Maybe I should put down more of my "political beliefs" in this blog. NOT!
Other than the random rant, what more can I say that hasn't been said? I don't think it would be such a good idea for me to do anything of that sort, given the fact that I am steeped in cynicism. I did wave the placards once, got gassed and received volleys from the water cannon back in the day. Somehow that seems to be one feverish dream, as if all the anger for a formless, shapeless Establishment was drained away.
Where is the relevance of seeking more rights for the people? Where is the righteous indignation over the decline of the Filipino spirit? Or of atrocities occurring in Iraq? Or of the unjust hegemony of the United States? Would I really think about what would happen if G.W. Bush would win a second term?
If I had wanted a career in government, maybe I should talk more about injustice. But the cause for change shouldn't come from without, but from without. In pragmatic terms, drawing from Machiavelli, it doesn't really matter what a "statesman" or a government does, it is how it achieves its results. Power in itself is its own means and ends.
If, however, someone crows loudly about "might for right" just look back and see how well that he, she, or it, matches the stated aims with the procedure and the result. That will be the yardstick of success and credibility. Given the way things stand, it still pays to be in the good graces of the United States. Whatever governments/groups do in foreign policy to oppose or coalesce with the US, or to advance certain economic or cultural policies, it is because they see that it is in their interest to do so. The results may be disappointing to some, but that is the reality we have, and will remain so until parochialism of one form or the other will be replaced by a true Earth-based ideology, or "Earthism."
That will be the relevance I am aiming for.