Lessons of Attrition

A rare, err…concession on
my part: this blog space is pathetic.

And so, by way of atonement,
I am declaring from this moment on that I will post at least one piece here
each week for the benefit of those who still happen to care.

This mandatory pledge on my
part is in response to forecasts made by reliable sources that if I desist from
blogging, there would assuredly be mass looting and rioting in the streets in
the coming days.  Not that there was anything preventing the later from occurring,
given the fragile political situation in the country, largely credited to a
bogus leader who simply refuses to step down.

Openly risking being accused of
one-upmanship and self-aggrandizement, my duty to public service overrides any
of these in order to satisfy the genuine seekers of enlightened discourse.
After all, The Figurehead is nothing if
not magnanimous.

Besides, conditions have
rendered it easier to write. Also, due to their straightforward character (the regime
is not saving anything for pretension in its application of despotism),
national developments have made social commentaries mere reiterations of the
obvious.

And so, to formally make the
pact, I shall restate – or more appropriately, paraphrase – in such creativity
only attributable to yours truly (or perhaps only matched by the sophisticated
spin normally employed by Arroyo’s bankrolled trouble-shooters) what has been
expounded above:

“By the tongues of a
thousand serpents, I swear that this time I shall deliver.”

If by any chance I fail, I shall
think of a good excuse.

As my first sign of
earnestness, I would like to inform all of you that I have finally settled on a
format – or theme, if you will – to serve as a simple and precise standard for
determining topics for my weekly instalments of sorts:

I will tackle any and all
subjects under the sun.

No stone shall be left
unturned, barring prioritization.  From the mundane to the multifaceted;
from the appealing to the malodorous; from the seemingly insignificant to the
most celebrated of events of the day. The articles will involve hypothesis-laying,
research (and in some cases, direct experimentation), exposition and
clarification, conclusion-making and finally, call(s) to action.

A sort of disclaimer is in
order, of course. I do not profess to infallibility, nor guarantee veracity and
efficacy of what I lay out before you here. Some may be embellished or products
of guesswork.  Others may simply be untrue. The best way, however, is
still to prove it for yourselves. Active participation is strongly espoused and
direct struggle against the forces of darkness will eventually (and most
assuredly) yield affirmation of the truth.

Pontification at its finest.

Be accordingly advised that
voluntarily sending post-dated checks are most welcome. Libel suits, however,
are frowned upon.

Mind also that I may at
times provide suggestions on going about the eternal problematic called Life,
but such “advice” cannot be accepted as absolute truth as their application is
entirely contingent upon one’s preferences (or the depth of one’s pockets,
actually), and general outlook in life. But if you feel you would rather stack
your mental orifices with recommendations from persons of notoriety such as
Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales, despite the obvious lies he peddles like
spoiled fish, you are beyond hope.

Mind further that it was
only recently that I have begun to fathom the intricate process of blogging.
After recently gravitating from email noob to YM adept, I’m sure many will
appreciate my efforts to once again tread on unfamiliar ground. I am compelled
to say, though, that this phenomenon of blogging has turned into an absolute
craze consuming MF-types across the country. Recognizing that time waits for no
one, I simply will not allow myself to be left behind. But I digress. Rest
assured this will be a subject for a future post.

Well, maybe.

That said, I now proceed to
my chosen topic for this week: GREED.

Ah – undoubtedly a practical
skill that has served well many a surviving dinosaur in this dying era of
cutthroat economics. Many names immediately come into mind: Lucio Tan, Danding
Cojuangco, the unrepentant proprietors of Nestle, George Bush, Lolit Solis, the
Marcoses, and the current favorite of human rights groups, and any individual
who has even an iota of sense left in his or her mind: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Entering the key word from
the ever-reliable dictionary.com yields the following definitions:

Greed (noun) 1: excessive
desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one
needs or deserves 2: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for
wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins) [syn: avarice, covetousness,
rapacity, avaritia].

Seems straightforward
enough. But to better understand the word, I will proceed to use it in a
sentence:

“A person, in his greed,
would expectedly vie for the icing, but in the process misses out on the cake
altogether.”

Should rare cases of
difficulty in comprehending concepts forwarded herein arise, be advised that
any statement I issue here shall be interpreted liberally in favor of common
sense (and in the name of cheap, spam-free entertainment). I hope this will
finally put to rest all disputes concerning my integrity as an upstanding
citizen of society. Those who persist in defiance shall be dragged out into the
streets and be beaten to a pulp. The exercise is in vogue anyway, considering
that the purported highest official of the land has made more than ample use of
this recourse to cling to her tenuous position.

Objectively speaking, greed
can be a strong motivational attribute, driving some to commit the unthinkable
and most reprehensible of deeds. Unsatisfied with the emoluments that accompany
her position of influence and privilege, Arroyo and her family engaged in the
lucrative enterprise of Jueteng, an illegal numbers game, which incidentally
was one of the principal grounds for the ouster of her predecessor, Erap.
Deeming her three years of pampered existence, rarefied in the delectable
confines of high office, was not enough, Arroyo took to the extent of diverting
public funds and making extensive use of the military establishment to cheat
her way to another term during the 2004 elections.

The current political crisis
of the Arroyo regime is not only laced with greed as icing is to the cake; it
is actually founded upon and consumed by greed. The muzzling of the critical
press, the stonewalling of all possible avenues for national redemption; the
outright killings of activists and members of the recognized political
opposition – all committed in the name of satisfying one’s unreasonable
yearning for something beyond what one rightfully deserves.

Yet, somehow, we’re certain that the greedy shall, in time, receive
their just deserts.

Chance, strictly speaking, is not at all “random.” It is still governed by the law of probability.

To illustrate, the chances of winning the lotto are slim. But no matter how tiny that percentage of winning is, such a percentage – an element that makes it a possibility – still exists.  Put another way: when you travel from point A to B, you may not reach B as quickly and without much incident more frequently as you would have wanted. But the fact remains: you will reach your destination, one way or the other, no matter what.

Relatedly, luck is just a term that illustrates a desirable situation (or effect) that arises amidst seemingly difficult and insurmountable odds. Such occurrences appear inexplicable at first and cannot be readily fathomed by the current level of human discernment that they are routinely associated with miracles.

This seeming absence of dependable, supporting justification from the laws of nature leads us to resort to divine intervention as the so-called source of such propitious events. And thus, our “faith” is reinforced, and we gain solace from others who attest – with unbending conviction – that “there is some unseen being at work here and that if you believe – nay, pray hard enough – one day you may also be a recipient of providence.” Such is our unconditional faith (or ignorance) that we ascribe what are bizarre incidents in our lives to miracles.

Mind, however, that one’s miracle could very well constitute another’s ill-fortune. While one who just won the lotto cannot be dissuaded from attributing his dumb luck to a miracle, the thousands of others who placed their bets and lost would be led to a realization that “my life sucks” and by elementary permutation, “God hates me.” With all due respect but those who rely too much on their luck pimps are better off priming their anal orifices, I mean…mental artifices, using a steel rod.

Such things are not miracles. We can even go to the extent that people coming back to life after being medically pronounced dead is a probability not beyond consideration. Concede that we have yet to completely fathom the intricate functions of the human body. At this point, such cases are exceptions to the actual rule but nonetheless a possible occurrence that cannot be discounted from the realm of reality.

I came across this on-line book that questions or challenges the concept of God’s existence (a veritable topic that has provoked many an intellectual either by sheer derision or genuine critical opinion). It’s a book entitled, “Why Does God Hate Amputees?”

The book was written as an argument to prove that God does not exist. The main contention being that if indeed God, the omnibenevolent being that he is, did exist, why did he leave out amputees from the supposedly encompassing and infinite purview of his miracles? Literatures attesting to God’s remarkable feats such as bringing the dead back to life have been profuse. But not once have we heard of God ever fixing a broken arm or leg.

Although my friends categorize me as "faith-impaired," I do not question outright other people’s religious beliefs. Religion is a fundamental right of every person and I try to respect that as much as I can. What really enrages me is when religion serves to subjugate rather than liberate the people’s hearts, minds and — if you would prefer — souls. Historically, however, religion (and the concept of God, which I seriously believe had been blown out of proportions) has served the former function.

And here’s an interesting piece of information. A few decades ago, it seemed unthinkable that man would be able to travel into space. We therefore have reason to be optimistic that it’s only a matter of time before we get to accomplish other more amazing things.  Mind further that every "miracle" in history now has a logical explanation. What seemed inexplicable at the time is comprehensible and can be easily verified scientifically today. Give it a few more years and I’m pretty sure a "cure" for amputees will be invented. By that time, it won’t be a result of providence, but a “miracle” of medical science. Truth can be relative, and may cease to be truth at a certain point, depending on the concrete conditions of the moment. Also, one’s glass could be half empty or half full, depending on one’s perspective.

Is God merely a cultural construct, a colonial imposition, a consolidated idea of the qualities that make us "human" — compassion, guilt, sacrifice, love?

At this point, I can only think of one way that a "miracle" could possibly come about, and that is if it defies what is the recognized and existing material/natural laws OF THE MOMENT. But as I have said earlier, even material/natural laws change and are modified upon each scientific discovery and stage of technological advancement. That what seemed like a miracle now could be proven to be a possibility — distinct maybe, but a possibility nonetheless — in the future.

I think that what leads us to subscribe to miracles is our current lack of understanding of how certain things play out or function. This condition of "working with inadequate information" is what made people believe in "acts of God" in the past. I mean no disrespect but who knows, maybe Jesus just gave the man a CPR to revive him, and people called it a miracle. Maybe a sick person accidentally ate bread moulds and after a while he was cured. His lack of awareness on the curative effects of moulds would naturally lead him to declare that he was a recipient of a miracle.

Some have argued that God merely works within the bounds of human truth, only limiting his acts to the possible combinations of rolling a six-sided dice. If God only "takes action" based on the existing rules that man — in his current level of development — has achieved, not only would that make him "less almighty," but more importantly "irrelevant." I mean, what’s the point of doing something that could very well be achieved by man on his own? Maybe that’s all there is to it.

Man, of course, acts within the parameters of his abilities and current state of achievement. And believe it or not, human history is progressive and advancing. On the other hand, one would have expected a being beyond man to act according to his stature — that is, God.  But frankly speaking, if indeed there is a God — excluding unverified testimonials, unconditional faith and the Bible (which, in my own opinion is still an "interpretation" of a human writer) — he hasn’t shown anything to the effect that he exists. Because whatever has happened in man’s history so far is his/her own doing (or undoing).

The necessity of ”needing” God for some, especially during these hard times, however, is a different matter altogether.

That it had to take an actual
tragedy to get me blogging again is an almost committed transgression on my
part. The omission is reprehensible
considering that the current condition of the country is replete with subject
material. Although worthy of critical
commentary, their nature is far from being praiseworthy.

The ULTRA tragedy (an accidental hyperbole) has kept various on-line forums ablaze. Here
is a comment I made at one of the forums I’m subscribed to in response to
several arguments that the victimized masses were equally to blame for the tragedy
because of their “greed” and “selfishness:”

Perhaps we are using
inappropriate words to describe what happened. We use the word
"blame," instead of "demanding responsibility" or
"determining culpability." By
saying that victims are merely into fault-finding would cheapen their quest for
any semblance of justice to be served. Of course, we are correct to proclaim that money will not bring back the
dead. No monetary compensation can equal
a person’s life. Although token and
definitely not a substitute, it’s a start. Still, heads should roll.

Some would say the thousands of
masa who lined up at ULTRA last Saturday were as much to blame as ABS-CBN. All the pushing and shoving. The "selfishness" of those who
won’t give way. (I heard the network
promised money to the early birds, the first 1,000 to get inside the
premises). But to say that everyone is
to blame is to place both the victim and the offending party on equal footing
and on the same league. Unless we’ve
already forgotten that those who died at ULTRA were the victims, we should
start weeping for ABS’ momentary profit loses. And while it is not beyond me to sympathize with Mr. Revillame, I could
only imagine the grief of those who lost more than just their careers last
Saturday.

Wouldn’t it be too much to demand
something from those who already have nothing? Technically, can one be "selfish" if she possesses nothing to
be the object of her greed? You live in a
shanty, you hardly eat three meals a day, and by your own estimates at the rate
things are going, you’re probably not getting out of that rut you call
existence. Years – nay, a lifetime – of
dearth, would certainly lead one to a state of despondency. And that was what actually led them to the
ULTRA. An affliction called
desperation. Capitalizing on such
misery, ABS dangled a bait ordinary people could not refuse. A false hope of
deliverance. The people came there for
one thing and had the same purpose in mind. As a friend commented: "Pipila ka ba dun kung may pera
ka?" It saddens me immensely to see
poor people being pitted against each other like dogs, led to rabidly compete
for crumbs at their master’s feet.

When you desire beyond what you
need, that is greed. But desiring something
you don’t have especially if you have been duped to believe that your very
survival depends on it has the markings of exploitation. Certainly, greed did not draw the people to
ULTRA. Desperation did. It’s not as if the victims yearned for money because
they had it in abundance. They simply
didn’t have it, and therefore needed it. Badly. To also subscribe to the
claim that they’re stupid is like conceding that the rape victim had it coming because
she failed to distinguish a rapist when she saw one.

Now, we say that if the masa
wanted money badly, why didn’t they just find work. Well, the economy is that bad that even
college graduates have a hard time finding employment. It is estimated that 3,000 Filipinos leave
the country for work abroad on a daily basis! And contrary to popular perceptions, the indolence of the masses is not the
culprit of the crisis in the country. With absolute surety, I can say that the masa are anything but lazy!

Not only is the ULTRA tragedy a
reflection of how poverty has gone beyond the threshold of desperation, but to
a lesser extent how putrefied the system of social welfare in the country
is. A fatal contradiction is achieved
when the State relegates (or abandons) the duty of service provision (I’m
speaking in general, which includes employment, education, even basic social
services such as food, housing) to the private sector whose main purpose of
existence and orientation have never really been that. The trend is that the State has been slowly
reneging on this responsibility, leaving everything to private institutions as
people, in their desperation, would their lives to chance. The role change of the DSWD – from
"rowing" to merely "steering" – is illustrative of this
trend.

ABS (and god knows, even the
rival network) packaged their pursuit of the ratings as a form of public
service. You dole out measly prizes to a
handful of participants but in the end reap profits
hundredfold. As windfall, corporate media make it appear as
if they have accomplished a lot and did a great service to the nation. Now such posturing has been unmasked,
although unfortunately at the expense of more than 70 lives.

While listening to some Metalcore music (a genre I am made to believe is the most recent growth trajectory that hardcore music has taken), I suddenly had this interesting breakthrough. Whatever happened to those Punks who participated in the previous Oust ERAP campaign? Their insanely abbrassive vocals and knife-point wit are sorely missed and would be a welcome addition to the overall OUST GMA campaign.

Imagine their press releases crafted along these lines: "Despite leaving behind a crisis in leadership in the Philippines, Arroyo still managed to stand out during the UN meeting in New York like an extended middle finger. The validity of her presence among the reputed world leaders, not to mention her speaking on behalf of the country, is as easy to comprehend as calculating infinity. (Hint: It’s impossible.)"

Of course, barring the extended middle finger part and other related ribald, I could think of no other group capable (or permitted with some level of discretion) of issuing a statement of such gravitas. The group, or "collaboration" as Punks are wont to call it, could be Punks Collaborating to Kick Gloria Out or PUCK Gloria! But that might be overdoing it.

Just my P0.02

Dear CAM,

Finally, the astral configurations have reached their illuminating pinnacle, making atmospheric conditions most appropriate for this letter-reply. We have reached the threshold of humanity’s potential and perhaps enlightenment may be appropriated accordingly to the willing.

First, allow me to apologize for this immensely belated reply. I have been extremely busy these past few weeks, err…months (can’t believe it’s been more than 3 months!) that during moments when I am finally allowed to compose what would remotely resemble a reply, I would get infected by that ever reliable "virtue" any writer would inexcusably pass off as a sub-phase in their struggling careers – a self-imposed intellectual hiatus, commonly referred to as tardiness. Others have dignified this ignoble condition as "writer’s block," but at least I am honest enough to call a spade a spade.

Seriously though, national events have unfortunately overtaken our discussions but in the process have fortuitously answered some of the queries you’ve raised. You (and the entire Filipino community abroad) have no doubt heard of the “Jueteng-gate” and “Gloria-tape” scandals now besieging the sitting regime. You can only imagine how staggering the political engagements now occurring at the forefront are, and will reach their fever climax soon. How these battles are waged in the coming days will determine the contours of the country’s social landscape forever (I share your most fervent hope on this one).

I urge you to monitor the events in the country via TV or internet. In the meantime, as I did promise a reply, I will try – to the best of my (ahem!) inherent abilities — to go through several issues you’ve mentioned.

The core and peripheral debates that ran during the height of the 2004 national elections resurrect themselves today – issues that continue to haunt the current regime’s existence. I personally wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out that FPJ did win in the previous poll. What is certain, though, is that GMA’s recorded votes do not reflect the actual ballot and therefore she does not have legal or political ascendancy to hold on to her current position.

The emergence of a tape containing conversations between GMA and COMELEC Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano confirm previous allegations that indeed, GMA rigged the votes. GMA also engaged in indirect fraud by using the massive machinery (agriculture and road-users’ funds diverted into GMA’s campaign kitty, PhilHealth cards, the employment of state armed forces, etc.) readily available to the incumbent.

GMA’s legitimacy (tenuous at that) went from lingering suspicion to beyond doubt by evidence of her dealings with the unscrupulous Garcillano, damning evidence that Malacanang’s media hacks and lieutenants agonizingly cannot troubleshoot. An irredeemable dent on the President’s credibility has been made that not even a public apology from her could erase her grave iniquity to the Filipino people. GMA had attempted to capitalize on the (false) impression that Filipinos are easily forgiving but failed to get any political mileage out of it. Calls for her resignation and ouster have mounted more than ever.

The so-called EDSA fatigue is an abridged observation of a condition that misrepresents what may very well be the actual truth. If Filipinos seem reluctant to engage in another “uprising” at the moment, it is probably less due to plain indifference than grounded disenchantment over the inadequacies and superficialities that eclipsed previous EDSAs. GMA turned into the self-same dragon that EDSA 2 had sought out to slay. Filipinos understandably would like to be assured that ousting and then replacing her with the next-in-line would net a different fate.

Regardless, People Power as an expression of the sovereign will of the people remains a relevant and legitimate recourse to removing a fraudulent and iniquitous regime. The formation of a “transition council” immediately after GMA’s removal is a progressive step in that it is a departure from the barren succession of political figureheads that hopelessly characterized previous EDSAs. After making a mockery of the electoral process and the country’s other democratic institutions, Ms. Arroyo is not in a position to trivialize and disparage People Power as “extra-Constitutional.” Those who harp the idea that changes should be restricted within the framework of existing law do not desire to practice democracy but merely preserve it.

A few more notes. Political pundits and opinion-makers so-called, even in corporate media, have dependably “smallified” the figure of past anti-GMA rallies, shamelessly criticizing the broad anti-GMA movement for failing to muster “enough” numbers to oust her. As if the burden of redeeming social justice and demanding reforms rests solely on those who have voluntarily taken to the streets.

A social worker would have wanted to provide immediate relief such as food and medicines to a community subjected to a food blockade. Onlookers, however, oddly chastise the social worker for failing because soldiers who were actually enforcing the embargo denied him access into the village. People Power has not commenced precisely because the regime, true to its reactionary form, is offering resistance; its reaction has been brutally calculated to preserve its existence — despite abhorrent and untenable – at all costs. Well, if ousting corrupt Presidents were that easy, they wouldn’t be included under the purview of struggle at all.

You quote a foreign magazine portraying the Filipino masa as the "worst electorate" in the face of the planet. I take it the ECONOMIST was referring to the candidate choice of the poor last elections, namely FPJ. While such an observation seems unfair originating from a magazine looking from the outside in, I would have to unfortunately concede that Philippine elections are not determined by “conscious” choices especially on the part of the masses. But as I have asserted in our previous correspondence, it_is_not_their_fault.

Firstly, aside from being popular by default (he is the king of Philippine action cinema, after all) the masses easily relate to FPJ because of his roles depicting the poor. The "api" that manages to emerge victorious in the face of tremendous odds. The poor have found temporary refuge in his movies, a visceral catharsis, albeit temporarily so.

While on the subject of movies, perhaps an example would help us visualize certain things. Filipino cinema (well, a portion of it) has been recognized as a form and medium of revolt; its appreciation by the public, in turn, an expression of people’s protest against the reigning oppressive system. I assume you still recall the immensely popular sitcom, "Bubble Gang." The show holds the record for longest-running gag show. Why Bubble Gang has stayed on air for so long, its director, Uro de la Cruz, in an interview, offered this explanation: "Pinagdyi-jeep ko ang mga writers!"

Which we have to admit is one effective way for any serious writer to get new material for the show (or for any literary enterprise for that matter). But what really struck me is his understanding of laughter: "It’s the great leveller. Gusto [ng tao] ‘yung nana-nudge nila ang authority figure. Nakakatikim sila ng democracy when they can laugh at those bigger and more powerful than them. Laughter is empowering."

Ditto when it comes to movies. To a certain extent, we may view the electoral decision of the masses as a form of indictment against the elite, a warped form of protest and exercise of political will. The few remaining liberties of the masses is the exercise of the right to suffrage. But even this is fast diminishing, with the tapes of the wiretapped conversations confirming that the Philippine elections is anything but a legitimate exercise. (By the way, the character "Ate Glo," is no longer portrayed by the versatile Michael V. following censorship by the Palace-appointed cultural police that is the MTRCB).

Of course, I’m not saying that voting for FPJ, viewed as a form of political assertion, is a cultural achievement for the Filipino masses. I am merely stating the circumstances, so that we may be objectively guided in our opinions.

Choosing between the lesser of evils is the sorry standard being followed by voters during elections. Even an uncommitted newbie in politics such as FPJ (and moreso for an ideologically committed economist such as GMA), cannot be expected to completely surmount a system that is essentially conservative. All things considered, any sitting president would work for the preservation of the current exploitative system, since either they directly benefit from it, or their patrons and close-ins do. Forced to choose between GMA and FPJ, I would (grudgingly) pick the latter.

Compared to GMA, FPJ has no record of political crimes. Come to think of it, he has no political record at all, which many (especially the middle class) have quickly used as artillery for his unfitness for public office. He is, of course, associated with the disgraced Erap regime.

GMA on the other hand has served numerous government positions prior to being catapulted into Malacanang. She is a certified economist to boot, yet has failed to install legitimate reforms in the country. She has continued to pursue the discredited neo-liberal development framework that has brought further ruin to a vassal state such as the Philippines. Three years of hardship under GMA is enough.

But I didn’t vote for FPJ, either (the one I voted for just died last week).

As I’ve previously said, it would take time for Filipinos to undo decades of cultural subservience. In development work, we have terms and concepts (although many have regressed into academic abstraction, rendering them useless to the practical needs of the people, as reason is to an intractable GMA) such as "community organizing" and "grassroots empowerment." We’re still a long way off, but eventually we’ll get there. What is essential, if not central to our success – and I hope an amendment to your perspective on this one would not require an act of Congress (something that has become pointless, anyway) – is our continued confidence and reliance on the inherent capacities (untapped as of the current) of the masses. If we loose that, we abandon hope altogether. We abort any clinging possibility of ever making changes.

Why do I place such level of faith on the people, especially the masses? Despite their manifest "fixation" for the popular icons of society, the reason being: on whom else do we place our trust to? Our esteemed politicians, the business elite or ant other establishment in the current political structure? (I already know your answer on this one). I think you’d agree that development policies introduced and imposed by those on top, and implemented on the bottom is a long discredited paradigm.

The most democratic section of Philippine society still lacks political power because economic power remains centralized in the hands of the rarefied elite. You look for a section of society who wants – nay, deeply yearns – to change it, and you see the masses. Look anywhere else and you will see defenders of the status quo. As they are the most deprived and victimized by the system, the poor are the most interested in and receptive to reforms. They have nothing to loose, and all the world to gain, as the saying goes.

You correctly state that we need to continue conscientisizing and reaching out to the broadest section of the population as humanly possible. From the masses, to the middle class, to the open-minded and least reactionary fold of the elite.

If you have further questions, comments, scathing rebukes or rotten fruit, please feel free to throw them my way.

Thank you, and take care.

Sincerely,

Figurehead