Paid Work For Change
Is blogging about change of less value than actually taking action to spur change? I’ve been pondering this question after a friend of mine pointed out that while some people JUST talk or write about change there are those like him who do actual work. He’d probably say I’m just reading more into what he said but I think it is safe to say that he was assigning values and to him taking action ranks higher than just talking or writing about something.
I will have to agree with him. Action trumps lip service — generally.
Ironically, this friend of mine is also a blogger, a prolific one at that who also writes about changing this country of ours. It was for this reason that I really found it strange that he would imply that there is less value in just talking or writing about change. But, then again, he did say he once became part of change.
My friend supports his claim by harping on the fact that he works for –he prefers “works with” — a lawmaker. By his account, his boss is not just any lawmaker, but one of , if not, the best and probably our country’s hope for salvation. He didn’t actually say it that way but his writings would clearly show that he holds this lawmaker in very high esteem. To this lawmaker’s credit, he has really proven himself to be an achiever. I actually voted for him and would probably do so again if and when we do have elections in 2010.
Lately, this friend of mine has been highlighting his boss’ success in getting several measures relevant to our election system legislated. Here is where my friend makes the big jump. Because of his association to this lawmaker, he now believes that he can rightfully say that he was a part of the “change” his boss worked so hard for. I can understand where he is coming from but is that really the case? I’m not sure. What I’m sure of is that he was rendering paid services to this lawmaker. Following his logic, would it then be safe to say that the lawmaker’s driver was also a part of change?
I don’t mean to undermine my friend’s worth but I will have to disagree with his notion that just writing or talking about change is of lower value than what he did or does. The main difference I see here is that, while he is being paid to help this lawmaker achieve his goals, people who just write or talk about change do so on their own accord. As a staffmember, he is doing paid work; those who just write and talk about change are practically doing volunteer work.
I don’t want to belabor this anymore because, like myself, my friend hates splitting hairs. But I will point out the moral of the story and it is this: If you want to be a part of change go work for a lawmaker. Just kidding. The real moral is this:
Working for change is better than just talking or writing about it. But if through your writing you succeed in inspiring others to take action then that’s good too. It also wouldn’t hurt to get paid for actual services. Patriots have expenses too just like everybody else.
What? Are you too chickenshit to use my name? Or this another one of your loopy attempts at holding things sacred, whatever that is to you.
“Lately, this friend of mine has been highlighting his boss’ success in getting several measures relevant to our election system legislated. Here is where my friend makes the big jump. Because of his association to this lawmaker, he now believes that he can rightfully say that he was a part of the “change” his boss worked so hard for. I can understand where he is coming from but is that really the case? I’m not sure. What I’m sure of is that he was rendering paid services to this lawmaker. Following his logic, would it then be safe to say that the lawmaker’s driver was also a part of change?
So, are you belittling me and the lawmaker’s driver or whatever part we played in getting the automated elections budget passed?”
If there is one thing I have learned from the lawmaker is that even a lowly street sweeper can claim to be part of change just by doing his job and he would be right.
Yeah, I got paid for writing press releases. But let me tell you a number of things I didn’t get paid for:
I didn’t get paid for leaving my family for days on end so that I could go on planning sessions in Subic so that whatever plans and actions intended to change the country could be worked out.
I didn’t get paid for getting sick after tiring myself out from writing an endless number of press releases, letters, statements, AVPs, and what have you.
I didn’t get paid for not getting paid on time, especially during times when I really needed the money to pay for stuff like electric bills, my son’s vaccinations, my father in law’s medicines, and other things that my allowance normally allows me to spend on.
I didn’t get paid for a lot of other things and you know what, it’s all right. These are sacrifices that I know I have to make in order to bring change to this country and may be that may seem funny to you, so go ahead laugh your head off.
I didn’t get paid for believing that somehow it will be possible to make real changes in this country of ours.
And you know what? Whatever I am doing beats your blogging about change because you, of all the people I know, will not put his words into action. (Unless, of course, that means asking me to engage in a fist fight — which you know I will not do.)
If you prove me wrong, it will be to your credit and your improvement.
If you prove me right, you better stop blogging all together because you lack credibility in all that you will say from this point onwards.
[Reply]
Huwag mo nang i-post yung comment ko.
[Reply]
please try to read the posts carefully before making assumptions. whatever your opinons are about my blogging and me, thank you. let’s all just work for change. i’ll start by sweeping the dirt on our street.
[Reply]
btw, i agree there are those who work for politicians because they really believe what they stand for. but, let’s face the fact: majority do so simply for economic reasons. some do it for the salary others for the concessions they will get once their politician gets elected into office. there’s no way to deny this. no amount of melodrama can refute this fact of life.
[Reply]