TaN: It just suddenly dawned on me that cooking is actually a (food) preservation technique. This is the very reason why we hurriedly cook all food in the refrigerator in an expected prolong power outage where there is the possibility that internal temperature of the refrigerator will elevate to the point to begin the decaying process in all fresh or uncooked (and leftover) food. This is to prevent the food from going bad.
And cooking — through (high) heating — to make food “resist” spoilage actually makes the food difficult to digest (by bacteria and other natural decomposers). This is why heated food stays unspoiled longer.
The heating process renders the food tough to digest or chemically breakdown. And this is the same reason why heated food makes one stay full longer. It is because the body is experiencing difficulty breaking down the food and assimilating it into the body.
Moreover, the heating process changes the food and makes it “unrecognizable” to the body — as food. This is likewise the reason why raw food eaters have slimmer and more toned bodies without exerting too much effort, like exercising and working out, as compared to heated food eaters.
In addition, obesity (and morbid obesity) is rampant among heated food eaters. This is because heated food is considered as toxic by the body. And whenever something toxic enters the body, the body tries to get rid of it as fast as possible. However, if the quantity is too great to easily expel, the body resorts to storing it in the body — specifically in the fat cells, where they are effectively “neutralized” or rendered inactive or inert.
Furthermore, it is for this reason that people who consume only or relatively less heated foods than the average person still experience weight gain. It is because, as more and more of the “toxic” heated food is stored in fat cells, the body eventually runs out of fat cells to store. When this happens, the body has to create more (new) fat cells to accommodate the unstored/un-deactivated “toxic” food — thereby causing increase in weight despite a decrease in food intake. Even vegetarians as well as vegans who may be consuming more vegetables may still experience weight gain if heated food make up a significant portion of their diet.
Generally speaking, people who consume a greater percentage of raw foods have little or no problem maintain their proper weight.
Finally, there are those who argue that the body needs protein so they justify their meat diets but they fail to see — and some even adamantly and stubbornly adhere to their justification — that animals with the greatest body mass are plant or non-meat eaters. Take care classic and arguably very blatant examples: cattle, horses, deer and antelopes, dugongs/manatees/sea cows, walruses, ostriches and other ratites, giant pandas, elephants, hippopotamuses, rhinoceri, giraffes, and even the baleen whales.
And the counterargument for large carnivores — such as lions, bears (actually these are omnivores like man and not really carnivores, except for the polar bear), tigers, crocodiles and alligators, Komodo dragons, and toothed whales (such as orcas and sperm whales) — they have to be large because their prey are huge. If we compare these supposedly large carnivores against their natural prey, they are significantly smaller.
Anyway, in conclusion, is it not oddly intriguing that only man (intentionally) heats his food prior to consumption? The only valid reason for heating food before eating is that the food is tastier but this is because heating evaporates the water content so the food ends up “concentrated” ergo more flavorful, among other culinary reasons.
TaN: Today’s (December 30) The Philippine STAR headlines — “‘Sorry for unintended killings in drug war‘” and “Blame God for my foul mouth — Rody” both of which are attributed to Alexis Romero — show that Mr Duterte’s logic and even common sense is deteriorating, so much and so fast that he may be taking the country down with him.
First article, does Mr Duterte think (like former president Arroyo in the ‘Hello Garci” incident) that just saying sorry and all is forgiven? What about all those innocent “collateral damage” who were just unfortunate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were injured or even killed? Is saying “Oops sorry” all they get? Their injuries and deaths were all unnecessary and avoidable and all they get from the ultimate person responsible (and continues to be) is an apology — and not even a formal or personalized apology.
It is understandable and justifiable when it is unavoidable. However many, if not most, could have been prevented or avoided. Unfortunately, it was not the case for many. Moreover, even if the injuries and deaths happened to the intended targets of (legitimate) law enforcement operations, needless violence and physical harm, especially death, should be the last resort.
In addition, what is sad is that many operational protocols or procedures are inherently either flawed or deficient. But many of them have been in place even before Duterte.
One prime example is the stupid and dangerous practice of having armed (closed-in) prisoner/suspect escorts. This presents an opportunity for the person under or in custody easy access to a weapon and this is where most of the deaths arising from resisting arrest may or actually come from. In countries like the United States of America (and as far as I know, it is still done), closed-in security, bodyguards, and escorts never have any weapon on their person. It is precisely for the purpose of avoiding such unfortunate and tragic circumstances. Having a weapon within arms reach is just an open invitation or temptation that a prisoner/suspects, especially one who either is guilty or feels s/he will not get a fair shake, cannot resist.
Moreover, if it is necessary to have one’s service firearm on one’s person, at least remove the ammunition — do not have a loaded weapon on your person.
Finally, if a tragedy occurs due to having a weapon — usually a loaded firearm — on one’s person as a prisoner/suspect is being escorted, it should never be considered as unavoidable because it could have easily been prevented.
Second article, is it not preposterous and absurd to (put the) blame (on) God for what clearly should be blamed. If we go by Mr Duterte’s argument and justification — that since he is God’s creation and since his mouth is part of his body which is God’s creation — he cannot be blamed for what he does or says. This is stupid in so many ways.
One, it is true that we are God’s creation but God’s role is only in creating us. It does not extend to what we do with our bodies (after creation), otherwise what is free will for? Does Mr Duterte not have a mind of his own? Does he not have any control (whatsoever) over his body?
Two, granting the previous argument has validity and Mr Duterte keeps reiterating that he hates corrupt people, does his argument not extend to these people as well — i.e., since these people are God’s creations (just like Mr Duterte claims to be), is it not that their corruption is likewise part and parcel? Perhaps God made them that way, therefore they cannot be faulted for being corrupt. They, like Mr Duterte, are blameless. Let Mr Duterte take it up with God, why He made these corrupt people the way they are.
And three, to further bring the argument to its pinnacle, this would mean that every person, including and especially Mr Duterte, must be declared as saints since none of his actions and utterances are his own but due to the way God has made them/him.
Finally, this trivializes God’s decisions and action when He send His Only Begotten Son, Jesus, to suffer all the inhumanities and cruelty and ultimately dying on the cross, and sending all those apostles and prophets, and leaving us His words in the Holy Scriptures, and to all those trouble and just put everyone in Heaven. Oops, sorry, I forgot that Mr Duterte, in several interviews, claimed that he does not believe in Heaven and Hell. Oh well…
TaN: As to the issue regarding the absence of Ms Robredo — where she was with her children for a reunion in the United States of America — in the aftermath of the last typhoon in the Philippines, for the year 2016, she cannot justify her absence with the excuse that the trip and event has been planned since last year. Duty to country is above one’s social or familial interests.
It was clear that she had already departed for the reunion before the news of the typhoon broke. When she has learned of the devastation and especially when she had learned about the extent of the damage, she should have offered her apologies to her relatives and taken the first available flight back to the Philippines. It is her sworn duty to attend to the needs of her country over her personal interests.
If she cannot do or accept this responsibility, she must seriously reconsider her position as vice president. Duty to country trumps all other personal needs, indulgences, interests, and obligations.
Even if the people will still accept her (presence) after attending the reunion, the fact remains that her duty to country comes first, especially if it is a choice between a family reunion and the attending to the needs of those devastated by the storm. She should not have stayed on despite her constant monitoring of the situation on the ground — actually on another country’s ground. Especially in the case of the Filipino culture, personal appearance or attendance is a must, where the culture deems personal presence is seen or regarded as a sign that one truly cares.
In a culture where personal attention is considered a sign of compassion and respect, nothing trumps being personally present among the typhoon victims — but that is all water under the bridge now.