Monday, August 28, 2006

It's 2:00 AM..

It's 2:00 AM. I am fully awake although I did not drink any coffee. I am fully fired up, pumping with adrenaline just as I would if I had done my time in the treadmill (that's why some do not recommend exercising in the evening, since it boosts the adrenaline in your system, keeping you in a high state of alertness).

I have just concluded answering my e-mail and reading the blogs of various personalities, capping a four-hour straight marathon in front of my computer. I have been reading, absorbing and answering the reactions the impeachment vote last wed-thu, particularly the position that i took during that vote...well, I think I've explained myself enough.

A question that comes to my mind after all that mental exercise is, is there a point to answering all these emails? Am I just wasting my time giving a detailed response to each and every email to me? Actually, I can simply send back an acknowledgment (" thank you for writing, I will ponder on what you said...") and therefore disqualify any comment that I don;t respond to messages sent to me.

But that would be a disservice to the public. As a public official, I do have that obligation to respond. And respond substantially. The public deserves, and it actually it's their right, to be answered by government officials.

That is the reason why in spite of the demise of two impeachment complaints, people are still seeking answers to the questions brought about by the Garci Tapes...they were never answered. Not then, not now.


ellen said...

It's never a waste of time listening to the people.

It also shows sensitivity on your part to take time out listening and responding to critical views.

I may not agree with your stand but i understand.

Cris Ericson said...

Hi! I have enjoyed reading some of your blog. My name is Cris Ericson and I'm a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in the Primary Election in Vermont, U.S.A. September 12, 2006. I was in a television debate with one of my opponents on August 24, 2006 and I stated that Impeachment proceedings should be brought against U.S.A. President George W. Bush, "to see if he's a really good guy or a really bad guy". The t.v. debate can be heard over the internet on Podcast:
Cris Ericson debates Rich Tarrant

Ruffy Biazon said...


Thank you for your comment. I've been a member of congress for almost six years now and the basic principle and practice in the performance of my job is to listen and respond to my constituents and the general public, whether they agree with my views or not.

I have always believed that democracy is not just about numbers. It's about the free exchange of ideas and the openness to be convinced by one's opponent.


Thank you for visiting my blog. I hope that someday I may be able to brag that a US Senator is a reader of my blog. NOt only that, I hope that somehow my ideas will make its way into your own views. :)

Good luck in your elections!

Yuko Takei said...

At least, you did not vote "No", and that makes a difference. Still, it would have made a big difference if you went there and voted "Yes to Impeachment!" Majority of Filipinos would have wanted that even just to prove that democracy in the Philippines is not dead.

On the other hand, why can't this creep not just disqualified for even suspicion of rigging the election. Over here it is a good ground for mobilizing a massive manhunt when Garcillano disappeared and he would not have gotten scotfree and not get arrested for trying to hoodwink everyone!

I'm actually disappointed, but not being a citizen of the Philippines, I can only make comments!

Yuko Takei said...

This should read: On the other hand, why can't this creep not just BE disqualified for even suspicion of rigging the election. The Election Code provide for that since when she ran for the presidency, she was supposed to be no longer a government official but just another candidate. In fact, she should have been arrested for sedition for admitting to be a planner of the EDSA 2 even a year before it happened.