CDQ – Do you have an axe to grind against paralytics?

Tonight, I read this article of Mr. Conrado de Quiros following a link posted in Facebook. It was about Mar Roxas and Manny Pacquiao. What I’d like to take issue with is his last statement. As I don’t want to be accused of taking something out of context, here is the part leading to what I’m worried/wondering about:

The second has to do with Manny Pacquiao. I really wish he’d just be an ambassador of goodwill rather than a politician. I really wish he’d just spend his time inspiring his countrymen with what he has done in the ring than depressing them with what he has done in the circus, also called the House. His political pursuits do not represent a promise, they represent a threat. Particularly so with the company he keeps. Not the least of them Chavit Singson, who refuses to leave his side before and after the fight. I have yet to see a photograph accompanying the various articles about the fight that doesn’t have him there beside Pacquiao. Lito Atienza used to do that, too, during Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s time, but he bit the dust a long time ago. It’s just Singson there now.

He is not the coach, he is not the trainer, he is not the cut man. He is not anything that remotely represents having to do with boxing. Other, of course, than gambling, which is the one vice that dogs boxing like muggers do solitary figures in the dead of night. You wonder what kind of values he can impart to his protégé. You wonder what lessons in politics he can teach his ward.

It’s as a boxer that Pacquiao means the world to this country. It’s as a Filipino who has stormed the world in some human endeavor, rising from abject want to unparalleled glory—his feat of demolishing the most feared fighters of his time, indeed his feat of conquering English, or wrestling it down, during interviews, which speaks of heroic striving more than the first, is truly one to admire. It is truly one to inspire.

You want to go from that to just being a politician?

That’s jumping from the sublime to the paralytic.

Read more:
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
Being a paraplegic myself, I feel offended/slighted/insulted somehow. Apolinario Mabini was referred to as “The Sublime Paralytic”, I know. So apparently, in the past, one could be both. Not so anymore, is that what CDQ is saying? And if sublime is up there, then being paralytic — is he saying it’s something so low?
Lest CDQ think I am deluding myself into thinking I’m sublime, perish the thought sir. I’ll be the first to tell you I’m, not, but I find it nasty that you should put us so low in the scheme of things. I’m sure that somewhere out there is a  human being who is both a paralytic and sublime. And certainly, we don’t deserve to be looked down upon, which is how you make us out to be via your last statement.

Screen Shot 2014-04-16 at 11.24.36 PMImage from