tales from the rulemaker

Boycott Oprah! She is a heretic:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pwGLNbiw1gk&feature=related

More on this tomorrow…

The problem of government is not a problem of leadership or
of institutions. The problem of government is that it seeks to solve the problem
itself. When we ask ourselves, why the government is inefficient, we miss the
entire point of asking. Why be governed?

The work of government is not to serve. In fact, when the
government works, it stops serving. It becomes a machine of its own. The only
way a government can serve is when it stops governing and people start
governing each other.

Our present order is not properly ordered. The only proper
order is dis-order: the acknowledgment that the properly ordered is always a
product of an order itself. To dis-order is to reveal that there is nothing
natural with order.

Unity means the loss of distinctions: the absorption of
oneself into the other. Diversity means the tragic alienation of one from each
other: the rule of all under the rule of none. These two must be avoided if we
are to dwell with each other. Distance is the sine qua non of politics.

Truth does not give us anything to act upon. It is in fact a
paralyzing event. The moment of truth is the moment of inactivity. Any appeal
to truth is a disarming political tactic. The truth does not set us free; it is
the recipe for indolence. But our understanding of freedom is unfree, so we
seek the truth.

Servant leadership removes accountability. It is
totalitarian. It effaces authority.

Saying something means doing something. Doing something
means saying something. The injunction walk the talk takes walking to be
without talking and talking without walking when in fact they constitute each
other.

All politics is democratic. Nothing else is. The
emancipation of man from politics is his emasculation from a democratic future
and possibility.

Underlying the urge to know is an urge to control, to put an
end to mystery, to stabilize. Yet knowledge is not always stable or subject to
control. Knowing then is a mystery itself and is controlled by mystery.

computing grades is like ending a relationship

a lovers bargain where expectations and results

are reconciled over the silent agony of solitary

remembering

the lover left behind, the teacher, retreats to memory work

returns to the nervousness of the first encounter

subdued gazes, inhibited performance

the tension in voices still finding their resonance

who was the first to break the hesitation?

who was the first to dare a question?

and like the primal touch of skin to skin

relishes over the warmth of the first laughter, the first
tease

and the ensuing caress – whisper and bellowing

lovers hold on to these when left behind:

skin scent on sheets, the heavy air of night long sex

sticking on bodies still locked at daybreak

the pain should have began earlier: in the impending

certainty that one will be left behind – a pain rehearsed

and multiplied each time the relationship is renewed

and the certainty of another future departure

tacitly acknowledged

yet lover and beloved, teacher and student remain

in each other

grades are artifacts of pain-forgiveness

they heal the burns of past mistakes and upsets

like memorabilia of relationships stored and storied

in boxes or cabinets – ready to be taken out when

their narratives do not burn anymore

computing grades is like making a promise

a promise to love even when expectations and results

fail to reconcile

and at each attempt

one ends in solitary

remembrance

PEOPLE POWER ULI

As a student of politics, I am bothered by the seeming
aversion towards politics being promoted on the one hand by the government and
“progressive” groups challenging the government on the other hand. It appears to
me that both sides represent our modern impulse to transcend the disruptive and
chaotic nature of politics proper. While coming from clearly different
objectives, the consequences of the actions of the government and its
“progressive” contenders converge in the annihilation of the space through
which authentic political activities can be engendered and an ethic of
permanent political activity can be sustained.

I would like to focus particularly on the sticky debate on
whether to call for Arroyo’s resignation or not and its corollary, whether a
new EDSA uprising should be called. I will point out first the objections I
have gathered from members of the movement against making such calls then after
each objection I will try to highlight how each represents an urge to drain our
debates and activities of political substance.

My main claim is that our failure to call for Arroyo’s
resignation represents our failure to be truly self-critical and reflective and
our evasiveness from asking the more challenging and difficult questions of our
complicity in the kind of society we have now and the ideational constructs
that legitimize this kind of society. I am less interested in positing
causality between our activities and the legitimization of this ethic of
depoliticization because I still believe we do have the potential for
subverting this condition. My apprehension rather is that the signs and symbols
our “brand” of involvement and engagement impart on our students, colleagues
and friends can have an effect of de-emphasizing the political over our
political priorities. I am even less interested in whether we can get Arroyo to
resign than in making a call for resignation or for another people power for
our sheer love of political action and our commitment to politics.

This is not a substance-less kind of political engagement
but a kind of engagement rich in political substance. Where is this coming
from? I am convinced that we have not moved out of this cycle of oppression and
corruption for the last hundred years or so because of our aversion to politics
and our continuing depoliticization as a people (and maybe our desire to be
totally free from politics?). We only come out every now and then when we feel
that our normal lives are being impaired already by the “political noise” and
when we do, our intention is not so much because we want to come out and
exercise our freedom and our being political beings but because we want to
return to our normal ways of life. I think we need to disabuse ourselves of the
illusion that once we get our normal political structures to work properly –
our elections, our judicial system, our legislature, our institutions of
accountability and representation – we are on the path to true justice and
happiness.

The question of power/powerlessness is hardly addressed.
Power is deflated into issues of distribution: how much of equality, how much
of corruption, how much of justice, how much of this, how much of that. I do
not think that we should abscond from institutional reform or efforts towards
building a more empowered citizenry through political institutions. But I think
we should be critical of how institutional reform tends to be disempowering as
well, how the demos – the repository of power in a democracy – become bodies to
be ruled by a kratein or reduced to agents in a free market exchange of ideas
and values rather than a constitutive agent for political activity. What
happens is a subjection of the spirit of insubordination that animates and
activates democratic politics.

Let me go down the most common objections to the call for
another people power revolt or the resignation of Arroyo. First, a call for
resignation now is bad for the organization because it is counterproductive
towards building a broader coalition. A call for truth is easier to heed and is
more consensual. A call for Arroyo’s resignation is divisive.

I do get where this objection is coming from: a sense of
frustration arising from our failure to gather support during the early stages
of our movement when we called for Arroyo’s resignation. Such frustration is
not unfounded. But perhaps, rather than seeking to transcend such limitation we
may instead seek to take it as the constitutive component of our movement if we
are to remain political or democratic at all. This does not mean that we hold
as negotiable all of our principles but perhaps appreciate and dwell in the
tension between our need for stable identity and our quest for closure with the
incompleteness, trespassive, and disappointment-prone nature of democratic
politics. Rather than treat our disappointments as a problem maybe we can use
it as our strength – a reminder that we remain committed ourselves to the
principle of democracy.

Working around the objections identified above for me means
affirming and accepting their validity. I think our task should be to reject
the notion that working around politics for the sake of politics is
counterproductive. While our call for truth can bring more people together, I
think it has the tendency of obscuring the more difficult task of asking what
our own personal truths are – our complicity and participation with
disempowering structures and frames of thinking such as the unproductivity of
political action.

If we accept that our context is one of political
disempowerment then wouldn’t it be proper to claim that the first step then is
to bring politics back in? To reject the notion that the only acceptable
politics is a politics that works? I think that rather than be stumped by our
fear for more disenchantment and the real possibility of people becoming more
resigned to the present state of affairs, maybe we can instead work towards
changing this perception by becoming shining examples of political activism
ourselves?

Maybe another people power can lead to another
disillusionment. But I don’t think we can discount the possibility of it
energizing the people once more and awaking us from our feelings of
disempowerment.

Second, a call for resignation now will align us with groups
whose motivations are not as “pure” as ours. Specifically, it may legitimize
the motives of leftist nationalists and rightist putschists as well as elite
politicians waiting for their turn in the regular cycle of elite alternation in
our country. A call for resignation under a context of uncertainty is not
prudent.

I think this set of objections is the most anti-political of
all. The claim that we have “pure” intentions is totally unreflexive and unreflective
of our embeddedness in relations of power in society. The claim that our
analysis is driven by proper discernment and reflection obscures the reality
that the very methods of our discernment, the very interests of our discernment
reflect an agenda themselves, are agenda driven themselves. If I’m not
mistaken, it’s the agenda of liberal institutional democracy – an agenda that
has been captured by elite interests, an agenda that has proven alienating for
the masses and for other excluded sectors. If I’m correct, this does not make
us any different from Arroyo’s de-pluralizing agenda or discrediting of other
social movements that have different political visions, of our present and past
governments’ lack of critical position vis-à-vis the failures of liberal
democracy. This makes us no different from the military’s argument that
leftists should be killed because their ideology has been discredit already. Notwithstanding
my own position that we need to rethink our unquestioned support of liberal
democratic principles, I feel that on the level of discourse, we legitimize the
kind of environment Arroyo has been promoting: the absence of thought, the
absence of a spirit of subversion – the very elements of political thought and
activity.

I too am in a dilemma over the uncertainty of how things may
come. But I think I’ll choose uncertainty if I’m to remain political at all, if
I’m to remain committed to the uncertainty that people gathering together can
bring.

WHY WE WANT
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO TO RESIGN AS PRESIDENT

· Her
administration has not hesitated in deploying mechanisms meant to suppress the
truth behind allegations of corruption. For three consecutive years – 2005,
2006, and 2007 – Arroyo’s allies in the House of Representatives have made a
sham out of the impeachment proceedings by filing weak complaints, suppressing
evidence and harassing members of the opposition in congress.

· Arroyo
issued Executive Order 464 (EO464) prohibiting members of the cabinet from
testifying in congressional investigations without her prior approval. Despite
a Supreme Court ruling declaring it unconstitutional, Arroyo has yet to revoke
the directive. During the Senate hearings on the NBN-ZTE controversy in the
past months, Arroyo’s cabinet members have persistently invoked “executive
privilege” in order to evade answering substantive questions that may shed
light on the issues.

· The
administration has also not been reluctant to co-opt, bribe and threaten
government officials willing to testify about their knowledge of corruption.
The dole-outs, payolas and other forms of inducements attested to by Pampanga
Governor Ed Panlilio and Bulacan Governor Joselito Mendoza last year stand
witness to this practice.

· The
Arroyo administration has given its loyal allies a freehand in pursuing their
self-interests in wild abandon. The top brass of the military remains shielded
by a culture of impunity despite being implicated by the United Nations and
other international human rights watchdogs in the continued rise of
extrajudicial killings. Time and again, Arroyo has toyed with the idea of
constitutional change to sate the hunger for power and influence of her
congressional and local government units (LGU) allies who have stood behind her
in crisis moments.

· The
institutional means of holding her accountable have been exhausted already. She
continues to block avenues for truth to come out.

WHY REFORM IS NOT CREDIBLE UNDER THE
ARROYO REGIME

· Arroyo’s
legitimacy as president has long been questioned since the “Hello Garci” tapes
surfaced. Instead of addressing the issue, Arroyo’s regime chose to elude the
questions. The legitimacy question therefore continues to hound her presidency.

· Because
of this legitimacy problem, Arroyo had to back herself with a broad coalition
of power holders and influence peddlers in Philippine society. Her government
became increasingly paranoid and insecure and thus unable to execute decisive
authority as it became hostage to the interests of her supporters.

· While
Arroyo herself may not be involved personally in anomalous deals and
transactions, the nature of her regime – insecure and with questionable
legitimacy – prevents her from fully disciplining members of her coalition
involved in corruption.

· Arroyo
will only use reform agendas to further obscure her complicity in this web of
lies and corruption. It will be business as usual. Change will only be
cosmetic.

· While
Arroyo remains in power, all activities of the government will be directed
towards shielding her from prosecution after 2010 when her term ends and
building an army of people loyal to the Arroyo family.

WHY A NEW GOVERNMENT CAN USHER IN REAL CHANGE

· A
change in personalities is not the complete solution to corruption in our
country. BUT a new political leadership under a new president that is
constitutionally mandated and legitimized by the people, through a popular
uprising or Arroyo’s resignation, can open the space for genuine dialogue.

· This
new government will not be burdened by a legitimacy crisis and thus will be
more open to calls for reform. This new government will not be insecure because
it has the people’s support. It can punish authoritatively and decisively
erring officials without fear of the regime collapsing.

· Actions
of this new government towards institutional change (charter change,
federalism) will be more credible than present and previous attempts which were
viewed as motivated by political interests.

· Even
if the options are narrow on who should replace the present administration,
genuine and sustained people power, vigilance and militancy can hold the new
government in check. Because people had a stake in putting the new regime in
power they can become more pro-active and less apathetic. The issue here is not
the opposition but the suppression of truth being done by this administration.

WE MUST LEARN HOW TO LOVE THE
TRUTH AGAIN

THE ASSEMBLY STATEMENT  ON THE ABDUCTION OF RODOLFO “JUN” LOZADA AND
EFFORTS OF THE ARROYO ADMINISTRATION TO OBSTRUCT THE TRUTH

On February 6, 2008, Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada – a
witness to the anomalous US$320 million National Broadband Network (NBN) deal
with Chinese company ZTE Inc. – was abducted by guards from the Presidential
Security Group (PSG). He was driven around Metro Manila up to Los Banos, Laguna
all the while not knowing where his captors will take him and what they will do
to him. During the entire ordeal, Lozada was warned by his captors that his
phone was under surveillance and that his calls and text messages were being
intercepted by intelligence operatives. Lozada’s disappearance caused a stir
among his family, the media and human rights groups who have filed petitions
for a writ of habeas corpus and writ of amparo in the Supreme Court. The restive
public speculation and media hype compelled Lozada’s kidnappers to bring him
back to his family but only after forcing him to sign ante-dated letters
requesting for police protection and an affidavit denying his abduction.

We are outraged by the government’s blatant
violation of Rodolo “Jun” Lozada’s human rights and by the deliberate
obstruction of justice to conceal the truth behind his disappearance and the
ZTE controversy. We condemn the desperate attempts of government officials to
cover-up its crime. We see this as an
obvious manifestation of the increasing mafia-like way the Philippine state is
being run under this current administration. We are appalled by the way the
government has increasingly been using tactics that impinge upon our rights to
privacy and personal security.

We hold President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the PSG culpable for
these gross acts of injustice. We demand for their accountability. We want them
punished. But experience tells us that this
administration has employed all possible means to prevent the people from holding
its officials accountable and will continue to suppress the truth for political
survival. Already, Lozada has become the subject of character assassination
and malicious statements. This shows up to what extent the government is
willing to do in order to obscure the truth. Such response is hardly
surprising.

Because the dynamics underlying the Arroyo
administration – her questionable legitimacy and her desire to concentrate
power to avoid prosecution after she steps down in 2010, revealed in the
unchecked culture of impunity within the military and among administration
allies – we believe that unless Arroyo
steps down from office, trust in our democratic institutions will continue to
decay.

We therefore call on President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to resign. We admit that Arroyo’s resignation is not
enough but we believe that this is the first step in the restoration of our faith
in our hard-won democracy.

We urge fellow Ateneans in government and public
service to follow the heroic example of Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada. We implore them to reveal their knowledge
of corruption and abuse of power under the present administration.  We call on the Ateneo administration, the
alumni association and the student body to join us in our crusade for truth and
accountability. In the same way, we disown fellow Ateneans who have forgotten
and reneged on their promise to become Lux
in Domino – Light in God – and persons for others.

We call for continuing reflection and discernment
but we don’t want to be bystanders as our countrymen begin to come
together anew to defend our deeply shared Filipino values of freedom and
justice.

Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada has risked his and his
family’s life and security because of his patriotism and love for the truth. We
are shamed if we don’t do the same.  

I was reading Benedict XVI’s new encyclical Spe Salvi (In Hope we are Saved) after Noche Buena and I found this quote more delicious than the ham:

If in the face of this world’s
suffering, protest against God is understandable, the claim that
humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is
both presumptuous and intrinsically false. It is no accident that this
idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice;
rather, it is grounded in the intrinsic falsity of the claim. A world
which has to create its own justice is a world without hope. No one and
nothing can answer for centuries of suffering. No one and nothing can
guarantee that the cynicism of power—whatever beguiling ideological mask
it adopts—will cease to dominate the world. This is why the great
thinkers of the Frankfurt School, Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno,
were equally critical of atheism and theism. Horkheimer radically
excluded the possibility of ever finding a this-worldly substitute for
God, while at the same time he rejected the image of a good and just
God. In an extreme radicalization of the Old Testament prohibition of
images, he speaks of a “longing for the totally Other” that remains
inaccessible—a cry of yearning directed at world history. Adorno also
firmly upheld this total rejection of images, which naturally meant the
exclusion of any “image” of a loving God. On the other hand, he also
constantly emphasized this “negative” dialectic and asserted that
justice —true justice—would require a world “where not only present
suffering would be wiped out, but also that which is irrevocably past
would be undone.” This, would mean, however—to express it
with positive and hence, for him, inadequate symbols—that there can be
no justice without a resurrection of the dead. Yet this would have to
involve “the resurrection of the flesh, something that is totally
foreign to idealism and the realm of Absolute spirit.”

The truth of negative theology was highlighted by the Fourth
Lateran Council, which explicitly stated that however great the
similarity that may be established between Creator and creature, the
dissimilarity between them is always greater. In any case,
for the believer the rejection of images cannot be carried so far that
one ends up, as Horkheimer and Adorno would like, by saying “no” to both
theses—theism and atheism. God has given himself an “image”: in Christ
who was made man. In him who was crucified, the denial of false images
of God is taken to an extreme. God now reveals his true face in the
figure of the sufferer who shares man’s God-forsaken condition by taking
it upon himself. This innocent sufferer has attained the certitude of
hope: there is a God, and God can create justice in a way that we cannot
conceive, yet we can begin to grasp it through faith. Yes, there is a
resurrection of the flesh. There is justice. There is an “undoing” of past suffering, a reparation that sets things
aright. For this reason, faith in the Last Judgement is first and
foremost hope—the need for which was made abundantly clear in the
upheavals of recent centuries. I am convinced that the question of
justice constitutes the essential argument, or in any case the strongest
argument, in favour of faith in eternal life. The purely individual need
for a fulfilment that is denied to us in this life, for an everlasting
love that we await, is certainly an important motive for believing that
man was made for eternity; but only in connection with the impossibility
that the injustice of history should be the final word does the
necessity for Christ’s return and for new life become fully convincing.

Rev. Nono Alfonso, SJ gave a wonderful sermon during the Christmas Vigil at Ateneo de Naga’s Christ the King Church. Talked about 1) seeing the world in the eyes of God; and 2) Christ was born to be broken, fragility. A little celebratory for my taste but then again, it’s Christmas (and remembering Benedict’s critique of negative theology above). Hehe.

All these resonate with my present preoccupation with themes of brokenness, tornness, fragility, border-living and love in the context of the poverty of political liberalism.

This for now. Merry Christmas to all!

Below is a letter from the President of Ateneo’s student council, and my commentary.

The November 29, 2007
Manila Peninsula siege is another thorn in the history of the Filipino people.

– So, GMA = the Filipino people now?

– Trillanes = Thorn; GMA = Rose?

– A Rose among Thorns? I’d rather be a thorn.

There is a moral
discrepancy in our country. There is a sense of hopelessness, despite the
positive economic headlines. And yes, there is a clamor for change. The clamor
for change is a quest that involves reflection and discernment, things which we
have learned as students of the Jesuits, of the Ateneo.

– What positive economic headlines? Ah, this one: “50%
 of Filipinos now consider themselves
hungrier under Arroyo administration.”

– reflection and discernment – can they be separated
from action?

Democracy, as we say, is
the best option left. And we chose that in 1986. The Manila Peninsula siege is
a threat to democracy. It was a sequel to the failed Oakwood mutiny in 2003.
Same plot, with added twists. It was certainly a continuation of a power grab.

– what form of democracy? Is liberal electoral
democracy the only form of democracy? Fukuyama, is that you?

– and what’s wrong with grabbing power from someone
who does not have legitimacy over it?

Will Trillanes, Lim,
Guingona (a fellow Atenean), Bishop Labayen, Fr. Reyes (also an Atenean), among
others go to trial? They should. We do not want another set of push-ups, as
they did in 1989. Or are we having another Honasan? Let us stop the cycle. Let
us not be kowtowed by elements of destabilization.

– why should they go on trial when GMA has escaped
trial not just once nor twice, but already thrice?

– the synonym for kowtow is conventional à if anything Trillanes and Co. were not
conventional

Rule of law should
prevail. This is another test to our democratic institutions.

– as if the rule of law does not rest on violence. Did
you read Weber?

As students of the Ateneo
de Manila, we stand witness to the many scenarios that will shape the future of
our young lives. We are therefore challenged to help this damaged country, not through extraordinary ways. We do it with hope, the integral
part of that quest for change. The 2010 national elections, which is just two
and a half years away, is a rallying point for concrete engagement. Exercise your rights as a Filipino, which
certainly does not include taking siege of a hotel in the Central Business
District of the Philippines.

– not through extraordinary ways? Ah, like building
houses in Payatas?

– this paragraph is just too much. I nearly tried to
burn my Ateneo diploma because of this

We call on the Ateneo de
Manila alumni serving in the government (the President, senators, congressmen,
cabinet members, local government executives) to act on the needs of the
Filipinos, and to set agenda that will last beyond their terms. Inspire us, the
current students of the Ateneo de Manila.

– needs, needs, needs… I thought Ateneo’s motto is
man for others not animals for others?

Change is disguised in
many ways. Let us not be swayed by the propaganda of ill-thought nationalism.

– so there is pure change? And a pure existence?

– what’s wrong with being swayed? And ill-thinking?  ah, unpure.

Ateneans, I challenge you
to speak and let your thoughts be heard. One opportunity is during the Senate
Inquiries on Friday (December 7), 7pm at the Henry Lee Irwin Theater. This is
the moment to shine, be passionate, think of how you reacted to the Dress Code
issue during the first semester. This is the Ateneo way, after all. If not,
then what is?

– this is the moment to shine? NO. This is the moment
to dirty our hands and reach out to other sectors of society.

– I challenge Sanggu to organize a university-wide
class and office walk out to pressure the Ateneo community to come up with a stand
that renounces the injustices of the Arroyo administration.

To think of the Trillanes coup (in the loose sense of the
term) last Thursday as a failure or as naïvete is once again to think within
the limiting and restricting rationality of utility.

Last Thursday’s standoff showed that utilitarian reason gets
us nowhere as it severely privatizes human capacity for collective action by
plotting it within the calculus of means and ends.

If there was any failure in what occurred, it was the
Filipino people’s failure to act for the sheer love of acting.

This is also the failure of progressivism and of groups brandishing
a progressive outlook.

Many of them now retrospectively claim that had Trillanes
and company made clear their objectives and aims they would have come to their
defense.

But sheer human action cannot always be circumscribed within
equations of means and ends. Instead, judgment of human action and reason
should be based on whether such activity is an act of beginning.

The Greek word for action is archein – to begin. In Greek
society, only free men can set out to begin. What distinguishes the freeman
from the slave and the woman is that the slave is tied up to the natural
process of labor while the woman to the reproduction of the conditions for the
maintenance of the household. The freeman on the other hand can choose to lift
himself out of these conditions and set out to begin adventures into the world.
The philosopher Hannah Arendt has much to say about this.

I think it is in this light that we have to judge the
Trillanes coup last Thursday. And I think that it is also in the same light
that we have to evaluate what we have been doing so far.

A story in the Inquirer
(Saturday, December 1, 2007) entitled: “What was Trillanes thinking” sums
up the sentiments among progressive groups that were “surprised” and “caught
off-guard” by the Trillanes coup.

Such statements, however, were no different from the
military’s response: “We knew Trillanes and Co. were hatching something.”

They were both attempts to make sense of what was happening.

In different ways, to separate theoria from praxis.

To abstract an ontological truth from the truth revealed by
political action.

Dinky Soliman’s question what was he up to? points to the
sad reality of how bad we have lost our trust in the revelatory character of
human activity.

It shows how unwilling we are now to subject ourselves in an
exercise of thinking outside.

This inability to think from the standpoint of somebody else
is what Arendt calls evil.

In Eichmann in
Jerusalem, she writes:

(the) inability to speak was
closely connected with an inability to think, namely, to think from the
standpoint of somebody else. No communication was possible with him, not
because he lied but because he was surrounded by the most reliable of all
safeguards against the words and the presence of others, and hence against
reality as such . . . proof against reason and argument and information and
insight of any kind

Trillanes would have only failed if our sole criteria for
success is production and productivity.

That is if we replace action with fabrication. Acting with
making.

Action is always prone to tragedy. In contrast, fabrication
seeks to form the tragic into a manipulable product. To demarcate the
boundaries and shape of existence.

Why did Trillanes succeed?

Because it was a tragic event, highlighting the futility of
putting life (the mere life of the civilians and journalists in the middle of
the crossfire) as the primary consideration of human action.

Because it showed how life, security, economy and private
happiness undermine collective human activity.

Ito na marahil ang dahilan kung bakit hanggang ngayon patuloy na binababoy ni Gloria Arroyo at ng mga galamay ni Erap Estrada ang ating bansa: wala nang bayag ang mga lalaki sa Pilipinas. Nakakapandiri. Pweh.

Mas lalaki pa si Danton Remoto.