I worry for the Philippines.
A group or even a couple who stands together is practically unbeatable, indestructible, and almost impossible to fail. The only way to break them is to literally break them. If they fight with each other, chances are they will lose all battles.
The Philippine government has been encouraging factions since PNoy stepped on stage. His leadership has set an example with his unfading disgust for the previous administration. Now we have Senators battling senators, the church battling the government, and Senator Lacson attempting to put dirt on probably the most respected DOJ Secretary de Lima.
If our leaders do not get their acts together and put all grudges aside, then we cannot hope to find a better future.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Is DEMOCRACY really worth fighting for?
The Economist debate a few months back: This house believes that the West should keep out of the Arab world's revolutions.
They say that the reason why the West intervenes with Middle Eastern wars is because they want to support and promote democracy in the world.
I find the defender of the motion's points a lot more interesting. Professor Abu Khalil's points out that democracy is not the reason, and that what the West envisions is not what comes out of meddling (as history proves, he said). If it were democracy, then they would not have had supported the tyrants to begin with. They are in close ties with Saudi Arabia's King. How is it that there is "Western alliance with Saudi Arabia—one of the most oppressive and exclusivist states on the face of the earth..."?
My personal take on the matter: the fight to democracy is just an excuse. It is but a short answer to a very long truth.
As in other revolutions, people do not want change unless they feel oppression, hunger, and/or poverty. Absolute monarchies have been toppled over because of these social and economic crises that have left the majority in a devastating situation. And then, they see their leaders eating grapes, feasting on abundance. NOT SUFFERING AS THEY DO.
Democracy is an excuse for change. If these tyrants have been heroes of the poor and still be leaders of the rich, then they would be in power forever. Other nations would want to be dictated by them.
A logical reason why the west would intervene is simply GLOBALIZATION. What happens to a nation affects all because of trade. In this case, Middle East is a gold mine, oil mine, and a reliable alliance. It is in the West's interest to prevent further uprising and keep the peace in the rest of the oil producing/transporting countries. It can prevent, not just loss in property and lives, but cost-push inflation that will affect the world.
The reason for the West's intervention may be suspicious, but then again, the end justifies the means. Too much transparency can be more damaging that keeping mouths shut for a little peace.
______________________
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/673
They say that the reason why the West intervenes with Middle Eastern wars is because they want to support and promote democracy in the world.
I find the defender of the motion's points a lot more interesting. Professor Abu Khalil's points out that democracy is not the reason, and that what the West envisions is not what comes out of meddling (as history proves, he said). If it were democracy, then they would not have had supported the tyrants to begin with. They are in close ties with Saudi Arabia's King. How is it that there is "Western alliance with Saudi Arabia—one of the most oppressive and exclusivist states on the face of the earth..."?
My personal take on the matter: the fight to democracy is just an excuse. It is but a short answer to a very long truth.
As in other revolutions, people do not want change unless they feel oppression, hunger, and/or poverty. Absolute monarchies have been toppled over because of these social and economic crises that have left the majority in a devastating situation. And then, they see their leaders eating grapes, feasting on abundance. NOT SUFFERING AS THEY DO.
Democracy is an excuse for change. If these tyrants have been heroes of the poor and still be leaders of the rich, then they would be in power forever. Other nations would want to be dictated by them.
A logical reason why the west would intervene is simply GLOBALIZATION. What happens to a nation affects all because of trade. In this case, Middle East is a gold mine, oil mine, and a reliable alliance. It is in the West's interest to prevent further uprising and keep the peace in the rest of the oil producing/transporting countries. It can prevent, not just loss in property and lives, but cost-push inflation that will affect the world.
The reason for the West's intervention may be suspicious, but then again, the end justifies the means. Too much transparency can be more damaging that keeping mouths shut for a little peace.
______________________
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/673
Sunday, June 5, 2011
DFA FSO: Stage Two
So here I am, trying my luck... trying to find the star-shaped hole to fit 'me star-shaped peg.
I have unexpectedly passed the qualifying exam, which basically says I got lucky with more than 80% correct answers in the graduate level, NSAT type exam. Next step was the interview, a hurdle before I qualify for the much dreaded FSO written exam.
Here's the scoop on the interview. Be smart, quick, and witty. There were three interviewers in the room who are themselves FSOs. Veterans, I suppose, who have already met so many people, they can probably measure you up the moment you walk in. For the love of God, Goddess, and whatever diety you believe in, do NOT be arrogant and untrue to yourself. If you don't know the answer, ask a question. If you can't think of a question, be honest and make them see that you are eager to learn. The last thing you want them to see you as is a know-it-all. At the end of the day, the person who prevails is not the one who knows everything, but the one who makes use of what he knows, and treads the way with a smile.
The interview lasts for about 20 minutes. They asked me about, well, everything in my CV form, plus opinions on current issues faced by our nation. I have been asked what I think hinders progress in the Philippines, what should be done, and even personal questions such as if I have plans on getting married, do I have serious suitors, and am I prepared to be single for life.
Let me tell you now that these interviewers do not take their career very lightly. Most people, especially women, have been asked to choose between career and marriage. In most cases, it cannot be both. A FSO travels a lot, and stays in one place for no more than three years. It would be a real challenge to build a family and keep a family together. My interviewer said her husband, who was a doctor, gave up his career so he can be with her. Am I prepared for that? To get the career I want, but be the breadwinner? Or to give up my dream job to settle down?
Adulthood. Responsibility. Decisions, decisions, decisions.
I know I cannot answer these questions now. I can only hope to be married to someone who understands my job, and still stay with me. Right now, that person is a big question mark in my head.
It's been two days since my interview, and I can't get the heavy feeling off my chest. Was I sure when I said, "my career makes me happy and I cannot imagine giving it up for marriage"?
I may just eat my words. Who knows.
I have unexpectedly passed the qualifying exam, which basically says I got lucky with more than 80% correct answers in the graduate level, NSAT type exam. Next step was the interview, a hurdle before I qualify for the much dreaded FSO written exam.
Here's the scoop on the interview. Be smart, quick, and witty. There were three interviewers in the room who are themselves FSOs. Veterans, I suppose, who have already met so many people, they can probably measure you up the moment you walk in. For the love of God, Goddess, and whatever diety you believe in, do NOT be arrogant and untrue to yourself. If you don't know the answer, ask a question. If you can't think of a question, be honest and make them see that you are eager to learn. The last thing you want them to see you as is a know-it-all. At the end of the day, the person who prevails is not the one who knows everything, but the one who makes use of what he knows, and treads the way with a smile.
The interview lasts for about 20 minutes. They asked me about, well, everything in my CV form, plus opinions on current issues faced by our nation. I have been asked what I think hinders progress in the Philippines, what should be done, and even personal questions such as if I have plans on getting married, do I have serious suitors, and am I prepared to be single for life.
Let me tell you now that these interviewers do not take their career very lightly. Most people, especially women, have been asked to choose between career and marriage. In most cases, it cannot be both. A FSO travels a lot, and stays in one place for no more than three years. It would be a real challenge to build a family and keep a family together. My interviewer said her husband, who was a doctor, gave up his career so he can be with her. Am I prepared for that? To get the career I want, but be the breadwinner? Or to give up my dream job to settle down?
Adulthood. Responsibility. Decisions, decisions, decisions.
I know I cannot answer these questions now. I can only hope to be married to someone who understands my job, and still stay with me. Right now, that person is a big question mark in my head.
It's been two days since my interview, and I can't get the heavy feeling off my chest. Was I sure when I said, "my career makes me happy and I cannot imagine giving it up for marriage"?
I may just eat my words. Who knows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)