In defense of what I think is "right"
"One of the greatest things I learned at UP was that the middle stance as the correct stance, is well...a funny assertion. A blind man's perspective. A joker's. "Middle" denotes balance and equality. Can the Right ever be equal with the Left? Only in mathematical equations. Never in social reality. The Right has arms and might, while the Left derives its might only from being on the democratic side. "Middle" is only for referees in a boxing fight.
Ensure the safety of the top military official of the land by searching students' bags? Hello? is this UP? Golly, I salute those who still attended the forum despite the searches. Why would I want the organizers to peep into my lunchbox or know how many coins I've got left in my bag ?
A student organization trying to ensure the safety of the top military official? Has everyone in this university gone mad? I bet the General went there with enough bullets to finish off everyone who was at the UP campus on that day. When you've got a lot of enemies, you don't walk around with just a sandwich in your bag.
My dear pol sci majors, you've got a terribly disturbing view of the world. Maybe you're reading the wrong political science books. Or are listening to the wrong professors. Try reading Mao Tse Tung once in a while. He's the demon incarnate to many people. But there's at least a line or two in his writings that will make you cry. Read him to find out why." --------quoted from an alumnus in a web forum
Simple notes:
1. While your stereotypical definition of what is Left and Right is indeed in consonance with how the mainstream views what is Left and what is Right, I think you are being prejudicial when you asserted who is for power and might as against who is for democracy. It somehow implies who is simply oppressor and who is victim basically because you have tilted the balance of power in favor of those who have guns and legal positions. Perhaps this fuels all the more what is justification for the passionate activism of your glory days being capable of throwing things more than eggs. And perhaps you might add that you want those who fight in this way to feel good about themselves. You're entitled to that. However I disagree with how you stick to your prejudiced stance. The fault of some authors in our rich literature lies not in their passion for writing, it is in what they write about. And the fault in this case is the branding of what is Right and what is Left as if it were black and white. This can never be. As you of all people should know this history, great leaders of the Left were not hesitant to employ the ways of the Right once they got in power. In the same way, we find that not all Medieval characters associated with the conservative Right advocated the use of the sword and in fact were considered benevolent in their time. The reason why there is the center-left or the center-right is not because these people have not guts or mind to make a stand. It is moreso that they are contemplating on the pros and cons of the issue and tend to lean towards one over the other. No one is absolutely Left or Right. So don't label these reflective people as apathetic or criticizing their brand of activism. Perhaps you were using such analogy just for the specific instance of Esperon with no intention of generalizing. Granted, however when you try to mix it up with SOPs such as checking of bags and practices society accepts for its own good, I don't think you're being all too democratic now. Laws are by the people and for the people. Sure that is the ideal, but hey, most of our laws are not taken and burned in the parliament of the street. I wonder why. Maybe it is because people see it for their own good. That's democracy. That's the law. That's the standard practice. So let's not bark that loudly and label acts as something Right and Left because, heck, no one is completely Left or Right. It's just a preference, an inclination on issue areas. Even in this case, SOP is Right because its interest is the protection of power and it is conducted with the use of threat. However, its intent...to protect the people and advance common practice and interest I think is what's so beautiful about the Left. And no, I need no Marx to find that out for myself.
2. What's so wrong with having your bag checked? You feel violated? You feel UP is under attack because someone has your bag checked? As for those brave souls who attended the forum, some of them did not hesitate and comment on the bag-checking. How cute. Again, what's so annoying about the SOP? What makes your head turn and your hears to flap everytime you see things or hear things you think is equal to trampling on your rights? Geesh. I do not want to generalize members of your movement. I know a lot of them and I respect their ardent views on the matter. And they respect mine. They respect that when they are on my turf, I tell them of what to expect and what not to do about it. The forum and other such situations and conditions are always a creation of somebody else. You're just a player. You are not God carrying your omnipotence around and having an answer to everything. You may not like the rules of the turf or may actually do. Do you throw eggs? No. Oh sure Esperon deserved the eggs. However I say again that it is not all about you this time. It's about UP. Mind you, UP as an institution needs all that good media it could get, forgive the sarcasm. Its reputation precedes it and it has not always been clear and bright. So do not argue that UP is UP and people should expect to be treated that way in UP. We're better than that. We are a melting pot of ideas. And to my recollection, ideas can kill but only when the thinker allows the idea to. It's about your rights ending when some other person's rights begin. Respect. Decency. Being proper. Let's not throw these out the window. Not especially when both movements, the Left and Right theorists, seek this kind of world at the end of the struggle. Let not our ways be the mere prism of how we are judged. Let not our ways be the downfall of our person. Let not our ways be all that we think we are. Restraint friend. Freedom, whatever form that may be, comes for a price. And sometimes, what are proper and decent have to set the boundaries. In the end, we live happier than we do without it. The good life, right? Touche.
3. I am glad at the rallying of a lot of Political Science majors behind their stand on the issue. That is regardless of what they thought about it. We may never agree at one time, but at least we know our convictions. Even if this demands we go beyond party lines and embrace a position we all think should be the appropriate one. Again, in a world of anarchy, let those that bring good prevail. Being proper. Being appropriate. I am proud of my discipline and the people that have made it so. We are not being poisoned in this department to be administration hooligans and Maoist cyborgs. We are instead disturbed, twisted, bent to the point of breaking so that we do not come up with labels like admin hooligans and Maoist cyborg without proof and reason. Scholarship advances in such painful ways. It does not compromise. It bears only the truth. And when it no longer does, then it is not scholarship but some propaganda. Sadly, the Left and the Right employ such pragmatic tactics to their liking. It is the challenge then to Political Scientists to correct the praxis by reverting back to the ideal and the fundamental. Not even Macchiavelli can be all that bad. He can be idealist as well. We are trying our best to defend this scholarship as if it were the only thing we could own. Matter of opinion, it is the only one of few things that can last. (Haha, love can be another) So we read books. So we make our position after careful weighing. Disagree if you may but do not use assumptions and fallacious arguments simply because your action was proven wrong and you think you're right. Put a stopper to it when you have to.
The night is long and my sleepless nights rage on. Three days. This has been the worse I've undergone. Here's to the fourth and fifth night! Thank God for re-schedules! Thank God for good company. Thank God for your ideas, all of them.
Thank God for Political Science. And yes, God was the first politician. When He decided to share the power to live and become, He made the first ideal political decision. He chose to share, not keep all things to Himself. He knows us all too well and at times it's unfair. However I argue, what's the point of enjoying all good things in life when you're not alive. He gave us life and this chance at eternity. I think that is unfair to Him as well. But He did not think so. Maybe we shouldn't as well.
Jesus Christ was an activist Himself. Agree with me on Him after reading the crappy history of the Da Vinci Code or not, he lived. Disagree or not, he was the Left and the Right personified. Unfair that we can't be him. We don't have to be.
Scholarship advances is such a beautiful way. Pick your tools. Pick your prisms. One can never be the answer to everything. I've chosen mine.
Ensure the safety of the top military official of the land by searching students' bags? Hello? is this UP? Golly, I salute those who still attended the forum despite the searches. Why would I want the organizers to peep into my lunchbox or know how many coins I've got left in my bag ?
A student organization trying to ensure the safety of the top military official? Has everyone in this university gone mad? I bet the General went there with enough bullets to finish off everyone who was at the UP campus on that day. When you've got a lot of enemies, you don't walk around with just a sandwich in your bag.
My dear pol sci majors, you've got a terribly disturbing view of the world. Maybe you're reading the wrong political science books. Or are listening to the wrong professors. Try reading Mao Tse Tung once in a while. He's the demon incarnate to many people. But there's at least a line or two in his writings that will make you cry. Read him to find out why." --------quoted from an alumnus in a web forum
Simple notes:
1. While your stereotypical definition of what is Left and Right is indeed in consonance with how the mainstream views what is Left and what is Right, I think you are being prejudicial when you asserted who is for power and might as against who is for democracy. It somehow implies who is simply oppressor and who is victim basically because you have tilted the balance of power in favor of those who have guns and legal positions. Perhaps this fuels all the more what is justification for the passionate activism of your glory days being capable of throwing things more than eggs. And perhaps you might add that you want those who fight in this way to feel good about themselves. You're entitled to that. However I disagree with how you stick to your prejudiced stance. The fault of some authors in our rich literature lies not in their passion for writing, it is in what they write about. And the fault in this case is the branding of what is Right and what is Left as if it were black and white. This can never be. As you of all people should know this history, great leaders of the Left were not hesitant to employ the ways of the Right once they got in power. In the same way, we find that not all Medieval characters associated with the conservative Right advocated the use of the sword and in fact were considered benevolent in their time. The reason why there is the center-left or the center-right is not because these people have not guts or mind to make a stand. It is moreso that they are contemplating on the pros and cons of the issue and tend to lean towards one over the other. No one is absolutely Left or Right. So don't label these reflective people as apathetic or criticizing their brand of activism. Perhaps you were using such analogy just for the specific instance of Esperon with no intention of generalizing. Granted, however when you try to mix it up with SOPs such as checking of bags and practices society accepts for its own good, I don't think you're being all too democratic now. Laws are by the people and for the people. Sure that is the ideal, but hey, most of our laws are not taken and burned in the parliament of the street. I wonder why. Maybe it is because people see it for their own good. That's democracy. That's the law. That's the standard practice. So let's not bark that loudly and label acts as something Right and Left because, heck, no one is completely Left or Right. It's just a preference, an inclination on issue areas. Even in this case, SOP is Right because its interest is the protection of power and it is conducted with the use of threat. However, its intent...to protect the people and advance common practice and interest I think is what's so beautiful about the Left. And no, I need no Marx to find that out for myself.
2. What's so wrong with having your bag checked? You feel violated? You feel UP is under attack because someone has your bag checked? As for those brave souls who attended the forum, some of them did not hesitate and comment on the bag-checking. How cute. Again, what's so annoying about the SOP? What makes your head turn and your hears to flap everytime you see things or hear things you think is equal to trampling on your rights? Geesh. I do not want to generalize members of your movement. I know a lot of them and I respect their ardent views on the matter. And they respect mine. They respect that when they are on my turf, I tell them of what to expect and what not to do about it. The forum and other such situations and conditions are always a creation of somebody else. You're just a player. You are not God carrying your omnipotence around and having an answer to everything. You may not like the rules of the turf or may actually do. Do you throw eggs? No. Oh sure Esperon deserved the eggs. However I say again that it is not all about you this time. It's about UP. Mind you, UP as an institution needs all that good media it could get, forgive the sarcasm. Its reputation precedes it and it has not always been clear and bright. So do not argue that UP is UP and people should expect to be treated that way in UP. We're better than that. We are a melting pot of ideas. And to my recollection, ideas can kill but only when the thinker allows the idea to. It's about your rights ending when some other person's rights begin. Respect. Decency. Being proper. Let's not throw these out the window. Not especially when both movements, the Left and Right theorists, seek this kind of world at the end of the struggle. Let not our ways be the mere prism of how we are judged. Let not our ways be the downfall of our person. Let not our ways be all that we think we are. Restraint friend. Freedom, whatever form that may be, comes for a price. And sometimes, what are proper and decent have to set the boundaries. In the end, we live happier than we do without it. The good life, right? Touche.
3. I am glad at the rallying of a lot of Political Science majors behind their stand on the issue. That is regardless of what they thought about it. We may never agree at one time, but at least we know our convictions. Even if this demands we go beyond party lines and embrace a position we all think should be the appropriate one. Again, in a world of anarchy, let those that bring good prevail. Being proper. Being appropriate. I am proud of my discipline and the people that have made it so. We are not being poisoned in this department to be administration hooligans and Maoist cyborgs. We are instead disturbed, twisted, bent to the point of breaking so that we do not come up with labels like admin hooligans and Maoist cyborg without proof and reason. Scholarship advances in such painful ways. It does not compromise. It bears only the truth. And when it no longer does, then it is not scholarship but some propaganda. Sadly, the Left and the Right employ such pragmatic tactics to their liking. It is the challenge then to Political Scientists to correct the praxis by reverting back to the ideal and the fundamental. Not even Macchiavelli can be all that bad. He can be idealist as well. We are trying our best to defend this scholarship as if it were the only thing we could own. Matter of opinion, it is the only one of few things that can last. (Haha, love can be another) So we read books. So we make our position after careful weighing. Disagree if you may but do not use assumptions and fallacious arguments simply because your action was proven wrong and you think you're right. Put a stopper to it when you have to.
The night is long and my sleepless nights rage on. Three days. This has been the worse I've undergone. Here's to the fourth and fifth night! Thank God for re-schedules! Thank God for good company. Thank God for your ideas, all of them.
Thank God for Political Science. And yes, God was the first politician. When He decided to share the power to live and become, He made the first ideal political decision. He chose to share, not keep all things to Himself. He knows us all too well and at times it's unfair. However I argue, what's the point of enjoying all good things in life when you're not alive. He gave us life and this chance at eternity. I think that is unfair to Him as well. But He did not think so. Maybe we shouldn't as well.
Jesus Christ was an activist Himself. Agree with me on Him after reading the crappy history of the Da Vinci Code or not, he lived. Disagree or not, he was the Left and the Right personified. Unfair that we can't be him. We don't have to be.
Scholarship advances is such a beautiful way. Pick your tools. Pick your prisms. One can never be the answer to everything. I've chosen mine.
posted by green and black chancellor at 8:24 PM
1 Comments:
"hear, hear!"
i definitely agree with you.
as scholars who advance knowledge,
we get the data on the ground then we make a claim.
we do not make a claim and then get the data to prove it.
for if we do, then we are what? bigots maybe...
we are definitely more that that. so let us not be bigots o rpropaganda-mongers. if we are on the wrong side of the fence, let us accept it. remember that humility is the mark of a true scholar.
and as you placed it earlier as well as our venerable mentor, touche!
Post a Comment
<< Home