Funny Morality

I just came from looking at one of Inquirer.net's blogs, the one called Current. As usual, it's such a nice place to get grist for one's blog, especially given how long ago the blogger stopped writing.

On the post regarding Migz Zubiri and his redemption via politics, John Nery reiterates his position (as opposed to Manolo's) that Migz can never be able to redeem himself because of the context in which the Gentleman from Bukidnon got elected, and most especially given Migz recent filing of a counter-petition vs. rival Koko Pimentel at the Senate Electoral Tribunal. According to Nery, the move was designed to turn the Tribunal into the electoral equivalent of the Energizer Bunny in that it will just go on, and on, and on, putting Koko's supposedly righteous pursuit of his case into electoral limbo.

I will not contest John Nery's analysis of Migz' actions; whatever the reasons of the Gentleman from Bukidnon for filing a case, that's his problem and, lest the pundits and public forget, he is certainly entitled to it, just like everyone else. Nowhere it is said that someone the public perceives as one of Gloria's boys is denied his constitutional rights, just because he happens to be in the little girl's camp.

But, see, that's my longstanding issue with the anti-Gloria crowd: they're such aces in the practice of selective morality.

I will repeat myself: what is so wrong with Zubiri filing a case with the SET? Isn't he entitled to do so?

Seeing the comments all over the post, I decided to add my two cents worth by posting what I called a "Point of Information": if Zubiri should be denied a Senate seat for cheating, or Escudero impeached for betraying the ideals of the Opposition... then shouldn't someone who threatened to blow up buildings and people be all the more denied that privilege, regardless of how many... misguided people voted for him?

I mean, look at it. How can people even go to the lengths of actively advocating for Trillianes to sit in the Senate while denying a (supposed) cheater and an alleged betrayer the same things? Which one is the greater sin to the Republic? Heck, which one has proof?

That's why I was just so incensed at de Quiros when he lambasted the judge who denied Trillianes his supposed right. In case he and other anti-GMA pundits have forgotten, there were LIVE FEEDS of the Oakwood Mutiny. Their bloody friggin' hero himself read the bloody friggin' demands, and what would happen if those weren't met.

And that's why I am just so... irritated at a public that would call for the ouster of an alleged cheat, while putting into office a confirmed terrorist. The same public that elected a non-performing, human rights-abusing person to City Hall on the basis of his closest rival being the son of the man who was a solid supporter of the alleged cheat. Never mind if the Atienzas were largely responsible for reviving the moribund capital into a shining city once again. I mean, get rid of your anti-Gloria lens and look at what Manila was in the last nine years.

Don't you think there's just something wrong with this picture?

If people have the gall to demand morality and ethics from its leadership, then this should be a blanket demand, not a flavor-of-the-month, apple-of-the-eye thing. If you're going to apply strict standards against the little girl, than do so for that terrorist. If you're going to take the AFP to task for the alleged abductions of political activists, then do the same for the CPP-NPA for its well documented torching of cell sites and industrial centers, as well as its owning up to the killings of Lagman, Kintanar and that other RJ leader.

Bakit kayo namimili? Para naman tayong nag-gagaguhan nito eh.

And people wonder why our Public Sphere is such a mess?