Terms like "President-elect," or "losing the election" in reference to Hillary, as well as talks about 2020 US Presidential elections leave me really cold and palpitating. I don't understand it at all. I get my US news most of the time and I am shocked at these terms that are being used. Worse, because those terms are being used, the brazenness of validating an artificial result of the elections becomes rather comical. What? That is happening in the US of A?
President-elect is not a correct term; rather it should be President elected by electors as there has not been a neat assessment of the genuiness of the ballots for him.
"Losing the election" is neither a correct term because the label lost and won, are questionable, until the Electoral College has met this December.
And more than that, Hillary lost the electoral votes but not the popular votes. So which is more important, significant, valid in terms of knowing the people's will, and an accurate way of creating political democratic history?
No, I do not believe that vote-thieving candidates should be allowed to go scot free. The US has all the necessary tools, technologies and most highly literate and scholarly people to determine the veracity received by the candidates. It is high time that it transcends sentimentalism over the fact that their ancestors created the electoral college which has (5 times) been found to be flawed; rise up and create election history that will correct errors of real counting of the people's votes.
With regard to the news, I am totally shocked also by the way the above terms are used that are distortions of history.
I have always believed that history is a very important subject that should be in the hearts and minds of the people. The loss of Al Gore to Bush is one big lesson. Hillary's should be corrected soon.
Now in the Philippines, Marcos was so entrenched that even Reagan supported him. Hence, when we launched the feminist movement we knew that we were up against not only local but also foreign patriarchs who dictated how women should think, speak and act. Yet, we supported Cory, the widow because she was the most sincere candidate at that time who could challenge Marcos. And no matter how dirty Marcos conducted his campaigns, calling women as only meant for the bedroom, we strongly went out of our way to defend, support and give her enough defenses to counter all macho words against her.
What else did we do? We worked for the boycott of all the products of the Marcos cronies. That really brought the toll on him.
People also joined marches carrying their self-made posters tacking them on residential fences. They also wrote graffitti in the streets to show their support of her. At the height of the rough response of Marcos, June Keithley was running a radio program which nobody knew from where it was being aired..
In other words, the moves of the Filipino people were spontaneous and creative, suited to our resources.
I was with an American news media covering the elections of 86, but after Marcos declared that he had won, all my foreign news colleagues left. That was their normal reaction -- they had probably thought it was just another election.
That is the big problem -- they did not have the feel of the pulse of the people.
After my stint, I went straight in front of Channel 4, now Channel 2 and joined the rallyists. I spoke at the rally saying that that broadcast station was stolen by Marcos from the Lopezes and handed it over to the Benedictos.
On February 25, 1986, I was with my urban poor women's organization friends peopling EDSA.
Were we afraid? No because we had the numbers. Marcos was already isolated from the people.
I guess fear has no room when you know that the future as a continuation of the present will not bring change at all. Besides, Marcos ceased to be a feared official. We had seen his weaknesses -- for women, for wealth, and great inability to curb the excesses of Imelda. His powers slowly got eroded in our consciousness and so we had just seen him as a pure macho
I am talking too bravely. Folks, you might say. But I do so because I am sick and tired of authoritarian regimes. My son died in Singapore in 2014 and the government there has his classified information and does not want to reveal it to the interpol agent that I had requested to retrieve it for me. Hindi raw siya kamag-anak. No way would I go to that authoritarian country after what had happened to my son. The interpol man said that his death could have something to do with my writings as my son had told me in December 2013 to quit writing. When I asked him who had told him that, he clammed up. Then he gave me this laptop, which he told me would be his last expensive gift for me. Maybe he was threatened if I did not stop writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment