"Reducing change into sentiments, turning dreams into whinings..."
LAST week's events provide countersentiments by some people in social media networks all over. That, in midst of the crisis these people rather tend to ridicule those who vent rage against the system rather than thinking what comes behind the rage people compelled to do so-such as the attempt to march towards Batasang Pamabasa a week ago.
In the perspective of these people ridiculing, they condemn the rage as "barbaric", "paid hack" and even "terroristic" especially after some people afford to break the windshield of a truck and even nearly destroyed a police car in midst of the beatings laid by riot policemen trying to control the scene that time; "barbaric" indeed but of what was "barbaric" compared to a "civilized" destruction of communities in Paranaque and in Quezon City? Such hatred vented by these "barbaric" ones clamoring social change in midst of a head of state doing his bragging rights and half-ended promises already knew what goes on that the system rather prefers keeping with the status quo using a new rhetoric to justify its antiquated action.
Sorry to say so, but true.
And as expected, with people tend to ridicule, acting hypocritical so to think of tend all to vent rage over activists or reducing ideas into figments of imaginations all for the sake of justifying their own individualism as a cornerstone of progress and patriotism.
But come to think regarding their über-individualistic idea, such as being "I am" as an embodiement of change, of reducing socially-tended ones into a self-encased "do and live" or any other sentiment, these are merely whinings and braggings worse than what they are assailing with such as those who vent rage against the system.
But come to think regarding their über-individualistic idea, such as being "I am" as an embodiement of change, of reducing socially-tended ones into a self-encased "do and live" or any other sentiment, these are merely whinings and braggings worse than what they are assailing with such as those who vent rage against the system.
Obviously, in having a system that remained rotten, backward and dilapidated tends to impose something that is far from enlightening. To think that mankind should be going to school for work, work and buy, consume and die, this so-called life cycle what these people tend to vent isn't change at all, nor having big bucks does not affect social change other than the outside appearance of communities and perhaps people as money-carrying individuals taking pride of their "fulfilled destinies due to hard work yet enduring paying fees and dues, fines in order to survive in their communities."
And despite doing little ways all in pursuit of an idealistic change these are not enough no matter how thorough had been done to-working hard is indeed good, but come to think of it: working for a low pay that is more of a survival pay than of a living wage fit for their families, that despite saving it thoroughly only to meet its value far below due to the increasing prices of commodities such as food and utilities such as electricity, then deducted due to obligations such a taxes?
Such little ways are not enough no matter how successful nor making it a difference as other people tend to say so.
In an instance, those studying National Service Training Program in colleges and Citizenship Advancement Training in high schools include gardening, literacy training or cleaning of roads and even trying hard assisiting construction workers all for the sake of grades; most of them obviously are not committed to idealism such as supporting the masses in uplifting themselves and be end up "used" by traditional politicians acting as if benevolent pater/maternalists in their respectieve communities. Obviously, upliftment became a farce and illusion as the privileged treats serious matters as Public Relations policies that is, devoid of genuine social responsibility in a way people be obliged to pay direct and indirect taxes in the name of "National Development" that, frankly speaking, reducing their own hardships in favor of these obligatory expenses end up in the coffers of the few or in unnecessary projects.
Then in midst of the terrible crisis, of calls for social dismantlement of the old order, of fighting against the oligarchs, of wage increases and low prices, these trying hard intellectuals telling everyone that "change starts from ones self" without looking at the social realities nor thinking what kind of society Philippines or any other country is? Good to say so about people should work, save and be self sufficient acting as a pretext in changing the world but come to think that these people, like themselves also pay taxes even those who buy a piece of candy in a variety store are even taxed by the state for paying debts, modernizing military or any kind of braggable contributions such as roads, bridges, airports made on behalf of benevolent ones motivated by pater/maternalist tendencies.
Quite strange that these intellectuals guised as bringers of light acting like the Gods telling people without any idea what kind is their society and instead putting the heavily burdened individual that uses "rest" as its weapon (and be called thee as idleness) to shame. In America they had admired for instance, they tend to admire Kennedy's but their minds are more of Reagan's and Pat Robertson's whose obsession with faith negates the secular character of the State. Since these intellectuals admire Kennedy, how come Kennedy's progressivism and its welfare activities didn't serve as the basis of most traditional politicians whilst parroting "what do you do for your country"?
In fact, Kennedy also said this:
"[W]e stand today on the edge of a New Frontier -— the frontier of 1960s, the frontier of unknown opportunities and perils, the frontier of unfilled hopes and unfilled dreams. ... Beyond that frontier are uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered problems of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus..."
Followed by doing this:
1. The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,
2. The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,
3. The redevelopment of distressed areas,
4. An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,
5. An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,
6. The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and
7. The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.
Such sentiment Kennedy said speaks the reality questioning such issues that made people clamor for real social change, come to think that these people who clamor also work hard for their needs yet facing greater challenges such as rising costs of commodities incompatible with their wages despite rising GNP and GDP rates; the gap between rich and poor remained very distant all despite the creation of skyscrapers and investors coming as well as a floating currency supported by remittances abroad.
Obviously, people worked hard and be complimented by aid to alleviate from serious problems such as poverty, housing, even agriculture especally productivity; that surpluses are ought to be distributed equally to everyone to support daily needs other than their daily acts that require sweat and muscle especially those who put peso by peso (for example) to pay for their low-cost housing.
Quite strange that since people are parroting Kennedy's they are acting more of his rivals who favor keeping with the status quo and trating clamor for social change as a mere, minor whining of a spoiled brat such as Reagan's aloofness to labor issues in midst of the massive strikes especially in the livestock industry.
In fact, the ones protesting aren't even say "free" for something. They worked hard, they need strong price controls and higher wages, better healthcare and affordable education all supported by subsidies, these aren't called "free" contrary to the so-called intellectuals condemning them as "free riders" and spoiled brats?
And come to think of it, labor issues such as strikes create an ire over these trying hard intellectuals who speak about their über-individualism as foundation of social change that obviously, not. Reagan's aloofness over these issues and even the use of National Guard to control strikers without any means to solve the crisis and justify "trickle down" economics doesn't create much sense to the extent of not to advance changes in favor of keeping the status quo.
Just like what Reagan said during the PATCO strike decades ago:
"They are in violation of the law and if they do not report for work within 48 hours they have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated."
Followed by arrests, beatings of course without solving the issue involving wages, prices, profit and hours of work.
That goes the same in regards to the Philippine experience of trying hard intellectuals who are too obsessed in their idealism yet too choosy in means to advance total social change. Cleaning streets, praying, studying hard and working for a survival pay isn't really change but maintainance of one's self rather than a contribution to a growing country. It's just that people tend to reinterpret it, if so then is prayer should be obligatory, then how about the atheists? If studying hard is mandatory, then how about the smart who takes less studying and more into booze and facebooking? Worse, those who are trying to survive in a very small minimum wage acting as a survival pay in midst of the rising costs of commodities are trying to save the remains only to face higher prices that every individual ought to work overnight only to remain numb on low pay and high prices.
Such idealism people tend to say and suggest is in fact, whinings in response to a bigger whining such as a call for the dismantlement of a rotting status quo same as trying hard to reduce calls for a major structural change into a mere sentiment of the dispossed majority,
...that they are willing to die advancing what they are fighting for, especially in midst of rising crisis and dilapidating social structures.
And despite doing little ways all in pursuit of an idealistic change these are not enough no matter how thorough had been done to-working hard is indeed good, but come to think of it: working for a low pay that is more of a survival pay than of a living wage fit for their families, that despite saving it thoroughly only to meet its value far below due to the increasing prices of commodities such as food and utilities such as electricity, then deducted due to obligations such a taxes?
Such little ways are not enough no matter how successful nor making it a difference as other people tend to say so.
In an instance, those studying National Service Training Program in colleges and Citizenship Advancement Training in high schools include gardening, literacy training or cleaning of roads and even trying hard assisiting construction workers all for the sake of grades; most of them obviously are not committed to idealism such as supporting the masses in uplifting themselves and be end up "used" by traditional politicians acting as if benevolent pater/maternalists in their respectieve communities. Obviously, upliftment became a farce and illusion as the privileged treats serious matters as Public Relations policies that is, devoid of genuine social responsibility in a way people be obliged to pay direct and indirect taxes in the name of "National Development" that, frankly speaking, reducing their own hardships in favor of these obligatory expenses end up in the coffers of the few or in unnecessary projects.
Then in midst of the terrible crisis, of calls for social dismantlement of the old order, of fighting against the oligarchs, of wage increases and low prices, these trying hard intellectuals telling everyone that "change starts from ones self" without looking at the social realities nor thinking what kind of society Philippines or any other country is? Good to say so about people should work, save and be self sufficient acting as a pretext in changing the world but come to think that these people, like themselves also pay taxes even those who buy a piece of candy in a variety store are even taxed by the state for paying debts, modernizing military or any kind of braggable contributions such as roads, bridges, airports made on behalf of benevolent ones motivated by pater/maternalist tendencies.
Quite strange that these intellectuals guised as bringers of light acting like the Gods telling people without any idea what kind is their society and instead putting the heavily burdened individual that uses "rest" as its weapon (and be called thee as idleness) to shame. In America they had admired for instance, they tend to admire Kennedy's but their minds are more of Reagan's and Pat Robertson's whose obsession with faith negates the secular character of the State. Since these intellectuals admire Kennedy, how come Kennedy's progressivism and its welfare activities didn't serve as the basis of most traditional politicians whilst parroting "what do you do for your country"?
In fact, Kennedy also said this:
"[W]e stand today on the edge of a New Frontier -— the frontier of 1960s, the frontier of unknown opportunities and perils, the frontier of unfilled hopes and unfilled dreams. ... Beyond that frontier are uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered problems of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus..."
Followed by doing this:
1. The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,
2. The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,
3. The redevelopment of distressed areas,
4. An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,
5. An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,
6. The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and
7. The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.
Such sentiment Kennedy said speaks the reality questioning such issues that made people clamor for real social change, come to think that these people who clamor also work hard for their needs yet facing greater challenges such as rising costs of commodities incompatible with their wages despite rising GNP and GDP rates; the gap between rich and poor remained very distant all despite the creation of skyscrapers and investors coming as well as a floating currency supported by remittances abroad.
Obviously, people worked hard and be complimented by aid to alleviate from serious problems such as poverty, housing, even agriculture especally productivity; that surpluses are ought to be distributed equally to everyone to support daily needs other than their daily acts that require sweat and muscle especially those who put peso by peso (for example) to pay for their low-cost housing.
Quite strange that since people are parroting Kennedy's they are acting more of his rivals who favor keeping with the status quo and trating clamor for social change as a mere, minor whining of a spoiled brat such as Reagan's aloofness to labor issues in midst of the massive strikes especially in the livestock industry.
In fact, the ones protesting aren't even say "free" for something. They worked hard, they need strong price controls and higher wages, better healthcare and affordable education all supported by subsidies, these aren't called "free" contrary to the so-called intellectuals condemning them as "free riders" and spoiled brats?
And come to think of it, labor issues such as strikes create an ire over these trying hard intellectuals who speak about their über-individualism as foundation of social change that obviously, not. Reagan's aloofness over these issues and even the use of National Guard to control strikers without any means to solve the crisis and justify "trickle down" economics doesn't create much sense to the extent of not to advance changes in favor of keeping the status quo.
Just like what Reagan said during the PATCO strike decades ago:
"They are in violation of the law and if they do not report for work within 48 hours they have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated."
Followed by arrests, beatings of course without solving the issue involving wages, prices, profit and hours of work.
That goes the same in regards to the Philippine experience of trying hard intellectuals who are too obsessed in their idealism yet too choosy in means to advance total social change. Cleaning streets, praying, studying hard and working for a survival pay isn't really change but maintainance of one's self rather than a contribution to a growing country. It's just that people tend to reinterpret it, if so then is prayer should be obligatory, then how about the atheists? If studying hard is mandatory, then how about the smart who takes less studying and more into booze and facebooking? Worse, those who are trying to survive in a very small minimum wage acting as a survival pay in midst of the rising costs of commodities are trying to save the remains only to face higher prices that every individual ought to work overnight only to remain numb on low pay and high prices.
Such idealism people tend to say and suggest is in fact, whinings in response to a bigger whining such as a call for the dismantlement of a rotting status quo same as trying hard to reduce calls for a major structural change into a mere sentiment of the dispossed majority,
...that they are willing to die advancing what they are fighting for, especially in midst of rising crisis and dilapidating social structures.