What constitute political grandstanding? Exercises that created a lot of noise that achieved nothing in the end are perceived by the public as political grandstanding. They are becoming regarded boring show-offs like ‘atras ang nakaupo, abante ako’. Even exercises however well intended by the leaders, but improperly placed, could qualify as grandstanding.

For example, when it comes to emancipation of the broad masses of the Filipino people the fight should be in congress (and regional wage boards) and not in the streets. It is interesting to note that in advanced countries where States are more liberal to freedom of expression, fewer people go out in the streets. Lobbying with lawmakers is more effective and brought achievements, respect. If it is not about delivering gains then what is it?

When it comes to Truth and Justice the venue would be any appropriate entity of the law. Ok, so it is not about that. It’s about ousting the President. But then again politics has got its own complications and so we have a divided people at this moment.

“Edsa” was about People’s ultimate absolute struggle for TRUTH and JUSTICE. Under the same conditions or circumstances it can happen again and nobody can stop it. Plug it one way it will manifest another way.

Why would some try to perfect the negative sides of Marcos or Erap in the first place, anyway? Should not they be breaking their heads trying to think of ways to make people not think of overthrowing leaders?

I must agree with you that people are tired of accusations that lead to nowhere. But the opposition leaders are busy stirring the pot and coming up with creative ways of encouraging the people to protest against the Arroyo administration.

I just hope we can have more evidence so that we can convince those who are still undecided.

Cheers,
Lester