what dyou think of me, thinking of you?!

ooops, im sorry, I guess I might have offended my friend with the way my arguments went in my previous post. my apologies.

she wrote:
if marching out on the streets, chanting and clamoring for reforms and taunting government officials does the trick for you, then go. but all I am saying is, it is pointless. laws are not made nor amended by having them resound loud and clear though a megaphone outside the Malacanan. government officials don't resign through that way, either. signature campaigns may do it, but definitely not rallies. (rallies and strikes and revolutions are different things,
right?)

I say:
going to the streets may seem to be a medium for the people's appeal towards the government. yes these street demonstrations seems as if they are. but looking at it in a different perspective, they are not. they are appeals addressed to the people to listen and shake off their apathy; they are appeals to the youth to see things in a different light.

she wrote:
those held in mendiola even causes suspension of classes at times. (you, of all people, know this.) and where does this lead? nothing. if I were a rallyist, I don't know what kind of satisfaction I’ll be having knowing that I’ve caused trouble to motorists and wasted a lot of parents' money and time when students should have been in school and learning something. and all these for nothing... not unless you're one of those paid-rallyists, which I know you are not.

aside for its historical value in the people's plight for progress, mendiola (or university belt) houses the country's most important resource - youth. these rallyists conduct such demonstration in such places because this is where the youth, who would want to be educated, go. and demonstrations are essential lessons students learn outside the halls of their colleges. these demonstrations teach the students reality at its raw form. and it is in this way these rallyists would want to teach the youth of the things that the youth fail to see now a day.

she wrote:
let's not give out to our children the rotten mentality that some of our forefathers taught us. let us learn from the mistakes they've committed and strive for something better.

I say:
I think the big blunder our forefathers have taught us is the concept of capitalism that leads to sheer individualism. the bigger blunder is to connect such individualism to nationalism, while the biggest (which has nothing to do with the two previous arguments) is the strong idea that change starts in the family, especially to one's self.

when we were young we were taught to study hard for us to get high grades and eventually get a good paying job and get rich. this is the capitalism that I am talking about - get rich. there is practically nothing wrong with teaching the youth the desire to live a prosperous life, I mean who doesn’t want that? I do! but such idea creeps into the youth deeply that it develops the idea of individualism within them. this idea individualism becomes strong as the youth learn to become not contented in life. and this leads to bigger problems - selfishness and greed.

this individualism can never be corrected with a messianic act of giving charity to the poor and less privileged. as long as individualism resides in each person that reaches to the poor, such at of charity is not going to be fruitful and of help the this country's search for reforms and progress. unless altruism resides on the people, selfishness and greed will continue to rule. isn’t that one of the real problems of this society?

now what about the idea of starting reforms within one's self, is it bad? I say it is not entirely bad, but it is not absolutely good at the same time. this idea yields complacency among the youth. the mere fact that they have to start the so-called change within themselves rests them to the idea that they have no obligation to this country as long as they do not their selves first. what should be taught is the idea of multi-tasking. there should be a two-pronged attack working for reforms, one is the change that one starts within his self and the other is the change that starts within his community, or his country perhaps.

individualism and complacency, these turn the youth in what I personally call neo-bourgeois or the new middle class. bourgeois because these people only think of themselves to enrich (like that of marx's concept), neo because they are the kind people that think of themselves to enrich and dismiss their obligation to the country in a measly act of charity. these people are mediocre who delve in the idea of nationalism in a very small and insufficient amount of charity.

now what do these arguments have to do with what we are arguing about? that there are more in this society that we should learn from other than these "pesky" street demonstrations. rallying for the truth, for empowerment, is not the problem.

she wrote:
people are free to air out their grievances, but please, not at the expense of others. rallies held along espana and rotonda just worsens the traffic.

I say:
let me just ask, what else had these motorists done for this country aside from sitting in front of the television watching chinovelas? what had these motorists done for the country aside from sitting in front of the television watching news and shouting for reforms that only them and their good old askal can hear? apathy my friend is not whats non-existing in this country, natinalism and patriotism that is. I will be damned if productivity for self-preservation is tantamount to nationalism, it is not. I will castrate myself if you could count fifty genuine nationalists in a bunch of motorists that are affected by street demonstrations related traffics. if one is not doing much for this country, one does not have the right to fret about the hassles demonstrations cause.

my brother is not a pig

ok here we go again.

my friend and i had an argument once again few days ago. this time around we were not fighting about the da vinci code movie (which i think should have been banned in the country because it sucks, the acting sucks, the cinematography sucks), rather we were arguing about the rallyist role in the society at large.

to her, street demonstrations are just nuisance that yield no benefit for the country other than giving the metro sweepers jobs for cleaning up their mess after their demonstration. according to her, it would have been better had these rallyists turned into more productive and pro-active citizens, who delve on socio civic endeavors that advances the human life and intellect. i do not blame her, i also shared with her the same sentiments few years ago. but not this time around.

no pun intended to my friend, but i guess due to the things i have delved on after high school and due to the experiences i got from these endeavors, i can say that somehow i have been more exposed to a country outside its superficialities. and through my interactions with different people with different political ideologies, i can say that i also see the other side of the coin. not that im saying that she doesnt, its just that we see life in this country in a very different perspective.

ART. II Sec. 1 of the Philippine Constitution states, "the Philippines is a democratic state. Sovereignty resides on the people and all government authority emanates from them."

this is a general principle stated and emphasize thereto by the Philippine constitution. it is integral in a democratic country that its people do get the chance to redress their grievances in whatever and express their sentiments towards the government. therefore i do not see anything wrong if someone goes to the streets and demonstrate their disgust on the things that are happening in this country.

like i said, it is a matter of viewing things in a certain perspective. i see street demonstrations as clear manifestation of the general principle this country as a nation of law other than men espouses. but my friend sees it otherwise, and i do not blame her. man can never be expected to think the same way as the other hungry man does, and he is not expected to see life in a magnified manner as the other one does. perceptions and perspectives based on one man's life alone are good, but involving the plight of the others and the general reality yield a better understanding on some of the aspects present in this society.

i love you daisy sebastian. leme look forward to lot more may 26's and another set of eternity..