"I'm Better Than You Are!"

This is a free-think exploration to sort through the matter of elitism and standards of what is "better" as a way of life. Particularly if you are a woman. 

Take the case of Senator Sotto. Here is a man who drips with arrogance and condescension toward the lessers who insist upon cluttering  his distinguished life. You know, like bloggers and academicians and now an award-winning book writer who is demanding he be held to account for ethics violations.

Or take the case of Joseph August America who pens blog after blog fairly dripping with haughty intellectual superiority as he parses Philippine culture for all its eccentricities as viewed through a westerner's prism that refracts behavior into good and bad colors.

Joe points toward ignorance as the reason for a lot of bad behavior, and he sorts ignorance into three buckets: (1) innocent, as with poor people who are trapped in a poor educational and family situation, (2) negligent, as with people who could and should read and think, but do not, or (3) intentional, where people pose as lacking knowledge because it gets them something, as Senator Sotto would utter, "Wha? I didn't plagiarize. I don't know what that means."

"Ignorance of the law" is generally not accepted as a good defensive argument in American courts. It appears acceptable in the Philippines when a guy who MAKES the laws holds it up as justification for shamelessly stealing the original work of another.

So I ask the question, "Are some people better than others?"

• Is a smart person better than a dumb person?

• Is a rich person better than a poor person?

• Is a senator better than a citizen?

• Is a columnist better than the person he criticizes?

• Is a healthy person with two arms better than a sick person with one arm?

• Is a white person better than a black person, or a brown one?

• Is a Muslim person better than an atheist, or a Christian?

The possible answers are "yes" or "no" or "damnifiknow".

The answer is "yes" if there are standards available to measure the quality of "goodness" or "betterness". Some are better than others.

The answer is "no" if we are talking about an individual's place on earth where we each play our part as king or amoebae, as assigned by God or the fates or chaos or whatever orders our disorder and imposes a seemingly unfair lot in life upon so many. We all stand equal, all largely ignorant of what was, is and will be.

The answer is "damnifiknow" most of the time, or maybe more accurately, "idon'tgivearatspatootie".

"Yes": When people are better

If there is a goal attached to behavior, then the quality of person counts. If we want to hire a lawyer, we want one who is not ignorant of case law. If we run a business, we want to hire people who work hard and well. If we run a college, we want to enroll kids who have done well in high school.

• So, in given settings, a smart person is better than a dumb person.

• And a rich person is better than a poor one if we are selling something.

• And a senator is better than a citizen if we need a new law.

• And two-armed people make better firemen.

But a senator is not better than the common good, or public interest. And a senator who deludes himself into thinking he is superior over his critics is just that: delusional. His critics represent voices of people the senator is charged with serving and protecting. And if he won't listen to those voices, and respect them, then he is negligent and ought to be punished. For in the hierarchy of importance, he is the lesser of the two, senator and public well-being.

Interestingly, in the Philippines, hiring a friend or family member is better than hiring a skilled person. So by the value standards of the Philippines, power and advantage are more important than productivity or fairness. Pity. The Philippines is what the Philippines always will be until the standard of "betterness" switches to competence. Honest is a part of competence.

"No": When we all stand equal

Everyone has an important place on this earth. It is sacrosanct, the place we each occupy, belonging only to us and God. What we make of it, the burdens we carry, the joys we feel, the decisions and acts and results: they are real, and they are ours, and they are meaningful. No one is better than us at that. No one.

It is when people intrude into this realm that problems arise. When one man tells another man that he is worthless if he does not believe in the right God. Or if a woman is told she cannot go to school. Or if a woman is told she must remain in a marriage to an abusive deadbeat husband. Then our rightful claim to equality is abused.

Freedom is nothing more than an unequivocal insistence that we all stand equal, under God, under the law, under nature's order.

Well, too much freedom and things get a little crazy. Loud, dangerous, unhealthy. Murderous.

So we need some order, and there are two kinds:

1. Morality, the rules of faith. These are rules based on a vision that may or may not be factually true. If the vision is overlaid on people who don't hold it as true, then we have trouble. Freedom conflicts with faith. Morality is the root of much evil on earth.

2. Laws, the common-sense rules of community, are troublesome to the devious or undisciplined, and inconvenient for a lot of us most of the time. They are the rules that allow different people to live together in harmony. Their foundation is not in an imaginary vision, but in the honorable assessment of what is best for the most people, or injures the fewest. Laws respect our differences and preserve them by protecting the community.

Laws based on faith are troublesome. When the rule is something like the kind of cloth we must wear as a head covering, a reason that derives from God rather than community well-being, we have a problem.

When the "properness" of one's sexual desires is defined by faith rather than science, then we have a problem.  Homosexuality was not understood when the Bible was crafted. It still today is not understood by a large segment of the population . . . the learned population . . . people who insist it is like smoking and can be stopped.

But scientists understand it.

And scientists understand the differences between men and women. The differences have precious little relevance to an individual's ability to think and perform a given task.

When laws demand we behave opposite the laws of nature, then we are asking for trouble.

In that situation, laws are trying to take some within the community and declare them "unequal" to the rest.  As many Philippine laws declare women to be unequal to men today. Well, when we were in the caves, yes, man was the hunter and the aggressor in seeking a mate. Today we are not in the caves.

It's a problem when the rules flowing from faith do not change but science changes knowledge. When knowledge points out that we are abusing the God-given right of each individual to claim his place on the planet. Then discrimination and harm occur.

Damnifiknow

Idontgivearatspatootie right now.

Implications

It is insane that the old men of the Senate, bound to rules based on faith, withhold education from women. It is a great shame that the poorest women of the Philippines are denied the ability to manage their lives as independent, free beings on God's good green earth.

These men are telling women "I'm better than you are" at deciding what is in your best interest.

I don't know why Filipinas so graciously concede their place on the planet to narrow-minded, ethics deficient cave men.

Manifesto for the Liberated Filipina

Okay, my friends. This one will get dicey because yours truly, Joseph August America, is going to give the women of the Philippines some important advice.

It is dicey because you are likely to question my credentials, being that I am not a woman.

And I am not a Filipina.

But look, I've got the credentials. I've been a global student of women all my life. A recent girlfriend even declared me a "womanizer", given that I have had romantic liaisons with doctors and lawyers and a judge and accountants and corporate executives and a rock musician and a radio personality and secretaries and a comedienne and stewardesses and a commie union organizer. I've dated or romanced Chinese women, and Japanese and Thai and African American and Mexican and Czech and German and Cuban and even Blondes. Jews and Catholics and protestants and atheists and a Buddhist. Upper class, lower class, middle class and no class. Doctors of Philosophy and high school dropouts.

Man, I've been around. I know women. They've hauled me to court and to therapy, to the beach and the rock amphitheater, and even a real opera, though damn if I know what all that warbling was about.

I've dated old women and young women, fat and thin, tall and short, and even one who was crippled and another who was an acrobat specializing on the vertical pole, if you catch my drift. Married, unmarried, on the rocks.

Also, I've been through several eras, starting with the bigoted one prior to the great gender enlightenment that followed the great American racial enlightenment of the 1970's. About 80% of the women I've known are liberated. Half of them were making more money than I was, or had more prestigious jobs. And they were smarter, too, if you want to know the truth.

I know, because they kept telling me so.

I believe men and women are equal, and women are more equal than men in the verbal and perception arenas. Men have more muscle, but unfortunately it is negated by the obsession that hovers in the vicinity of their crotch.

I've had three daughters, so boy howdy, I understand women.

I'm married to a Filipina, so boy howdy, I understand Filipinas.

So here's the deal.

I went to wikipedia to look up Philippine Women's Activist Movement. If you link over there, you will see the section is blank. Zero. None listed. Empty.

What's with that? You mean Filipinas don't care? Or they can't get organized? Or they are lousy at marketing themselves?

Here's what I recommend. I recommend that some of you smart and influential women, the Riassas and Ellens and Noemis, gather up some of your more influential and creative acquaintances and draw up a Manifesto for the Liberated Filipina.

You'll fine tune this, but here's an idea of what it might say:

Manifesto for the Liberated Filipina

I am a liberated Filipina.

• No man or institution shall have the power to deny me my rights and personal choices. No man or institution shall assume the right to speak for me. My thoughts belong to me and me alone.

• The essential character of liberated woman is a willingness to accept responsibility for her choices. I do, and will. No man or institution is empowered to suggest otherwise, or to substitute his sense of responsibility for mine. I define my personal ethic. No man or institution does that for me. 

• The laws of the land protect us all and I shall strive to live within those bounds. If a law is unreasonable, I shall seek to change it.

• The failure of the Philippine State to provide for termination of a failed marriage contract is unreasonable. A personal contract without a termination provision is bondage. Bondage is uncivilized and cruel.

• No man or institution is permitted to insert judgment over the decisions that I make for myself and my family. That is my realm, and mine alone.

• No man or institution is permitted to overlay a standard of behavior or lifestyle on me.  Not on my religion or sexual preference or clothes or recreations. These are my choices, my freedoms.

• My body belongs to me. It does not belong to any governmental agency, any church, or any man or institution. I make the choices for my body. Only me.

• I have the right to decide if I wish to bear a child or not and I have the right to place my health and safety above that of an unborn child. No man or institution is empowered to interfere with my choices.

• No man or institution shall deny me the right to employment in any field as long as I have the physical strength to accomplish the job. No man or institution shall have the right to evaluate my work performance on any basis but capability and result.

• My choice of employment is mine to make and no man or institution is empowered to judge it as suitable or unsuitable. If I choose to be a housewife or a teacher, a street-sweeper or an attorney, a secretary or an executive, no other person is entitled to disparage this choice. Others are entitled to live their lives according to their standards, and I, as a liberated Filipina, am free to live mine.

After saying the oath, which might be something like "You damn right, I'm in!", then organize and litigate into submission any crusty old dinosaur men and institutions that wish to see you held in bondage to outdated values and unkind laws.

• "Women of the Philippines, unite! Throw off the heavy yoke of masculine suppression and oppression! Get thee unstuck from the mighty-bond of male imposition and limitation."

Like, rise up, eh?

Toss off the macho dweebs, creeps and crustaceans who are holding you back and strive for the high road of physical and intellectual empowerment.

_______________________________

A quick glimpse into a Philippines that is deep and rich in history:

María Josefa Gabriela Cariño Silang (March 19, 1731 – September 20, 1763) was the wife of the Ilocano insurgent leader, Diego Silang. Following Diego's assassination in 1763, she led the group for four months before she was captured and executed.

Born in Barangay Caniogan, Santa, Ilocos Sur, Silang was a mestiza, of Spanish and Ilocano descent. The people of Abra do claim she was born in what is now Pidigan, Abra (those two places are not far from each other, and Abra was not incorporated as a province until early in the 20th century). She was adopted by a very wealthy businessman Tomás Millan, who later married her at the age of 20, but died after three years. In 1757, she re-married, this time to 27-year-old Ilocano insurgent leader, Diego Silang. The groups’ goal was to ensure an independent Ilocos. She became one of his closest advisors, whenever the troops battle, Gabriela always went with them to give support and help with the battle, a major figure in her husband's collaboration with the British and the brief expulsion of Spanish officials from Vigan, Ilocos Sur during the British occupation of the Philippines.

Together with Nicolas Cariño, Sebatian Andaya and Manuel Flores, there she regrouped her troops, and rallied the Tingguian community to fight. Gabriela’s troops of 2000 fighters attacked the Spanish in Vigan on September 10, 1763. With a larger number of the Spanish troops, the 6000 men strong Spanish garrison was ready, with amassing Spanish, Tagalog, and Kapampangan soldiers, and Ilocano collaborators recruited from other regions to ambush her and rout her forces. Many were killed. She escaped, alongside Cariño and seven others, but were caught on September 20, 1763. They were summarily hanged.

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriela_Silang>

History from the Front End: President Aquino

Let's look at history from the front end, where we are today, and mull over a few things.

It was enlightening and uplifting to me to see the Senators lay out their cases during the impeachment trial of ex-Chief Justice Corona. First of all, the senators are generally young politicians. Enrile is old, and three or four others are seniors, but the bulk are in their forties, I would guess. Or fifties. That is young from the perspective of Enrile.

The second thing that impressed me was the senators' ability to think conceptually about the broader issue of public trust and integrity, and to express their decision in terms that mean a lot to the Philippines. Transparency is the root of integrity, eh? The tangible commitment public servants make to transparency helps build public trust.

Another thing, the public eye is sharper these days. This was a group of senators very aware that their constituents were watching with avid interest. Two senators close to jailed Ms. Arroyo bent to the pressure of public impressions, much to Ms. Arroyo's angry dismay.

The internet observers and social media, along with sensationalist mass media, do not allow much wayward behavior to persist unnoticed.

I believe we will see a lot more integrity in future SALN's, and I hope more use of them by public media and watchdog organizations to observe the wealth of our public servants. Compared to ordinary Filipinos, public officials are paid well. They have benefits that rice workers do not. If they need additional money, most have the ability to get it, legally. And that's fine, if it does not infringe on their ability to be competent on the job. Manny Pacquiao is a clear example of a public servant with a misplaced priority on self-enrichment over public work. He might as well be corrupt. He is certainly not contributing much to the betterment of the Philippines at his legislative desk. He is giving Filipinos false cheer, false pride. And getting paid by the taxpayer whilst doing it.

I'm not able to tell if the anti-corruption movement is getting beyond the top level of politics of not. I sense that places like Customs, DENR, PNP and LTO remain fundamentally rich with people enriching themselves illegally. I hope the President devises ways to move his sledge hammer actively from big name villains to the broader reaches of the lieutenants and sergeants who are sucking off the nation's legitimate wealth.

President Aquino is an interesting fellow. Personality-wise, he fits no model, Philippine or American. He is not charismatic, being an odd introvert who has learned not to be shy. Single. Active but prone to bouts of passiveness. Slouched and sobered from carrying around the hefty backpacks of Catholicism and the Cojuangco family name. Perhaps he does a little bit too much gloating, or taking accident like economic progress and claiming intent.

I wonder what he hopes to accomplish in four more years? Will he just sit back and whump on Ms. Arroyo and say "that's a good legacy for me; I'm happy with that"?

I hope not.

I think he has no idea how high he rides atop the waves of history, from this side.

He ought not squander the opportunity to become a truly great Filipino. Not just another face of another president in the same old same old roster of complacent achievement. He ought not to dive off the surfboard he is on, atop those waves. He ought to ride them right into a huge legacy.

He can do this by:

• Slowing outrageous population growth that is eating jobs. It is in his social plan, but he has done nothing to stop the over-birthing. Getting behind the HR Bill, or a simple PR campaign, will do the trick. "It's more fun with a small family" maybe. Get the slowdown started. While he's at it, give women a way to get out of abusive, broken marriages. It's called divorce, the lack of which has the rest of the world looking at the Philippines as backward. That is profound achievement, on top of his corruption fight.

• Building economic fundamentals, like more manufacturing of world-class products. Not junk. The tourism effort looks promising. Gambling? Okay if you don't mind the reputation. Call centers? Great, world class. Agribusiness? Its good, but not the powerhouse of Asia that it should be. Manufacturing? Not much. Find something. That would be a profound achievement and the foundation for a roaring economy.

• Ending cronyism and favoritism as the basis for filling jobs; he apparently does not get how "competence" is not yet built into the dynamic of Philippine production. It is as serious a drain on wealth-building as is corruption. He, too, plays favorites; case in point, the original China Ambassador, a friend, whose nomination was rejected for insufficient credentials. Build the search for competence as infrastructure. That is profound achievement.

• Jailing people who shoot journalists. Profound; ask Human Rights organizations.

• Continuing to work on the sticky internal enemies, the Muslims of Mindanao and NPR gangsters. The potential is there for profound progress.

Here is the legacy he ought to shoot for, the other end of the front side of history:

Noynoy Aquino: Wiki bio 2025, the Presidential Years 2010-2016

Noynoy Aquino. Son of assassinated presidential candidate, Senator Ninoy Aquino, and former President of the Philippines, Cory Aquino. President Noynoy Aquino achieved what his parents could only dream of, laying the groundwork for a modern Philippines, a nation substantially free of the corruption that had been the norm within government for over a century. He fostered an energetic and productive nation that began with seriousness to address the great scourge of poverty. He oversaw the emergence of a rising Asian industrial star anchored on tourism, gaming, technology services, minerals, agribusiness and manufacturing. His foreign policy advanced Philippine territorial and national interests while strengthening diplomatic and economic ties with super-powers China and America. He raised the nation's image and contribution to the Asian community of nations. President Aquino substantially ended the corrosive internal rebellions by Muslims and communists that had lasted for decades.  He repaired human rights violations from extra-judicial murders to child trafficking. He modernized social standards for women to permit (1) family planning, thus slowing a non-sustainable birth rate, and (2) divorce, thus ending the bondage of women to abusive or deadbeat husbands.

He arrived in office a quiet, unassuming man carrying a legacy of grief and good will. He left having energized a nation, giving the Philippines new life founded on principles of honesty, integrity and good work.

Ride those waves, Mr. President . . . ride 'em all the way . . .

Get to work, eh?

And write a State of the Union message that motivates the citizens of the Republic to do good deeds, not blows smoke in their ears about how wonderful you are.

Historians will decide if you are wonderful or not.