Comments on: marck, edel, benignO

By: angela

angela — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 04:00:38 +0000

gabbyd ;) you ask, doesn’t EVERYONE stand for truth and justice? well, everyone WOULD LIKE to stand for truth and justice, including the philippines. but some countries actually try harder than others to live up to it, but not pinas — our version of truth and justice is feudal pa rin, the mindset being, what are we in power for…

as individuals many pinoys are as good/great as other individuals of other races, but as a collective we are sabog, can’t quite agree on any one defining issue, most important of which, i dare say, is our relationship with, our attitude towards, our former colonial master america. the devil is in the politics.

By: GabbyD

GabbyD — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:21:51 +0000

hey,

actually my problem with “what does the filipino stand for” question as posed by benign0 is that its vacuous and confusing.

at first blush, he seems to be asking, what have filipinos acomplished? is this a function of prosperity? i.e. wealthier countries accomplished more?

then, it seems the question is, what is the filipino known for? anything ‘substantial’? again, as a developing country, since the philippines is a middle income country, what kind of answer should we get?

next, he wants to talk about values (i.e. ‘stand’) as a people. But then, ALL people strive for virtue. Again by definition; no one will ever say they are not against virtue. no? No one can ever say we are not striving for virtue. Thats true for everyone, including the filipino.

Last, he says, countries are famous for upholding certain values. Why? Who gets to determine that, for example, the USA stands for truth and justice?

Doesn’t EVERYONE stand for truth and justice?

By: angela

angela — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:22:37 +0000

hey marck ;) i hope i’m wrong, too, and don’t let anyone stop you from having your say. your heart is in the right place, good for you!

By: angela

angela — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:19:37 +0000

good question, orlando ;) if anything is worth doing,it’s worth putting my name to it, has always been my attitude. but since the blogosphere allows anonymity i suppose it’s as valid a way to blog as any. some of the blogs i’ve linked to and which i visit regularly are written by anonymous bloggers but of course it takes a while longer — many visits, many posts — to convince me that they’re not spouting just a lot of hot air. the same goes for anonymous commenters over @ fv ;)

By: Marck

Marck — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:38:09 +0000

Angela: thanks. I just hope that some things do change, and that I hope you’re wrong, that something is going to happen from all of this. I know I belong in the minority of young anarchist radicals, but that’s just me. :)

Anyway… Sir Orlando? No we don’t. Some of us (myself included) broadcast who we are in our blogs. Personally, I hate hide and seek. :D

By: Orlando Roncesvalles

Orlando Roncesvalles — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:34:00 +0000

Hey Angela,
may I ask a possibly naive question? I turned to the blogosphere as a tool to communicate with my students and perhaps the outside world. I’ve rediscovered some old friends, etc.

I noticed that humans, being humans, there are tribes and cliques, etc. Especially among economists. The diatribe can be nasty. But there is some reality to it.

My question is this: If a blogger wants to make a meaningful contribution, should he not at least give the reader some idea of his identity? We economists pretty much know each other, as there are schools and there are schools. And as a rule, google will show up people’s cv’s and affiliations. But I notice that Filipino bloggers seem to play a web game of “hide and seek,” a bit like anonymous texting. They have all that time in their hands? I wouldn’t react to you if I had no sense of your ethics and character. And blogging just to sound off may be good therapy but is just hot air. Am I missing something?