Manifesto

     I do not believe in God

nor in Communism
and in Capitalism.
Not in Mysticism
Fanaticism
Fundamentalism
Terrorism
Totalitarianism
or any other ism.
Not in the dogma
of greed
of violence
of hate
of war
of fear.

     I believe in love

for love is peace
and peace is beauty
and beauty is you
and you are me.
We are us
we are all
we are we.

     I live for today

for today is here
and here is now
and now is real.
I am real
I am here
I am true.

     I am FREE.

August 21

     Sunday. August 21st, 1983. Manila, Philippines. Roughly six weeks before I was to turn 20. The last remaining days of my wild, uneven and highly unfocused life as a teenager. I woke up around midday, early by normal standards. For I was, in those days under a self-imposed exile from society, detoxifying after a few years of substance abuse. But at the start of the year in 1983, even I was getting a bit worried and a tad bored with how my young life had turned out. Feeling burnt out at the age of 19. Feeling old. Feeling like my life had stopped moving. The escape from reality that drink and drugs used to provide had suddenly turned into an even harsher version of reality for me. I felt trapped. Isolated. Lost. Lonely. So I had to stop, even for just a little while. And in order to so, I had to literally and physically lock myself in. Which I did. For the next eight months. To clear the decks. To clean up the mess that was me. To try and figure out what the hell am I supposed to do. And what kind of man to be.

     In a lot of ways, I was the individual manifestation of what my country was all about. Stilled in progress because of self-inflicted wounds. An apathetic young country rotting away at the core and needing a new sense of direction. The trouble being, it had no idea on which way to go.

     I would normally start with music. Any kind of music. Played stupefyingly loud. But on that given Sunday, I felt like a little bit of visual might go well with the first of many cups of instant coffee and cigarettes for the day. So I turned on the TV. And as the image from the screen of our ancient television set began to clear and focus, I saw two men surrounded by a press scrum. Two military men providing a briefing, then purposely answering questions. One was Prospero Olivas, commanding general of METROCOM-the metropolitan police body in charge of security for the capital. The other gentleman turned out to be Luther Custodio, commanding officer for airport security. AVSECOM. Such was the life under military rule. What should normally be under civilian police jurisdiction in a representative form of society was all in the hands of the military. Even the Police Service was heavily integrated into the Armed Forces of the Philippines. With the exception of the uniforms, you could not tell the difference. And it was clear for everybody to understand and see. The state was the police.

     As I listened intently on the press briefing of the two military officers, it became clear that something had gone wrong on that 21st of August. Something horribly wrong. Two men had died on the airport tarmac that day, shot dead just mere minutes before I awoke that Sunday. And one of the dead was Benigno Ninoy Aquino.

     I knew very little about Ninoy Aquino before that day. I can sort of remember reading a newspaper article about him leaving for the US a few years before. And on August 21st, 1983, he ended his own enforced exile in America and made his way back to his homeland. The little knowledge I had about him was padded by the military government narrative about the man. A former senator with aspirations to the presidency. Vehemently opposed to the sitting president of the republic, Ferdinand Marcos. A subversive. A terrorist with communist symphaties. An enemy of the state. A man not to be trusted.  But even in my uninformed and disinterested state of being at the time, I knew most of what was said about him, particularly by the government was not true. What I did know was true in those times was that very public criticism of the Marcos family or any of their cronies would result in dire consequences. I knew that I was not a free man living in my own country, which in itself wasn't free.


     It was impossible for me to know what life was like before fascism. Martial Law was proclaimed on September 21, 1972, nine days before my 9th birthday. I was simply too young to know the consequences then. As I got older, I eventually began to understand the real effects of iron hand rule. Far from it's stated goal in instilling national discipline as a path to national progress (as those countless TV propaganda commercials would have us believe), Marcos' New Society instead achieved the opposite outcome. The rich became even richer. The poor even beyond poor. And the growing Philippine middle class began to disappear, both figuratively and in some cases, literally. Power, both political and economic, was consolidated among the privileged few of the New Society elite on the backs of the powerless. I, as with a great many of my countrymen became a slave in an enslaved nation.


     That is why my initial reaction to the news of Ninoy's death was that of muted shock and resignation. For he represented the last symbol of redemption from the brute reality that was the Marcos regime. It seemed to me that I was destined to live in a reality that I would forever try to escape from. In whatever way. In whatever fashion.


     As I witnessed with my own eyes, the outpouring of national grief throughout the streets of Manila during Ninoy's funeral procession, ten days after his assassination was slowly percolating into indignation. Punctuated by the heavy monsoon rains that came early that year, as if to signify that the skies above were crying with the Filipino people, the sadness was turning into resentment. And in a little while, just minutes after the internment of the dead legislator's body, full blown anger. Defiance. In front of the UST. And in Mendiola. In total darkness. The Filipinos, my countrymen, disengaged for a long time had suddenly awoken from the stupor. Ninoy, Hindi Ka Nag-iisa. You are not alone. The battle had been joined.


     Less than three years later, I found myself on the streets of EDSA. In the very early morning hours of February 23rd, 1986. I was a part of a group of responders, heeding the call of Ninoy's younger brother, Agapito Butz Aquino on Radio Veritas. The call was for members of ATOM-the August Twenty One Movement, to come to Camp Aguinaldo and show their support for Marcos' breakaway lieutenants, Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel Ramos as they withdrew their allegiance to the fading dictator in protest of the massive fraud that occurred in the just concluded presidential election. There I was, not far from the gates that symbolized fear for many, finally finding a reason to be. To be part of something bigger than me. To be part of a whole. Armed only with hope. And clad in my armour; a yellow shirt-the colour of change. Hindi Ako Nag-iisa. I was not alone anymore.


     In that unusually warm early morning, the first hours of what turned out to be a historic revolution, I realized that LOVE was and will always be stronger than FEAR. Despite persistent rumours of an impending attack by the fascist forces of Marcos, I never felt fear. In fact, it never quite felt like a revolution to me. It was more like a never ending street party. A communal event for rich and poor, nuns and frat boys, believers and non-believers, famous and not so famous, filipino and fellow filipino. Nothing and no one mattered. Except for the will to be FREE. In less than 72 hours, it was all over. The Marcos nightmare was finished, at last. There would be a new order, headed by Ninoy's widow, Corazon Aquino. It was now time to dream a new dream. An impossible dream, perhaps. For better or for worse.


     As I heard word of the Marcos era finally coming to an official end, I looked up to the dark sky. The same sky that I had constantly gazed upon in many times during my life. As a boy, wondering what happens to clouds when it gets dark. As a troubled teenager, high on whatever substance I had induced and staring blankly into the stratosphere of nothingness. As a young revolutionary EDSA-style, waiting for the proverbial shit to fall,  to signify an all-out war for Philippine freedom. Only this time, I thought of August 21. And the supreme courage of one man. Love had indeed conquered fear.


     In early November, 1987, almost two years removed from the heady days of the EDSA Revolution, I was at the same place where Ninoy Aquino spent his last few remaining minutes alive.  The airport that by then had been renamed in his honour. I was there to catch a flight that would bring me to Canada, where I would start a new life. I no longer had the need to escape reality. All I needed to do was forge a new one.To dream a new impossible dream. For better or for worse.


     Looking around rather restlessly, excited for the future and at the same time, heartbroken for the past; I began to wonder just exactly where the right spot was when the events of August 21, 1983 took place. But then the call for boarding was announced. As I walked in to the passenger tube, I looked out the window. A bright sunny day and blue skies all around. The same bright sky that many described on that fateful day in August, more than 4 years earlier. As I approached the last of the tube windows, I blew a kiss goodbye towards the blue sky. My beloved Philippine sky. 


     Thank you Ninoy. Hindi Ka Nag-iisa.

Top 10 reasons why Sarah Palin would make a really,really super-duper great president

     With utmost apologies to David Letterman and the producers of CBS's "Late Show", here is my own sarcastic take on the ubiquitous former Alaska governor and Tea Party favourite's qualifications to be leader of the free world ; [done in Dave's iconic "Top 10 countdown list" fashion ].

Number 10. FOREIGN POLICY

     All Sarah has to do is look out of her window and she sees Russia's paramount leader Vladimir Putin when he rears his ugly head. It's because of this proximity that they became good buddies and she has taught Putin a trick or three of her own. Like shooting moose from a moving helicopter.

     Now, the autocratic Putin does the same thing to Russian activists and intellectuals. He shoots them from a moving helicopter.

Number 9. TERRORISM

     The very moment Palin assumes the U.S. presidency, al-Qaeda will immediately suspend terror operations against the United States because they would feel sorry for Americans.

Number 8. ECONOMY

     Sarah is a math genius on par with Albert Einstein. Sarah's mathematical formula for economic success reads-"tax cuts=revenue shortfall=higher deficit-spending=more borrowing from the Chinese government". Simplified, it is "more is less=less is more or translated in French-"WE ARE SO VERY FUCKED".

     (do not do this at home; you're not a math genius)

Number 7. HOTNESS

     Sarah Palin is one HOT BABY MOMMA ! And those eyeglasses make her look really smart n' cute. Especially when she winks at those dirty old white men registered republicans, who use the brains of their penises to vote.

     (do not do this at home;you're not a math genius)

Number 6. MEDIA

     Ms. Palin would be the first U.S. president with her own 'reality ' show. Produced by Donald Trump and titled- "Sarah Palin's White House", it will not only revolutionize American television viewing habits but change their own perception of the national leadership.

     Half of Americans would just turn off the TV forever and start exercising, the other half would move to Canada, and the remaining half would shoot themselves in the foot.

     So there we have three halves. (Sarah is my math tutor)

Number 5. Did I mention she's hot ?....well, it's worth mentioning again (besides, I'm running out of ideas)

Number 4 THE TODD PALIN FACTOR

     Todd Palin would make an excellent first lady. (besides, I'm running out of ideas)

Number 3. WOMEN'S ISSUES

     Sarah Palin would become the first American 'GURL' president. (Unless you consider Jimmy Carter a woman.)

     This would be historic for the United States (like JFK and catholicism or Obama and socialism). It would also be a monumental moment for American women despite the fact that Sarah Palin opposes equal-pay legislation based on gender and Roe v. Wade; the U.S. Supreme Court decision that grants a constitutional guarantee on an American woman's right, among others, to her own privacy.

Number 2. GOD

     Sarah Palin believes that America was founded on corporate tax cuts. And God. As Jesus had said (in one of his blogs) and I quote:

"BLESSED IS THE CORPORATE CEO; FOR HE SHALL HAVE MULTIPLE SWIMMING POOLS IN HIS SUMMER HOME IN THE HAMPTONS, WHICH HE WOULD ONLY INHABIT TWICE A YEAR". Amen.

And the number one reason why Sarah Palin would make a really, really super-duper great president-

Number 1. JOBS

     When President Sarah abolishes the Department of Education and cuts public education funding to around 0%, Americans would be too illiterate and stupid to complain when she rolls back the minimum wage to 5 cents on the hour.

     This though, would position American manufacturing companies to steal away those massive and lucrative 'sweat shop/child labour' operations in China and India; thus allowing companies to hire uneducated American children thereby, putting Americans back to work.

      And President Sarah Palin would take all the credit in bringing home AMERICAN JOBS; back where they belong.

      In America (dammit). And Sarah Palin could only happen here. ONLY IN AMERICA.

PEOPLE POWER : The EDSA Revolt 25 years after Part 3

     The May 10, 2010 Philippine general election proved to be an important milestone in what had historically been a scandalous and often violent time in the nation's story. The basic right to free suffrage, the supposed centerpiece of PEOPLE POWER had been an exercise in corruption and futility in every election after the revolution, just like what it was during the time of Marcos, with only a few exceptions. With the introduction of a computer-automated system of voting instead of the antiquated scheme of paper ballots that has always been susceptible to manipulation and violence, and under the watchful eye of a more vigilant and neutral media, the 2010 election produced a result that genuinely reflected the people's will.

     And the name that came out on top was a familiar one. The new president-elect of the republic was Benigno Noynoy  Aquino.  The son of Ninoy and Cory. The son of freedom.

     In an election campaign that was eerily similar to the 1986 crusade of his mother's, Senator Aquino asserted on themes so familiar in every Philippine election cycle. Corruption. Excess. Abuse of Power. Only this time he had the credibility of a name and the democratic and heroic tradition of his parents behind him. Right down to the campaign colour. Yellow-the colour of People Power.

     It also helped that Noynoy was running to replace Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the most hated and corrupt president since Marcos. On that point, the 2010 election had a rather predictable outcome, at least at the top of the electronic ballot.

     The results did not disappoint. The presidential race was the biggest landslide in history. In a field of nine candidates, Aquino garnered more than 46 % of the vote, some 18 points higher than second placer, the former president Joseph Estrada. Another positive outcome of computerized voting was that the results came in very quickly. In a matter of a week, the results were clear, despite the noise from sour-graping losers. And the general consensus was that the 2010 Philippine elections were peaceful and credible.

     Democracy had triumphed at last.

     But the truly sad thing for a lot of Filipinos is that almost 25 years after the historic revolt at EDSA, our political leaders are still talking about the same issues. Aquino talked about political, social and economic reform. About government openness and accountability. And most importantly, he spoke of justice for all.

    Those are the same issues that drove people to the streets during the last of the Marcos years. To face the truncheons, the water cannons and the live ammunition of the guns of his state police. The same issues that motivated citizens to support Corazon Aquino's quest to unseat Marcos in 1986, despite threats to their own safety. The same issues that galvanized a people to go to EDSA and risk their lives to kneel down in front of army tanks. The very issues that one man resolved to fight for when he left his family and the relative safety of a life in exile in Boston in August 1983, to face certain death at the hands of a dictator.

     And now, we are still talking about the same things. We haven't progressed. We haven't moved forward.

     It would be so easy for anyone to say that the spirit of EDSA is dead. It is not. Despite the lack of any real progress, there had been major gains since the EDSA revolt. Principal among them is the peaceful transition of power, as witnessed last on June 30, 2010. All post-Marcos presidents had given way peacefully and gracefully with one exemption. Estrada, the B-movie actor turned president was ousted by a bastardized version of People Power in 2001, on accusations of plunder. Laughable, since all administrations after Marcos had been guilty of plundering the National Treasury in more ways than one. Most likely, he was nudged out of power because of severe incompetence and his own disinterest in performing his functions as a chief executive of the land. (He thought being president was just like one of his truly awful movie roles).

    But for me to say that the true goal of EDSA has yet to be met would be accurate. 25 years after a revolution that championed plurality, political prisoners still languish in Philippine jails. Members of the media still face harrassment and intimidation, and in some cases violence and death from security forces whenever they offer unfavourable opinions about the political class. The institutional problems of inequality and injustice continue to exist, exacerbated by rampant government corruption and irresponsibility. And the plutocracy still reigns supreme in Philippine society.

    The new president promised to address these issues in his inaugural speech to the nation. He has yet to make any concrete steps in that direction.

     To be sure, the Aquinos have their share of detractors. As much as they are beloved by the country, there remains a significant segment that are critical to whatever they uphold or represent. From the right-wing Marcos diehards who still refuse to believe that the former despot was anything but a hated brute, to the left who see Aquino as an extension of oligarchic rule; and of course, there are the inggiteros and inggiteras, those who hate the Aquinos or anybody else, for that matter, just for envy's sake; a well-worn Filipino trait that serves as a reflection of one's low self-worth and self-esteem.

     But a few months into his term as president, the hopeful feeling of a second Aquino presidency has begun to fade. And in an ironic twist, the criticisms hurled against the new president show a remarkable similarity to the ones raised towards his mother's. Impotence. Ineffectiveness. Incompetence.

     Not that he hasn't deserved any of it. Though it's still quite early to judge his performance as chief executive with less than a year under his belt, there are troubling signs that Noynoy Aquino is destined to become just like all the presidents after EDSA. An irrelevant and unremarkable six year ruler. Unable to fulfill the true meaning of his role as President of the Philippines. To bridge the gap between rich and poor. To make the country move forward into progress. To be the leader that the country thirsts for.

     Despite tangible steps taken toward modernity, the Republic of the Philippines remain as an enigmatic entity. A poor and troubled third world country beset by grave problems that no one president can solve in a single six-year term. Although far from being considered a "failed state", the country faces a serious predicament that left unchecked, could put it perilously close to being one. The conditions that call for another revolution just like the 1986 EDSA revolt are still present. In fact, as the gravity of the problem gets deeper and the situation gets worse, a violent version of EDSA may be in store at some point in the future.

     Unless-We the People-do something about it. NOW.

     And it starts with us being a lot more aware of the choices we make as a people. From the people we elect in leadership positions to our own responsibilities as citizens of our homeland. To be cognizant of the importance in promoting the general interest instead of our own self-interest. No amount of flag-waving "fake patriotism" can match the trueness of that virtue. It is through us-that we can effect true change. After all, the president is merely a "spokesman" for our interests as a people. And the people we elect in various capacities are nothing but the "representatives " of our true will. As Alice Walker exclaimed in the title of her book-"We are the ones  that we have been waiting for".

     It  maybe that is what Ninoy Aquino meant to say in one of his final interviews-that "the Filipinos are worth dying for". Or what Cory Aquino meant amid the national grief and support following the assassination of her husband when she said ; "Ninoy did not die in vain".

     And maybe that is the true meaning of EDSA.

     On August 21, 1983, our country witnessed the consequential result when one man stood up to fight for what is right. For truth, justice and freedom. A dictator's facade of invincibility began to crack.

     At EDSA, in those four historic days that shook the world in February 1986, millions of Filipinos tore down that facade of lies, deception and murder. WE ARE THE ONES THAT WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR.

PEOPLE POWER : The EDSA Revolt 25 years after Part 2

     February 26, 1986. The first full day of the post-Marcos era. I decided to go and find out for myself what it was like to live in a Marcos-free Philippines. To breathe in the air of freedom. Passing by a newspaper stand, something caught my eye almost immediately. It was the familiar masthead of The Manila Times-the newspaper of my childhood. The Times, a leading critic of the Marcos presidency and among the first casualties upon the proclamation of Martial Law on September 21, 1972, was back after a more than 13-year imposed absence. As if from out of nowhere, it reappeared to pick up from where it left off. The symbolism escaped me at the time, for I, as was the rest of the country was still in jubilant celebration for having deposed the hated dictator.  But there was no doubt about it. The old order was back. And it was back with a vengeance.

     It did not stop there. The voices that were being heard in those early, heady days after Marcos were predominantly the voices from the past. From the appointive ministers and administrators who took over from the leftover Marcos lieutenants. To the new regime's cadre of spokespeople. The old was new again. It was as if the whole nation just woke up from a very bad dream. The Marcos nightmare. But then again, it was just a dream. And now it's time to get up and move on with your day. At least, that's what we were being told. The revolution was all about continuing on the path were Martial Law so rudely interrupted it.

     Such as it was, the old order was responsible for creating the monster that was the Marcos regime. For it was the pre-martial law era of the old two-party system of Nacionalistas and Liberals that set forth the frustration and anger among the citizenry. With no clear differences that set them apart, the two old-line parties monopolized political power between the two of them. Both inclined to promote and protect the interests of two warring factions of the same class they both belonged to. The elite class. In fact, defections to and from both parties were as common as the flu. For neither party had any distinctive ideological principle that it supremely upheld. And none had any real answer to the social problems that were ailing the republic. Worst of all, both operated with impunity and equally guilty of corruption, excess and abuse of power.

     That is why the very real threat of a declaration of military rule in late 1972 was initially seen as a palatable alternative to the old way. And the reason Marcos got away with what was essentially a "presidential coup" so easily was that the people had decided the old order, as represented by the two main-line political parties were unworthy of being saved and deserved to be swept under the garbage heap of history. The Filipinos thought that Martial Law and the New Society as promised by Marcos, with it's enforced dictum of discipline and order was a way to move forward. Or at the very least, a step away from the stagnation of the old society. But as it turned out, fascist rule was a lot worst. An iron-fisted monster that kept growing bigger and bigger.
    

     The reality of course, was that the nation didn't just stop moving forward after September 21, 1972, it went backward. And the state of regression was so bad that it needed revolutionary ideas to correct the wrongs that had been done during 13 years of military rule. And that painful truth was being pointed out by the leading progressive voices of the time. Voices like labour leader Rolando Olalia and student-youth leader Lean Alejandro. But they were all but drowned out by the noise of the new regime's political hatchetmen who claimed the revolution for themselves. Noise that even I mistakenly assumed were the voices of freedom.

     To make matters worse, the political fissures that existed in the new governing coalition began to crack even wider. Then-Interior Minister Aquilino Pimentel, in a haphazard attempt to oust the Marcos warlords from local government offices began appointing people from his own party (the PDP-Laban), seemingly without consultation from the new administration's main coalition partner, the UNIDO, headed by the new vice-president Salvador Laurel. After all, the differences and divisions between the anti-Marcos forces were profoundly real. It was a union of conservatives, moderates and liberals. The left and the business sector. The church and the youth movement. In a matter of weeks after the dictatorship's demise, the new president, Cory Aquino looked like she was presiding over a pack of unruly old dogs intent on eating each other.

     But perhaps the most belligerent threat to the fragile ruling coalition was the presence of it's very latest member-the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The military, the greatest component of the Marcos-Martial Law years and the key contributing factor to his own downfall. And now, the military was at an even more influential position of power and it was willing to flex it substantial political muscle to serve it's own purpose or at the very least, get it's message across. And the message was clear. "We are in charged of our own affairs".

     The unfortunate thing in all of these was that Mrs. Aquino seemed like she was unwilling or unable to exert her authority on those who were trying to subvert hers. It seemed like she was just content on being the anti-Marcos president, despite overwhelming public support. A non-transformational president despite the considerable popularity she enjoyed and can use as moral authority to transform her country. A bean-counter president, content on counting in her days as head-of-state, then returning to private life when her term was over. With that, she left herself wide open to criticisms of lack of vision and leadership skill. Charges of Impotence. Ineffectiveness. Incompetence.

     (A grand total of seven coup attempts were mounted in the six year duration of the presidency of Corazon Aquino).

     Add to the fact that the corrosive effects of Marcos' corrupt regime has seeped through every facet of Philippine society and it's way of life. And the venom had all but poisoned the well. Which meant that the Aquino administration, despite it's best initial intentions were caught drinking from the same poisoned water and swimming in the same poisoned lake as the one it replaced. In the end,  the new regime was as guilty as the old one.

     Meanwhile, the true voices of freedom were being permanently silenced, as they were during the darkest days of Marcos rule. Less than ten months after the February Revolution, Olalia was found dead after being abducted by uniformed thugs. Evidence of torture were present when his body was found as with several gunshot wounds to the face and the back of the head. Alejandro was gunned down several months later  outside a Metro Manila courthouse after filing electoral complaints in the just concluded congressional election of 1987. Other progressives who dared to speak out about the ineffectiveness of the new regime were either harrassed, intimidated or dismissed as communists, terrorists or enemies of the state.

     On the first anniversary celebration of People Power, a good half of the original participants decided to take a pass on it. Over the years, the succeeding celebrations to mark "the people's victory over tyranny" had degenerated into partisan political rallies for whomever held the main seat of power in Philippine politics. And the country had become increasingly polarized with so many competing interests yet no one seemed to have any idea on how to move forward. A far cry from the unity and bravery that was on display for the whole world to see in those historic four days in February 1986. The four days in EDSA.
    

PEOPLE POWER : The EDSA Revolt 25 years after Part 1

     The recent developments in the Middle East has brought me to reminisce on a similar event that took place in my country,  the Philippines twenty-five years ago this month. As I witnessed the recently successful struggle for democratic reform in Egypt, where hundreds of thousands of brave men and women, in solidarity for the cause of freedom and democracy peacefully and ultimately brought down a cruel and malevolent dictator, I can't help but look back on what many around the world consider as the blueprint for modern democratic revolution. The February 1986 Philippine uprising-the People Power revolt.

     In Manila on February 25, 1986, longtime Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos and his family were hastily spirited away by American military personnel from the presidential palace as his 20-year regime came to an inglorious end. In the aftermath of a highly disputed and scandalously fraudulent presidential election result, many thousands of ordinary Filipinos took to the streets of Manila and it's surrounding environs, in support of Marcos challenger Corazon C. Aquino and her call for a country-wide civil disobedience campaign. On February 22nd, as the fear of an impending government crackdown began to envelop the Philippine capital like a dark cloud, Marcos' defense minister and longtime political associate Juan Ponce Enrile and Armed Forces second-in-command (and Marcos' cousin) Lt. Gen. Fidel Ramos broke ranks with the government and firmly placed their support for the people's quest for change. Together with a handful of reform-minded and heavily armed soldiers, they holed up in Camp Aguinaldo, headquarters of the Ministry of National Defense to take a symbolic stand against their former boss. What happened in the next four days would completely baffle political watchers everywhere and irrevocably change the political order, not only in the Philippines but elsewhere around the world. Unique and historical. Revolution through non-violence. And it all happened on a Greater Manila thoroughfare called Epifanio delos Santos Avenue-or simply known as EDSA.

     Ironically, the very root of it all came from one violent act two and a half years earlier. On August 21, 1983, Opposition leader and Marcos' political arch-nemesis Benigno Ninoy Aquino was assassinated by his military escorts just minutes after landing at Manila's International airport. The former senator, in ending his more than three-year exile in the United States, publicly stated that he was seeking a dialogue with his tormentor in the hopes of perhaps finding a path to democratization through "political reconciliation". In reality, Aquino offered himself up as a sacrificial lamb, knowing that his death through political assassination might bring about worldwide attention and condemnation to the brutal regime of Ferdinand E.Marcos. More importantly, his death could be the messianic symbol that might help embolden his countrymen and shake off their apathy and indifference towards a fascist dictatorship. And on both of those, it did.

     The political and economic consequences of the Aquino assassination reverberated almost immediately. Mere months after the tragedy, the Philippine economy lay in ruins as foreign capital took flight out of the country besieged by political instability and rocked further by speculation that the Marcos administration was the prime mover behind Aquino's slaying. The upheaval caused enormous pressure on Marcos (and his enablers in Washington, D.C.) that in late 1985 during an interview on Ted Koppel's ABC news show Nightline, the embattled Philippine leader himself made a surprise announcement. He was calling for a snap presidential election, slated for February 7th of the following year, in order to secure a new mandate, or in his own words-a new covenant with the Filipino people. Unyielding in his quest to hang on to power despite local and international condemnation, the president was relying on his vast wealth and a divided political opposition to deliver his new covenant. And if all else fails, he had the overwhelming support of the generals and the commanding officers of his military and state police forces.

     Like all fading dictators, Marcos misread the true will of his own people. Ensconced in his palace and surrounded by sycophants, the president underestimated the anger and frustration that was spilling out on the surface. And as expected, he rolled out his battle-tested political machinery for an election campaign, backed up by coercion, intimidation and in several cases, deadly violence to achieve his "covenant". But the Filipinos have had enough. On election day, they showed up in record numbers. And despite the threats of violence, they stayed on to safeguard for their most precious possession. Their right of free choice. And the choice was overwhelmingly in favour of change. And when the call was made by the opposition forces to support the Marcos mutineers entrenched inside the military camp on EDSA Avenue to protest the fraudulent election, they came in droves. Then-Colonel Gregorio Gringo Honasan, one of the popular figures of the February revolution, while on board a military helicopter to survey strategic positions put the gathered crowd at it's peak to be in the neighbourhood of two million upwards. More than two million Filipinos buffering two factions of the military, one for the fascist regime and one for a new beginning, both intent on armed confrontation. More than two million civilians who laid down in front of tanks and armoured carriers, clamouring for change. And for peace. In the end, peace won. Freedom won. And the people won.

     As I watched the unfolding events in Egypt on TV, in the aftermath of Hosni Mubarak's flight from power, I heard a familiar refrain from people being interviewed by the world media in the streets of Cairo, the epicenter of the Egyptian revolution. Almost to a person, they proclaimed the same words----I am so proud to be an Egyptian. I have an intimate knowledge of that feeling.

     On the evening of February 25, 1986, upon hearing the news of Marcos' complete downfall, I rushed off to the Quezon City Rotunda to watch the victorious crowd of EDSA as they marched along the circle. Standing there, continuously clapping hard until my hands were sore, I remember tears uncontrollably flowed down my face and as I looked around, the people standing alongside me were crying, too. Surely not for the fallen dictator but for his victims. Foremost in my mind was Ninoy Aquino, whose sacrifice touched off a movement so dedicated to the struggle for justice and freedom and whose own widow was now in charge of cleaning up the mess that Marcos and his minions left behind. On the walk back home, I felt something I had never felt before. I was so proud of my homeland and my countrymen. For the first time in my life, I was proud of who I am. A Filipino.

     And the whole world watched in total amazement.

     Three years later, in 1989 and the era of Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika, I watched as the totalitarian Soviet  eastern bloc states began to crumble. Like dominoes, they fell one by one. Czechoslovakia. Hungary. Poland. East Germany. Romania. Yugoslavia. Culminating in the fall of the entire Soviet Union itself in late 1991. Without a single shot fired, the cold war was over. And the international communist movement was dead. Not through military action or violent uprising. But spurred by people powered revolution. The same phenomenon that swept away a right-wing dictator in the Philippines three years earlier; the same phenomenon that is sweeping the Mideast today.

     Democracy at it's purest form. Of the people. For the people. And by the people.

     For in the end, state power rests in the hands of it's people. No amount of guns, goons and gold can match a unified citizenry and their will to be free. That there is no justice to be had through violence. And that violence only begets further violence. To entrench yourself and your own interest against a people's will puts you on a path of confrontation where you would eventually face the wrath of raw power. The power of the people.

The Gun Culture

     The aftermath of the January 8 Tucson gun massacre has garnered two interesting and significantly opposite reactions about gun rights and public safety. As the finger-pointing punditry from both the left and the right quieted down, the American public has once again been given a chance to ponder. As they had asked in the wake of the 1999 Columbine shootings, and then again after the incident at Virginia Tech in 2007. What should be done to make sure these heinous crimes never happen again ?

     On the right of the political spectrum, the reaction has been on the side of their own personal safety. Republican congressman Peter King (NY) has proposed new legislation making it illegal for people to bring guns 1,000 feet from all government officials. Highly unrealistic, of course since you wouldn't have any idea on who you may run into at any time of the day. Suppose you are carrying a licenced firearm and you happen to bump into  your local councilor, entirely by accident. Does that mean you have committed a federal crime ?

     A host of other Republican public officials from both federal and state levels have even put forward their intention to carry their own weapons as they go about their business of public service, in the guise of protecting the public interest. But who are they fooling ? When you see a Republican senator or congressman walking up the steps of the Capitol armed with a pistol, would you think their pistol is representative of your interest ?

     The best the other side of the political fence can offer is a token timid comment or two on the need for "further discussion" on the issue of gun control. The cowardly Democrats simply refuse to show much of a spine, much less take a practical stand on public safety, despite mounting appeals from a reasonable public who are tired of speculating when and where the next mass killing involving crazies with automatic weaponry would occur. Perhaps worried about their own political skin, particularly those blue dog democrats who can't afford to lose the support, both in terms of votes and money, of gun-loving constituents in their own backyard.

     So, we have Republicans on one side, in typical scatterbrain manner, assessing the very latest gun tragedy in the United States as a call for arms, more specifically, a signal to arm themselves. In keeping with their reactionary thinking process, they have decided to wage war on guns with their own guns. At the very least, they came up with something, no matter how ludicrous it may sound to a person who actually thinks. The Democrats are pretty much obliged to do nothing. Thinking that the tragedy will open up a Pandora's box for  republicans and conservatives elsewhere for their "vitriolic rhetoric", these "vanguards of liberalist freedoms" have clicked on cruise control and have decided to hegde their bets on any legislation regarding gun safety regulations and maybe wait to cash in  on a later date, preferably perhaps on Election Day.

     Meanwhile, the public asks once again. As they had after Columbine and after Virginia Tech: "What needs to be done?".

     Six people lost their lives needlessly on the morning of January 8, 2011 in Tucson, Arizona. One was a community outreach worker engaged to be married next year and still at the prime of his life. One was a federal judge who, after attending a church service decided to visit an old friend before coming home to his family. Two were elderly women who just happened to be there at the supermarket and thought to stay a while and watch an event billed "Congress on your Corner". One 76-year old gentleman died trying to protect his wife as the bullets started to fly in all directions. And one was just nine years old. Excited to finally meet her congressional representative and perhaps, holding a dream close to her young heart of someday being in the same position of serving the people in her own community.

     They died because a madman was allowed to purchase an assault weapon, capable of ending human life, without so much as a minimum restriction.

BIGOTRY

     Bigotry as it is defined in most reference dictionaries is the attitude or behaviour of intolerance towards those who are different from oneself. Taken in plain context, it is synonymous with sectarianism, narrow-mindedness, illogic and partisanship fueled by hatred. Most adult people and those who have acquired at the very least a secondary education, who are level-headed and open to reason know what constitutes bigoted behaviour. It is simple enough to understand. If one person makes undue judgement on another person by virtue of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation that is different from him or her, it is therefore, bigotry. The only people, with the obvious exception of young and innocent children of course, who fail to understand the characteristic of this offensive behaviour are the bigots themselves. That's not to say that bigoted people are too stupid to understand a simple characteristic behaviour, although by most accounts, bigoted people are for the most part, ill-educated or at least lacking the ability in the most simplest form of logical thinking. There are well to highly educated people all around the world who display, sometimes even openly an intolerant point of view. But the real question is why. Why is there intolerance ? What is the root behind it ? And how do we get rid of this divisive and potentially dangerous form of discriminatory behaviour ?

     As an Asian immigrant living in Canada, I have had first-hand experience in discrimination. On the very evening that I arrived at Toronto's Pearson Airport. Walking up to a customs booth, a caucasian male customs personnel asked for my Philippine passport. Without looking at me, he asked standard questions pertaining to entry in Canada, then perhaps seeing all my papers were in order, he flung my passport back to me, hitting me on the chest, a rather unprofessional way of handling the business of a Canadian customs officer. It so scandalized an elderly caucasian gentleman standing behind me that he said something to the officer in protest on my behalf. Then, to comfort a newcomer to the City of Toronto, he patted me on the shoulder in assurance, as if to say Canada and Canadians were not representative of the vile action of this customs officer. And the gentleman was right. Canadians, to a large degree are a very tolerant and moderate people. Toronto itself, with it's bustling multi-cultural makeup, is a very welcoming place for newcomers to the city. The city and it's citizens, whatever the background or ethnicity, seem to live in the codified liberalist ethos of  "Live and Let Live". Of course, as with everything in life, there are bad apples in the mix. After all, there is no such place as Utopia. And Toronto is far from perfect. But for such an imperfect city, it is a good place to live and exist, where you can value the economic, social and political freedom it offers if you are willing to do the work that is needed to attain them.

     Of course, race is not the single determining factor in discriminatory behaviour. Far from it. Although it is probably the most common and obvious form, given that human beings are inherently tribalistic in nature. I would be remiss if I don't admit to the fact that I treat my fellow filipino migrants here in Toronto in a different way. There's almost an instantaneous bond whenever I meet someone here from my homeland. Even if they happen to be complete strangers. Not that I have contemptuous feelings about people from other races. Of course not. I take people at full face value. It's just that there is a higher acceptance value when there already is a built-in commonality between people. So is tribalism a good excuse for discrimination ? Of course not. Preferential treatment is one thing. Discrimination based on hate is another.

     Take the Tea Party movement in the United States. While it started out, just mere weeks after the advent of the Obama administration as an anti-tax plank (hence, the historical reference to the Boston Tea Party), financed by capitalist billionaires like Steve Forbes and the Koch brothers of Minnesota, it has quickly morphed into a completely different entity. Acting like an anti-Obama magnet due to it's well-financed machinery, it has attracted virtually every hard line group opposed not just to the Democratic Party, but principally to Barack Obama himself. The Tea Party as it is constituted now, is a broad coalition of right-wing to extreme right-wing groups, from social and religious conservatives to the so-called "fringe elements" ( racists, sexists,  homophobes, islamophobes). Front and center to this fringe group are the "birthers", headed by it's self-proclaimed king, Andrew Martin. This group was the first to latch on to the conspiracy theory about Obama's birthplace. They argued, even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii, thus making him unqualified to be President of the United States. A recent survey done by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that monitors fringe right-wing groups all over the United States, show that a great majority of membership to the advocacy of "birtherism" comes from extremist right-wing hate organizations and other white-supremacist groups.

     So what does that tell you ?

     Aside from the fact that there must always be valid and vocal opposition to any ruling party or leader, there should be boundaries in political alternatives.  Judging simply on the basis of race is condemnable.  I am not a particularly big fan of the U.S. president myself. I see him as another cookie-cutter politician funded by the same corporate sponsors, as have all the recent presidents of the past 30 years. But I do admit that he shown tremendous political courage in trying to at least have a more serious discussion on a number of social issues like health care and financial reform. To accuse him of having an overtly socialist agenda is a valid political point (despite the hyena-like laughter coming from actual left-wingers like me). To say that he is a "secret muslim who hates America" or that he is a "kenyan-born communist" is just simply racist and dismissable hate-mongering. And this example shows me the exact value of bigotry. Nothing.

     Yet, as I have stated in the beginning, bigots are oblivious to the fact. They cling to these hateful ideas as their reality. I once asked a bigoted acquaintance what his definition of equality was. I haven't gotten an answer yet. But I do know how bigots like him think. Racial bigots measure equality by the color of a person's skin. Religious bigots count only the people who adhere to their own religious principles as worthy people. Extremist right-wing social bigots think that people who don't subscribe to their venomous philosophies are vermin. To bigots who hold the virtues of intolerance, equality only serves a purpose if that purpose fits into their own agenda.

     But the real definition of equality is spelled out in very clear terms on every fundamental law of every democratic country in the world. The Constitution of The United States points out at the very beginning that "All men are created equal and free". Free to speak, think, choose and decide for themselves. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms extend the same rights to it's citizens. And in both cases, those freedoms are guaranteed and protected by the full force of the law, regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation.

     So why is it so hard for bigoted people to understand the constitutional and legal aspects of equality and individual freedoms ? Is it just willful ignorance ? Or is it a matter of clinging to their own prejudicial views of how they see the world, no matter how absurd and unrealistic that view is ?

     The very foundation of hate comes from a simple factor. The sense of fear. Bigots hate because they fear. Afraid of people who look, think and feel different from them. So if you are a racist, you are simply afraid of a person with a different ethnic background than yours. If you are a sexist, you are simply afraid of women. If you are homophobic, you are simply afraid of homosexual people. So what does that make you ?

     The right to think, feel and exist are the most natural of intellectual and emotional freedoms that are guaranteed under the fundamental law as an individual's most basic right. As I have stated earlier, I take people at face value. Rightly or wrongly. Whatever the race. Whatever the philosophy or principle. I see a commonality with my fellow man. I see him as the same human being as me, deserving of the same right to exist as I do. If someone ends up abusing me or violating my individual right to exist in this world, the laws that govern me as a human being and as a member of a democratic society would apply. That is my protection as an individual. So, as I have said many times in many different blog entries, I have nothing to fear.

     Bigots on the other hand are consumed by an overwhelming fear of the unknown that they have no desire to understand. And by giving in to their natural tribal instinct, they let themselves be governed by a different sense of reality. The reality of their own sense of fear. And this fear causes them to hide under what they see as their own means of protection. God. Guns. And by hiding under the veil of religion and violence, they feel their own sense of empowerment. The power from fear. Which means only one thing. Bigots are nothing but cowards.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     On January 8, 2011, 22-year old Jared Lee Loughner fired a substantial round of ammunition from a semi-automatic pistol into a crowd gathered for an event at a Tucson, Arizona grocery chain. In the aftermath of chaos amid the violence, five people died on the scene, including long-serving U.S. District Judge John Roll. A sixth victim, nine-year old Christina Taylor Green was pronounced dead on arrival at a Tucson-area hospital. All in all, 18 people were shot and wounded, among them was U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona-8th District). Law enforcement officials believe that Congresswoman Giffords, a centrist democrat was the intended target of the gunman. And the event at the local Safe-Way supermarket parking lot was a constituent forum that she was hosting.

     Giffords, who had just narrowly won her third term of office in last November's congressional elections, has long been a target of the right-wing fringe. Her outward support for stem cell research, immigration policy overhaul, same-sex marriage and last year's contentious health care reform bill had put her most notably in right-wing crosshairs. In Sarah Palin's political action committee website, Rep. Giffords' name is prominent among the target list. In the past year, she has received death threats and her local district office had been vandalized on a couple of occasions. In media interviews during the past year, she has expressed apprehension about the overtly violent rhetoric that is being utilized against her by political opponents. That at some point, it could lead into unintended and potentially harmful and serious consequences.

     At an early evening press conference, some six hours after the shooting incident, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik acknowledged that indeed, extremist political rhetoric may have played a significant role in the violent attacks. In pointing out that the gunman had a history of threat-related offenses and suspect mental stability, the sheriff was prompted to appeal to the country at large to tone down the political vitriol. Saying that the politics of hatred and fear may have serious repercussions, especially in the ears of the weak and narrow-minded, Dupnik said that "The State of Arizona had become the mecca of prejudice and bigotry and that the hatred had all but poisoned the political discourse". Shocking words from a senior law-enforcement official who had served for more than 50 years. In his closing statement, Sheriff Dupnik had this to say:

"hate speech may be free speech, but it's not without consequences".



     In a democratic and free society, all ideas deserve to be heard. Constructive ideas should be deliberated upon, to bring out the best possible outcome for the best possible reason. Destructive ideas such as hate, intolerance and bigotry should be vociferously objected to and opposed at all times and must be pointed out for the poison that they represent.