Several weeks back Chad Osorio vigorously defended Jeane Napoles and the fashionista motto “if you’ve got it, flaunt it”. I now rise to comment on Chad and the hornet’s net he stirred. After all, he did challenge everyone to keep a fair and open mind.
With all the flurry diffused away, Chad’s article is a simple, categorical remark why Jeane had every right in the world to put up such an ostentatious blog about her shoes and cars. But in context, today it sounds like a spectacular, sardonic exhortation to join the anti-haughty rich, anti-pork barrel movement.
He says: “The social media networks are specifically designed so that people can connect…” I read: “And so connect they do, with a million modes of invite and a million posts of outrage against pork and corruption.” He says: “It's not her fault that poor people are poor.” I read: “True, yet why is it many Filipinos seem to know whom to blame.” He says: “I doubt that she intended poor people to read it in the first place.” Ah, for this one, I blank out because he’s lost me entirely what point it’s meant to make.
Chad’s logic is so provocative, I bet some of those who didn’t care too much about the Napoleses before came in with guns ablazing thereafter. It’s bound to bring in social media purists, who maintain that the internet is a means to converse and communicate, not simply display. It’s riled up the ranters, who now have another issue and person to rumble online. It’s flummoxed his school mates, who can’t believe that UP Law accepts people who argue – and more pointedly, can afford to – this way. The article is so self-absorbed, so farcical it begs to be flayed.
But I like the way Chad made a lot of people squirm. I've never heard of him and his social interests (and I'm pretty sure neither have you) until this scandal blew up. He’s brashly opinionated and decidedly unapologetic. If he does make it as a lawyer, I’d say he could step into the mold and likes of Lorna Kapunan. Audacity and an affinity for controversy – that’s what it takes to lawyer for James Yap, Hayden Kho, and Janet Napoles at the height of their unpopularity.
He took up the cudgels for things he has been conditioned to believe in: first, the notion that wealth equals social power; second, pride in material possessions is pride in accomplishment; and third, have faith in the Philippine justice system. Admit it, haven’t we all at one point put our trust in one or the other? We from the bourgeios aren’t really too much unlike Chad.
The choices we habitually make – what to wear, what to watch, what to read – are knowingly or unknowingly calculated to support our sense of security in the order of things. We fiercely assume that the smarter we are the richer we’ll get. Luck be damned, it’s all about hard work. All along, while we may have no desire to step on others, we don’t want to be stepped on ourselves.
It’s this whiff of working class ethics, whether innate or acquired, that radically reactivates senses dulled by the regular luxuries and extra conveniences of a little bit more money. Down the spectrum of exploitation, there the rage and revolution intensifies. The bluntest, finest retorts to the pork barrel brouhaha have been written by those who toil the hardest but win the least, by those for whom every peso matters.
While the upper crust and the bureaucrat-capitalists mull over the nuances of the pork barrrel system, the extent of the Napoles operations, and mayhap the viability of other scams on the state, it’s those who have had their moral fiber shaken who are gearing up to flex muscle. If it’s political will you need, here’s the “polis” indeed. With a common feeling of affront – even as Chad says, it’s not a crime to show off what you have, and the Napoleses haven’t been found guilty in court – men of many philosophies want total change not simple reform. A mishmash array of skeptics and stoics and cynics are coming together, again, to bellow: this lying, cheating, and stealing really ought to stop. See you at the rally.
Original published on The Philippine Online Chronicles http://thepoc.net/poc-presents/poc-youth/19221-in-defense-of-chad-osorio-s-defense-of-jeane-napoles
With all the flurry diffused away, Chad’s article is a simple, categorical remark why Jeane had every right in the world to put up such an ostentatious blog about her shoes and cars. But in context, today it sounds like a spectacular, sardonic exhortation to join the anti-haughty rich, anti-pork barrel movement.
He says: “The social media networks are specifically designed so that people can connect…” I read: “And so connect they do, with a million modes of invite and a million posts of outrage against pork and corruption.” He says: “It's not her fault that poor people are poor.” I read: “True, yet why is it many Filipinos seem to know whom to blame.” He says: “I doubt that she intended poor people to read it in the first place.” Ah, for this one, I blank out because he’s lost me entirely what point it’s meant to make.
Chad’s logic is so provocative, I bet some of those who didn’t care too much about the Napoleses before came in with guns ablazing thereafter. It’s bound to bring in social media purists, who maintain that the internet is a means to converse and communicate, not simply display. It’s riled up the ranters, who now have another issue and person to rumble online. It’s flummoxed his school mates, who can’t believe that UP Law accepts people who argue – and more pointedly, can afford to – this way. The article is so self-absorbed, so farcical it begs to be flayed.
But I like the way Chad made a lot of people squirm. I've never heard of him and his social interests (and I'm pretty sure neither have you) until this scandal blew up. He’s brashly opinionated and decidedly unapologetic. If he does make it as a lawyer, I’d say he could step into the mold and likes of Lorna Kapunan. Audacity and an affinity for controversy – that’s what it takes to lawyer for James Yap, Hayden Kho, and Janet Napoles at the height of their unpopularity.
He took up the cudgels for things he has been conditioned to believe in: first, the notion that wealth equals social power; second, pride in material possessions is pride in accomplishment; and third, have faith in the Philippine justice system. Admit it, haven’t we all at one point put our trust in one or the other? We from the bourgeios aren’t really too much unlike Chad.
The choices we habitually make – what to wear, what to watch, what to read – are knowingly or unknowingly calculated to support our sense of security in the order of things. We fiercely assume that the smarter we are the richer we’ll get. Luck be damned, it’s all about hard work. All along, while we may have no desire to step on others, we don’t want to be stepped on ourselves.
It’s this whiff of working class ethics, whether innate or acquired, that radically reactivates senses dulled by the regular luxuries and extra conveniences of a little bit more money. Down the spectrum of exploitation, there the rage and revolution intensifies. The bluntest, finest retorts to the pork barrel brouhaha have been written by those who toil the hardest but win the least, by those for whom every peso matters.
While the upper crust and the bureaucrat-capitalists mull over the nuances of the pork barrrel system, the extent of the Napoles operations, and mayhap the viability of other scams on the state, it’s those who have had their moral fiber shaken who are gearing up to flex muscle. If it’s political will you need, here’s the “polis” indeed. With a common feeling of affront – even as Chad says, it’s not a crime to show off what you have, and the Napoleses haven’t been found guilty in court – men of many philosophies want total change not simple reform. A mishmash array of skeptics and stoics and cynics are coming together, again, to bellow: this lying, cheating, and stealing really ought to stop. See you at the rally.
Original published on The Philippine Online Chronicles http://thepoc.net/poc-presents/poc-youth/19221-in-defense-of-chad-osorio-s-defense-of-jeane-napoles