Sunday, January 10, 2010



It was 08, January 2010, friday night when that event started, as I, writing something, was being scolded by my father out of a debate, that debate must be intended as an intellectual, gentlemanly talk, but my father turned it into a personal one-just because he hates the left-inclined, and one of them is I.
While writing, my drunkard father spoke something, speaking about the late New People's Army rebel being killed by the military during a battle, it was featured in the Inquirer at that time, and he even spoke of what the article being said that she was doing god's work, of serving the people and even 'faith without action is dead'.

And for sure, as what I expected, he would oppose it and even condemn the left for this kind of incident, and even spoke of anything christian just to counter what the christian left spoke regarding to the martyr; and upon hearing what my father said, I accepted some of his points, but then I told him that the bible has different interpretations and ideas, same as different lines to be said. Especially the words "I came here not to bring peace but a sword" in which different from Christ's healing of a Roman soldier's ear after being wounded by Peter, his desciple. And even spoke of Christ sacrificing himself, of opposing violence, etc.

Fine! But then how come Christ spoke of "to bring a sword?" Of calling for change? Of calling for action alongside faith? How come Christ even attacked the moneymakers and vendors in the temple? For me, Christianity is not a mere faith based institution, but rather more of a mass movement whose objective is faith-based salvation through action, by all means necessary in order to save the people from structural sin.

And yet my father still opposed to it. There he started to say things hysterically and in paranoia against the left, of turning it too personal although I tried much to remind him not to turn anything personally while my mother wanted our discussion to be to stop to prevent from becoming a fight-just because my father was drunk and speaking things too hysterical, contradicting, and trying to put me down.

And as we continue debating, there he spoke too much, too hysterical and event too personal; he even brag to me that he's speaking it too personal and starting to show being a father just to argue, well... I still resist what he's saying despite having a point just because he, a right winger who is even against the reformists, was acting too hysterical, a paranoid especially against the leftists-like me! Even bragging his "democracy" just to counter my "communism."

Since I kept on hearing too much of his words that I even wanted to speak but stopping me off, I started to speak this:


And my father, being onion skinned to be a lawyer, reacted badly and started to speak me badly, really badly for what I have said to him. I spoke it to him for he's speaking too hysterical, too personal that contradicts the way lawyers speak and think, and even trying much to pull me down by showing his actions as a disciplinarian? Of speaking of personal ones in the middle of an intellectual-intended discussion? Perhaps respect for different ideas is not part of his, but rather more of dominating it.

I was quite in doubt what kind of democracy was he saying? Especially to a die-hard right-winger whose side supported the Marcos dictatorship? To me, he, my father, like those of the right-wingers tend to defend "democracy" which in fact a "constitutional authoritarian" type of government, and somehow being a "consitutional authoritarian" tends to show much of an extreme "disciplinarian", of focusing much in controlling through an ideological state apparatus, dictating policies in a pain of opposition while bragging "democracy" to others.
But then,
Despite all of these, the main cause to speak me too much was his drunkeness. So what's the use of arguing if he wanted a fistfight? Bah! That's a desparate action to a once lawyer-to-be with a transcript full of low grades arguing against his son whose grades are worth better than his!