I am thinking maybe we start sharing information about our knowledge and take on the presidentiables. Is there a philosopher-king among them? Or have we lost any hope in the leadership of our country? Should we rather stay on our private world and each advocacy than care about haivng good leaders? Simply, hisgot-hisgot ta kinsay maayo botaran pagkapresidente sa sunod election. kinsa may atong manok? – dani
Saksto ka, Dan, angayan nga hisgutan nato ang presidentiables. Magpaambitay kita sa atong mga pagsabot ug panglantaw mahitungod niini. Bisag magkabangga, magkasumpaki ug magsungag ang atong mga hunahuna..payts lang gyapon..Kay sa ila unyang pagbangga, pagsinumpaki ug panagsungag, basin diayg dunay mahimong “sparks of insight and learnings which, cumulatively through time, might fuel the blazing flame of enlightenment and understanding for all of us.”
Two of the unworthy (based on my bias) senators I mentioned earlier were col. honasan and capt. trillanes..both of whom, like lacson, are overt and impatient advocates of military (more accurately, martial) solutions to non-military, socio-economic problems purportedly for the sake of national interest… They are reportedly among those who are hell-bent on replacing PGMA asap! ..of course, with the support of their all-too-powerful, oftentimes low-profile handlers, both local and, especially, foreign..it is not impossible for any one of them to grab anytime the top political power.
Which stirs up disturbing questions: Who or what is a professional soldier? Is it one who keeps out of politics, or one who directly participates in it? Is it one who blindly obeys all orders from the superiors, or one who questions the propriety, legitimacy, even the morality of such orders?
Prof. Edward Finer wrote: “The purported care for the national interest, as defined by the military mind, is a major reason why military officials intervene in politics..” They believe they can do better than their civilian political masters can in running the government. Most probably, this is what was and still is in the minds of the authors of the failed (thank God) coup-d-etats and mutinies in our country..believing they did what they did (and will do what they will) because they were and still are “professional soldiers”..accordin g to them.
But history is replete with state leaders (especifically, power grabbers from the military or those with narrow, military mindsets) who either would not or could not distinguish personal interests from national interests..equating their personal safety with national security..believing since they personify the state, they conclude that an attack against their person is an attack against the state. And often, on the pretext of protecting the national interest, many such leaders ruthlessly decimated, through the use of military power at their command (human rights being non-existent in their vocabularies) those they perceived as actual, suspected or even merely potential political foes.
But then, throughout history, the violent rise and inevitable tragic fall of such leaders can only attest to an ancient political adage I have freely paraphrased: “Subjugating the will of the people through brutal military power is like riding a hungry tiger. So long as you’re astride the beast, so long are you safe. But once you fall down from its back, it will ruthlessly devour you!”
Indeed, power is too seductive to resist..the greed for it is just too overwhelming to withstand… thus, there will always be risk-takers who are as ambitious as they are vicious and malicious..mao kana sila ang di gyud nato sangonan sa gahom sa pagdumala sa atong nasud..gahum nga magamit sa mga katuyoan nga maayo..o dautan –rom