He’s being threatened? And needs to protect himself by carrying 20 firearms?
Never mind that he is a professional boxer—defined as someone who gets paid handsomely to maul another human being. Never mind that, ranged against the ordinary person, Pacquiao is legitimately classified as a dangerous man simply by the way he has been trained to use his fists. Mind only that Pacquiao is now, more than at any other time, a lethal weapon.
If Pacquiao feels that he is being threatened, here’s what he should do: keep a low profile. Buy himself a retreat in some not so well-known place, like maybe
Everyone wants peace of mind and Pacquiao should be no exception. Then, perhaps he should contemplate a change in careers, maybe become a professional sudoku player.
5 comments:
Ted,
I don't understand why you are very hostile to Pacquiao to begrudge his exemption from the gun ban. Is it the number of guns? Would one have been enough for you? Or none at all? Is it his lifestyle? Would it not be reasonable to expect that even if Pacquiao was very discreet and lived simply, anyone who had been watching or reading the news would know his net worth and a threat would still exist? Or is it his sport and his success at it? You would rather that, instead of an exemption, he leave his home for some far away place? How would you feel if someone told you to leave your home? I don't get it. Do you hate him? Or, heaven forbid, do you wish for his demise?
Phil,
Obviously you are a Pacquiao fan. so, I get why you sound upset. Let me answer the questions you posed:
1. "I don't understand why you are very hostile to Pacquiao to begrudge his exemption from the gun ban. Is it the number of guns? Would one have been enough for you? Or none at all?"
I don't believe in private citizens bearing guns--so, yes, none at all would be fine. Guns should be strictly regulated and kept in the hands of people who are trained to handle them and are qualified to use them (this would include being of a sound and stable mental condition).
2. "Is it his lifestyle? Would it not be reasonable to expect that even if Pacquiao was very discreet and lived simply, anyone who had been watching or reading the news would know his net worth and a threat would still exist?"
Conrad de Quiros wrote about this: the difference between Pacquiao and Bata Reyes. One is a self-proclaimed hero the other is an internationally acclaimed and recognized one--guess who is which? And guess why. Bata earns practically the same money Pacquiao does yet you don't see him do and say the things Pacquiao does. And you don't see him asking for 20 guns to protect himself. People know how much Bata probably earns; so is he in danger of being kidnapped. Probably. Except that even those who might be intent on kidnapping him might respect the fact that he has not been rubbing all this wealth in the faces of the starving majority and has been quietly and humbly earning the fruits of his hard-earned labor; unlike Pacquiao--and I don't need to elaborate any further why.
3. "You would rather that, instead of an exemption, he leave his home for some far away place? How would you feel if someone told you to leave your home?"
Like Jessica Zafra, I occasionally use irony; unlike Jessica, I probably don't use it quite as well. So, sometimes, my 3 readers frequently don't get it. That thing about Alaska, that's irony; try to get it. Probably my fault that I don't use irony well; mea culpa.
4. "Do you hate him? Or, heaven forbid, do you wish for his demise?"
Far from it; I wish him well. And part of that is that he learns to be humble so that he does not create more problems for himself.
The problem with Manny Pacquiao and 20 guns is this: he is known to have a violent temper and intemperate habits outside the boxing ring; he is armed with fists that are rightly classified as lethal weapons; he is also very susceptible to suggestion from persons with less than holy or noble motives (vide: the floral-shirt wearing couple and many other hangers-on); add to this very dangerous mix, 20 firearms.
If you're not afraid yet, you should be.
Oh, and in case you still didn't get it, I am a Pacquiao fan. And I'm not being ironic.
Peace, Phil; have a good life.
Ted,
I didn't know Pacquiao had a violent temper. How do you know this?
What I do find ironic is that you seem to have more faith in people who may be intent on kidnapping Pacquiao -- they "might respect the fact that he has not been rubbing all this wealth in the faces of the starving majority and has been quietly and humbly earning the fruits of his hard-earned labor" -- than in Pacquiao.
I'm not even sure that he is "rubbing" his wealth "in the faces of the starving majority". That would be condescension. Watching Pacquiao on TV, I do not sense any condescension.
Lastly, did Pacquiao proclaim himself as a hero? I did not catch that.
If I am upset, it is not because I am a fan of Pacquiao. It is because I found your post unfair. And my guess is, if Pacquiao were not such a supporter of Arroyo, de Quiros would not have written what he wrote. And maybe you too. Peace.
Phil,
I guess we have very different notions of role models and icons--I prefer mine humbler and less arrogant. And I mean that sincerely.
I did not post "Lethal Weapon" because I don't like Gloria and because Pacquiao supports Gloria--that is beside the point. As I said, I'm a fan of Pacquiao IN THE RING, but not out of the ring with the way he conducts himself. It does not matter to me that Pacquiao supports Gloria, he is a great fighter.
As to proclaiming himself a hero, he may not have said it in words but his actions say it all; that is my opinion, by the way, which I believe, I am still entitled to even in the Gloria regime.
Again, I am struck by the contrast between Bata and Pacquiao; their similarities are striking--both were poor and rose to riches on their merits and hard work; both are in sports that could easily lead to vice and to bad habits; but Bata humbly tells people, by his words and his lifestyle, "don't be like me" and does not draw attention to himself; Pacquiao, on the other hand, well . . .
As to violent temper, way back before he became mega famous, you would hear bits and pieces about him in altercations at cockpits and bars--Ask Chino Trinidad, someone who has been following Pacquiao and cares for him deeply but does not hesitate to call his attention to Pacquiao's propensity to abuse his stature.
I'm afraid you got the post wrong if you believe it was being unfair to Pacquiao; I believe--and this is my own opinion again--I was being fair to Manny by not hesitating to let him know when he may have overstepped certain bounds.
And if I do sound upset, it is because I am a Pacquiao fan and I would like to be able to point to him as someone to idolize or to model life after--but unfortunately, with all that he is doing and how he is acting outside the ring, he's not someone I would point to.
Atty. Te, I agree with you completely that Manny Pacquiao's conduct outside the ring is deplorable. The way he flaunts his newly acquired wealth is disgusting, and it's not just the sports car shopping sprees. I once saw him being interviewed on TV, and he had iPod earphones in his ears. Mr. Bigshot Boxer couldn't even be bothered to take out his precious earphones for a few minutes, probably because he wanted to show the world he owns a frickin' iPod.
I also believe he is highly susceptible to the influence and "advice" of those around him, especially opportunistic politicians. Pliable pug + sycophantic scum = scary shit (pardon my French).
In addition, I like how you contrast Pacquiao with the ever modest, unassuming Efren Bata Reyes, a true class act our country can be proud of. Manny can stand to take a page from Bata's book on how to handle success and celebrity.
And for what it's worth, I think you handle irony pretty damn well. :)
Post a Comment