDV, Abalos, Puno and the rest of the trapos for this People’s Initiative brouhaha, she contented herself in predicting that karma may befall on GMA for deceiving the people that Charter Change is the solution to all our problems. I didn’t know that Mareng Winnie, for all her intellectual arrogance, is a prime believer in this traditional Hindu concept of cause and effect.

Finally, while it was so easy for Mareng Winnie in 2000 to condemn a duly (and overwhelmingly) elected President for his incompetence and to subsequently ask for his resignation, she now finds it hard to make the same call to a President who committed the greater sins.

It was so easy for Mareng Winnie to condemn Erap because she simply didn’t like him (this is not to say however that there was no reason to oust him; in fact I too believed that at that time ousting Erap was the right thing to do). But of course Erap was a drop-out. Winnie was an economist. He represented the bakya crowd. She represented the self-righteous, self-styled intellectuals whom the elite class was more comfortable with. That was why when the opportunity came to strike Erap, they ganged up on him… and then bam! The result was EDSA 2! Ironically, the banner of Edsa 2 supporters was to restore MORALITY IN GOVERNANCE!

And now comes GMA who represented the intellectual arrogance that many in the elite class was, again, comfortable with. Fraud in the 2004 elections? Nah, Mareng Winnie held on to the belief that even if there was cheating on the side, the fact remains that FPJ’s votes were not big enough to overturn GMA’s lead. Winnie gave GMA the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.

It is not a question of Winnie’s integrity. It is a question of her credibility. Mareng Winnie opposing the ChaCha utopia of GMA? I’m sorry Mareng Winnie, we were the first to get off that train when we sensed that it was going nowhere. Some never even rode with it. Whatever you say now is always a welcome addition, but we will just take it with a grain of salt. I’m afraid I may no longer take you seriously.

Wonder why Mareng Winnie is consistently inconsistent? She uses the same logic in arriving at the truth but uses a different standard in getting to the bottom of it, depending on who’s sitting in Malacanang.

ATTACKING THE MESSENGER INSTEAD OF THE MESSAGE

You need not read this entry.

This is just a rundown of the experience I had when I commented on another’s blog. As one popular blogger/columnist aptly described it, it was highly illuminating, though it’s not for me to say whose arguments were found to be wanting in depth and substance.

Again, this is for my personal consumption. Nevertheless, if you’re curious enough to know how our discussions went through and how the blogger eventually called me a “TROLL”, then by all means feel free to continue reading this entry down to the last letter.

In a previous article, the blogger advanced a proposition which caught my attention:

“I make a distinction between a responsible media and a licentious one. The right to freedom of the press properly belongs to a responsible media, not to a licentious one. Obviously it is always in the best interest of media to blur the distinction between the two so that licentiousness can pass off as an exercise of press freedom.”

I must admit that the proposition, on its face, sounds valid and worth considering. However, when you take a more detailed scrutiny of the possible implications such a proposition offers, that’s when you see the loophole. It’s dangerous to say the least. Probably only those who have tyrannical tendencies would openly embrace it as part of state policy. Journalists in the true sense of the word definitely abhor it. To me, the blogger seems oblivious to the fact that media establishments, like the Daily Tribune for example, are continuously being monitored by an insecure government or being threatened by an equally one-sided Secretary who’s always busy persecuting critics of the Arroyo administration.

I then countered the blogger’s proposition by asking the following questions in the context of the current state of affairs:

“1. How do you distinguish between a responsible media from a licentious one? The demarcation line is very thin and smacks of subjectivity.

2. Who determines what a licentious media is and what a responsible media should be? Gloria Arroyo? Ignacio Bunye? Arturo Lomibao? Raul Gonzalez? Mike Defensor? Ronaldo Puno? Ricardo Saludo? The publishers/editors/columnists of the Manila Standard, Manila Bulletin, the Philippine Star? RJ Jacinto? NBN 4, IBC 13, RPN 9?

3. Which is more irresponsible and licentious, media that parrots government propaganda masquerading as news OR media that is now perceived as anti-GMA?”

To which questions, the blogger answered:

“Had you asked your questions without the obvious bias, I would have responded. As it is, I won’t even dignify them with an answer.”

Haha. This is usually the escape goat of someone who could not defend his/her own proposition. Instead of facing the music squarely, the blogger capitalized on the possible motives for such questions. The blogger obviously failed to see the bigger picture that even the mere attempt at distinguishing responsible media from a licentious one is fraught with the obvious bias for which said blogger was precisely apprehensive about.

And thinking that the antic was a cheap shot for an admittedly eloquent blogger, I then retorted:

“All of us have biases. I’m sorry to say this but it’s too hypocritical for us when we say we have no bias one way or the other. In the first place, it was you who sought to distinguish between a responsible media from a licentious one. Now, you refuse to answer that by saying my questions are biased. Interestingly, those that profess to carry the badge of a “responsible” media have less readership nationwide than those now accused of being licentious.”

Besides, the facts will bear me out that two other commenters likewise tried to ask the same questions, practically pleading the blogger to answer them categorically, bargaining even that the blogger simply disregard the allegedly biased premises in my questions.

Probably pissed off by my insistence, the blogger did promise to give an answer in the next blog entry. True enough, the blogger did. But did the next entry really answer my questions? Unfortunately, it did not. Worse, the blogger deviated from the original issue and instead proceeded to make a purely theoretical discussion on what is “news” and “journalism” and how to differentiate “news” from “actual events”. The blogger went as far as citing an online encyclopedic definition of “yellow” journalism to mean “the endemic practices of particular organizations to operate as mouthpieces, for rather limited and particular allegiances, rather than for the public trust”. What the blogger did not realize was that the definiton itself provided the knock-out blow to the original proposition.

My observation to the said blog entry more or less centered on this conclusion:

“If we go by this definition, practically all media, whether print or broadcast, pro or anti-GMA, are “guilty” of this kind of journalism. This was the reason why I asked you HOW do you distinguish between a licentious media from a responsible one, WHO is to determine what is licentious and what is not, and WHICH is more licentious, media parroting government propaganda masquerading as news or media that is now the target of Raul Gonzalez’ tirades.”

To which the blogger answered with this single word:

“Precisely.”

My reply:

“Therefore, if everyone is guilty of “yellow” journalism, then what moral ascendancy does the government have to insist that press freedom belongs only to a responsible media? Otherwise stated, when everybody is licentious, who are we to accuse the other of the same “crime” that we ourselves are committing? He who cries foul must come to court with clean hands.

If not for the help of the “licentious” media with all its exposes and the whole day coverage the mainstream media gave to Erap’s impeachment trial, people would not have gathered at Edsa (which eventually convinced the AFP to withdraw it support for Erap) and Gloria Arroyo would not have assumed power in 2001.”

The blogger took exception to the last paragraph by countering:

“So… abuse should be tolerated, and glorified even, depending on who is committing it. Oh my gosh, what an admission!

Licentiousness is not limited to libelous reports nor ones that violate the right to privacy. Licentiousness is about abuse of power.”

I answered back, saying:

“Read between the lines. I’m merely trying to point out that if it was not licentious then to expose Erap’s excesses, why is it licentious now to expose GMA’s equally, if not more corrupt governance? If it was useful for Impeachment Prosecutor Gonzalez then to use some of PCIJ’s investigative findings, why is it seditious now for Secretary Gonzalez? What is good for the goose must be good for the gander.”

“Thank you for the additional definition. You hit the nail right on its head. If there is any difference between the licentiousness of media perceived as anti-GMA and the licentiousness of media in cahoots with Gloria, the latter obviously enjoys the legal protection of the DOJ with its tortiously criminal minds and the intimidating presence of PNP chief and concurrent Editor-in-Chief Lomibao with the barrel of his gun. This is the licentiousness that smacks of abuse of power.”

This was the stage where the blogger got really irritated (at least judging from the way the reactions sounded). Take note of the “attack the messenger” strategy in capitalized portions (emphasis mine):

“I gave you categorical answers. On my terms. If you expected me to say this-or-that is the answer and not support that with reasons, YOU’RE OUT OF YOUR MIND. Now if you still were not able to find the answers among my words, the problem isn’t mine. Unlike other bloggers and writers, I give answers that lead to more questions and discussion with the goal of going deeper into the issue more deeply rather than merely impose my opinion so that people will or will not support the government or the opposition or the LEFT.

Nice quotes from famous men. But famous men are never infallible in their reasoning. MENTAL EXERCISE IS BETTER.”

Naturally, as anybody would, I retaliated:

“Okay then. I will not force you to make categorical answers. Just like acts committed under PP 1017, it’s really hard to defend the indefensible. I will just have to accept your answers on my own terms too.”

“There you go again. Just because I am anti-GMA, you tend to dismiss my opinions and compare me to other bloggers you regard as superior because they toe your line of reasoning. Worse, you resort to labeling by indirectly accusing me as part of the Left (otherwise, why capitalize (emphasize) only the “left” and not the “opposition”?). Besides, I was not imposing only my opinions, I was asking you questions, which, to me, you miserably failed to answer.”

“The last time I checked your entry, you quoted your definition of “yellow” journalism from Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”. If that’s what you call “mental exercise”, I’d rather not. I’d rather rely on the tried and tested principles of a former US President than quote from an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”

This time the blogger got pissed off to the hilt that the reactions were a bit insulting (emphasis mine):

“BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA I gave you answers YOU COULD NOT UNDERSTAND and you’re still whining as though you’re being magnanimous?”

“YOU GIVE YOURSELF TOO MUCH CREDIT. YOU WERE NEVER LUMPED INTO THE CATEGORY OF WRITERS AND BLOGGERS.”

“Wow, you are benighted. You’re comparing literary work with encyclopedic definition. Don’t you know the difference between those two? My gosh!”

“I WONDER NOW WHY I EVER WASTED MY TIME ANSWERING YOU. YOU’RE A TROLL, NOTHING MORE.”

I would have wanted to post one last comment but… BAM! I got rejected. The territory became hostile to a commenter like me with an opposing view. Hehe.. The maximum tolerance policy gradually became a calibrated preemptive response (CPR). All I wanted was an honest-to-goodness discussion on valid issues.

Just the same, I will not take it against the blogger who had every right — no matter how rude — to ridicule me. I won’t make a big deal out of it either or else I be falsely accused of being publicity hungry. Oh my, let the people decide who between us is the real troll. I just felt the need to defend my person and narrate some of my personal blog experiences before I forget that this site also serves as my online journal or diary.

Well, so much for my constitutional right to be heard. Let’s proceed now to more relevant topics…

TRAGEDY OF THE POOR

My heart goes out to all the victims of the St. Bernard, Southern Leyte landslide and their families. Practically one whole barangay got erased from the map in just a matter of seconds. It was so sudden that there was no room for escape. The death toll could not yet be ascertained but rough estimates may reach to more than a thousand. I will no longer dwell on the “search and rescue” side of the story. Let’s leave it up to the media to report on that. However, I’m still wondering why the poor always gets to bear the brunt of these tragedies. Is their grinding poverty not enough to exempt them from man-made disasters and acts of God? If destiny should dictate that a tragedy must occur one way or the other (as nature’s way of curbing population explosion), wouldn’t it make more sense if the ones buried by mud or clobbered by the stampede are the crooks and hoodlums in government? Our problems will certainly get a little lighter, don’t you think?

ULTRAELECTROMAGNETIC TRAGEDY

As I was switching between ABS-CBN and GMA 7 using my worn out remote control gadget, I could readily see that most of their shows feature quite similar, if not uniform concepts. Even their respective slogans — “kapamilya” and “kapuso” — not only sound the same but seem intriguing as well. But don’t be misled. Behind those congenial taglines are the deep-seated and deliberate efforts by these two giant networks to entice more viewers by coming up with all sorts of marketing strategies and promotional gimmicks. So intense is their rivalry that oftentimes it becomes a personal one, with its artists trading below-the-belt accusations to the delight of the viewing public. Why the need to entice more viewers? The answer can be found in this simple and self-explanatory formula: MORE VIEWERS = HIGHER RATINGS = MORE ADVERTISEMENTS = BIGGER PROFIT.

Consciously or unconsciously, this sure-fire formula was what prompted ABS-CBN to come up with a show like WOWOWEE, assuring its mostly poor patrons with big cash prizes by simply participating as studio contestants. And while it is true that the show has indeed helped hundreds of indigents from the slums of Metro Manila and nearby provinces, it has unwittingly promoted what most observers call the “culture of mendicancy”, where people are lured by the promise of instant money and thus become dependent on cash dole-outs.

What could have been a celebration of WOWOWEE’S first anniversary last February 4 resulted in a tragedy that cost the lives of 79 people (and still counting) and injured more than 600 others. There’s no question that nobody wanted this to happen and that all efforts are now being undertaken by the network to lessen the trauma of the victims and their families. However, from a bystander’s point of view, it would not have occurred had the show’s organizers put up adequate crowd control measures. Reports indicate that as early as two days prior to the supposed event, a lot of people were already converging within the vicinity of ULTRA. This fact alone should have prompted them to coordinate with police and local government officials for purposes of working out a contingency plan. Instead, the results of the initial investigation showed that ABS-CBN never lifted a finger to lessen the inconvenience of the attending crowd, contrary to the earlier pronouncements of the show’s host, Mr. Willie Revillame, that he personally saw to the comfort of the would-be participants.

EEEEE

I cannot blame the people who were at the ULTRA for acting the way they did during that fateful moment. Motivated by the desire for a better life, they braved all kinds of hassles just to have a shot at winnng the prizes to be given away to the lucky contestants. If only to illustrate how desperate their situation was, not even the call of nature could take them away from where they were stationed. As a result, the area practically transformed into one big comfort room (but without the toilet), forcing them to urinate or even defecate on the very space they were standing. You could just imagine the stench passing through their nostrils! But their adrenalin was so high that all they wanted was to get inside the stadium. So, when the sad news broke out that the show could no longer accommodate additional participants, they became restless and at the same time agitated and started pushing and shoving the other people in front. Then the unthinkable happened. As soon as the dust began to settle, dead bodies were seen scattered all over, most of them women and elderly citizens.

I am dismayed by the insistence of the network’s executives that ABS-CBN is not the only entity primarily liable for the tragedy. They also point an accusing finger at police and local government officials for failing to extend sufficient assistance to the outnumbered security force provided by both ULTRA and ABS-CBN. In one of their press conferences, they presented an illustration of the respective areas of responsibility of ABS-CBN, ULTRA and the Pasig police. The latter, they argued, was supposedly assigned at the place where the stampede occurred, thereby implying that it was already the responsibility of the police to secure the same.

EEEEE

While it can be said that the police may have committed some security lapses, the primary liability should still fall on the show’s organizers. If at all, the liability of the police is merely contributory. Let me advance three short reasons why. First, WOWOWEE organizers knew fully well that it would be virtually impossible for the police to completely secure the area considering their limited manpower (as many as 30,000 were expected to attend). Second, they failed to devise a contingency plan to prepare for such eventuality as shown by the obvious lack of coordination before, during and immediately after the stampede. And third, it was their own announcement (that only 300 tickets would be given away to those still outside) which triggered the confusion and mad scramble towards the narrow gate.

EEEEE

In fairness to ABS-CBN, they promptly agreed to shoulder all the funeral and incidental expenses connected with the tragedy. This does not absolve them, however, from culpability. As a matter of fact, they are expected to do precisely just that or else they risk losing whatever is left of their remaining credibility. What the people want is a SINCERE, HUMBLE, and HONEST-TO-GOODNESS ADMISSION OF NEGLIGENCE on the part of the show’s producers. Sad to say, there are attempts by some quarters to spin the whole thing by broaching the idea that what happened was an accident and nobody is really to be blamed for it. Whoever thought of this idea is either motivated by the instinct of self-preservation or worse, is plainly not in his right senses. The parties involved should bring to a close their useless counter-accusations and get their acts together. And if the organizers continue to wash their hands of this tragic incident, no amount of theatrical remorse could swing public sympathy in their favor.

EEEEE

Justice must be served. No matter who. No matter what.

INSTANT JUSTICE

I nearly fell off my seat when I chanced upon an article published some two weeks ago with this caption: “Vigilantes should be commended”. At first, I thought the author was merely a namesake of Bobby Nalzaro, that radio personality known for his “no nonsense” remarks against corrupt local government officials. But when it became clear that the column indeed belonged to him, I wasted no time expressing my opposition because I could not believe that such a declaration could come from a long-time broadcast and print journalist.

I cannot, in conscience, agree to Mr. Nalzaro’s pronouncement that these vigilantes should be “commended” instead of being condemned. He should be the last person to glorify these cold-blooded killers masquerading as heroes. His statement not only treads on dangerous grounds but likewise reveals a biased view against those publicly perceived as “criminals”. Allow me to remind him a thing or two on a number of fallacies snorted out in his November 12, 2005 article:

1. “Yes, there were killings, but consider those who were killed. Most of them were notorious elements that terrorized people through their nefarious activities.” — I think Mr. Nalzaro understands the meaning of the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prohibition on the use of excessive punishment that I need not discuss them further. Those slaughtered were either small-time criminals who have already served their sentences in jail or mere suspects whose innocence must be presumed until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. To give credence to Mr. Nalzaro’s contention would be like suggesting that we abolish all the law enforcement agencies, or to put it more bluntly, the pillars of the justice system and make him the “czar” of this vigilante group. From all indications, he seems so sure that all those murdered were hardened criminals.

Does he have sufficient evidence to support this sweeping generalization? If not, then he better reconsider his position because it does not speak well of the kind of journalism he peddles in a respected newspaper such as SunStar. He could have been more circumspect considering the possible influence his opinion could wield upon the mindset of potential criminals or worse, such a statement could be interpreted as a sign of approval for these state-sponsored assasins to continue their killing spree.

Nevertheless, I would like to ask Mr. Nalzaro this hypothetical, albeit practical question: What if any of his relatives is accused of committing crimes, and, using his standard of justice as barometer, qualifies for the death warrant, will he allow such relative of his to be summarily executed without the benefit of judicial trial? Your guess is as good as mine.

2. “We should only be alarmed if those killed are people with good standing in the community, like businessmen.” — Was Mr. Nalzaro absent when his professor explained about due process and equal protection of the laws? The law does not make a distinction whether one is rich or poor, innocent or guilty, privileged or deprived. For all we know, there are probably more smugglers and drug lords camouflaged as businessmen and more crooks and rapists disguised as mayors than there are snatchers and swindlers in the streets of Cebu.

3. “They had a role in the reduction of criminality in the city.” — These vigilantes did not reduce the number of crimes, they increased the list of unresolved murders to 103, allegedly in connivance and with the blessings of public officials and hoodlums in uniforms.

Instead of praising these killers for their dastardly acts, Mr. Nalzaro should focus his tirades on the inept and corrupt policemen who have been remiss in their duty to maintain peace and order in the “Queen City of the South”.