<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for GFdelaCruz</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/GFdelaCruz/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/GFdelaCruz/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 03:32:16 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Philippine Flag As Body Paint</title><link>http://www.glitchline.com/2008/06/philippine-flag-as-body-paint.html#comment-689444</link><description>&lt;p&gt;" ... the law never states that the flag should not be [body] painted ... "&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;And so, by citing an omission in the law to defend his choice for the cover of his magazine, the editor demonstrates for his countrymen how a propensity for semantics has brought us to this, the current state of the nation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Instead of dismissing it as "lame", let us look at this editor's explanation as an excellent example of how quoting the letter of the law to justify one's authority, instead of respecting the intent of the law in the fulfillment of one's responsibility, is a weakness that squanders credibility, erodes community, and undermines country.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is befitting that this editor, a proponent of the private sector and of the press, has provided an anecdote by which we can remind, help, and even beg our leaders to steel their backs against the temptation of asserting the scope of their prerogatives by quoting terms or citing their lack, and instead form, firm up and refine their own definition of duty based on the spirit of our laws, for the sake of our children.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">GFdelaCruz</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 03:32:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Philippine Flag As Body Paint</title><link>http://www.glitchline.com/2008/06/philippine-flag-as-body-paint.html#comment-683042</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;"The law never states that the flag should not be [body] painted"&lt;/em&gt; ... by citing an omission in the law to defend his choice for the cover of his magazine, the editor of Rogue demonstrates how a propensity for semantics has brought us to this, the current state of our nation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Instead of dismissing it as a cop-out, I would prefer to view this editor's response to his critics as a candid and serendipitous example of how quoting the &lt;em&gt;letter&lt;/em&gt; of the law to justify one's authority, rather than respecting the law's &lt;em&gt;intent&lt;/em&gt; in the fulfillment of one's responsibilities, is a weakness that communicates contempt for the people being served. Is it not contemptuous of the editor to assert that the &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; meaning of a rule of civility has been obvious to him but has escaped and contradicts the understanding of the common man?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In effect, this editor, a member of the private sector and of the press, has provided an ironically appropriate anecdote by which we can remind, help, and even beg our leaders to resist the temptation to merely assert their prerogatives under the letter of the law, and instead look to the spirit of the law when facing the difficult decisions we have asked them to make for us and for our children.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">GFdelaCruz</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:25:22 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>