Teachers Pwet (UPDATED)
Dear John.
Your reply to our criticism of the Jesuit guidelines for action was to label us Armchair Radicals.
You wrote,
“Buencamino and Sta. Ana have committed the old crime known in the free-spirited Sixties as libel by label; it will do all of us who take part in the public discourse good if we say so plainly—and call them to account for their intellectual dishonesty…The thrust of the Buencamino and Sta. Ana critique can be summed up neatly enough in the label in its title: “Jesuitic placebo.” Essentially, they criticize the guidelines as an exercise in casuistry, in merely clever double talk.”
Eto yun.
Unang una, libel is committed against a person not a thing.
Our article, Jesuitic Placebo, criticizes the statement of the Jesuits. If after reading our criticism you concluded we were calling the authors of the “guidelines” a bunch of switiks eh that’s because it’s impossible to separate an author from his creation…unless, of course you use switik methods.
To reiterate, Jesuitic Placebo is an apt description of the “guidelines” itself. That was a direct assault on the Jesuit paper. The authors were collateral damage only. On the other hand, the title of your piece “Armchair Radicals,” was a direct assault on us. Our piece was the collateral damage, if at all.
Nga pala, thank you for saying the thrust of our article “summed up neatly enough in the label in its title: “Jesuitic placebo.” Your title didn’t match your piece at all. I couldn’t find any armchair or radical in it. All I found was a good little Ateneo alumni seated safely on his mentor’s lap and calling us names.
“I think the guidelines bring us to a position I’ve staked out before: It’s “2010 or earlier.” What the document does is to describe each option as realistically as possible. This is the same tactic Buencamino and Sta. Ana use, to try to discredit such options as the naming of an independent counsel. Should we privilege their reading of reality over that of the Jesuits, simply because of what they think of their ex-mentors? (Mine too.)”
Pweh.
Your position “2010 or earlier” is ridiculous. The only option is “earlier” because if she stays on until 2010, it proves crime pays.
Eto pa.
“I myself do not agree that resignation is not a real political option; if the rambunctious world of Philippine politics has taught us anything, it is that we must be open to surprises. (How many of us, to give a small example, actually thought Benjamin Abalos would resign from his post?)”
Maybe you should have asked yourself what would have happened if Abalos decided to tough it out and hang on to his post no matter who got hurt. Then maybe you wouldn’t have been surprised by his resignation. Do you actually believe he resigned on his own?
Better if you just admitted that you, like your mentors, prefer to believe Gloria might still be persuaded to step down voluntarily instead of wimping out with a statement like “I myself do not agree that resignation is not a real political option…” Wimp.
Eto pa.
“My point: Buencamino and Sta. Ana do nuance too. (Here’s a risible example: “The independent counsel is just another name for the Ombudsman, an office that didn’t even need to be created if the Department of Justice was doing its job in the first place.” Apparently, in their reading of the Constitution, they scanted Article XI.)”
For your information.
Sabi sa Wikipedia,
“In general, “ombudsman” refers to a state official appointed to provide a check on government activity in the interests of the citizen, and to oversee the investigation of complaints of improper government activity against the citizen….The major advantage of an ombudsman is that he or she examines complaints from the outside of the offending state institution, thus avoiding the conflicts of interest inherent in self-policing.”
Eto naman ang sabi ng DOJ sa kanilang website:
The mandate of the DOJ is to uphold the rule of law.
Its mission is to establish and maintain a just and orderly society through an effective, speedy, and compassionate administration of justice,
Naintindihan mo na ang ibig namin sabihin na hindi na dapat may Ombudsman pa kung ang DOJ ay tapat sa kanilang mission? The sight of a grown man being bounced on his mentor’s knee, that’s risible.
Ngayon eto personal sa akin. Sabi mo, sinulat ko:
“In his initial response (as far as I know, and taking colleague Manolo Quezon’s word for—or rather hyperlink to—it), Buencamino takes issue with several aspects of the Jesuit document. Two struck me in particular.
First, his blithe dismissal of the guidelines’ preferential option for the poor:”Prioritize the poor” reinforces a mistaken belief that justice etc. are luxuries only the well-fed can value … Filipinos have become apathetic not because they are more concerned about feeding themselves but because the system is unresponsive … But that’s just me and that’s just them.”
Eto ang sinulat ko:
“Section g. “Prioritize the poor.” reinforces a mistaken belief that justice etc. are luxuries only the well-fed can value: “If many Filipinos seem to be uninvolved or uninterested, it is primarily because of an overriding concern for economic survival during very hard times.”
If you did not leave out that part, it will be clear that my beef was against the Jesuit’s analysis of why the poor are uninvolved and not against prioritizing the poor.
But, from where you sit, I can understand why you blithely ignored the key piece of my argument.
Here’s more from you:
“Second, his eye-for-an-eye reading of the nonnegotiable principle of active nonviolence—This “shackles the opposition more than it does the administration. It allows the ‘State’ to defend itself through whatever legitimate means necessary. But if you believe the administration is illegitimate then no self-defensive action other than preventing wanton vandalism and violence is permissible.”
Two quick replies: It is the poor, always, who end up the victim of violence. And the people power Buencamino and Sta. Ana claim to know so well is in fact the highest expression of active nonviolence. Rushing to EDSA in 1986 to serve as a shield—some shackle.”
This is what your teachers wrote in the “guidelines” regarding People Power:
“People Power. People power is a precious legacy from the struggle against the dictatorship and the restoration of democracy in the Philippines. EDSA I was the culmination of a long process of political education, organization and mobilization throughout the martial law years and especially during the nearly three years after the assassination of former Senator Benigno Aquino. Active nonviolence was a defining characteristic of EDSA People Power. It is enshrined in the Constitution, which values initiatives from below as a way of harnessing the direct participation of the people in politics and governance. In its current usage, however, it is problematic because it is often equated with popular insurrection and takeover as a method of regime change. This creates a dynamic where crisis situations continue to be resolved through extra-constitutional means which are not predictable, weaken democratic institutions and install leaders with questionable mandates. Thus an endless series of EDSA’s spells serious instability.”
They dichotomized People Power into “a precious legacy from the struggle against the dictatorship and the restoration of democracy in the Philippines…” and “In its current usage, however, it is problematic because it is often equated with popular insurrection and takeover as a method of regime change.”
Ano yan, an adaptatiion of the “Two Philippines” theme? You have to relabel People Power para mailusot ninyo yun argument against using people power to oust Gloria?
Rushing to Malacanan in 2008 to serve as a shield is some shackle indeed. But that’s just you the teacher’s pet.
Lux in Domino, a favorite Jesuit line, refers to light in God not the soap brand you use to clean up your mentor’s shit.
Pweh!
(UPDATE)
John Nery posted a reply in his blog:
April 22, 2008
A Dear John letter
Manuel Buencamino responded to my Newsstand column today with characteristic, ah, zest. He tried to refute my take on the mental dishonesty of name-calling and libel-by-label by, well, calling me names. The title of his blog post? “Teachers Pwet.” (No possessive.) Ah, yes. A real class act.
(to be continued)
on April 22nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
[...] Uniffors- Life in Gloriaâs Enchanted Kingdom wrote an interesting post today on Teachers PwetHere’s a quick excerpt Dear John. Your reply to our criticism of the Jesuit guidelines for action was to label us Armchair Radicals. You wrote, “Buencamino and Sta. Ana have committed the old crime known in the free-spirited Sixties as libel by label; it will do all of us who take part in the public discourse good if we say so plainly—and call them to account for their intellectual dishonesty…The thrust of the Buencamino and Sta. Ana critique can be summed up neatly enough in the label in its title: “Jesuitic [...]
on April 22nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Hehehe..it’s more like a rectal surgery if I ever read one. After taking us from behind, they now try to sew us up so they can ride us again. Regime change through countless People Powers does not lead to instability as the Jesuits and Gloria wants us to believe, it shows that the people continue to seek genuine democracy. If we we sit idly by while our country is ravaged, then we have given up on life itself because we allow ourselves to be exploited. These people should understand that it is a sin to prostitute oneself. You’re hitting them where it hurts, Manuel. Truth really is a bitter pill to swallow. You have exposed their true motive that is why they now gang up on you.
on April 22nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
[...] Uniffors- Life in Gloriaâs Enchanted Kingdom wrote an interesting post today on Teachers PwetHere’s a quick excerpt Dear John. Your reply to our criticism of the Jesuit guidelines for action was to label us Armchair Radicals. You wrote, “Buencamino and Sta. Ana have committed the old crime known in the free-spirited Sixties as libel by label; it will do all of us who take part in the public discourse good if we say so plainly—and call them to account for their intellectual dishonesty…The thrust of the Buencamino and Sta. Ana critique can be summed up neatly enough in the label in its title: “Jesuitic [...]
on April 22nd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Shumey,
Yhanks for yoout support. I’m proud to be on their enemues list
on April 22nd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
I support you 100%.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 am
lol, teachers pwet and toilet presidency truly needs to be flushed down together with their apologist.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
than you to you too Equalizer.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Ano ba yan, kitid ng utak ng John na yan.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 3:35 pm
The person responsible for the Jesuitic statement was looking for someone to do the proxy fighting for them against Conrad de Quiros. De Quiros described the Jesuit statement as idiotic. So they found an attack dog in Nery. But why does not Nery criticize De Quiros, who delivered the biggest blow to the Jesuits’ statement?
Takot ba siya kay De Quiros?
Another sign of the idiocy is that he has nothing to say about the substance of the criticisms; instead he resorts to making accusations left and right.
Nery: an attack dog with no teeth.
on April 23rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Typical Jesuitical Equivocation
on April 24th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Internet fights are fun; specially when intolerant readers cheer on the intolerance of the writer. LOL
on April 24th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Ha ha ha. You are really brilliant MB! Keep it up!
on April 24th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Manuel:
One of the general themes of Macbeth was equivocation.
Henry Garnett’s A Treatise of Equivocation was found on one of the plotters and there was a resultant fear that Jesuits could evade the truth through Jesuit equivocation:
Faith, here’s an equivocator, that could
Swear in both the scales against either scale;
Who committed treason enough for God’s sake,
Yet could not equivocate to heaven
- Macbeth, Act 2 Scene 3
on April 24th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Equalizer,
Is equivocation covered by the term switik?
on April 24th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
[...] sure enough, a counter-response came out, titled Teachers Pwet. Meanwhile, John started a response in A Dear John letter, but hasn’t gone back to [...]
on April 24th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Nery’s response: To be continued? Ang haba naman ng kanyang jingle. Or is he now lickng the Jesuits’ asses?
on April 24th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Manuel:
To understand the word ‘jesuitical,’ consider the following. The laws of the Catholic church demanded the sacrament of confession should always be received individually. However, there was a dispensation where the recipients were in “imminent danger of death.” The idea was to allow soldiers about to enter a battle to receive the sacrament in a group, so the squad wasn’t twiddling their thumbs waiting for the priest to finish each confession. Naturally, the Jesuits took that rule (“imminent danger of death”) whenever they wanted to have a group confession in peacetime. They justified it by arguing that since the congregation was likely to drive on public highways, they were in imminent danger of death. Jesuits didn’t create the dispensation, they were merely clever enough to use it.
Forgive my prejudice, but isn’t that head and shoulders above the embarrassing, “it depends on what the meaning of is is?”
on April 24th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Equalizer,
They’re in a league og their own,
Gives new meaning to the phrase a wink and a prayer
on April 25th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Pero MB, ang favorite line ko sa response mo: “Pweh.”
Hahahahaha.
on April 26th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
An Open Letter to Another Religious Bigot Defending Gloria:
Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino
Dean, Graduate School of Law
San Beda College (Mendiola)
Mr. Esposo ,in his popular Chair Wrecker column in Philippine Star, has asked whether San Beda College-Mendiola now suffers from its proximity to evil. San Beda College is Malacanang’s neighbor.
The Chair Wrecker has reacted to your perceived role as a legal apologist of Gloria.
While I don’t question your legal right to express your very strong position (and bias) against Jun Lozada in the ZTE -NBN mega scandal of Malacanang, I strongly believe that you need to make it very clear that:
1) You are a Consultant for international law in the Office of the President in Malacanang (see above Inquirer article;6/03/07).
2) Your public positions on the ZTE scandal do not reflect the position of the Benedictine community in Mendiola.
The problem is that you always affix your academic position (”Dean, Graduate School of Law,San Beda College -Mendiola”)in all your press releases .
The public goodwill for the much respected Benedictine Order, in particular, and San Beda College-Mendiola, in general, SUFFERS because of your public posturing.
Firstly, you are not at all a member of the Benedictine Community. You are not a Benedictine priest or brother. You are a diocesan priest who just happens to work as a paid employee (ok, dean) in San Beda College(see Inquirer article). There is public confusion with your “Father” title and your employee status in San Beda College- Mendiola.
Secondly, you are not even an alumnus of San Beda College.
In the Wikipedia Post on “Notable San Beda College Alumni “, you are listed in the “Honorary Alumni and Notable Faculty” category and not as an alumnus of the College .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_San_Beda_College_alumni
I suggest that you use the title: “Atty. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino,Consultant for International Law,Office of the President, Malacanang” to better reflect YOUR legal positions against Jun Lozada in the ZTE -NBN Deal Mega Scandal.
Your legal defense of your Malacanang patron has NOTHING to do with your being the “Dean of the College of Law,San Beda Mendiola”.
Atty. Ranhilio Aquino,if you want to be a “Custos morum “,be 100% transparent to the public.
Companero,in Spanish, be “cuentas claras”!!!
In all things may God be glorified.
Pax
EQ
on March 24th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Club Music Mp3 Your investigation have been helpfull for me. I wish everybody writes article as this.