Selective accusations can boomerang

There is an apparent campaign through the email that runs on the argument that Senator Manny Villar is out to buy his way to the presidency. The argument is anchored on the fact that Villar is a multi-billionaire and therefore has a very hefty war chest.

In this country, a person who is poor is disqualified because the logic goes that he cannot mount a successful campaign. On the other hand, if a person is rich, the suspicion is he will buy his way to victory, and once in office recover his "investment" by enriching himself.

Those who say this must be speaking from their own experiences, experiences that have forever polluted their way of thinking, making them incapable of accepting things for what they are without ascribing any ill motives.

Villar used to be poor but worked hard to make himself rich. With the exception of the C-5 issue, a political hatchet job that has been sufficiently answered, no indication exists that he amassed all his riches through fraudulent means.

It is not the fault of Villar that he is rich. If God has chosen to bless him with wealth why should anyone question that wisdom. From the equality with which God made all of us, it is not right and proper to begrudge those who strove to make themselves better off than the others.

If we must question the rich for their riches, then doesn't it make it necessary, as a matter of fairness, to also question the poor for their continued poverty? Villar started poor, remember?

Now that he has money, what right has anyone to question how he spends it, even if he spends it on a quest for the presidency? If he spends more than the other candidates, it is because he is richer than them, so is there a problem?

The presidency is but one quest among many that humans engage in. Everyone at the malls is always looking for a way to spend money. Do you begrudge then those who have more to spend? Do you get consumed with envy that the person ahead at the cashier has bought more than you?

If that is your way of thinking, then you better quit the human race. Go live in the mountains with the rattlesnakes because you probably would understand each other. But for as long as you remain rational, you have to accept the inquality of things with an open mind.

It is wrong to single out Villar on the matter of spending because everybody spends in an election, only that they vary in the degrees. Some spend more because they have more, and some spend less because they have less. That is not enough distinction to pass judgment on character

But if the object of rancor is the motive for spending, then what applies to Villar must also apply to everyone else. If Villar is buying the presidency for a billion, then Noynoy Aquino and the others are also buying the presidency for a few millions less (the cheapskates!).

You see, in the context of all this, what applies to Villar can and must be applied equally to Aquino and the others, or else we are being selective in our arguments, in which case we are no better than the accusations we make. In fact, we become what we accuse Villar of.

Why would someone spend so much for a job that pays so little? Once in office, would they not steal to recover the investment and steal some more for the rainy days? Valid questions, but only because that is how we want to see the world. But does it have to be that way all the time?

Most of the vilest critics of Villar are clamoring for change. They are actually paying mere lip service to change. Any change must come from within, including cleaning our minds of any cobwebs and our hearts of any trapped farts. Only then can change creep back to our lives.

Without accepting things for what they are, we will never understand why anyone would pay millions of dollars to ride along with astronauts as space tourists, or strap themselves to a rollercoaster whose integrity depends solely on the laws of physics and gravity.