| Welcome to Sacre Coeur Bulletin. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Draft: Heroes (editorial) | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 1 2011, 04:30 PM (132 Views) | |
| typewriter | Jun 1 2011, 04:30 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Ctrl + Alt + Del
|
1 Ferdinand Marcos was called a dictator because of his abusive and cruel rule when he was still in the position. He was long dead but issues regarding his burial place is still an issue today. A lot has been opposing to his burial at Libingan ng Mga Bayani in Fort Bonifacio. The Marcos family are actively campaigning to have Marcos be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. We all know that the Marcos are very influential and powerful even today. 2 Marcos’ reign was one of the most powerful times of the Philippines. The economy is doing very well with PHP3.95 to USD1 exchange rate. If you would imagine this kind of situation today, this is merely impossible with the problems that the economy has been facing right now. He has done a lot of infrastructural projects, political reforms, land reforms and improved the international diplomacy of the country. He sent workers abroad to decrease the number of the unemployed and at the same time, to improve the country’s economy. During his first term, he has killed the corruption in the government. Besides from all of this, he was also considered as a hero during World War II when he led a guerrilla force called “Ang Maharlika” in Northern Luzon. 3 Libingan ng mga Bayani translated into English, “Heroes Cemetery,” speaks out for its definition. It is a place for those who had done a patriotic act to the country. Looking at Marcos’ contributions to the development of the country, he has done a pretty good job when he was in position. But what makes critics to oppose to this decision was the massive destruction that his family has done while in position. 4 He was engaged in different graft and corruption activities in the government. It was later alleged that he and his wife had moved billions of dollars of hidden public funds into different countries during his 2 years in reign. It was also reported that he has took 24 suitcases of gold bricks and diamond jewelry with him in his passage to Hawaii. But that doesn’t just end there. When the palace was seized, it was discovered that his first lady had around 3,400 pair of shoes. Enough to be listed as the world’s largest collection of shoes. He declared Martial Law because of the Communist rebellion against the government. He killed, imprisoned and tortured his political rivals. Whatever side you look at, no one would find his act reasonable. Oppositions against the Marcos administration rose and one of those is the current President’s father, Ninoy Aquino who was a senator at that time. Upon his return to the Philippines from his exile in the United States, he was assassinated and one of the suspected criminals was the dictator. 5 Libingan ng mga Bayani is a burial place dedicated to the Philippines’ heroes. I don’t know how did an act of betrayal became a heroic act. I don’t think Marcos has done enough good things to deserve a place in the said burial place. No, I’m not saying that we should hate him. Hate the sin but love the sinner. Look at what he has all done, from the good points to the bad ones. It’s concerns the country and I think the mass has the right to take part on making the decisions. |
![]() |
|
| Seraph | Jun 1 2011, 05:31 PM Post #2 |
|
I AM LEGION
|
Woohoo, submissions! From my memory, he's the only president who actually made the Philippines a great country. Problem is, the peoples' desires are more visceral. If you ask me he should've been free to take all the money he wanted, since as long as I can remember he was a good president, regardless of his crimes. The only thing that was bad here is that the Filipinos want to be independent and free, then they move to other countries because they feel that the Philippines isn't a good country at all, whether they be conscious about the thought that the Philippines is one of the worst countries in the world, or whether they just think that other countries are better - they all mean the same thing. If we were to assign some sort of "Golden Age" for our country, it would most definitely be his time as a ruler. Greed is bad because it destroys a man, but that much better because it drives him to search for wealth, which, no matter how much you deny it, is necessary. It is the source of sins, but it's also the source and product of prosperity.
What the hell do you think got us into this situation in the first place? It's like the Spaniards or the Americans. They colonized our country, and took how long to grant us our independence, and with good reason, too. Sure the Spaniards were oppressive but they had good reason. The natives were very incompetent to European standards (basically it's our fault - you can't keep tolerating such things, now can you?). Both Milkfish-Milkfish and the other leaders made the right decisions - one was to ally ourselves with the Spaniards, which would've resulted in a somewhat less violent invasion if an invasion at all, maybe even just a settlement. The other correct decision was to attempt to keep hold of our territory, since understandably if they conquered our lands... well, they did. Now, the epic douchebag who tried to resist with every ounce of nationalism he can carry with him, failed epicly. Sure, he killed Magellan, and that was the right thing to do at the moment, and he succeeded as well. Five minutes later, however, making friends seemed to be a very good idea, since more or less the only factor I see that led to the burning down of houses was one of our people's violent reaction. We all think that the Spaniards were going to invade us anyway and that there were no other possible outcomes. Four and a half centuries later, we had another person like that, whose son we just elected to be the president. But back to the question. Was he a patriot? No. Did he contribute to the development of our country? Just about as much as the Spaniards and Americans. |
Nihil verum. Omnia licitus.![]() ![]() ![]() Signatures made by Seraph deviantART Flickr Wordpress | |
![]() |
|
| typewriter | Jun 9 2011, 05:02 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Ctrl + Alt + Del
|
Get ready! 1
A dictator is a dictator when he is a dictator, regardless of the intensity of his cruelty and the extent of his abuse. Even if you have the kindest, most awesome head of state, if the form of the government is totalitarian, it's a dictatorship and the leader is a dictator. Of course, in that set-up, it's not difficult to imagine a leader tempted to abuse the privileges of his position. When he was still in the position Which position? We all know he's the president, but it should be stated clearly the first time. The same vagueness plagues this sentence: A lot has been opposing to his burial at Libingan ng Mga Bayani in Fort Bonifacio. What's a lot?. Everything has to be clear. You may want to sort of combine both points of the first two sentences, stress on the fact that the issue's been going on in a long while and that FM is better known for his role as a dictator than for his questionable heroic exploits: 2
Most of these suffer from being too wordy. Marcos' reign...The economy is doing very well.... You can simply say: Exchange rate under his (leadership/tenure/rule) was... The facts will speak for the argument that his reign was one of the 'more powerful times' (the phrase is vague) instead of stating it clearly as fact that it was simply better. Also, you failed to mention whether the rate was an average in his entire term, the rate when he assumed power, when he implemented Martial Law or prior to/just right after his fall. Remember that the Marcos years weren't entirely prosperous (otherwise who'd support his bitter rivals when they cried foul), nor extremely difficult from the start to finish (see the instances of the good stuff you mentioned). It would matter, because if it was immediately right after his victory it's mostly to Diosdado Macapagal's credit; if it was around the time he's finishing his first term it would be because he was doing something right- or at least not as wrong as his latter years. But it wouldn't matter because strength of currency =/= good economy. We've both examples of strong and weak currencies in both good and bad economies . The more important indicator is the stability of currencies. 3
Fewer but longer sentences will improve this statement's impact. 4
Specify sources, dates and other facts if you can to make your points more believable and arguments more convincing. Which two years in his long reign? Who did the report on the gold bricks and diamond jewelry?
In this case you are encouraged to take a more aggressive tone when relating a story. This will intensify the build up you're trying to achieve. Put lines that will connect the points of the plot: transferring money, taking gold on the way to exile, discovery of shoes. You may say: Between xx-xx Marcos and his First Lady... or The First couple allegedly took... then On his way to Hawaii... When the people (who are these people?) stormed/seized/whatever the Palace/their residence/Malacanan...
We all know the rebellions were good and valid reasons to declare Martial Law but more than that, it was that ONE justification he was looking for to enforce tyranny that could be sanctioned by the international community living in the age of Cold War. Stress it: The communist rebellions justified his imposition/declaration of Martial Law. In the same period he ordered imprisonment, torture and murder/killing of political rivals. Note that the words are ordered in degrees of intensity: imprisoning then torturing and finally, killing. The relation of the enforcement of Martial Law paving way to granting him easier means to do the incarcerations is also established more clearly. FInally, note that I added the word 'ordered', because it wasn't him who personally did the killings- at least most of them.
This is a well-placed and well-written assessment. But again, specify. What's his act? How did they rise? No need to write the descriptor 'the current President's father'. And as much of possible connect your sentences: The acts of violence witnessed in the period of Martial Law will always be deemed unreasonable in any angle one chooses to view it from. He remains as a primary suspect in the assassination of one of his more prominent detractors, the late Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr. on the latter's return to the Philippines from exile in the United States. The two ideas upon rewriting are more remarkably unrelated. So, I would suggest that you switch their order, because the assassination is connected to the abuses (imprisonment, torture, killing) and the conclusion goes after the mention. 5
Betrayal to?
It's not because all the good he's done is never enough. Mere enlistment in the duty is a guarantee of a slot in LNMB, wartime participation is even more reason to 'enshrine' a deceased soldier's body there. But the bad negates all these heroics- especially when it was done in such magnitude, especially when it tainted forever the reputation of the Office of the President of the Philippines. There are qualifications, which he's fulfilled, regardless of the veracity of his supposed tall tales of valiance; but he disqualified himself, undid all that by all the monstrosities he'd done after his military career.
It's concerns: It concerns Love the sinner, hate the sin is cliche and it does not belong here. Pretty weak, considering that you've pulled the 'unreasonable' card in a premature conclusion. I also would respectfully disagree with you on your last statement. There are rules, as I said, qualifications. This is why P-Noy, though understandably emotional, was wrong when he said he's unqualified to decide because he's obviously biased against Ferdinand Marcos. Because it doesn't have to be subjective in the first place. To run for presidency, you must be at a certain age, you must be born Filipino and Comelec states that you must be able to amount to a certain sum of money, to be able to facilitate a nationwide campaign, otherwise, you're simply a nuisance candidate. Comelec can't say you can't run for president because you're a Marcos and therefore, related to the abusive dictator, or simply because its chairman hate your guts, or you will look ugly and ridiculous in a campaign poster. To earn a slot in LNMB is the same. It's guided by rules, and if you do not qualify, that's it. Goodbye chances of getting that plot. And this is why I don't think the opinion of the masses would still matter in this specific case. You can love Ferdinand, hate him, be apathetic about the issue because it's just a wee piece of lot- it doesn't matter. He forfeited his chances, end of story. You could either argue for this fact while presenting the same reasons as to why a bad guy to the state's chances are nil, or do a major revision. conclusion: Well, do not let the long commentary discourage you. Do you know that I was in awe when I was reading your editorial? You do write well. And I was amazed with how much you've grown as a writer, and was equally surprised that you know that much, or at least researched well enough to come up with this. The nitpickings were merely suggestions to solidify more your writing, make them more fluid, more engaging, more persuasive. There were too few errors in grammar too. Whether you did a good job at rereading and rewriting or you simply know your English, it is commendable. Structure needs a little rework. You nailed it, just make sure you: 1. Always see to it that they are presented in a logical sequence, when we read, we rationalize, we work our brains in the limits of time and space, so you must sequence them well- cause and effect, which was a cause to another effect and so on. 2. Cut your paragraphs short. One main idea, one paragraph. This is elementary composition lesson, but we tend to neglect them when doing more complex compositions such as editorials. I want you to read more, follow the news and practice writing more. Of course, I always say them because that's how writers improve- they absorb the ideas they learn from reading and put it to practice through writing. If you stop writing, you will not just stop improving. You will also lose the little tricks you've picked up but sparsely used in the course of your progress. -I'll edit the paragraph spacing later |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Raw Material · Next Topic » |











10:50 PM Jul 11