Foreign Policy unveils its list of The Top 100 Public Intellectuals (based on certain criteria) and asks readers to vote for their own top 5 (you can also write-in a candidate).

I voted for:

Umberto Eco (I first encountered him when I was 14 and picked up a copy of “The Name of the Rose” that someone left on the bus; another novel of his I enjoyed was “Foucault’s Pendulum” though it’s his essays I enjoy the most, for example his essay on computer operating systems, and his collected works, like “How to Travel with a Salmon: And Other Essays”; but also, “On Ugliness” is a marvelous demonstration on what his profession’s all about).

Anne Applebaum (I’ve read “Gulag: A History” and follow her articles on Slate).

Ian Baruma (I’ve read “The Wages of Guilt: Memories of War in Germany and Japan”, and “Inventing Japan: 1853-1964″, and most recently, “Murder in Amsterdam: The Death of Theo van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance”)

i view Appleabaum and Baruma as of a piece: their reflections on authoritarian uses of power, are, well, powerful, indeed.

Malcolm Gladwell (who hasn’t read “The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference”? Or at least heard the phrase used ad nauseam?)

Jeffrey Sachs (you know, “The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time”)

You can find their bios here.

Voting closes on May 15!

John Nery and I have a shared, pre-PDI heritage, and that’s having been onetime workers in Today Newspaper. But John was involved in the news-gathering side of it. For my part, I was mentored by Teddyboy Locsin (our Publisher) in opinion writing -in the grand manner of his father, Teodoro M. Locsin who once wrote of himself, “I thundered and shrilled -that is, I wrote editorials.”

And I’m sure you’ve noticed the difference -I tend to be more heated, more willing to pick a fight, on paper than John does, and he tends to be more analytical, more interested in nuance and the facts, less inclined to partisanship.

But you know, at the end of the day every writer will, sooner or later, cross pens with another.

On April 22, John’s column, Armchair radicals, came out (I’m linking to the version of his column on his blog, because it has all the relevant links embedded in it), which was a response to the various criticisms-as-responses to recent suggested guidelines circulated by the Jesuits. John specifically set out to dissect Jesuitic placebo by Filomeno Sta. Ana III and Manuel Buencamino.

A jolly all-in-the-family rumble, I said, all of the writers being Ateneans and reacting to their Jesuit mentors’ political prescription. Nery and Buencamino also happen to be columnists who also happen to be bloggers. The merry mix-up, if you want to see more, is all laid out over at Ateneans Act.

Well, sure enough, a counter-response came out, titled Teachers Pwet. Meanwhile, John started a response in A Dear John letter, but hasn’t gone back to it.

My own views are closer to John’s in theory, perhaps, though emotionally I’m happier with the aggressiveness of Sta. Ana and Buencamino (you don’t have to go further back than two recent columns of mine, The 2010 Movement and Resistance isn’t futile ).

What’s interesting -aside from the arguments themselves, both stylistically and in terms of content- is that they’re taking place in several places: in the newspapers, in message boards, in columns and in blogs. It’s all part of a larger clash of contending views on what should be done (but you can go to my own blog to read more about that). For now, check out these blog entries: If you ran this country… by Jim Paredes (also an Atenean), I am Change, Are You? by Harvey Key (also an Atenean) who’s inviting students and young professionals to the first-ever TEAM RP GENERAL ASSEMBLY: Saturday, 26 April, 1PM (more on this from Chronicles from the Middle of Nowhere).

Now is this all only of interest to Ateneo de Manila alumni? I think not, not being an Atenean myself.

What do you think?

We’re back! Who’s glad?