I just finished talking about how government works to my boys' yaya of 23 years, who's a self-proclaimed DDS. I explained to her who controls the budget, why lawmakers suck up to the President, why politicos kill each other during elections for what seems like a measly salary. 1/

I told her why I was angry with this government's response to the pandemic, how we're trillions deep in debt but hardly feeling any of it, how we're the laggard in the region in addressing COVID despite how much higher our tax rates are. I explained why we need to vote better. 2/
But what eventually made everything I was saying to her sink in was when I told her, "You know, this lousy government, it doesn't affect me or my family. You've seen that. We can sell off all our assets if we want to and just migrate to another country if we have to." 3/
I said, "All throughout this pandemic, did you see any adverse effects on my family? No. We eat what we want, my boys can turn on the aircon in their rooms and just be on the computer every day if they wanted to. We didn't suffer. But guess who did? The poor, like you." 4/
And it was then that it finally sank in how voting for someone inept impacted people in her social class so much more adversely than it ever could someone on my social class. This discussion started because we talked about Pacquiao running for the Presidency, and she liked him 5/
I said to her, "He was absent the most in Congress after saying he'd work harder. Said the same thing when he ran for the Senate, yet here he is, still consistently absent. You think he'd change if he became President?" And she said, "You're right, I don't think he will." 6/
I didn't score her for supporting Duterte. What would be the point? But I explained how we need to raise standards in who we vote for, because, I said, "Far more than for people like me, people like you suffer far far worse when a leader is inept. You've seen it." She agreed. 7/
And then she asked me who to vote for. I said, "Don't let me dictate to you, and anyway, nobody's officially announced as yet. We talk when they do. But this early, tell yourself you won't vote for someone just because he's Bisaya like you, or he gave away gifts, or because... 8/
...you find them cute or funny when they sing and dance. They're not there for your entertainment. They're there to SERVE. So let that be your metric in voting. Who will serve my interest as a citizen the most?"

And you could see, major lightbulb moment for her. 9/

End.
Ack. Need to add. I also said to her, "Who lost jobs? Who lost their livelihoods? Who couldn't afford hospitalization when they got sick? Who couldn't afford swab tests? Who got hungry? Was it people like me?" And she shook her head, saying, "No, it was us."

She got it.

More from Economy

You May Also Like

Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to


Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.

Mueller's team was 100% partisan.

That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election

They looked high.

They looked low.

They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.

And they found...NOTHING.

Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.

What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?

THERE WEREN'T ANY.

Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x