Post for Apr 15-21 2018

As the Holy Scriptures (the Word of God) was given to us for free, to be disseminated or spread for free so that all may hear, so are the contents of this blog.  They are offered to all who will accept and use whatever good it contains for the common good, for all to benefit.

Still groping for topics and it is getting more difficult to maintain a 4-TaN post for I will be reducing it to 2 or 3 (but I will try when possible to have 4 TaNs or more)…btw, for those who are trying to respond to this blog, please be advised that it is intended to be for my personal online thoughts and I am not exactly expecting reactions or responses.  However, if you really desire to send responses and to avoid having my host site repeatedly remind me to moderate reactions to what I blog, please direct them to <em><a href=”mailto:millenniumoracle@yahoo.com”>millenniumoracle@yahoo.com</a></em>.  Thank you.

Btw, thanks for all the kind words.  Please consider everything in this blogspot as common good and public domain.  For as long as it conforms to the conditions and provisions of the Fair Use Notice, by all means, cite and quote all that you need.  Everything is free; cannot be used for financial gain, whether personal or otherwise, and all for the common good of and for all.

And, if you have anything to share with me, like a video or article, I am only interested in anything that is available and downloadable for free and no copyright — and requiring that I enrol or register or somehow provide personal and private information in exchange (for anything) is not free.  This is in line with my advocacy for sharing everything with everyone for free and for the common good.  Anything I cannot download or share or have to join before I will be given the privilege to download…I am not interested.  It is written that what you have received for free, you must give (away) for free.  Thank you.

Btw, I forgot to update this explanation and lame excuse because I have finally caught up to date and even have advanced posts and I hope to maintain and keep this current from now on but I am not discounting that I may (sometime in the near future) to be late in my posting (again) because my connection to cyberspace is getting more embarrassingly deplorable with each passing payment cycle.  It is partly due to the state of telecommunications industry in this country, which is an unofficial cartel.  The other part is that I am using, what can be considered, one of the, if not the pitiful proprietary operating system around but I have no choice as I have to access to the better ones aside from the fact that I no longer have any opportunity to learn any other, not without unlearning everything and start from scratch, which is impractical at my age.  Finally, since I rely only on what is freely available, as they say…Beggars cannot be choosers.  That is life.

[<strong><em>NOTA BENE</em></strong>: Any and all advertisements and other intrusive insertions, especially those with hopes of financial gains, in this blog are absolute and completely unauthorized and utterly immoral.  Please boycott whatever rubbish their are trying to get you to patronize, purchase, or otherwise exact revenue from this blog’s readers.  This blog is for free and expects any and all who would like to quote, cite or otherwise use material content or ideas or issues posted whether in part or whole to do the same for whatever purpose they may have.

Post for Apr 8-14 2018

TaN: In the issue regarding the National ID to replace all existing government-issued IDs, it is misleading.  It should have been phrased that the National ID system will replace all government-issued IDs that are designed for identification purposes only but will not be applicable to instances beyond identification.

It is misleading to claim that the National ID will be able to replace all current government-issued IDs because one clear instance is the driver’s license, where this particular license is or serves as a privilege (to be) earned by a person in order that s/he can drive a car.  The way the National ID is being touted as an end-all to all IDs, this would imply that any National ID holder will be entitled to drive a car and that the ID will serve as a driver’s license — all without having to pass a driver’s test.  This can only happen — and is happening in the United States of America — when driver’s education is being taught to all citizens in their senior high school curriculum.

Every person must go through the educational system otherwise those living in the remotest regions of the country, though entitled to the National ID, will most probably not have driving skills.  Can they use the National ID as a driver’s license?

Moreover, the National ID cannot literally replace all government-issued IDs because there are certain IDs that are exclusive — such as the SSS versus the GSIS.

TaN: In the article in the hardcopy issue of The Philippine STAR titled “Rody: I love Xi Jinping” for April 10 (Wednesday), it only shows and proves or vindicates the saying that “A bully bows to a bigger bully“.

Bullies are really insecure people who have very little or low self-esteem.  They fear that others will look down on them and not take them seriously.  In this regard, they tend to (over)compensate by preempting other people and acting like a thug or a strongman (in order to project an image of a tough guy and neighborhood ruffian) to hide their insecurities.  They “export or imperialize” their insecurity under the guise of being a roughneck to intimidate and convince others of their being someone to be given courtesy.  In truth, they mistake avoidance and fear from others as respect.

Bullies are “tough or brave” only when they know they are at a clear advantage and are a sure-win or they can bluff the other party.  They talk tough but are really full of hot air.  They bully others into submission whenever the opportunity presents itself — like when they are in (a position of) power or know they can get away with it.

They project an image of confidence and authority bordering on arrogance and conceit.  However, when caught without their usual “backups” (i.e., henchmen, lackies, stooges, toadies, or mindless simpletons who blindly do the bidding of their master and laugh at their master’s littlest jokes and puns no matter how distasteful or abasive or demeaning to others) or alone with only their wits, they quickly reveal their true cowardly nature — short of pee in their pants.

Only cowards and bullies feel the need to explicitly and expressedly display and flaunt their arrogance and impunity for their “audience” — and feed their ego.

But returning to topic, in the case of Mr Jinping, at least his bullying is all in the name of China.  But, in the case of Mr Duterte, he appears to be only after his own interests (while masquerading it all as his nationalism, patriotism, and love of country.  Mr Duterte’s excuse for kissing the ass of Mr Jinping is that China is too powerful and it would be insanity and suicide to engage China in an all-out war — so he “turns a blind eye and even serving as lawyer” as China transgresses and trespasses into and seizes what is clearly Philippine territory.

Mr Duterte’s inability and impotency to man up to, face, and challenge Mr Jinping by giving lame excuses.  His latest sad excuse is when he told an audience that he can always declare war on China but who will he send in on the suicide mission to go up against China…his soldiers and policemen.  This is just his way of expressing his motto: Better a live coward living on bended knees than a dead hero. Oh, how our national heroes are turning in their graves.

TaN: Government services, unless it is tasked or chartered as a revenue generating agency or process (such as that of the Treasury or Finance and agencies such as Customs and Internal Revenue), everything should be freely provided to the public — especially because it is mandated by law or government policy — with minimal or no cost.  The government must not earn from these services, such as documentary stamps and clearances and many other things that are attached, after all, whatever fees (such as library or whatever) is covered by their salary and whatever materials (such as documentary stamps) are covered by their budget.

The only time a minimal charge can be imposed is when there are additional materials or services included that are beyond the capability of government, such as laminating services and identification cards like driver’s licenses and postal ids — and even these should only be charged at cost or what it costs the government to outsourced to the private sector (because they are either needed for security or durability purposes).  Additional expenses for the public should be justifiable and not just a mere opportunity to milk the already-impoverished public — Note: It must be remembered that a great majority of the population are way below the average middle class (i.e., the lower segment of the middle class).  It is an entirely different situation if the a large majority of the population are financially doing okay where the additional financial expenses from transacting with government can comfortably be shouldered.

Moreover, government should not think up of imaginative and creative ways to add to the burden of the public in the name or under the guise of some made-up requirement or policy for public services that directly deals with the people — such as obtaining certifications and clearances and permits.

No wonder there is so much corruption in government.  There is so much sources of money to be siphoned off from the hapless population.  One of the principal sources of corruption are the charges that government levies on what should be provided to the public for free.  Another are the supposed projects that are proposed in the name of public service — mostly infrastructure or village beautification or youth sports or even vital programs with components that are easy targets or wellsprings to overpricing or misdeclare.

Whatever the alleged reason, there is so much money to be “made” from government due to its taxation power and this is where the danger (and temptation) lies — remembering the forewarning in 1 Timothy 6:10, “For the LOVE of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (KJV), [emphasis mine].  It is the LOVE OF MONEY and not MONEY (per se) that is the ROOT OF ALL EVIL

TaN: As I was (re-)viewing some old episodes of NCIS [(Naval Criminal Investigative Service)], I came across one in its fourth season where Chief Medical Examiner Donald “Ducky” Mallard, MD, portrayed by the late David McCallum, was being quizzed in preparation for his upcoming forensic psychology examination regarding the difference between ethics and morals, his (dialogue) response was brilliant (but I paraphrase because I cannot recall the exact lines): An ethical person knows that he should not cheat on his wife; a moral person will not.

Although many find it difficult to differentiate between ethics and morality, it becomes easier to understand when it is put into the context of an analogy or a comparison — as was done in the aforementioned incident dialogue in the long-running television action drama series of NCIS (of the United States of America).

I like that example and I think I will keep it in my repertoire for when I have to explain or illustrate the difference between ethics and morality.

Furthermore, it has been a nagging issue — the double standard between men and women with regard to (in)fidelity — but the solution is quite simple, always remember: “The sauce for the goose is also the sauce for the gander.” In other words, if you (the spouse) can do it, so can I and don’t you go about pontificating it.

In conclusion, it is interesting that, every now and then, I come across lessons and examples which reignite the fading glimmer or spark of hope that the world is sinking ever deeper into.

Post for Apr 1-7 2018

TaN: In the controversy regarding the pull out of Uber from the Philippines, it suddenly dawned on me that the concept of TNVS (transport network vehicle service) is ride-sharing — which implies that there are car owners who use their cars for only a small segment of each day and the rest of the time it is simply sitting there doing nothing productive.  It is probably an idea borrowed from the SETI (search for extra terrestrial intelligence) project where a collaborative effort to use the “down time” of global online computers as a massive integrated “supercomputer” — or, if not, it is very similar in concept.

In the same manner, the TNVS shares this same concept — whose purpose is to augment the existing taxi system that may not have enough units to service the demand of the riding public.  My epiphany is that it is supposed to be a ride-sharing scheme and this implies the use of pre-existing but “idle” cars already in the system.  However, what has happened, in the case of the Philippines, is that people went out to buy cars in order to take advantage of this (new) scheme of augmenting the family income.  This runs counter to the whole idea of ride-sharing because the cars, instead of being pre-existing, became deliberately bought for the principal purpose of creating income and not simply to capitalize or optimize the “productiveness” of idle cars.

In other words, they are — for all intents and purposes — mere taxis and just using another term to define them, but you know what they say, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet (a quote from William Shakespeare’s romantic tragedy “Romeo and Juliet“.

But I digress.  So going back to topic, I have always and consistently and persistently maintaining and advocating — in all pertinent TaNs in the past — that foreign investments should not be a priority, not even foreign lending institutions that address or provide financial assistance facilities for public projects such as infrastructures.  These only push the country deeper into debt and is a principal source of corruption.

Even “no-strings attached” foreign financial assistance (from other countries) are never really “no-strings” — as the saying goes, “There is no such thing as a free lunch” and “One does not get something for nothing“.  There is always a catch.

In any case, foreign investments is good or beneficial but I would not pin my hopes in them too much.  Investments, whether foreign or domestic, have only one (common) concern…the bottom line.  In the case of foreign assistance or aid, the angle is not so much the profit but other “amenities” that are to be had — such as gaining access to natural resources, receiving special incentives or advantages over rivals, or some other “tit for tat”.

In the case of Uber, it would appear that, true to form of the modern profit-driven corporation, it is only in for the profitability.  Once it is no longer profitable — i.e., in the modern context, profitability is defined as experiencing ever greater or increasing financial returns (and not in the traditional “outdated” definition of achieving a positive fiscal net return or bottom line at the end of the fiscal year) — it is time to pull up stakes and look for greener pastures, never mind the concerns and plight or status of those poor souls dependent on the business for their income and financial needs and leave them to fend for themselves.

It is really sad and deplorable that such manners of doing business goes unchecked and as the culture of profit-only mentality spreads progressively, though it is expected for it has already been written in the Holy Scriptures for over two millennia.

TaN: Whenever we do something, regardless of whether the deed will affect others or not, we should always (at the onset) think about the possible consequences and subsequent impact on other people or how we can do it so others will not be burdened or disadvantaged due to our action.

It is very irresponsible and insensitive of and for any person to simply think only of one’s own enjoyment and pleasure without the slightest consideration if our enjoyment will — deliberately or not — negatively impact others, like openly and brazenly flaunting our wealth and affluence in full view of people who are obviously struggling just to make ends meet, like beggars and the homeless who cannot only watch (and probably salivate or drool) longingly to have even just a whiff of the orgy of excessiveness they witness.

To add insult to injury are the gossip shows and programs that display the lavish lifestyles of the rich and famous amid a society dominated by morass of mass poverty and starvation and deprivation.  It is indeed callous of and for the wealthy if they should deliberately and shamelessly display their extravagant and ostentatious (to say the least) lifestyles, although it is quite a different story if they try (their best) to lead private lives while the paparazzi actively seeks them out.  And then there is the gray line where the wealthy live their posh lifestyles and away from the public eye (like exclusive resorts and islands, such as the Riviera and Maldives and other such known places that cater mostly to the rich, powerful, and famous) because they have no intention of unabashedly display their wealth but there is still the matter of the staff and the service people who man the exclusive resorts and hotels et al as well as the locals who support the staff and the service people — providing the supplies (such as food)?  They will still see the lavish lifestyle and they may still feel sorry for themselves, their plight in life.

In any case and in conclusion, in everything that we decide and do, we must always keep in mind of how we will impact other people, although other people should not be overly sensitive or reactive as to be offended at the slightest and unintentional act or display of others.

TaN: Among the most stupid people in the world are celebrities and famous people who wear (whether garments, shoes, jewelry, or whatever) that has the name or brand of the product or business entity emblazoned for all to see — i.e., to be a walking advertisement.  Imagine.  It already costs “an arm and a leg” (though not necessarily for them because they can easily afford it) and they voluntarily and foolishly advertise it for free.  What idiots!  What nincompoops!  What a terrible waste of a human being!

But I take it back (momentarily) with an explanation.  The actual idiots are those who not only unwittingly parade brand names and logos and business images around but even shell out good money to be walking advertisements.  The most obvious case in point are the so-called collectibles from fast-food chains — which used to be given away for free but corporate got wise and realize there are so many fools in the world who will even gladly pay to advertise for free — like those from hyped up movies or concerts.

Not to be left out — and just as idiotic and foolish — are those who are “interviewed” in “exit polls” from movie theaters, concerts, and whatever hyped-up events (mostly in the entertainment world) and even go the extra mile by encouraging, nay aggressively and emotionally convincing, others to patronize what they have just watched or attended.

It is sad that there are people so foolish as to permit themselves to be used and exploited and without any corresponding and appropriate “compensation” in return for their trouble or consent (whether witting or not).  Well, as the saying goes, There is one born every minute — sad but true.

TaN: Large tracts of (especially arable) land that has remained idle for an extended period of time, say one calendar year, should be made available for anyone for personal (i.e., for subsistence or personal or familial consumption purposes only) or the barangay with jurisdiction over it can “expropriately borrow” it for public use but with due notice to the landowner.  The only grounds for disallowance for availment should be that the landowner can show convincing proof and valid and satisfactory reason for the delay in the development or use of his/her/their land.

Even with (relatively) smaller urban (or suburban) land plots, any idle land should be made available for personal or public use — size is (almost) irrelevant (because one can even grow vegetables in sando bags and small tin or plastic cans or any other use for as long as it is not for financial gain or profit or for the common good).  Should the land be used for planting, the intended crop to be planted is determine largely by the size or dimensions of the available land (area), among other considerations or factors.

Moreover, it is a terrible injustice that there are perfectly productive land that are “owned” by private individuals or groups and depriving the needy its benefits.  Given this, I must agree and concede with the late Nito Doria that idle land must be taxed 100% — or, in the case of public land, be made freely (i.e., no taxes or fees or charges shall be imposed or levied) available to any person who so desires to avail of it but only for personal purposes and not for financial gain or profit.

As for public land, any person — not limited to citizens — should be able to make productive use of it, for as long as there is proper notification and permission. In addition, whether public or private land, if financial gain or profit will be derived or result from the use of the idle land, proper rental charges should be imposed but the rent should be fair and not be a burden to both parties, especially the needy.

Making idle land legally available to anyone who wants to and can use it is not only moral but will force and ensure that land will not be left to idle.  Furthermore, this ensures that those who want to be productive and possesses the ability or capacity but not the means can rightfully be productive and contribute to society — aside from not being a burden as to be a dependent or recipient of charity or a one-sided assistance.

One last thing regarding this matter is that the user (i.e., not the government or the private individual land owner) should be the one directly working the land and is not permitted to sub-lease or sub-contract or otherwise pass on the use of the land to another party. Plus, the use of the land must be environmentally sustainable.

TaN: Just the other morning, as I was cleaning up after breakfast, I suddenly realized that there are certain words we have become accustomed to substituting and using as proper and daily for words that have been neglected due to under-usage but are more appropriate and accurate.

A case in point is the Tagalog term of “tama” to mean or refer to being “correct” when the proper term is “wasto“.  “Tama” actually means “hitting the target” or just “hitting something”.

In addition, it is likewise possible that there are identical terms with differing uses or meanings due to different origins — as there are terms in one language that happens to have an identical phonetic twin in another but with a different meaning or connotation, such as the term “daan” in Tagalog which either means “path or way” (as in “ito ang daan” or this is the path or way) or “hundred” (as in “isang daan” or one hundred).

Finally, this is most likely one of the principal reasons behind some of the confusion (semantics) in communicating in these globally interconnected days.  It is very important that our terms and communication be as accurate as possible and that idiomatic expressions, unless the recipient/s is/are familiar with what will be or is being used, should be avoided to avoid confusion or misunderstanding or mis-interpretation.

Post for Mar 25-31 2018

TaN: The issue with the withdrawal of Uber from the Philippines is another point in my argument against giving too much attention or preference to foreign investments — be they direct or indirect.  It is well and good if or when foreigners decide to invest locally — in any country, for that matter — but we, the locals, have to remember one thing: Foreign investors are only after one thing…PROFIT!  And or but what is (more) important is true motive or intention for investing — i.e., are they in only for the money or do they really and truly want to help the domestic economy and the local development along with making a decent return on their investment/s.

To give (more worth) than deserved to foreign investments is to become dependent on others and this goes against self-reliance and makes the country beholden.  And self-reliance is key to self-respect, dignity, autonomy, and self-determination.  Should foreign investments be accorded more importance than what is deserved gives them power over a country’s self-determination — global village, globalization, and interdependence notwithstanding.  It likewise gives foreign investments the power to demand incentives and special treatment or consideration (that frequently prove to be detrimental or disadvantageous to local or domestic businesses and rivals/competitors) as well as the tendency or temptation for foreign investors to look at the host country as lower in stature.

In conclusion, just as in the case of FedEx and several other foreign companies that decided to pull out when the profit margin could no longer be sustained at the desired level, foreign investments desert the host country and seek greener pastures.  It is not as if the foreign investment’s return of investment is falling below break-even, which is a justifiable reason to pull out, but that the desired rate of return desired can no longer be maintained and there is nothing can be done because they have every right to go somewhere else where they can get better rates of returns.

TaN: One way of ensuring a secure password — aside from taking precautions and not leaving it lying around or accidentally blurting it out — is to use either the equivalent in a foreign language or remote dialect (that you are familiar with and will not forget) but can be represented in or by the English alphabet or a phonetic or homophonic equivalent that you can easily remember or will not forget (like in Arabic or Navajo or Inuit).  And to make it even more challenging but making sure that you will not forget, is to jumble it up — like by reversing the sequence of the letters or the syllables or the words themselves (in case it is a phrase or something).

Personally, I do not like to keep changing passwords as a security measure against being hacked.  The problem here is, sooner or later, you will have changed too many times and eventually become confused as to which one is the current.

One way to avoid this problem is to maintain a short list of chosen passwords and come up with a repetition cycle — like four passwords to be used and swapped every quarter or 3 months of the year.

Another is to double the password but the second will be the reverse of the first or, if the software will permit, I embed spaces (not necessarily single but may be double or triple) at strategic points — this way, even if I write it down, people will not know if there are spaces, where they are, and how many successive spaces per occurrence.

In any case, security can actually be very simple.  In fact, the simpler it is, the more difficult it is for the people to guess — just make sure it is not obvious.  Be creative and imaginative.

However, the best security is to make everything open and public.  This way, there is nothing to fear about being attacked or stolen — never do anything you will be ashamed of later; think things through carefully and thoroughly.  Personally, I never put sensitive data — personal or otherwise — online.  Anything true I make public is guaranteed to be meant for public knowledge, otherwise I fabricate.

In conclusion, it must always be remembered that convenience and control are directly or diametrically opposed — at least as far as technology is concerned.  The more convenience we enjoy, the less control we have over our choice or decision — e.g., if we want driverless cars, we cede controlling the car (i.e., determining the direction or route, the speed, the stop-overs, etc).

TaN: The principal and probably the only reason for the increasing incidence of not only diseases and (even minor) medical issues but likewise the appearance or emergence of apparently new diseases and maladies and various other (“exotic”) medical conditions are not because of evolution or any other such similar “scientific” processes but because our immune system(s) have been severely compromised — “severely” because even in a supposedly weakened state, our immune system can still do its job reasonably well with the exception of critical or terminal stages and instances of multiple organ failures — and the different organs, systems, and body areas that traditionally do not encounter health problems but now experience issues and they now manifest them through these so-called “modern” diseases.

Different dietary deficiencies (and especially if they are essential) to health and bodily processes and functions (may frequently) produce different and somewhat unrelated (although they may sometimes appear superficially to be identical or related) medical conditions — and these do not yet include or discount combinations of deficiencies.

Most of our medical or health issues stem from either deficiencies or oversupplies of certain key nutrients — and not from the lack of (toxic) chemicals of pharmaceuticals.  It is insane to even entertain the idea that our (modern) diseases are caused by deficiencies in pharmaceuticals and the Western/mainstream/conventional allopathic medicine’s approach and philosophy of isolationism reductionism is not only dangerous but utterly and completely erroneous.

Moreover, the rampant and global putsch of (deadly) vaccines as a form of “pre-emptive or preventive” medicine is the other principal reason behind the rise and spread of pandemic diseases — especially and mostly attacking the brain and nervous system and the mind (in the forms of depression, suicides, schizophrenia, anxiety, autism, paranoia, delusions, homicidal tendencies (which are now manifesting in mass shootings, mostly in schools and heavily populated public places), and many more that attack and alter the brain’s perception and interpretation of reality.

In conclusion, there is no such thing as a new disease.  Diseases that were never encountered in the past only means that as diets change over the years, there is the possibility that there will be deficiencies or “new” medical and health issues that will develop as we “exchange” one “improper or incorrect” dietary aspect for another when we change diets in our history, especially when we migrate to “greener but unfamiliar pastures” (whether voluntarily or not) — like when early African natives are brought to the New World as slaves to work the plantations or in current times when entire populations are displaced due to violent physical conflicts or in search of better employment opportunities.

TaN: In a telephone discussion with my aunt in New York, I realized a clearer argument in advocacy against diseases being inherited. In the conversation, I explained that diseases cannot be inherited — at least not directly.

Diseases — i.e., current lifestyle diseases, such as diabetes mellitus and cancer and obesity and hypertension and arthritis and osteoporosis and Alzheimer’s and autism and stroke — appear to be inherited because we “inherited” or are exposed to the wrong lifestyle from our parents and other people living with us.  Since the current crop of (more prominent and controversial) diseases are caused by the wrong lifestyle (and diet) and we unfortunately are influenced (at the very least) by imitating or imbibing and adapting them as our own, it is likewise for this very reason that we see the emergence of these so-called lifestyle diseases in younger and younger generations — because they are exposed to them at an early stage in their life and and not due to genetics or “inheritance”.

However, even if armed with the knowledge that it is the “passing on” of the erroneous lifestyle that is at the root of the rampant and epidemic-wide spread of lifestyle diseases, not properly and correctly identifying the true cause is leading many down paths that are making things worse.

It is sad that many share the erroneous idea that it is the eating of the food that is the key or solution.  In truth, it is not (so much) the types of food consumed that is the principal culprit but the way the (healthy) foods are prepared and consumed.  Even with the healthiest of foods — many even falsely believe and claim the existence of the so-called super foods — the wrong manner of consumption will make all the effort and care to no avail.  A vegetarian or even a vegan who eats dry-cooked — or worse, over-cooked — foods will still get the lifestyle disease (if not sooner…later).

The key is to preserve the nutrients for them to be useful to the body and the nutrients are very heat sensitive.  Upon exceeding a maximum overall temperature threshold, nutrients not only break down and become useless but may even — as in the case of carbohydrates which turn into acrylamides, of protein which turn into nitrosamines and nitrosamides, and of fats or lipids which are rapidly and easily oxidized and become rancid and toxic — become carcinogenic.

Especially with (our) health, one should not readily jump to conclusions at the first sign of something “rational” or just because experts (and so many of them) say so.  A great majority of so-called (pseudo) experts are so eager to jump into the bandwagon and proudly proclaim and parrot inaccurate and misleading information to capitalize on and ride (at the crest of) the wave of hype and mania for their own personal profit and agenda, not thinking just how much harm and damage they will cause to others.

How true it was alleged that a certain Mark Twain was to have once said (according to URL: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mark_twain_105716): “Be careful about reading health books.  You may die of a misprint.”

TaN: Watching the video regarding Sta Cruz del Islote, Colombia — regarded as the most densely-populated island (as of this writing) in the world — it suddenly dawned on me that, no matter how squalid or wretched one’s existence is or the living conditions are, (the natural instinct of) people will still claim “territory” where one can call one’s own (where one can feel safe and secure and certain of one’s survival).

It is really jam-packed and yet people appear to be happy and content, despite the severely sub-standard living conditions that exist.  This only shows that our idea or concept of what makes us happy and contented is very subjective as well as entirely dependent on one’s attitude and expectations.

In conclusion, no matter how crowded and deplorable one’s surroundings are, if the neighbors are good people and treat each other with dignity, respect and community and look out for each other, we can cope with whatever the world can throw at us.

Post for Mar 18-24 2018

TaN: As to the controversy besetting Boracay regarding the health safety and hygiene issue and the threat to close the resort island for a year, it is actually quite simple to resolve.

It is understandable that businesses and the local residents who depend (entirely) on the tourist trade are alarmed at the threat of closure of activities for such an extended duration, especially for most of the stakeholders as they do not have enough saved income to last them that long.  For businesses, unless they are the small operations where the income is rolled or re-invested weekly or monthly, the pause could spell permanent closure.

However, it must likewise and equally be admitted that the environment needs a respite from the over-loaded and irresponsible activities of local businesses, local residents, and tourists alike.

As a reasonable compromise, I offer the following:
(1) there should be complete cessation of business and commercial tourism activities (after a reasonable grace period) until such time that the environment shall have sufficiently recovered from the destructive onslaught of our collective and single-minded desire for profit and revenue — this is non-negotiable;
(2) that a timetable be established and strictly adhered to for the suspension of all tourism-related activities but flexible enough that the termination may be done prematurely but if and only if it can and has been proven that all environmental protection violations have been properly addressed and the environment has recuperated significantly enough to resume tourism-related activities;
(3) there is a reliable and implementable mechanism to ensure there will never be another incident or occasion in the future that shall warrant another suspension of commercial activities;
(4) an oversight and impartial and dis-interested multi-sectoral watchdog be formed to closely monitor and guarantee strict compliance to all pertinent laws, policies, regulations, and environmental protective and sanitation measures and safeguards against future repetitions; and,
(5) most important of all, all those (officials and private individuals et al) who are or have been tasked to ensure and implement all the relevant government policies, laws and regulations, and all other pertinent measures that directly or indirectly have a bearing on the proper and sustainable management and exploitation of whatever Boracay can offer, should be held accountable — as in those who signed and/or issued the permits, who did the ocular (regular and annual) inspections (upon completion), who approved of the plans or blueprints (where it would have shown how the waste and sewage disposal system connects to the existing public sewage system or a proper waste treatment facility before elimination to the environment), and whoever else with the responsibility to ensure that there is proper compliance and adherence to polices and regulations for the duration of the existence of the business/commercial establishment (and probably even upon termination or permanent closure) be they in the local and/or national level — which means they must be given due process and be punished (if ever found to be liable and accountable) for neglect or graft and corruption or incompetence or conspiracy or whatever violation has been incurred.

In the event that the environmental disaster is not due to neglect or any person’s fault but because of a flaw in the system or policy or regulation, immediate attention must be given to determine the exact reason for the predicament and corrective or remedial measures be instituted.  And, although it may appear to be drastic and even perhaps too little too late, an immediate audit of all tourist resorts and commercial coastal areas should be conducted to ferret out other possible places that may harbor or require similar actions.

In conclusion, it suddenly dawned on me that it is not enough that there are zoning laws — i.e., regulations as to the quantity and physical descriptions of structures within a particular populated area or population center — but there should likewise be maximum human load presence as well as activities.  This came to me when the news featured certain tourists sights that have passed or enacted limitations or restrictions regarding the number of tourists a particular tourist sight or attraction can accommodate in a day, especially the natural formations or man-made that are irreplaceable (such as caves, underground rivers, museums, and archæological dig sites).  Even just the mere increased presence of carbon dioxide from human exhalation could cause irreparable damage to or even just disturb a delicately-balanced ecosystem, not to mention bringing up the ambient temperature from the collective body heat and increase in oily and acidic moisture from the collective body perspiration.

TaN: As I followed the developments in the case filed before the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Mr Duterte, it suddenly dawned on me that there are so much lies (or fake news, if you want to be current) going around.  The current controversy over fake news and being technical and literal with the law and making statements that are taken back later are all different aberrations of telling falsehoods.

When one makes a (controversial) statement then, after a negative backlash, declares that it was only a joke and, in addition, that one is or has publicly and repeatedly admitted to be prone to tell falsehoods every so often is admitting that one is or has consistently been lying.  Just as it was editorialized many years ago (on the defunct RPN Channel 9) when the late Sen Miriam Defensor-Santiago claimed that she was misquoted from a statement she made the previous day: That when one is telling the truth, one can never be misquoted.

But this is not the sad thing.  What is sad is that the public is taking it (without so much as a whimper or sense of being insulted), which is supposedly evidenced in the still high survey ratings that is consistently being given Mr Duterte.  Furthermore, it amazes and astounds me no end to realize that the average Filipino is no fool and yet s/he continues to fail to see through the misdeeds and misbehavior and it makes me wonder whether the surveys are really reliable or not.  But then again, as the saying goes: People see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear or, to put it another way, None are as blind as those who refuse to see.

In the continuing saga and controversy of Mr Duterte pulling the Philippines out of the Rome Statute — nota bene: I qualified that it is Mr Duterte’s own initiative to withdraw the Philippines from the treaty and not the decision of the country because there was never any consultation done to get a consensus, especially at least from the Senate whose concurrence is required by the Constitution to ratify treaties before the said treaties become part of the law of the land — all sorts of excuses and explanations and defensive justifications have been given to make it appear that the Philippines, and not (just) Mr Duterte, who is being harassed and ganged up on by (segments of) the international community via the United Nations so Mr Duterte deemed that it is his duty to protect the country. In truth, the international fervor is not directed towards the Philippines but only at Mr Duterte but, being the sly shyster that he is, it is being made to appear that the entire Philippines is being targeted and singled out and not him.

I could not agree with Commission on Human Rights commissioner Mr Roberto Cadiz more — in the news article in the hardcopy March 21, 2018 issue in page 5 of The Philippine STAR titled “‘No need for public consultation on ICC withdrawal’” by a certain Janvic Mateo and I quote “(Commission on Human Rights (CHR) commissioner Roberto) Cadiz noted that the decision to withdraw from the ICC appears to be made by the President on a personal level.” — when he said that the decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute was purely personal and not in defense of the state against international and biased and baseless attacks on his country as Mr Duterte would like everyone to believe.

The biggest and clearest indication that Mr Duterte is “in panic mode” is the consistent and persistent output of excuses and explanations for his decision to withdraw — when only one should be enough.

In conclusion, as to the different supporting statements from such sources as China and Russia, we all know regarding the saying,  Birds of the same feather…are the same birds or the “mutual admiration society”.

TaN: At the root of one of the causes of corruption in the Philippines is the widespread and rampant characteristic of the Filipino to be nonchalant (read: inefficient), which is being interpreted or justified as “tolerance for tardiness or patient”.  It is because Filipinos have this trait of being “laid back” in addition to the inability to distinguish between urgent and important matters and those that are not.

Because urgent and important matters are treated as day-to-day matters, this de-motivates or “desensitizes” people, especially when dealing with government and legal matters, into taking transactions as mundane and ordinary — when, in fact, they are vital to the people, such as birth and death certificates and clearances which could mean lost or delayed employment opportunities or benefits claims — which eventually redounds to needing padrinos, grease money, and/or other forms of “incentives” to facilitate processing and matters.  Many government and public servants do not take their jobs seriously (enough) and look at it as a source of income rather than a public service.

There is very little professionalism that can be seen in many a government office, especially those that are not front-line and there is little contact with the public whom they are supposed to be serving.  This is especially widespread and rampant when the leadership is perceived not only to be tolerant of and to but even encouraging of such behavior and practices — but, of course, not as a matter of (public) policy and not in so many words.  Remember, leadership by example; the people follow and emulate what their leader is perceived to be doing or acting.

Add to this the fact that there are many services that should be given freely — as they are already accounted for in the annual budget of the department, such as fees and materials — but the public must shell out payment to get those services and documents just because the law or government policy permits them the discretion to “generate additional income” through such services and documents.

As discussed in a previous TaN, there is no reason for government to charge fees and payments for services and documents that are basically non-commercial and income-generating that the public needs.  It is understandable to charge for business permits and filing of lawsuits and such but to require payment for things such as clearance certificates (for personal even if or especially for employment and not business purposes) and mandatory identification cards (such as social security) is just inviting corruption and red tape.

As in the forewarning in 1 Timothy 6:10 (KJV), “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows“.  It has been said that whenever money gets into the picture, no matter how noble or noteworthy the argument or cause, it is and will always be about the money.  And it is bad enough that the perpetrator of that love of money brings sorrow and misery upon his/her own self and soul, but to inflict them on others as well, especially those who are innocent and good.

In conclusion, if, aside from the annual budget that a government agency or office receives (for its office supplies, salaries, and other anticipated expenditures), the budgetary allocation still proves inadequate and additional funds are needed to ensure proper and correct delivery of services and functioning of a government agency or office, the government should start thinking about exacting taxes from “traditional” untaxed or tax-exempt sources — such as schools and religious institutions — that are unfairly enjoying the benefits of government services while not contributing their share to the burden of funding government expenditures (such as police and fire protection, road use, senior and disabled privileges, and a slew of other entitlements and obligations)

TaN: The implementation of the banning of one-use plastics is a good first step. I only hope it does not stop there.

Moreover, such a ban is not a guarantee nor assurance that there will be less plastics in the garbage.  It all depends on the consuming public.

There is nothing to prevent anyone from throwing away, after a single use, plastics that are (obviously) recyclable or re-usable.  It is all in the mindset and discipline (and commitment and dedication) of the consuming public.

Bringing one’s own (reusable) containers and bags whenever one makes a purchase or goes shopping is definitely a personal commitment and it can be reinforced by corresponding and complementary or reciprocal incentives by the vendor/business establishment — like, say, giving a sizable discount or “reward points” and keeping a record for regular repeat patrons that earn progressively larger discounts over time.

Moreover, the greatest challenge is to change the mindset of the average consumer, to change his attitude towards bringing their own bags and containers.  Many feel “awkward” having to tote along an empty shopping bag or container and even more is the “fear” of being looked upon as “poor” (i.e., one who cannot afford to pay the little extra for not bringing their own bags or containers), after all it does not cost as much as their ego or public image.

Finally, there is the biggest issue of food safety — because plastics are toxic to health and there is literally no person alive who does not have some detectable amount of plastic in the body [remembering that “plastic” is a generic term that covers, describes or refers to a very wide variety of polymer (or giant molecule) materials ranging from shopping and school (and other) bags, drinking and baby (feeding) bottles and containers, canned food lining, wrappers and packaging materials, food containers, waterproofing compounds, tape and adhesive strips, garment and clothing fabrics, jewelry and appliance components (as well as in printed circuits and other internal parts of consumable/consumer electronics), vehicular parts (such as seats and seat upholstery and internal cabin components like the dashboard) and a host of others].

To say that plastics are ubiquitous is a gross understatement.

TaN: It is very disappointing to see media practitioners, especially professionals and industry icons or respected and multi-awarded personalities, to endorse products and services (be they in print or broadcast media).  It is not as if they are not earning enough.

Moreover, this likewise extends to product/service endorsements in media programs — not only in form of infotainment or infomercial but — where specific brand names serve as sponsors for the program to continue airing or running.

And even if the reason behind the endorsement is because they believe in it and would like others to share in the experience, it still does not justify or warrant repeated endorsements, especially if the wording comes on as a promotion (because the words are “standardized”).

I wonder how such people consider and feel comfortable being called or referred to as professionals in their careers when they know very well they are abasing themselves for the sake of financial or other non-profession-related gains.

Post for Mar 11-17 2018 (updated Mar 23)

TaN (update): The Philippine Department of Energy announced that the power reserves for this summer is very thin and, if demand or consumption continues to increase, could result in power outages.  Without explaining the cause or reason, I surmise that one of the principal reasons is the continued emphasis (and patronage of the consuming public) to start purchasing and using electric vehicles (aside from the increased both the continued usage and uptick in the sales of power-hungry consumable electronics) in the government’s “irresponsible” — because it was not well thought out and just gave in to the relentless push of vested interest groups (with huge profits to gain) using climate change as a bogeyman to goad the public into the whole scheme.

In truth, the shift to electric vehicles (from ICEs or internal combustion engines) should not be started without a sustainable renewable energy infrastructure — i.e., from power generation to transmission to distribution to available and easily accessible and affordable convenience outlets, much like the fuel stations of fossil fuels.  With the power demand already expected to rise dramatically due to the oncoming summer season, it is unwise to push for the shift — mainly through the public utility vehicle modernization program of the government.  The reason behind my argument is that because electric vehicles, just like the ICEs, needs to be fuel to be replenished, when the power banks of electric vehicles run low or out, where do you think they will recharge?  They will compete with the current residential, commercial, and industrial consumers because there is no existing viable (and additional) power being brought into the grid.

My qualification of “renewable” (in the immediately preceding paragraph) is because, unless it is renewable, there is no TRUE solution to address the so-called urgent issue of climate change.  I reiterate my previous TaNs: By merely substituting or replacing fossil-fuel burning vehicles with electric vehicles, we are not solving the problem of the burning of fossil fuels that ups global warming but only adding one more step in the process.  The electricity that electric vehicles consume to recharge still comes from the fossil fuel power grid.  True solutions to addressing climate change and global warming can come only from a truly and significantly sustainable RENEWABLE energy infrastructure otherwise we are just adding another step in the current process of power generation.

Moreover, there are so many breakthroughs in renewable energy technology that I fail to comprehend why none of them has yet reached the market — as if I do not know or cannot speculate…it is all about the money!

TaN (update): Contrary to what his allies, underlings, trolls, stooges, and lapdogs say regarding Mr Duterte being brave and is known to face any kind of peril, he is actually cunning, calculating, technical, and pragmatic, aside from being (selectively) gender-biased and has a deep-seated fear of being wrong or branded as bad.  The proof are in his actions (as against his pronouncements) — such as not wanting to engage China in a war because we can never win or making pronouncements then taking them back or later claiming that it was a joke or using the letter instead of the spirit of the law (especially in eluding guilt and responsibility) or publicly hurling insults and expletives and gutter language at people he knows will or cannot “fight back”.  He will pick a fight only when he knows he has the advantage, otherwise he bides his time or has his “henchmen” do the dirty work (then use his knowledge of the law and authority of his office to pardon or exonerate the culprits of responsibility and liability).

In fact, the admission by Mr Duterte of not wanting (read: fearing) to engage China in a war he has no chance of winning is what is giving China the “courage, audacity and arrogance” to do as it pleases in (what is) clearly Philippine territorial waters — which is precisely what China has been doing all along (i.e., building up artificial islands capable of accommodating and supporting military facilities and installations) to extend its military reach and thus project its economic, political, and global sphere of influence and power.

Cunning because he develops “creative” ways to outsmart his detractors, critics, political opponents or rivals or competitors, and potential threats in anticipation to or of what may arise when he implements his plans and schemes.
Calculating because explores and takes into consideration all possibilities when he makes decisions, ensuring that he will have a way out of predicaments and snags when things fall through.
Technical because of his penchant to always take the letter of the law and the technicalities to get out of tight situations, especially when facing embarrassment or liabilities.
Pragmatic because he tends to go for practicality rather than the ideal or what should be, like when he decides not to challenge a neighboring giant to open conflict and even choose to lawyer for them even when it is clear that the other party is in the wrong and he is disadvantaged.
Gender-biased because of his constant and consistent “attacks” on women who have their own stands and express their sentiments (which happen to run counter to his or has bruised his ego).
Fear of being wrong and bad manifests through intolerance of dissenting opinions and views and denials.  Using every means thinkable, he frequently bad-mouths and resorts to insults and put-downs because of an inferiority complex which is often accompanied by bullying tendencies.  Empty boasts and off-color jokes and anecdotes are likewise other manners of expressing one’s insecurities and self-doubts.

In psychology, overcompensation is a common behavior of people with (low) self-esteem issues.  By outwardly projecting violence or threats of violence and bullying others, such personalities feel a sense of comfort, security, and self-assurance and dispel self-doubt and fears.

In addition, over-inflation of ego is likewise another common behavior — as evidenced in his early pronouncements when he boasted of being a mere average (law) student and yet he now is president and have so many brilliant and well-educated people under him.

In conclusion and though not in topic, what Mr Duterte did — i.e., withdrawing the Philippines from the Rome Statute and justifying it with flimsy and obviously self-serving personal but flawed and lame excuses such as not published in the Official Gazette and in the name of the country.  Come on, give me a break.  Puh-leeeeeeeease!  Spare me and give me some credit.  What do you take me for?

TaN (update): In (probably) last hearing of the Philippine Senate on the Dengvaxia issue — today being March 13 (Tuesday) — I would like to bring up another issue: to the best of my knowledge, it would appear that Dengvaxia is the first and only vaccine that requires the patient to have experienced (and survived) a bout of dengue prior to the vaccination.  It is really unusual that there should be this requirement of a prerequisite before the application of the vaccine.

The precondition of the necessity to have gone through dengue before a patient can receive the Dengvaxia vaccine is highly unprecedented.  It is not the case with all other vaccines, so what makes Dengvaxia different?  This question has not been asked, let alone been properly and satisfactorily answered.

The prerequisite of having gone through a bout of dengue reeks of an escape condition for when the dengue virus will already have prior experience and waiting antibodies ready to deal with the dengue virus — so that the vaccine will appear to be effective and protective.

In conclusion, when Sanofi consulted several dengue experts, it was not revealed whether the experts had any conflict of interest — i.e., if they had any vested interest in giving a favorable recommendation.

TaN: Nothing eaten cooked (i.e., heated because marinating, for example certain fish or vegetables in vinegar otherwise known as pickling may likewise be referred to as cooking) cannot be eaten uncooked — with a few exceptions like taro (which contains a toxin that is broken down by heat), certain species of cassava, and a few more others.  In many instances, exposure to heat only makes it more palatable or “familiar” or tastier or “more presentable or less repulsive or unsightly” to a person’s food perception.

However, it is slowly but steadily (though grudgingly) being shown and proven that heating foods — to extremely or at least very high temperatures (i.e., above 120° C or 248° F, because wet-cooking needs a maximum of only 100°C or so at which is boiling whereas dry-cooking needs well over 300°F or 148.89°C or usually rounded to 150°C) — turns normally nutritious and healthy foods into toxic and carcinogenic stuff, like starch into acrylamide and protein into nitrosamines and nitrosamides).  And then there is the oxidation of oil and fat at high temperatures which makes any healthy lipid bad (with exceptions to certain saturated fats such as coconut oil which can withstand high temperatures repeatedly and reportedly can nutritionally be re-heated for up to 10 times).

In any case, healthy eating is (foolishly but dangerously) being pushed globally by (pseudo) experts and celebrities as eating the correct foods (particularly super foods, although there are no such things as super foods) when, in truth, any and every food is good and healthy — notwithstanding the manner in which the foods are grown (for plants) or fed (for animals).  It is the manner in which the foods are prepared and eaten that determines whether they will be healthy (and nutritious — because healthy does not necessarily mean they are nutritious and I will explain hereinafter) or not.

This fits the saying, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

As to the aforementioned issue of healthy foods not necessarily being nutritious, for me, healthy means possessing the potential to provide health or well being whereas nutritious means actually benefiting from it being healthy.  To elaborate, when we eat healthy food, if our body (specifically the digestive system) is not able to utilize the food — i.e., recognize and properly process and assimilate the nutrients into the blood — it might as well not be healthy nor eaten.

To explain further, let us say that we eat a fried or scrambled egg then have our cholesterol level checked.  The test will reveal that blood serum cholesterol will be elevated.  However, if we eat a raw egg or a soft-boiled egg, our blood serum cholesterol will be the same or low.  The reason for this is that our digestive system recognizes the (raw) egg as food and will readily bio-assimilate it, whereas the fried or scrambled egg will not be recognized and accepted and will most likely cause an inflammatory response — in the form of elevated blood serum cholesterol.

The increase presence of blood serum cholesterol, however, did not come from the fried or scrambled egg but from our own liver.  Our body is not designed to take in dietary cholesterol.  In fact, it has been determined that 80-90 percent of our blood serum cholesterol are produced internally and a mere 10-15 percent is absorbed from food.

Cholesterol is a very important fundamental or principal “raw” material of our body. It is used in the production of numerous substances our body needs — like antibodies of the immune system, platelets and other tissue repairing components, digestive enzymes, and many more.  When food is subjected to high heat, as in frying, the chemical properties and profile of the food is completely changed — in the egg, the evidence is clear when you see the normally translucent albumin or egg white become opaque white or even turns crispy brown — and makes the food “unrecognizable” to the body (as food).  Instead, it will be treated as a foreign invading threat and, as a response, the body releases cholesterol from the liver to be used to manufacture antibodies to address the “imminent danger”.  And this is why blood serum cholesterol is elevated.

Another way of explaining the “phenomenon” is that there are natural (digestive) enzymes in the raw egg, aside from the fact that raw eggs are naturally-occurring and therefore recognized as food.  When food is taken in naturally (i.e., as raw or natural as possible), it will recognized and readily accepted by the body.  Moreover, all living things have to “eat” (food) and all food from living sources will have inherent or produce its own digesting substances or capabilities.

Like anything else, digestive enzymes have a maximum tolerance threshold before it breaks down and temperatures above 40 degrees C is the starting point.  Different enzymes have different levels or degrees of tolerance or resistance to heat.  However, all break down upon exceeding 120 degrees C.  Frying and other forms of dry-cooking need a minimum of 150 degrees C to be able to “cook”.

With raw or unheated foods, the inherent or native digestive enzymes are intact so our body simply uses these enzymes for the food to self-digest.  There is no need to call on the liver and pancreas to produce cholesterol to digestive enzymes.  It is this need to manufacture digestive enzymes — because the food cannot self-digest as its natural enzymes have been broken down in the high heat — which is the principal reason why our blood serum cholesterol is frequently elevated, especially after a meal (unless a large portion of the meal is raw, as in 70-80 percent raw).

TaN: The growing use of words different, especially if very far, from the actual or original (dictionary) definition is getting out of hand and should be reigned in.  It is getting more and more people in trouble due to misunderstanding and the double-meaning is being used to “innocently” insinuating something in order to maliciously insult but claiming otherwise.

It is one thing to have idiomatic expressions but it is entirely different when existing such expressions are (unilaterally) changed to a different connotation in order to define something else to elude or hide the intended meaning or message — as some kind of covert or occult or unconventional coded lingo exclusive to a chosen few or only to those in the know.

This is most prevalent among politicians, entertainers and celebrities (who rely on scandal and gossip for their popularity and wealth), and criminals, as well as “criminals pretending to be upright people and even nationalists”.  Especially among the underworld figures, idiomatic expressions that can easily be interpreted in another way are among the favorite utterances so that, should there be witnesses or incriminating statements that may be used against them, they can always claim “innocence” and say that their conscience is clear.

It is also a favorite among law enforcers and members of the criminal justice system who skirt their guilt by using the letter of the law instead of the spirit — like when they say that they only told their henchmen to take care of somebody and not kill him/her (a matter of semantics).  Moreover, even among the rest of the general population who may not have criminal tendencies or motives, like those in entertainment or show business who rely on controversies to remain popular by making ambiguous statements and self-serving press releases or conferences in order to create an opportunity to be “misquoted” thus stay “relevant or in the limelight”.  Show business is notorious for manufacturing phrases and terms that have more than one meaning in order to have an “escape” and claim to be mis-interpreted.

In any case, this phenomenon of idiomatic expressions and words with double or multiple meanings is already making communication and understanding (others) complicated enough without having to up the ante by “re-purposing” them for other more nefarious and unscrupulous motives or agenda.

TaN: In the commercial regarding a germicidal soap, it boasted of being able to kill 99.7% of all known germs.  What exactly does “99.7% of all known germs” mean?  Does it refer to the quantitative or qualitative aspect — in other words, is it 99.7% of all the germs it comes in contact with or 99.7% of all the germs that we have identified?

To elaborate…suppose in a square inch of skin there are 100 different species of germs and the population count is 100,000 individuals.  Further suppose that 99.7% of those germs have a total population count of 10,000 individuals.  So, does the phrase mean that of the 100,000 germs, only 10,000 will be killed or that 99,700 of the 100,000 germs will be killed?

Moreover, when they refer to germs, what exactly do they mean because “germs” is a generic term to loosely refer to any microorganism (or an organism too small for the naked eye to see without assistance of a microscope or visually enlarging device).  It is important to remember and understand that viruses are also considered as germs but they are not living — because they do not possess all the qualities that we reserve for only for certain groupings of molecules and compounds — and viruses cannot be killed since they are not considered living.

So, what about the viruses among the germs?  Are they included in the claim of 99/7% mortality — because, if so, then the commercial will be liable for mis-representation or making false claims.

TaN: It is very disconcerting and alarming to have people in authority, especially those with backgrounds or (sufficient) knowledge in jurisprudence and all the way to the top of the government such as the chief executive, to skirt criminal liability and ethical responsibility and exploit the loopholes or flaws in the law to achieve “unlawful” objectives.  As I reiterate from past TaNs regarding the forewarning in the Holy Scriptures where it admonishes us to observe the spirit of the law (which gives life) instead of the letter of the law (which brings death).

One should be apprehensive and alert when people in authority say that there is nothing in the law that criminalizes the killing of criminals (conveniently forgetting that to justify or be guiltless of killing a criminal, first it must be proven that the victim was a criminal and this means undergoing due process and not unilaterally) or that human rights are violated (left and right) for the sake or in the name of the country and the victims.

It has been said that, “When leaders talk of peace, be prepared for war.”  Furthermore, it has likewise been said that, “When elephants clash, it is the ants that suffer.”

Aside from being dangerous, taking the literal interpretation or definition of the law is the means whereby people with ulterior motives and hidden agenda to elude criminal liability and/or moral responsibility.  They can always hide behind the imperfections of the law and even literally “get away with murder”.  In addition, it is disheartening that the judicial system, which is or should be the vanguard against abuse or mis-interpretation of the law, become complicit to the injustice being perpetuated by the criminally-motivated when they likewise fall prey to taking the letter of the law, arguing that it is what is written and neglecting the fact that they can always go to the rationale behind the crafting of a law or even go to the extent of conferring and consulting the very authors of the law (what they really meant or intended the particular law to achieve or accomplish).

It is even more disturbing and alarming to realize that the (general) population are apathetic to the transgressions of the law by people who are supposed to be the very people responsible for upholding justice and what is moral through proper interpretation and enforcement of enacted laws and policies.

In conclusion, as the saying goes, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for all good men to do nothing — to let evil take over and have the run of the place.

Post for Mar 4-10 2018 (updated Mar 11)

TaN (update): When it comes to preventive medicine, claims of saving lives has no basis.  In fact, since my argument is that the longevity or one’s life span relies entirely upon the “whims” of God (whereas the quality of our life while awaiting for that fateful day is completely in our own hands, and depending on whether or how well we obey the admonitions and commandments of the Lord), it not only makes no sense to make such baseless and nonsensical (and blasphemous) pronouncements and statements but there is likewise no way of determining the accuracy and/or veracity of such unfounded claims.

To revisit the argument, unless and until we know precisely the date (and very moment) of our death, to say that something (we did or did not do) is (directly) responsible to “extending” our stay in this temporal world is utterly and absolutely without merit.  This is the same as my other supporting arguments — regarding growth and intelligence marketing schemes in that unless and until we know exactly how tall or how intelligent we are or will become, there is no way to prove that the schemes worked).

This “sudden” rediscussion is a reaction to the news article in hardcopy issue of The Philippine STAR for March 10 titled “WHO underscores importance of vaccination“.

Vaccination is the major attempt and “answer” of conventional or mainstream medicine to the natural, traditional or preventive medicine — which seeks to pre-empt supposedly or allegedly more serious or fatal diseases in order to “save” (more) lives.  This — i.e., vaccination — is totally and utterly false and undoubtedly and unquestionably deceptive.

[Nota bene: Actually, conventional or mainstream medicine is known as or called allopathic medicine and sometimes also referred to as heroic medicine.  “Allopathy” means alternative.  Ergo, it is really allopathic or conventional medicine that is the alternative and not the mis-label so-called alternative medicine.  Moreover, allopathic medicine is called heroic not because it is heroic but because it is more of emergency medicine, where the application is during drastic and urgent times when life is critically threatened.  In addition, the only worthy allopathic medicine is surgery or surgical medicine, while the rest are but a bunch of mere “hooey”.  Lastly, allopathic medicine is completely out of touch with reality and the world because, the way it is being practiced (especially today) is dragging man farther and farther away from nature and substituting man-made or artificial which is absolutely out of whack or sync from nature, thus creating more and more problems, issues, and complications (read: side effects and contra-indications.]
In any case and returning to topic, although I am inclined towards preventive (as against curative) medicine, I do not, however, subscribe to making such unconfirmable or uncorroboratable (or argument based on ignorance) claims.  This only proves that even in the “alternative” or natural medicine segment of the medical industry, it has already been infiltrated by those who seek only selfish gains and it is these that we must be extra careful about and critically discerning to avoid being scammed.

In these times, the so-called Age of Enlightenment and Transparency, this is truly the time when light and darkness are in mortal combat over men’s souls.  The only hopeful re-assurance I have is that it takes merely the light from a single candle to pierce the darkness.  The only problem is whether there will be anyone who is not blind — otherwise no amount of light against the darkness will be of any consequence.  And it must be remembered, with respect to blindness, None are as blind as those who refuse to see — which is what most of us are today, with regard to the evils and wrongs everywhere today.

In conclusion, vaccination even at its inception is an intrusion and a bypassing of our body’s defense system and there is no such thing as a safe nor beneficial vaccine.  In the video titled “Silent Epidemic: The Untold Story of Vaccines“, I realized and understood one of the statements (and I paraphrase): When a vaccine illicits an immune response, it is said to be effective; however, this does not mean that it is protective (or that the resulting antibodies will be enough to protect or overcome the pathogen).  In addition, the argument that in a democracy the people has the right to choose how s/he brings up his/her family and not the private sector or business interests — in this case, the pharmaceutical or vaccine industry — (through or using the government) to mandate or coerce compliance from the public to the wishes and desires of business interests), which is what an authoritarian state and not a democracy is wont to do.

TaN: With all the advancements in automation and cyber technology as well as the reports of ever-successful hacking, it just dawned on me that our worst fears are slowly but surely becoming a reality.

It is beginning to look like the futuristic sci-fi films regarding robots (and automatons) are correct, all along.  Our technology has advanced to the point where we are now able to build artificial beings with artificial intelligence and mimic ourselves — the way we move (which started with passive or static then to active or dynamic prosthetic) and the way we think (with artificial intelligence).  These also include the latest use of smaller and smaller and more sophisticated actuators and motors and hydraulics and transistors and microchips and circuitry.

If this trend (in science and technology) continues — regardless of whether proceeding steadily or astronomically — and the end times is still quite a way off, it will not be long when we shall see all the imagination-inspired scenes in sci-fi films come to reality.

It is interesting to note and remember the saying that, “Art imitates life and life imitates art” — i.e., cinema gets inspiration and ideas from life and life has a strange way of turning fictional cinema into real life.  Unfortunately, many of those real life imitating cinema are taken from the “wrong” scenes — like how a brilliant theft or bank heist was carried out or how people are tortured or how a murder was planned and executed.

TaN: As I sit and go through my daily morning news gathering and archiving of the day’s more important global health and current developments in cyber space, it suddenly dawned on me — after scanning through several articles regarding people getting sicker and more discoveries of ways to cure or reverse diseases — that a, if not THE, principal reason behind global health (collectively) reaching epidemic proportions is not that we are discovering more and more diseases and medical conditions but that — due to our “insistence” on living and maintaining the wrong lifestyle (and poor or incorrect diets) — our immune system is (being) compromised and that is why we get sick faster and more frequently.

If our immune defenses (because we live the proper lifestyle and eat correctly, for instance like the Amish community of Pennsylvania and most Okinawans and the traditional Inuits) are working properly because we live correctly, all these so-called diseases and medical issues will easily and automatically be taken cared of.  The only instances when we will really be sick is when as nature/God had planned or when a really serious threat (like a new strain of cold and influenza viruses) — like getting and going through the traditional childhood diseases like measles and chicken pox and mumps and the like and eating foods as our bodies have been designed to do (naturally and endemically and according to the seasons).

Our bodies are (literally) designed to “live” forever — as with the Biblical account of Methuselah who purportedly lived to the ripe old age of 969 years!   However, there are several reasons why we do not.  Even the “modern” (unofficial) longest-lived person eventually died — a certain Li-Ching Yuen and reportedly not from any sickness or injury or any other cause but that — and I paraphrase from a statement he was supposed to have said to his friend, an old grandfather like him — “I have done all that I have to do, I am going home now”.  Who knew what he meant, when he said he was going “home”, was that he is returning to his Maker.

In any case, because I am a Christian, I subscribe to the belief that “we decide how we live and wait for our time of death but only God determines when we die”.  Proceeding from this, despite the design of our bodies to “live” forever, when it is time to go, there is nothing we can do about it — regardless of our state of health or anything.  When it is your time to go, you go.

TaN: The growing trend (among the wealthy and the can-afford) of using surrogates (most probably) merely for the purpose of avoiding being pregnant and the only reason is vanity and not something life threatening nor a medical issue may not be illegal or even immoral but should have some kind of legal risks.

Because it is a person’s right — correction: privilege, a right is inherent or natural and therefore inalienable and essential or fundamental while a privilege is bestowed and must be earned or deemed worthy and thus may subsequently be suspended, withdrawn, or otherwise revoked — to chose whether they want to become pregnant or not (but not necessarily due to legitimate nor justifiable reasons) this right should not be curtailed or taken away.  However, there should be some sort of corresponding accountability or risk in order for this privilege — not a right — to be enjoyed.

It will be irresponsible to permit a person (or couple), just because they can afford it and can “get away with it” to avail of the services or opportunity of a surrogate just for the flimsy or whimsical reason of vanity or trend or fad or novelty or whatever cock-a-mame alibi they dream up, especially if the individual or couple has already been pregnant before and there were no complications nor valid issues that would make getting a surrogate appropriate.

In conclusion, the problem with many developments and advancements is that there are or will always be people who will tend to abuse or mis-use it.  This has been the case since time immemorial — as in the case of gun powder (which was originally meant for festivities and celebrations), of Einstein’s theory on atomic energy (which was, I would think, intended for peaceful and man’s flourishing purposes instead of making nuclear weapons and other monstrosities), and of digital and electronics technology (which was meant for education, research, communication, sharing of ideas and aspirations and hope and solutions and such but has been mis-appropriated for crime and malicious deeds, such as spreading of lies and deception and cyber bullying and dirty politics and even cyber warfare and pornography and pedophilia and cyber theft and other criminal or malicious activities), to name a few.

TaN: The most important thing about eating naturally (i.e., the way nature intended it to be eaten) is that we eat on demand.  This way, there is no need for preservatives because they are eaten fresh (i.e., as needed).  And nature always provides in abundance.  Imagine when a tree bears fruit, it is not only for a person or a family or even a tribe — because nature has intended the fruits to be shared by all.  The fruits are always in excess to ensure that there will always be enough for the next generation of trees — that there will be so plentiful that not all fruits can or will be consumed — plus other creatures that also feed on the same fruit.

Actually, as to the “no preservatives” in nature (i.e., fruits), there is a natural preservative — phytic acid. Phytic acid is more of a growth inhibitor than a preservative.  It is present in seeds and grains (in just enough quantity) to prevent them from germinating or sprouting at the wrong moment.  Phytic acid is nature’s time lock which prevents premature germination because the environmental conditions may not be correct to support and sustain the sprouting and growth of the new plant.  It is broken down when immersed in water for a sustained period — when the rainy season is well on its way — and this now permits the seed or grain to start germinating and grow roots and leaves.

Going back to “eating on demand”, eating is an essential activity (because it sustains life) but its abuse leads to health and medical problems and complications — like obesity and diabetes.  It must be remembered that we should…”eat to live and not live to eat”.  Sure, it is good or nice to indulge, once in a while, but not to point as to make a career out of it.

Eating not because we are hungry but rather for the sheer pleasure is a luxury and must not be abused.  Excess calories, unless burned off, will eventually redound to health issues which, if not addressed promptly and properly, may eventually become life-threatening.

A problem today with regard to eating is that many have made it into a past time or, worse, an indulgence.  In the past, food was difficult to come by so health problems were of a different sort — they used to be mainly pathogenic and infectious by nature.  Today, due to advancement and vast improvements in agricultural technology (mostly corporate monoculture plantation-type chemical-laden agriculture), food is no longer scarce and considered a necessity but as a luxury, where there are so many choices.  There are so many available and from so many places the world over.

However, this has its bad side.  Because of the abundance of food and types, affluent societies and countries have populations are rife with obesity and other lifestyle diseases — diseases today are no longer caused by pathogens and infections but by the wrong lifestyle.  In addition, food that used to be seasonal has become available year-round and this is slowly leading to other nutritional issues — because consuming certain foods (like fruits) which are not naturally in season but artificially made to bear fruit for commercial or corporate profits.

Moreover, this food abundance does little to solve the issue of global malnutrition and starvation.  But this is an issue of greed and profit-centered consumerism and will be for another time.

Post for Feb 25-March 3 2018 (updated Mar 3)

TaN (update): It has become alarming that the Philippine Constitution has been undergoing repeated revisions and rewriting, making it the most “unstable” Fundamental Charter of any country in the world.  It would appear that the Philippines does not know how to amend the Constitution piece meal — or in segments — and, instead, always chooses to open the whole Charter up and making it vulnerable to all sorts of unscrupulous manipulations, machinations, and insertions and inclusions of private interests and agenda.

I am not one to go against the concept of democracy and self-rule but there are societies, cultures, and countries that are not (yet) deserving of self-governance.  They simply lack the emotional maturity and preparedness.

Intellectual capability is easy to achieve; it develops naturally with age.  However, emotional maturity is an entirely different sort and is not age-dependent — hence the saying, Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.

The problem is that democracy is not for everybody.  There are societies, cultures, or countries that are better suited for autocratic or authoritarian governance or at least ruled with an iron fist — principally due to the emotional immaturity or the unruliness of a large segment of their population.  The emotional maturity of a people can easily be determined by the kind of people they elect into office, the quantity and type of laws enacted and how they are implemented, how the general population reacts or behaves with respect to sports and entertainment and social media, and how they handle justice and human rights, among others.

Moreover, there are instances where benevolent dictatorship is ideal — and the epitome of this is Heaven, where God’s word is law and what He says goes.  In Heaven, there is no democracy; we do not vote on issues mainly because there will never be a situation where there will be dissent or contradiction for truth, right, and love shall always be the rule of law — although there is some sort of a caste system or hierarchy: Father, Jesus, man, woman, and angels, respectively.

In conclusion and to return to topic (because it is a “bad” habit of mine that I frequently tend to digress), changing and amending the Fundamental Charter is likewise a sign of instability.  It implies that the people are not yet prepared for self-governance and attempts to (re)write a truly reflective and good Basic Law will always be thwarted by vested interests.  In addition, true democracy, even republicanism, is a real challenge in states where the population exceeds an ideal size — not to mention that the bureaucracy would be an immense burden on the citizenry, both in terms of taxes and law and order.

TaN (update): I beg to disagree with the headline — assuming it is accurate — in hardcopy of today’s (March 1) The Philippine STAR titled “Koko assures CJ of fair trial“.  Without a thorough perusal of the news article, it must be remembered that impeachment is a political process and therefore is not obligated or mandated to observe the rules of court or criminal proceedings.

Bearing this in mind, although it is not impossible and even within the realm of the highly probably, it can be said or guaranteed that the impeachment case of Chief Justice of the (Philippine) Supreme Court Maria Lourdes Sereno will be fair.  Likewise, remembering that man, no matter how objective or fair a person may be, s/he is a subjective creature and will forever be subjective.

There will be at least a teeny tiny tinge of subjectivity.  Even with court or criminal proceedings and rules, there will still be some degree of subjectivity, no matter how minuscule or infinitesimal.

In any case, assuming that the precedence of public broadcasting of impeachment proceedings in the instance of the late and former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, there will be some credible degree of objectivity and fairness since the public will be viewing and following the proceedings.

TaN (update): In the ongoing controversial issue regarding the dengue vaccine in the Philippines and in an interview by tri-media journalist-newscaster Arnold Clavio of GMATV (Greater Manila Area television), a certain clinical pathologist was asked with respect to the seemingly contradictory findings and opinions of the different reports despite the evidence samples were the same, a comment was being elicited as to the accuracy of the reports and if it were possible to reconcile conflicting findings as well as to make a definite and categorical statement.

It must be remembered that, as far as I know and concerned, mathematics is the only exact science.  Given this therefore, it is not possible to get a categorical statement regarding the absolute accuracy and validity with respect to the said forensic reports.  The best that can be made is to say that there is a convincing preponderance of evidence that inspires a particular conclusion.

Although this should be and is the de facto interpretation or understanding whenever accuracy and certainty is being desired or required, the fact remains that there can be no instance of exactness and precision in most of life.

TaN: As I listened to a video by Mike Adams titled “AMAZING! Scientist translates chemistry into MUSIC (ELEMOICS)” [URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TghTECI5MJo]last year (2017), he mentioned the periodic table (of elements) and how all these make up all the visually physical world that we are familiar with.

As he went on with his lecture, I suddenly realized that, in many instances, it is the specific combination and arrangements of the elements that determine whether it will be beneficial or harmful to us (life).  In many cases, simply re-arranging the same elements (with the specific combination) spells all the difference between good and bad (relative to our health and well being).  This can readily be attested to by anyone with enough knowledge in chemistry, specifically biochemistry.

Therefore, it is a mistaken notion that an element per se is toxic or beneficial — with a few exceptions such as pure sodium, chlorine, mercury, lead, plutonium, and uranium, to name a few.  It all depends on how they are combined with other elements and substances and in what specific molecular arrangement/s.  After all, like any other thing in nature, everything in creation — except for man — is amoral and merely possesses the potential for both good and bad. It is all in the mixture and application.

TaN: If I have a malicious and biased mind, I would think that a likely significant reason or factor for the continuous and consistent high ratings in surveys of Mr Duterte is similar to that of the “perpetual” high rating in regimes like North Korea and (mainland) China.  Moreover, it has been the characteristic — a character flaw — of Filipinos to always give favorable opinions of the current administration.  [I might even hazard to think that it could be a variant or aberration of the so-called Stockholm Syndrome.]  Seldom, if ever (as far as I can remember unless my memory is failing me), has there been surveys of the chief executive with the possible exception of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, during his/her incumbency, to have very poor survey ratings.

Another possibility is that the sampling of respondents for the surveys are not truly representative (i.e., a genuine cross-section of the population where political sentiments are more or less equally and proportionately present but have the maturity to be honest or unprejudiced in expressing their views, opinions, and sentiments).  At this point, I have to admit (and possibly apologize) if I have made some inappropriate or inaccurate arguments because my knowledge of precisely how the surveys were designed and conducted ergo I should be more cautious regarding my personal impressions.

Moreover, with my limited but adequate knowledge on the laws of probability and of how to ensure a really credible random sampling of respondents, I still doubt if the current techniques and theories in determining the evenness of the distribution of respondent population are (already) reliable enough as to (to some degree) ensure accurate sampling.

Remember that supporters of Mr Duterte who may have initially been rabid fans may have unwittingly experienced the harshness and bitter and permanent effects of his draconian brand of dispensing law and order and justice — as in losing a loved one, be s/he or they were actually guilty or mere “collateral damage” or, as they say, “cost of doing business” — that they would still remain Mr Duterte’s supporters.

I learned in the theory of Ethics of Care that attitudes, sentiments, and behavior (usually) changed when there is some kind of relationship or (emotional or sentimental) attachment involved — that it becomes an entirely different story or situation when we are now talking about being personally involved, like learning of the death of a stranger versus that of a kin.  Many are guilty of this.  It is easy to justify and be emotionally detached and “feel sympathy” for the misfortune of others but it is very different when it happens to someone dear to us.

Political surveys should be conducted and analyzed carefully because they are very subjective, no matter how careful the survey takers are in designing and ensuring minimally biased questions.  Interpretations are especially prejudiced and are always either dismissed because they are negative or unflattering or are praised to high heavens because they are favorable or complimenting.  I have yet to learn of anyone who speaks good of survey results that reflect badly on hi/her or vice versa.  This is the same as speaking ill of a critic or detractor and lauding friends and allies — which is precisely the reason or objective of the admonition of Jesus when He taught, “Love thy enemies“. As the saying goes, “There is no virtue in loving the lovable” or “It is easy to love the lovable“.

In conclusion, let us stop with the reporting of what political figures and parties and government officials and public personalities opine regarding surveys regarding them.  They only a waste of time, news space, and resources, unless they are not self-serving or really contain something meaningful and news worthy.

TaN: It is very irritating and should be illegal for the use of sirens and such devices during non-emergency instances and situations — with the exception of and only for the President and Vice President.  This is because it is very annoying to hear sirens (by motorcycle police and barangay and city vehicles escorting funeral entourages).  And it is extremely annoying that the sirens are extremely loud and sustained and you are trying to listen to something important (like the news or an interesting television program).

I am particularly referring to the incessant practice in the Philippines either when escorting a funeral entourage or procession to the cemetery or when someone of authority or simply has such a device illegal installed in the vehicle and is stuck in a traffic jam or slow-moving traffic or even law enforcement (like the police) or government officials whose only intention is to get pass the gridlock and not help in solving the situation.

It is not as if the blaring siren is calling out to people to watch the funeral as it passes by because it is somebody important and we are to pay homage or whoever is the fool who feels s/he is so important that vehicles must move out of the way to let him/her pass because his/her time is very precious and s/he is some important person and has to be somewhere for something important.

At least people in other countries are more mature in that they do not need to draw attention to themselves (during the funeral) or that they are so important as to require everybody to clear the way as s/he is passing by.  Such juvenile call and need for attention is so lame and pathetic.  It only shows that these people did not receive enough love during their childhood years and are now trying to compensate and recuperate whatever attention deficiency they did not get.

Moreover, it is clear that the perpetrator (i.e., the one who is doing the siren or whatever authority-sounding device) that s/he knows what s/he is doing is wrong or illegal when the sounding of the siren or sounding device is not sustained — i.e., it stops and goes or intermittent.  When it is official business or has a valid reason, sirens are frequently sustained or continuous.  When the siren is turned on and off repeatedly and short bursts, it only means that whoever is the perpetrator knows that s/he is not supposed to be using it on that particular occasion or situation.  And these should be reported to the proper authorities for proper action to be taken against them.

As a conclusion, sirens and loud noises during such occasions as funeral processions only show that people are immature and are so hungry for attention that they do anything and everything just to draw people’s attention, even if it causes undue distractions, irritation, and stress.

TaN: It is getting more and more apparent that the Duterte administration’s penchant for considering critical or negative comments, write-ups, feedbacks, and (almost) any information as fake news.  It is as if only positive (i.e., truthful, but actually it is redundant to say that news is truthful) news is or can be considered news and not fake.  This is very inaccurate, incorrect, and prejudicial.

It is unhealthy not to tolerate, much less welcome, dissenting opinions and views and sentiments — unless we no longer are in a democracy, for it is the very essence of democracy…the free exchange or marketplace of different and even contradicting ideas and views.  False or misleading or even intentionally damaging information should be taken (with a grain of salt) although it does not mean that they have to be “swallowed hook, line and sinker”.  Remember, the wisdom of the ages: “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”

Moreover, when your critics and detractors are “noisy”, they not only telegraph their punches (and intentions) but they likewise tell you where they are.  It is when they are silent that you should begin to worry.  When your enemies are silent, that is when they are scheming and planning and, unless you have “deep throats”, you may just find yourself betrayed or sold out or trapped.  It is wise not to rest too comfortably on one’s laurels for beware of Brutuses in your midst. Some can be sleepers.

Post for Feb 18-24 2018 (updated: Feb 23; 2nd update: Feb 25)

TaN (2nd update): In the opening statement of Alex Jones in his online radio show (podcast), he declared a fact so obvious that I (or we) am flabbergasted I have not noticed it myself until he said it, that (and I quote) “Our biggest problem is that we adapt to tyranny…” — please refer to “rss.infowars.com/20180223_Fri_Alex.mp3“.  No truer words have been said.

God may have taught or admonished us to be patient, tolerant, and many other good virtues but there are certain things that even He will not compromise.  One of those — and I vehemently believe to be so — is never to accept or be comfortable, much less be accustomed or adapt to the “new normal”, evil in any and all its forms, one of which is tyranny. In the eyes of the Lord, it is an abomination, an unforgivable sin.

To adjust or adapt to evil (or its various other forms and degrees) is to compromise with evil and this is wrong.  The prevailing trend that something is the “new normal” and that we have to learn to live with it is wrong, especially if the “new normal” is evil or not virtuous.

One of the most dangerous today is the trend of “creeping” — like the said-to-be creeping martial law (always using the threat of violence or exercising constitutional powers if one does not get one’s way or when critics and detractors continue in their incessant “belligerency” of draconian or barbaric government policies) or creeping global depopulation (via free vaccines and near-deficient RDAs or recommended daily allowances and mass shootings and geoengineering) or creeping gun control issue in the United States of America or creeping world domination (through fluoridation and toxic corporate agriculture and disease-causing processed and GM or genetically modified foods (that target the immune system and health), just to name a few).

In conclusion, more and more, people must think for themselves and be critical thinkers — always wary of attempts by the global power elite to orchestrate, manipulate, control, and subjugate.  Even democracy is being used in the world domination agenda — for if we control the minds of the people into thinking they are free and are making their own choices and not those being “pushed or advanced” by others (trolls, spin meisters, and social engineers) and by peer or social (media) pressures under the guise that it is our choice.

TaN (update): In February 21 post in Natural News, the article titled “Competing for attention in a social media world: Global demand for plastic surgery” by a certain Jhoanna Robinson [URL: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-02-20-competing-for-attention-in-a-social-media-world-global-demand-for-plastic-surgery.html] presents a very intriguing and disturbing revelation.  It is both sad and pathetic that there are people so dependent or addicted to social media and with such low self-esteem that they need cosmetic surgery just to maintain their social media presence.

So many social media users are so vain and narcissistic as to be so concerned with their outward appearance that they totally neglect the more important inner self — the more important and lasting and truer.  They forget that the true self exudes or shows and shines through the face — that we can have a more accurate inkling of the true character of a person by looking and examining the facial features and expressions.

In fact, true beauty need no cosmetic assistance.  Cosmetics only masquerades the true self and is deceptive.  It reveals that people concerned with their outward appearance can likewise be deceptive in their ways.

Remember that Satan used to be Lucifer whose name means “of the light” and implies to be the “most beautiful” and yet became the Devil, the epitome of evil and ultimate deception.  When Lucifer’s true self revealed itself, Lucifer became Satan.

In conclusion, when I hear or read of such things, I can only feel sorry and pity that such people are so superficial and depend so much on the opinions and views of others and so little of themselves.  Their self-worth is at their lowest.  These are precisely the people that social media manipulators are seeking and prey on and there are so many of them.

TaN (update): Just heard from the local broadcast media, well-known Hollywood celebrities have pledged to donate $500k each to gun control — the next nail in the coffin in the agenda of gun control advocates and lobbyists.  It is as if there is a conscious, deliberate, and conspirational orchestration of mass shootings in order to sow enough panic and paranoia to “motivate” more and more public opinion into embracing their agenda of gun control.

Like most issues, there are pros and cons so it is not only important to list down and compare them but likewise give each pro and con proper weight or value to ensure better analysis to a more balance and unbiased conclusion.  It is really insidious and a great majority of the population (apparently) have become apathetic or callous and no longer exercise critical thinking — i.e., being able to correctly discern through the layers and veils of deception and trickery.

In fact, gun control advocates and lobbyists and the gun industry as a whole would like nothing more than for mass shootings, especially in schools, to continue because it is good both for business and for their cause.  And the argument that the solution is to make guns more easily accessible to the public is to “kill two birds with one stone” — greater gun sales and the depopulation agenda of the global power elite.

Meanwhile, gun control, at first glance, appears to be contradictory to promoting the arming of the citizenry but, after critical analysis, there are critical and crucial points that make them complementary.  What use is gun control if or when the public has (almost) no guns?  There will be nothing to control.

In any case, the gun issue is somewhat similar to the (breast) cancer issue where millions and billions are donated for years and we are still no where near finding a solution to cancer, but people still foolishly continue to fund and support it.

TaN (update): In the WSJ (Wall Street Journal) article cited in an article posted in Natural News for February 19, it mentioned an intriguing headline titled “Flu Vaccine Less Effective Than Earlier Estimates” by a certain Sarah Toy and dated (or updated, as the article noted) February 15, 2018 5:29 pm ET — URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/flu-vaccine-less-effective-than-earlier-estimates-1518718596.

Since access to WSJ articles (now) requires that I either subscribe or become a registered member and sign in — either of which I can afford or desire to do — I could not gain access to the full article but just the first couple of paragraphs.  However, basing my/this TaN primarily on the headline and whatever available text I can freely read, it would seem that title of the Natural News article is slightly inaccurate or amiss from that of the WSJ article title.

In the Natural News title, it would seem to imply that vaccines ineffectivity goes way back — although this is not far from the truth, if untrue at all, no matter the degree of untruth — whereas the WSJ title appears to say that it applies only to this latest vaccine (preparation).

In any case, vaccines are unnatural and very unhealthy and it goes against all that is sane and natural and ethical.  Add to this that there is almost no incidence where the patient (“victim”) has been properly informed and an informed consent has been given.  The right to choose and to refuse, especially when it comes to personal health, is primordial and fundamental and, for as long as the choice poses no risks to public safety, the right remains intact and “exercisable”.  And when I say “poses no risks”, I do not mean the way certain government and vested business interests would define and interpret it, just like what is happening in the vaccine industry where people who refuse to be vaccinated are being demonized, marginalized, ostracized, and altogether persecuted and branded as public health risks and liabilities.

TaN (update): In Natural News, articles posted for February 19 titled: (1) “Customer service, retail and warehouse jobs to be obsolete: Experts predict 1 in 5 jobs will be lost to robots in the next decade” by a certain Jhonna Robinson [URL: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-02-19-customer-service-retail-and-warehouse-jobs-lost-to-robots.html] and (2) “Lunatic climate change scientists now pushing ‘outlandish, scary’ geoengineering schemes to ‘cool the planet’” by a certain Lance D Johnson [URL: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-02-19-lunatic-climate-change-scientists-outlandish-scary-geoengineering-schemes.html].

(1) In the first cited article, I believe automation is actually a good thing (as a bottom line).  I understand that it “takes away” employment from people but the jobs automation takes over are menial and repetitive jobs that do not require much skills.  Those jobs are actually demeaning to the human psyche.  By automating those jobs, it leaves the more meaningful jobs for us, which develops our creativity and reinforces our self-esteem.  Menial and repetitive tasks debases the human spirit and reduces man to the status of a mindless machine.
It is an entirely different story or situation when profit-oriented or -driven corporations automate for reasons of pure profit.  However, for as long as machines cannot have imagination and creativity — which is impossible — then people should not fear the paranoid notion that machines will one-day take over the world.  Such a catastrophe can only happen if a cabal of global power elite will conspire and connive to redefine traditional understanding of what is proper, right, and true as well as the majority of us foolishly accept and agree to it.
Mindless and iterative tasks should be relegated to automation with man exercising supervision and control and oversight.

(2) In the second cited article, geoengineering is a project that affects the entire planet, remembering and keeping in mind that nature has a different concept of (nor respects man-made) boundaries and borders and that whatever we release into the environment eventually not only drifts back but likewise toward or intrudes into the territory of others, like other communities and countries.  It is impossible control or dictate to substances we release into the environment where they are to go.  Moreover, it is absolutely wrong for dominant (and wealthy) nations to just go about and do as it pleases — arguing that they know what they are doing, know what is the right thing to do, doing it for the sake of all, and carrying out unilateral decisions and activities that (eventually) affect all countries and the ultimately the entire planet (and its other occupants).
And this is not to mention the fact that geoengineering (of an entire planet) is unprecedented and has not even been tested on a series of gradually increasing test samples.
Finally, just like the argument of GMO (genetically modified organisms) that are being released into the wild, it must be remembered that, once in the environment, they can no longer be recalled or contained — at least not in the way we do it, because nature has its own unique ways of containment, such as temperature zones, salinity layers, physical and geographic regions (like oceans, deserts, and canyons), and others.
In other words, whatever substances we deploy into the environment to achieve geoengineering goals or objectives can not be undone.  What is done is done and there is no turning back.  There is no “Oops, sorry!”

TaN (update): In the article titled “So-called ‘cancer vaccine’ isn’t a vaccine at all; it’s actually immunotherapy that boosts the body’s own immune function” by a certain Tracey Watson [URL: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-02-18-cancer-vaccine-isnt-a-vaccine-at-all-its-actually-immunotherapy.html] in the Natural News post for February 18, this only reveals the next insidious step in the scheme for world domination and depopulation by the global power elite.  By disguising or masquerading it as immunotherapy instead of what it truly is — a deadly and malicious brew of poisons and chemical cocktail intended to illicit an inflammatory response from the body — Big Pharma even quotes from the World Health Organization (a co-conspirator in global domination and unprecedented mass-scale genocide) and I re-quote: “A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease.  A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism, and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins.  The agent stimulates the body’s immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and ‘remember’ it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.”

Although the text is factually accurate, it is misleading as it draws attention away from the real danger and focuses only on the “clinical or antiseptic” definition.  It completely avoids the ugly truth and prefers to use the less obvious negative impact of vaccines — which is that, in order to achieve the “immunotherapeutic response and ‘benefit'”, it has to illicit an inflammatory response from the body’s defenses and this means introducing something disease-causing or toxic.  [Again, please refer to the interview of Dr Suzanne Humphries by Mike Adams regarding her revelation and crusade against vaccines and the latest attempt of her life (as of the time of interview), URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEl4phdD7p4 <<==alternative site as cannot locate original video.]

This reminds me of an old television commercial advertisement regarding monosodium glutamate (MSG) where it pretends to be scientific and “objectively” analyzes the substance.  It discussed, “glutamate” is a beneficial nutrient to the body and is found also in cheese and tomatoes and then the advertisement stops there without mentioning the dangers and health risks of the sodium (component) which is what makes MSG a health risk.

This (insidious and) malicious scheme of directing attention away from what is important and crucial and focusing it on the trivial and mundane is one of the prevailing modus operandi of most (profit-driven) business practices today.

TaN (update): On the incident of Pastor Quiboloy in Hawaii just the other day, at first glance, it would seem innocent and plausible enough that the good pastor would not be guilty of the accusations considering the evidence and that his (Quiboloy’s) friend and manager of the Hawaii segment would be the one admitting to the evidence.

However, upon later analysis, would it not seem presumptive or even downright disrespectful to bring gun (parts) and that much in cash with them without the knowledge of the good pastor, after all it is his aircraft and you are not exactly bringing aboard pocket change or a child’s toy?  In the first place, you are a United States of American (for quite a long time) so you should be (or have been) aware of laws regarding transporting so much cash and especially guns.

Moreover, the fact that the gun has been disassembled or in parts only means or implies that there is a deliberate attempt to conceal the weapon from being detected or “smuggle” it otherwise it does not make sense to dismantle it.  It is not as if they were traveling on a commercial flight and bring the gun whole may prove to be too bulky and cumbersome to carry or tote that it had to be broken down into parts for easier and more compact for storage and transport.

In conclusion, all this only implies that the entire incident is not on the up-and-up and that there is an intentional attempt to take the fall for another person, not necessarily Pastor Quiboloy but since it all transpired on the property of the latter, it became his responsibility and liability and, according to the law, should answer for it.

TaN (update): I really have to get my two-sentimos worth into the foray — regarding the issue of sensitivity and over-sensitivity, as the case may be.  Snowflakes and social media netizens who are being unfriended and unliked and whatever “un” there is (or will be) — i.e., their purportedly traumatization from the experience — are becoming more and more absurd.  And the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) — global, especially those in the United States of America and the Philippines — community, are no exceptions.

I can understand sensitivity when feeling hurt, insulted, shunned, and even disparaged, but to go as far as being onion-skinned and to react to just about anything and everything with so much over-reaction and emotion that somewhat carries it to absurdity and insanity.  There seems to no longer be any line (fine or not) drawn between sensitivity and over-sensitivity (or over-reaction).

Life is not fair.  No one ever said it was.  Learn to deal with it.  You do not have to be liked or be friends all the time.  And friends do fall out of friendship, especially if the friendship was founded on unsteady or false (intentional or not) grounds to begin with.

In fact, for myself, I could not care less if anyone bashes me and even unfriends or unlikes me.  Who are they to me and in my life?  I do not need their friendship nor them to like me.  I did not know they even exist.  They can say what they want.  For as long as what others say or write about me are untruths, it will not matter to me.  My ego is neither that huge nor fragile.

My actions and I are answerable only to my Creator.  For as long as I (believe that I) am obeying what my Creator has directed me and all people on how to live and treat others — and seek and tell and promote the truth and faithfully comply with His admonitions and commandments through the Holy Scriptures and, especially, through the personal teachings and parables of His Only Begotten Son Jesus — with respect to critics, detractors, bashers, bullies, trolls, spin meisters, and all the assortment of what-have-yous.

I am nobody so what people say about me is not important — at least not enough to be of any real (global) consequence.  I am not important.  What is important is the message that I write in this site.  Are the contents true?  I think it was St Thomas Aquinas who once wrote, “The truth, even if it comes from a liar, is still the truth.”  Do not focus on the messenger, but the message.  This is precisely the same reason why Jesus came to us as a lowly carpenter and then a traveling or wandering preacher instead of royalty or some other high-profile figure.  God did not want the status of His Son to interfere with the message He was trying to bring us.

So, returning to topic (as I am frequently wont to digress), it is good to be sensitive because it is how we can respond to and interact with feedbacks and reactions, be they positive/constructive or negative/destructive.  However, it is entirely a different thing when we exaggerate that sensitivity to the extent that we become “paralyzed” into inactivity, that our daily living is being severely hampered, that we have to watch our every word and action, as if our very thoughts are being controlled.

And this is exactly what the global power elite wants and has in its centuries-old agenda — complete world domination.  As David Icke once (and probably continues to) proclaim (and I paraphrase or interpret), It used to be that the population is subjugated by the elite few through authoritarian rule — as in monarchies and fiefdoms and dictatorships and empires.  They ruled through brute force and strength, through the use of oppressive armies and the military.  The biggest turning point in their strategy for/of world domination came in World War II, through the “charisma” and glib (but with forethought and a lot of advanced planning and scheming) of the likes of Adolf (Schicklegruber) Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

Today, these dominators have learned from the mistakes of the past (their ancestors) and corrected many of the past mistakes and have polished and perfected their craft.  They found out that, since “what the mind can conceive the body can achieve”, this means that the mind controls the body (and its actions).  Ergo, if the mind is controlled, the body follows.

And this is what it is today.  In fact, if you recall the recent admission by a social media giant that it has been experimenting on manipulating people’s (social) behavior via social media.

It looks like the “snowflake” project is the logical next step in the quest or agenda for world domination, preying on people’s feelings to manipulate them into being so conscious about their actions and thoughts that they have become paranoid and psychotic.

TaN (update): In today’s (February 19) Senate hearing on the Philippine Navy’s frigate deal, there are two things that caught my attention: (1) resurgence of the fake news issue and (2) the argument that the (Philippine) Navy must shift its attention and focus to procuring a (combat) submarine to beef up and improve the modernization program of the military.

(1) On fake news — I suddenly realized that fake news is not anything new but merely another phase in the evolution of terms describing what has been ongoing for decades or even scores — i.e., a score is twenty years.  In the past (among other nomenclature and not necessarily in the order specified), it was called sensationalism (in journalism), propaganda (in public relations), raw (unvetted) news (especially in social media), gossip and rumors and blind items (in entertainment and show business), scuttlebutt (in military parlance), and water cooler or grape-vine stories (in offices and other places of business) just to name a few — although there are slight differences in the various forms it took.  Whatever it was called and now fake news, it is all the same thing — irresponsible spreading of unverified and potentially damaging information.

(2) Regarding the acquisition of a (combat) submarine as being vital to the armed forces’ modernization program (and national security) — A submarine is more of an offensive than a defensive weapon (system), especially for a poor or underdeveloped or developing country.  If the proponent of acquiring submarines for the Philippine Navy during the Senate hearing is concerned with national security and considering that the Philippines is an archipelago, there are a variety or mix of both active and passive defensive systems that can be deployed that is more effective and considerably cheaper than acquiring a submarine.  Large surface ships such as frigates may be ideal to patrol the high seas, fast surface crafts are more suited for the territorial seas between the islands since the waters would be shallow and prove a challenge for large vessels such as frigates.

Moreover, there are passive and much cheaper underwater defense systems that are far more effective — such as networks of wire meshes that are (are fine enough to be) undetectable by sonar yet are strong enough to prevent penetration under the water surface.  In fact, I predict the (military and monitoring or surveillance) drone technology will soon go underwater.  It is not unlikely that underwater drones armed with appropriate weapons (or scanning) systems can be remotely operated as deterrent similar to those that are now operating in the air.  In this day and age of networks and individual stand-alone units working as a cohesive team, it is far better to have multiple much smaller units operating in unison than a large behemoth lumbering around — because a small unit is cheaper to build and less costly to lose and can be taken offline without affecting the integrity and cohesiveness of the working group whereas a monster of a warship may be formidable but once it is disabled, your whole system goes down.

In addition, just because the Philippines is an archipelago and the islands are separated by water does not mean that submarines are a must.  It must further be remembered that the maintenance of a submarine is drastically different from surface (war)ships and the cost goes down if there are more units — remembering the economics of scale where maintenance of one unit is just as expensive as maintaining two or three.  Forget the submarine and go for drone technology.  Take our cue from nature — where the whole organism is built with miniature components that are almost identical but perform different roles and functions depending on where they are assigned or situated (in relation to the whole organism).

TaN: I think I have stumbled upon the most convincing argument for Creation and against (Darwinian) Evolution — the principles of breeding.  In the Holy Scriptures, there was (and was “permitted”) inbreeding, especially in the case of man — for how else can man carry out the command of God to “go forth and multiply” when God only created Adam then fashioned Eve from his rib.

It is obvious that today, incest is a BIG NO-NO — otherwise there will be what-is-known-as hemophilia.  However, this was not the case in the beginning, when man was still in the process of populating and subjugating the planet. It was not until much later that the condition of hemophilia “developed” which now prevents man from inter-marrying within a certain degree of familial blood lineage.

In the case of animals (and plants), Darwinian evolution argues that there was a (sudden) appearance of an offspring exhibiting or possessing a (slight) mutation from the parents which then gradually transitioned into a more significant deviation and so on.  However, this supposed (for argument’s sake) mutation or aberration would have to be simultaneous in a relatively wide range of the same species and in close proximity else how will these find “suitable” mates to ensure the continued existence of the mutation.

[Nota bene: Certain mutations are minor and need not require others with the same mutation to reproduce — as in the finches in the Galapagos which merely involved the size and shape of the beaks — but other mutations are significant, such as transitioning from three-chambered hearts to four chambers and the replacement of scales with feathers or fur.  Major mutations cannot persist without others with the same mutations.]

Moreover, mutations in a species which will eventually lead to the emergence of an entirely different species would require inbreeding in order to preserve the mutation but inbreeding today, even among animals, are extremely rare if it still exists at all.  Even in the case of social animals or those that live and/or travel in herds or groups and especially among those that congregate only during rutting or breeding season, inbreeding is still rare — although I think this argument of mine may still need to be supported and proven by genetic testing of social animals during breeding season.

TaN: Furthermore, as some sort of a rejoinder to this TaN above, assuming, for argument’s sake, that conventional science estimates that there are literally billions upon billions of other star systems and that quite a number of them (even just one percent of one percent would mean at least 10 million) would be not just a couple of centuries or even millennia older than our Earth, if live would have likewise somehow accidentally and randomly evolved, a bunch of them should have evolved to such a state that they would literally be centuries ahead of us in technology.

Given this wild assumption or presumption, it is very strange that these “advanced civilizations” would have developed technology much much superior to ours and would have visited us by now — unless, of course, we are truly unique (as the Holy Scriptures mentioned) or no one wants to be our friend (us being such a troublesome and (self-)destructive species and all).  It does seem very odd that no astronomer or astrophysicist had stumbled upon this line of thinking yet.

They keep arguing and pointing out that there are so-and-so many Earth-like exo-planets out there and then repeating just how much older much of the universe is and how our Milky Way and solar is just about half as old (or young) but never once thinking that all those much older star systems with Earth-like exo-planets would have passed our present age so there should have been some “accidental and random” evolution of life that occurred — unless they, by some weird fate that may happen to us likewise, eventually became extinct (by self-destruction, just like what are may be facing “soon”).

Moreover, let us further assume (and for argument’s sake again) that these “ancient super races” somehow developed, evolved, survived, and went to other stars to populate them and Earth happened to be one of them, making us descendants of the star people, would it not make sense that these “colonies” would have kept in touch with each other?  And if so, why did we have to “start from scratch” and go through the whole shenanigan of having organic molecules accidentally combining to form fundamental life beings that slowly and painstakingly went through the whole process of evolution again.

This all seems very strange and boggles my common sense. I am beginning to think that all these cash outlay to support and maintain our SETI (search for extra-terrestrial intelligence) program is just another expensive ruse to get hard-earned taxpayer’s money to spend on a wild goose chase instead of using them for solving much of global famine and starvation, global poverty, (altruistic or philanthropic) global technological innovations to benefit the common good instead of lining the pockets of the (already filthy and obscenely) wealthy through monopolistic patents, copyrights, and other intellectual property mechanism and devises.

If we pause for a while and really mull over what this ever-increasingly faster pace of greed- and profit-driven modern life is making us do, we will realize that all these are just benefiting those at the top of the economic and power food chain — the top 1 percent — who already has and dominates every aspect of our lives and seek to even further tighten their stranglehold over the rest of us lowly mortals by promoting a subtle but brilliant depopulation mindset.

Having less people on the planet not only reduces the need to have a large “security or controlling or policing” force to maintain (the New World) order and keep them subjugated but likewise a much larger piece of the wealth-and-power pie — in an old TED talk video where WIlliam “Bill” Gates III spoke about “health care” with the use vaccines and other means and the need to “reduce the global population”.

The biggest problem is much of the global population are not critical thinkers and are too occupied (read: distracted) with the trivial things such as sports, celebrities and gossip, being politically correct, gender and race issues, and the like.  [Nota bene: I included “being politically correct” and “gender and race issues” because, although they are undoubtedly major concerns, the manner in which these issues are being discussed and manipulated comes out as being superficial and ludicrous.  ‘Nuff said!]

TaN: One of the most mis-used (and abused) terms today is “free”.  Free means no obligations; it is one-direction and no need for reciprocity.  I do not require anything from others in exchange, especially money — it is truly at no cost whatsoever.

However, most of today’s free are not.  Business has appropriated it to mean no reciprocal monetary or financial obligations or liability.  One of the most common business usage is in advertising or marketing, like “Free something for every purchase of some other thing”.  How can that be free when you have to spend in order to avail of whatever is “for free”.

Cyberspace is no exception either.  There are so many sites offering free this and free that but people mistake it to mean no financial outlay.  In truth, these sites require that you register, become a member, or otherwise shell out (valuable and negotiable) personal information in exchange for the freebie.  This is not free.

My blog is truly free.  The visitor can take anything or nothing. I does not matter to me.  My only condition — which is without reciprocity, at least to me — is that whatever was taken must likewise be freely given away.  [Though I have a condition requisite, there is no way I can ensure compliance so it is actually no condition.  It is but a plea, a favor.]  Pass it forward.

In today’s money conscious world, money is and will always be at the root of all dealings, even if it is “free”.  Even the “buy one get another free” is not free because you have to pay for something to get whatever “free” is being given away.

When you say “free”, it should be free in every sense of the word.  No strings attached.  Not even conditions to be met in exchange for whatever is being given for free.  Free is free…period.

TaN: I just realized the recent decision to change the color of the P100 denomination — because the color was too close to that of the P1000 denomination — was fiscally wrong.  It should have been the P1000 denomination that should have been changed.

My argument is that since the P1000 denomination is a larger amount, there would naturally be less of it in circulation as compared with that of the P100 denomination.  In this sense, changing the color of the P1000 denomination instead of the P100 denomination would take less ink.

TaN: Morality is what you do, not what others do.  A moral person thinks only about what s/he does — regardless of what others do.  What others do is their business.

However, this does not mean that what others do are no concerns of a moral person.  It is part of the duty/obligation and responsibility of a moral individual to inform and, if possible or when applicable, teach and correct the misdeeds of others.  It is one’s moral responsibility that others should be moral likewise.

Although this being the case, it does not mean that a moral individual must insist, much less impose, his/her morality upon others — for it is said and acknowledged that “No person has a monopoly on morality”.

In this temporal and imperfect world, everything is objective or amoral but only when it is apart from man.  As far as man is concerned, everything (in his world) is subjective because one cannot escape being subjective.  Man tends to perceive things from his/her (own) perspective and this taints everything with subjectivism.

So, in essence, as far as man is concerned, there is no true objectivism or objectivity.  Even when we take the commonality among different perspectives — somehow arguing that what is common to many surely must be “objective” since it is no longer based solely on a single viewpoint — there is still bound to be some residual or rudimentary bias because people, by nature, will always have self-interest at heart (as a species) and the bias would still have traces of subjectivity.

And so, the best that can be done or expected is as much of cultural and self-interest biases as can be “removed” so as to be as objective as possible.  Total objectivity is an impossibility.

Post for Feb 11-17 2018 (updated Feb 17)

TaN (update): In the issue regarding the environmental situation of the beaches of Boracay, Mr Duterte should fire whoever is the DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) official in charge of issuing permits the Boracay establishments as well as the local government units that are responsible for overseeing or with jurisdiction to the said area.  Mr Duterte should hold whoever it is accountable since the situation should not have reached levels where it has to be plastered across the media and be brought to his (Mr Duterte’s) attention.

Moreover, because the problem with large populations with a low incidence of maturity among the people is that it is a gargantuan task for government to keep track of everything, especially when it comes to enforcing government policies and regulations and the law.  A good way to mitigate the ;problem is to have the people organized into associations that will have, as part of their function, to police their own ranks to ensure compliance with law and regulations.  This means that the responsible organization will have to assist and augment the government’s monitoring to ensure compliance.

To illustrate, let the commercial establishments in Boracay police their own members and no business will be permitted to be established without belonging to a particular accredited organization in the industry.  The concerned organization will be held accountable for the compliance and discipline of its members.  In this manner, should a particular commercial establishment be found to violate (existing) regulations or policies, the organization in which it belongs to will have to answer, as well as the local government unit and whichever other government unit or agency that has direct bearing on the violation.

So, if, say, a resort or restaurant in the Boracay is found to be (guilty of) dumping raw sewage into the environment, the organization the resort or restaurant belongs to will have to take action.  Moreover, should it prove too costly for an individual commercial establishment to set up a waste treatment facility, the organization can always set up a common facility for all members to use and charge regular maintenance dues.

Finally, a one-strike policy can be enforced for such violations and the offending or guilty party (commercial establishment) will be closed and the responsible person be barred from putting up another business.  This is draconian but it is the only way that I can think of to make sure things like these will not recur.

TaN (update): Upon reading today’s (February 11) article in the hardcopy of The Philippine STAR, titled “SC decision on ML extension creates ground for dictatorship” by a certain Evelyn Macairan, it dawned on me that another “similarity” between the current Duterte administration and the pre-martial law Marcos one is that both first ensured “control” over the armed services (i.e., military and police) by “buying” their loyalty.

In the case of Mr Marcos, he pampered the military with benefits and promotions and appointments and lavished upon them many perks and overlooked many atrocities and anomalies and brutalities.  Meanwhile, Mr Duterte did it by increasing (doubling) the salaries, aside from providing and upgrading them with more modern weapons and clothing and housing (which is owed them anyway) as well as also giving his “unconditional” support in whatever misdeeds they commit in obedience to his program to save his country (unless media gets a wind of it and public clamor proves to be much to ignore or pooh-pooh away).

At first, the increase in salary is long-overdue so I saw it as but deserving and genuine concern for the plight of the armed services — who lay down their very lives for a paltry sum and benefits that are not really reflective of the true value of their sacrifice.

On the surface and if you are not really critically thinking, you can easily be hoodwinked into believing all the pronouncements and show being heaped on the public but if you take a seat back and really do some deep pondering into it, variant similarities emerge you begin to see the light.

But don’t get me wrong, I admit and agree that many of Mr Duterte’s programs are well-intended and deserving and much-delayed and truly benefits the country.  However, what is being contested — and I reiterate — is the manner in which these programs and well-intentions are being carried out.  There are always numerous ways of doing things but there is (always) only one correct way.

Suffice it to say, the manner in which Mr Duterte chose to do it is not the correct one.  It is for this very reason why the end of the world and Judgment Day is taking so long.

Nothing good comes from haste.  The first lesson in the Holy Scriptures is patience — God created everything in SIX DAYS although He could have done it in the snap of His fingers.  The reason?  Things of value take time.  I always use this analogy: If you want diamonds, you need tremendous pressure (our sacrifices and obedience to God’s word) and a long time but if you are in a hurry and want it now, there is always glass (puwit ng baso or the bottom or base of a glass tumbler).

TaN: I am convinced that there is a common “language” among the same species and a universal “language” for all creatures and a single media — via some sort of telepathy.  How else can one explain how two people of very different cultures and speaking extremely unique languages somehow eventually, through constant, consistent, purposeful, and systematic and determined interactive attempts, establish an understanding.

It is easy to understand or see how the French, Spanish, German, and Italian people can communicate — because their root language is Latin — so there are bound to be similarities.  However, for a French or German to understand and communicate with a Japanese or Chinese or an Arab is more challenging and would require quite a stretch of imagination and patience.  Not only are the language different but the way of writing is vastly dissimilar — what with the use of characters that express or represent entire ideas and concepts instead of just simple symbols that are used to construct queues to form words and thoughts.

I believe that as we try to establish some sort of rapport with another in a different or unfamiliar language or medium of communication, we (somehow) telepathically send out certain brain waves to each other and these brain waves have universality — just like in newborns and parents, especially the mother — which initiates some form of understanding thus enabling communication.  Perhaps these are the so-called “bonds” that we refer to (as in parent-child bond, sibling bond, friendship bond, and all the rest).  There is somehow some kind of universal understanding that transcends the limitations and restrictions of the physical.

There are many things, aside from those that are obvious to our senses and logic, that defy reasoning and can only be explained by faith in the unseen.  Perhaps, it is what is referred to in the Holy Scriptures where it mentions that, though He is unseen and beyond our temporal senses, He has left many signs of His power, His majesty, His presence everywhere.  It is all a matter of know where and how to look.  Those who deny it will never find it.

This universality of a common “language” (among living things) is one of those subtle yet glaring evidences that testify to the glory and creativity and wisdom of the Creator.  It defies counter-arguments against its existence because the contrary is simply impossible or unacceptable.

If one really give it deep and serious thought, one would “rationalize” that there has to be some kind of deeper and more rudimentary consciousness in our perception and interpretation of the (physical) world — perhaps we are able to send out mental images of what we would like to express and communicate and this image is somehow similar to the one in the recipient’s mind so s/he is able to put one and one together and make the association.

I have frequently pondered the instances in movies and documentaries where people of very different cultures and language make the first encounter and try painstakingly to introduce themselves.  It would be interesting to read the notes of early missionaries and explorers when they first meet up with their community or subjects.

TaN: Mountains can be leveled; rivers can be channeled; the hardest of all is to change the ways of man (Chinese proverb).  This illustrates perfectly the situation when man is so convinced about something that s/he literally ignores everything else — even the most blatant and obvious truth or reasoning.

Ever since Jesus resurrection and returned to His Father, God has ceased all direct contact and communication with man.  He has done all He could — sending prophets, leaving Scriptures, bequeathing to us His apostles, and even sending His Only Begotten Son.  There is no excuse for us not to hear Him and heed His words.  And there is nothing left to be done.  It is all up to us.

Moreover, as some sort of a rejoinder to previous TaNs, (today’s) miracles — even during Jesus’ stay with us — are repeated ever so often to us that they are due to strong belief.  It is because of our extreme faith that miracles happen (to us).  This is the most apt proof when Jesus said that (quoted in both the Book of Matthew and of Luke), And the Lord said, “If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and be planted in the sea’; and it would obey you‘” (Luke 17:6 KJV,http://biblehub.com/luke/17-6.htm) or “And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you” (Matthew 17:20 KJV,http://biblehub.com/matthew/17-20.htm).

It is precisely our faith — and not so much as God’s (direct) handiwork — that we perform miracles.  Part of the purpose of Jesus coming to us is to show us that what He can do, we can likewise do.  He did not come to us to flaunt His Godhead.

This is exactly what happens — as I hear testimonies, especially during the Feast of the Nazarene in Quiapo — that the devotees’ firm and extreme conviction and belief produced “miracles” and they attribute it to the wooden idol image.  This is absurd for, as argued in the Holy Scriptures, how can an inanimate object perform such wondrous deeds.

The only concern I have is from whom the miraculous cures and events came from because I seriously doubt if it came from God, much less the wooden object the devotees so revere and worship.  This incorrect devotion only reinforces the idolatry that they are guilty of and their public pronouncement draws in more and more “victims” — leading more sheep to the slaughter.

In any case, for many, all that matters is that their hopes and aspirations were answered (and sickness cured) without so much as thinking from whence it came and if there are strings attached, because if it comes from the devil, there are many strings attached and the ultimate is the immortal soul.

TaN: Examining more closely and honestly the works of Jesus Christ (as written in the Holy Scriptures), it would appear that He only did three miracles — the (acknowledged) first one being changing of water into wine during the wedding feast, the second is the raising of Lazarus (from the dead), and last is His own resurrection.

All the other miracles attributed to Him was never owned by Him.  He never took credit for them.  Every time the sick thanked Him for healing them, He always answered that (and I paraphrase), “It is your faith that has healed you” — even the noted centurion who rode far to beseech Him to heal his favorite slave who had been taken ill.

It is likewise for the same reason that not all who pleaded to be healed by Him were healed.  Since healing is dependent on how much their faith is, those who rely on Jesus to heal them and not their faith in God are not healed.  This likewise implies that the presence of Jesus (or God) is not significant to the healing process.  The intensity of our faith is all that is required.

This, however, does not implied nor mean that God is irrelevant for our faith must be anchored in God.  Faith, in itself, has no meaning.  Faith needs something or someone to focus on and, as can repeatedly be witnessed, faith in inanimate objects do not really work — should healing take place, it is either that there was never really any sickness or the devil is capitalizing on the situation to push his agenda of leading us as far away from God has he can and idolatry is a very good means (First Commandment: I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before me).  Remember, the devil can perform miracles as well.  “Miraculous events” are not the sole province of God, just as it is said that churches and other such stone edifices do not keep the devil away and that even the devil can quote Scriptures.

Performing “miracles” in the name of idols is Satan’s way of deceiving us into believing that it is God’s work and thus leading us further away from God — even if we mistakenly thank God for the “miracle”.  Only faith is God are there true miracles.  There are no such things as intercessors and intermediaries and whatever you can conjure up.  Remember, it is wrong to attribute to God human frailties such as the use of padrinos and go-betweens.  There is but one who truly has the ear of God (the Father) and that is His Only Begotten Son (Jesus); so if you really must need someone to focus on, it is Jesus (and not any facsimile of Him).

TaN: With all these news regarding advancements in technology, especially in robotics and automation and in drone technology, I just realized that what we refer to as inventions and innovations and advancements and progress and development are actually man merely replicating what nature (or God) has done and been doing for the past millennia — or merely reinventing the wheel — from electricity and electric batteries (electric eels and catfish et al) to photocells (leaves) to flight to rebreathers (aqualungs) to plastics and many, many more and, as of the post in Natural News (URL: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-01-05-scientists-have-created-robots-that-have-rib-cages-flexible-spines-and-can-sweat.html) titled “Scientists have created robots that have rib cages, flexible spines, and can SWEAT” by a certain Earl Garcia, the title explains itself.

In any case, all these so-called advancements are merely our efforts to replicate what nature has done and been doing since time immemorial.  In fact, there remains a multitude of other “advancements” that still have not be made.

Moreover, most of our advancements are not real or substantial advancements.  For me, advancements should benefit the common good, they should be made available to man universally and at the least or no cost.  In addition, these advancements should be meaningful and not trivial or superfluous.

One good case is calling the use of spoon and fork over the use of mere hands in eating as advancement.  We are merely extending the hand with utensils but we still bring food to our mouths.  Advancement would be not using our hands and we levitate the food or even do away with eating all together.  That would be advancement.

We always like to think too highly of ourselves and our “achievements”.  It is as if what we “create” has not yet been done — which is what creation means…something out of nothing.  As the saying goes, God creates while man merely re-arranges.

This reminds of the anecdote I heard many years ago regarding man’s ultimate arrogance.  It seems that man has reached the point where we can also “create” living things out of the non-living so there was a global consensus to send someone to inform God that we no longer need Him (because we can now likewise do what He can do).  As the designated individual spoke to God and explained the situation, God said: “I understand.  But just to humor Me, let us have one last contest.  Let us create a man.”  Our agent agreed so God proceeded to fashion man our of clay and breathe life into it.  As our agent prepared to do the same, he began to fashion a man from clay but, as he was going so, God interrupted him and said, “Wait a minute.  You go and make your own clay.  You are using my clay.”