i take it as an auspicious sign that the first response to HUWAG IBOTO was a “second the motion without any reservation!” thanks, anna de brux :)
but being contradicted is cool, too, and arbet bernardo‘s quick riposte, “kesa naman kay Miriam o Enrile.= P” made me laugh, oo rin nga!
and then i heard dzmm teleradyo listeners weighing in on the matter, and the winning argument was, “may karapatan ang mga senador to do what they want, sila rin merong freedom of speech!” lol.
say pa ng isa, si vilma santos nga, nagbebenta ng sabong panglaba, pero okey lang sa mga taga-batangas, magaling naman siyang labandera, ehek, gobernadora.
mercifully the next reaction was manolo quezon‘s, which gently reminds me that a boycott of those senators and vice-president will achieve nothing of consequence.
…if stuart-santiago says, don’t vote for politicians who do product endorsements, what will it achieve? It will validate the assumptions of the politicians when they undertook those endorsements. They won’t lose or win on the basis of a boycott on the basis of their endorsements. And those who do win despite such a boycott will only serve to entrench the practice. An advocacy of a boycott would only be effective if done -now, prior to elections- by boycotting the products they endorse. A mass-based approach to an issue raised and ventilated (and most effectively wielded) by the middle and upper classes is self-defeating. It’s not that it’s the wrong fight -just the wrong target, considering those expected to do the fighting.”
true. for now we would be a tiny tiny minority at best whose boycott of these politicians would hardly make a dent in the final count. but i have this romantic notion that the impossible, like EDSA, is possible. that one day, a tipping point might be reached and, as in Jose Saramago’s Seeing, the government will hold electionsbut nobody will come until late afternoon, and only to cast blank ballots.
hope springs eternal.