Post Jan 15-21 2017

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…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 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. 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 again, I am really really really reeeeeeeeeeeeeally late in my posting 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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Jan 8-14 2017

TaN: I just realized that all the reported worth of seized illegal drugs are of little value since the money will not into the coffers of the government — to augment the operating funds.  The amounts are only good on paper.

TaN: In today’s news (January 11 issue of The Philippine STAR, page 2), titled “Lopez, 3 other DENR officials face raps“, it reports that the therein named officials are charged with “allegedly anomalous purchase of air quality monitoring equipment“.  This could all have been avoided had we not insist on using high technology to solve our problems.  Most, if not many, problems — even high technology ones — can be solved easily (and cheaply) by low technology.  This is especially vital to government where expenditures use precious taxpayers’ money and should not be squandered.

I have always maintained that, with respect to checking for air pollutants and quality, instead of expensive patented First World capital-intensive solutions, we can always employ and deploy low technology ones — as in dogs.

Dogs are already being trained to sniff out chemicals — in bombs, in narcotics, in many other illegal stuff and contraband — why can they not be trained to determine air pollutants?  Dogs are easy to maintain…just feed and show them love and care.  And, every time a bitch gives birth to a brood, you have half a dozen or so new potential air quality monitors.

Sure the training is not simple and takes time but the long-term cost-effectiveness and ease of acquiring new replacements easily justifies the waiting period.  And the best thing is that the parts are self-replacing (i.e., the body cells that wear out or are damaged due to injury) and dogs are not patent-able.  Moreover, we must take advantage of this while no one has yet thought of patenting the methodology or (training) technology.

I thought we, at least the head of the DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) as a kindred environmental advocate, are moving towards “green” — i.e., true, relevant, reliable, and sustainable — technology and development.  What say you Madam Secretary…Regina Lopez?

TaN: In today’s news banner (January 13 issue of The Philippine STAR, front page), titled “CHR: Mayors innocent unless proven otherwise“, from the title, it follows that should a mayor be killed then proven innocent in the ensuing investigation, those involved in the wrongful death should be charged with murder…nothing less, especially if they are the police because it means they have been remiss in their verification and confirmation investigation before they carried out the execution.

Moreover, the ensuing investigation, to remove all traces and hints of doubt and to assure credibility and reliability, must be conducted by an independent body.

And by “independent” I mean a separate agency or panel that is neither under nor related to the party being probed.  In the case of the Philippine National Police, not even the National Bureau of Investigation should touch the case because the latter likewise is related (being under another department but nonetheless under the same executive authority which is the President, who has vowed to provide total and unconditional support in whatever acts they commit for as long as they do his bidding).

Furthermore, should the probe show evidence of wrongful death, the President should be ready to concede and not continue to cuddle the guilty just because they did his dirty work.

TaN: Still in today’s news (January 13 issue), titled “Palace defends Leni disinvite to vin d’honneur“, the Palace appears to be missing the point and is concentrating on defending its faus pax.  The issue is not that the affair was by the Mr Duterte and, as host, he has the (sole) prerogative to invite only the people he wants.

The issue is that if Mr Duterte does not want Ma’am Leni to attend the occasion, an invitation should not have been sent in the first place.  However, common courtesy and decency dictates that since the invitation has already (mistakenly) sent, the Palace should have been courteous and civil enough to permit the Vice President to grace the event — or at least, give her the opportunity to politely decline so as not to cause any awkward and embarrassing situation.

In addition, the excuse not “not having enough seats” is too flimsy.  In a gathering numbering so many, it is easy to squeeze in just one more seat.  It is not as if dozens will be added.  It is easy to squeeze in just one seat.

To add insult to injury, the Palace spokesman claims that the list was “limited only to the Cabinet secretaries, Senate President, and Speaker”.  But I thought the co-hosts are supposed to be high-ranking government officials.  I guess I was wrong in thinking that a Vice President outranks a Senate President and even a Speaker — after all, their official car plates are “2” for the Vice President, “3” for the Senate President, and “4” for the Speaker as well as the line of succession in the event that the President becomes incapacitated or unable to perform his/her officials duties and functions.

Furthermore, the vin d’honneur is supposed to be a diplomatic event, and dis-inviting someone, especially the second highest government official of the country, is not very diplomatic.  It fact it is downright rude and embarrassing.  But then again, shame is cannot be expected from…never mind.

More and finally, Mr Duterte should, at the very least, reprimand the one responsible for the faus pax — if not fire him/her for committing such a grave error — unless the intention, all along, was to cause another public embarrassment to (and harassment of) Ma’am Leni.

How childish, ungentlemanly, uneducated, and uncivilized.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Jan 1-7 2017

TaN: Lying or falsehood are of two main forms: intentional and unintentional.  Between the two, the former needs little or no discussion — because it is absurdly obvious.  Moreover, many either innocently or deliberately re- or mis-defines lying and truth-telling — falsely believing that telling half-truths is not lying.  Well, I have got news for those of you — YOU ARE (STILL) LYING.

But with respect to the second form, unintentional lying has two sub-varieties: voluntary or negligent and involuntary.  The former just means that one did not make enough effort, if any, to discern or determine the truth before blurting it out.  One likely instance is when one just parrots or echoes what one has heard or read — as in many or most of conventional or mainstream health and medical care professionals (and frequently media likewise) merely repeating what Big Pharma has fed them.  They did not exert enough or adequate effort into finding out the veracity of the information before saying it.  It is negligent because either there is enough time and/or opportunity for the person/s to make a thorough vetting of the information prior to making any statement or just out of plain laziness or irresponsibility.

Involuntary lying is a bit more complicated because only the person him/herself can honestly and truly say whether they have done all that is necessary to find out the truth but has been hindered or obstructed frequently by conspiracy or connivance.  This is the case with many today.  There is little or no available reliable source/s to check out the truthfulness, like when there is a (massive) cover-up.  The situation today is so convoluted that many will not admit it or innocently cannot bring themselves to believe that a cover-up can be so widespread as to span globally.  A very good case in point is the current dis-information in the health and medical care sector where not just groups of individuals and organizations but even governments collude and collaborate with mega and multinational pharmaceutical companies (and vaccine manufacturers) to withhold the truth from the people.  It even extends to bribing, coercing, threatening, or otherwise manipulating lawmakers to enact legislation that will ensure huge profits and even immunity from suit.

Take the cases of and please refer to: (WSJ or Wall Street Journal titled “Vaccine makers enjoy immunity“, by a certain Avery Johnson, dateline and updated: Feb 23, 2009);–No-Vaccine-Mandates-.aspx (NVIC or National Vaccine Information Center titled “No Pharma Liability? No vaccine mandates“, by a certain Barbara Loe Fisher, posted: 3/2/2011 with video); (newsmax health titled “Supreme Court May Reconsider Vaccines’ Immunity From Lawsuits“, supposedly by Bloomberg News, dateline: Mar 18, 2015); and, (Cornell University Law School titled “[USA] Code [Title] 42 § 300aa-22 — Standards of responsibility“, online publish date: none), just to name a few.  I searched using the phrase “immunity from suit by vaccine makers”.

So much deceit and untruths are circulating today that it is overwhelming to say the least.  Moreover, the lines and “(re-)definitions” have been blurred to the point where people are so confused and bewildered that few (or less) really have enough critical thinking to wade through and discern trough the layers and layers of falsehoods and cover-ups to get to the truth.

In addition, schools or formal education has been hijacked and put up in order to perpetuate the veil of lies and secrecies running rampant and widespread globally.  Formal education is being used to (pre-)condition and (mis-)indoctrinate the minds of the impressionable for the purpose of world domination by a handful of global elites.  Truly, as has been said or written in the Holy Scriptures, THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR — for in lying, one can kill and destroy without exhibiting or inflicting physical scars and damage.  This is worse than actual killing someone; this is psychological and emotional violence being systematically executed, applied and perpetrated to and on everyone.

TaN: Aside from my previous argument that it is moral if we make money from the stupidity or laziness of others, I just epiphanized that there is one more instance — when people are not careful, make mistakes, and break or damage something which they cannot repair or re-use, which can be considered as incompetent.

Incompetence or the inability/incapacity to do something is not really so much as stupidity but just that one does not or has not had the opportunity to learn the particular skill or trade to repair, mend, or otherwise fix whatever was damaged or broken — unless the damage is beyond repair.

I am just sad that money’s (or any of its other possible forms, principally a derivative of greed) necessity has been raised to such a high level of importance that it overshadows and smothers all other virtues and values.  Truly, the prophetic warnings in the Holy Scriptures have again been proven to be accurate and unimpeachable, that (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.”

It puzzles me why people cannot just share what we have, especially our excesses and those that we no longer need.  It could be, but only partly, rising from insecurities.  But insecurities can be overcomed easily if and when there is community effort and support.  Personally, I subscribe to the (supposed by or attributed to Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program, please refer to:,_to_each_according_to_his_needs) “mantra” of: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.

TaN: A moral dilemma just emerged with respect to the death penalty and the (Christian) belief that (and I paraphrase) “not even a sparrow falls to the ground without God’s permission“.  Assuming, for argument’s sake, that both are accurate, a contradiction crops up.  This would mean that one will not die if one’s time is not yet up and if one does die, it is because God has willed it or given His permission.

Continuing with this train of argument, if and when someone gets killed in the campaign of Mr Duterte against illegal drugs (and corruption), for now, this would suggest that his/her time has come and that God has given His permission — otherwise s/he would somehow survive (at times attributing it or labeling it miraculous).

Furthermore, this would mean that the death penalty or any other form of capital punishment would be merely redundant.  In the argument that when the sentence is carried out, it would only mean that God has given His permission and that He has decided to take His gift (of life) back.  The state and the executioner are merely instruments doing the bidding of God.

This is a very interesting issue to mull over and chew on.  For now, I shall let it hang.

TaN: I heard from a story line in the television series “Arrow” — and I completely agree and could not have put it any better — the mere presence (not to mention the activities) of vigilante groups means that law enforcement either has not been doing its job or is incompetent.  Either way, it does not bode well for law enforcement agencies to have vigilantes loose, unchecked, and operating with impunity — freely, totally unfettered, and enjoying unrestrained and un-investigated summary executions with total disregard to/for due process (which every person is entitled to, be they guilty or not of a crime).

It is or should be embarrassing for law enforcement agencies to have vigilante “augment” or even do their job for them.  If I were a law enforcer and I do not or cannot put an end to vigilantism, I would have to resign in disgrace and dishonor.  And this not to mention regarding receiving my salary or any form of compensation or remuneration for services not (competently or ably and satisfactorily) rendered.

This is similar to NGOs or non-governmental organizations.  These are groups that augment what should be the functions of the government.  It only shows that government is either incompetent or lacking/deficient in its duties and obligations to the people.  Over time, there can be functions or obligations that arise due to development and advancement that were either not thought of before or are not adequately being addressed.

Although it is not really be embarrassing and may, at times, be necessary, nevertheless, the government should strive to take these inadequacies or deficiencies from the shoulders of the private sector or civil society — if not only because it is its obligation.

It is the same with vigilantism.  There is a lack in government functions or capabilities so it should determine what and where these lacks are and, as quickly and competently as possible, take them on.

To be kind, let us just say that this current spate of vigilantism is due to inadequate manpower in the police force.  Thus, the correct solution is to recruit more able-bodied citizens to join the police force — at the same time, ensuring that these recruits shall not end up being scalawags.

Vigilantism is not bad or wrong, per se.  It is this form of vigilantism, the kind that deals with or involved in extrajudicial killings and summary executions, these kinds that take the law into their own hands — though the vigilantes cannot be totally to blame because of the constant and persistent “encouragement” from Mr Duterte as well as consistent tolerance.

Finally, the only welcomed vigilantism under Mr Duterte’s administration is that which watches over corrupt and malevolent public officials, especially the armed agencies such as the military, the police, and the National Bureau of Investigation.  Constant vigil must be kept on them and the public should get involved and speak out.  Public opinion must be a force to be reckoned with by the government.  As the saying goes; The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Dec 25-31 2016


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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Dec 18-24 2014

TaN: It would appear that Mr Duterte is both a boon and bane to the Philippines.  His bane is the obvious brutal and barbaric style of dealing with problems while his boon is that his style is likewise instilling fear among (the average or CDE crowd of) Filipinos into becoming less corrupt, less dishonest, and more law-abiding (or moral) — although it is “inspiring” those Duterte idolizers to become more violent and ruthless (as in the extrajudicial killings).

Instilling fear in others, specifically the wrongdoers, may be effective but is detrimental in the long-term.  For one thing, it must be remembered that there is a saying, Morality cannot be legislated.  There is a reason for it.  It means that one cannot force or superimpose goodness into man.  Man must want to be good on his own free will.  It is precisely for this reason that God does not impose His Will upon us.  We must want to be good on our own.  This is what makes us worthy of Him.

Moreover, it is known and generally accepted that no one’s morality or values is superior to another.  Therefore, one cannot rightfully and morally justify the imposition of one’s morality and values onto another.  But this is what is happening in the Philippines under the Duterte regime and there appears to be no sign of abatement nor regret nor remorse over the suffering that has been wrought on the populace…regardless of whether the victims are criminals or suspected criminals or collateral victims.

Furthermore, just as I have discussed in earlier TaNs, everybody deserves a second chance.  Even God does not pass judgment until judgment day or upon our death.  In addition, as mentioned earlier likewise and quoted from the Holy Scriptures (in Matthew 18:21-22): “(21) Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? (22) Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.”

So it would seem that my argument of every person deserving a second chance is even too strict because, if we are to observe and obey the Holy Scriptures, we have to forgive “seventy times seven” times.

As to the boon, many have been frightened into repentance and mending their ways.  I just hope it is or will become permanent, as well as a true repentance and not just a misguided understanding of what is supposed to be ethical and moral ways.

It is difficult to ensure or even speculate as to whether the change is or will be for the better since it came about through coercion and threat and not voluntarily and sincerely from deep within.  Superficial change — frequently due to force of circumstances — are rarely lasting and authentic.  Many instances of involuntary changes, even if for the betterment of the self, are disguised or reluctantly made in order to cope or hurdle the present situation but will soon backslide or revert to the old ways at the first opportunity or once the threat or danger is deemed lapsed or passed.  This is the reality of the Duterte putsch of war on drugs.

It has been our experience that forced changes in people’s behavior is never permanent.  It was done by many in different countries and, in the Philippines, notably by the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos (through his failed attempt of the KBL or Kilusang Bagong Lipunan movement).  The problem is that we seem to never learn from past mistakes.  And so it is very likely to fail in this (revised) attempt by Mr Duterte.

TaN: It was interesting (and disturbingly intriguing) to realize that the DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid) of all cells in a particular organism is identical to all the rest.  This fact, therefore, shoots holes into the theory of science that a complete (and functional) organism may be cloned merely by using the DNA.

If each cell has exactly the same DNA, what makes a skin cell behave and function differently and uniquely from a liver cell, a heart cell, a neuron, or a bone cell.  Moreover, why is it that, if all cells have the same set of DNA, how does a cell “know” where it is located and, thus, have to perform in a certain manner.  Why does a muscle cell not function as a stomach cell?

One possible explanation would be that the DNA may contain all the information regarding all the vital functions and processes in the body but the functions and processes are not performed simultaneously because there are ON and OFF states for the gene sequences and proteins and only one set of gene sequence is ON at any given moment.  So, if the gene sequence for heart function is in the ON state, the cells performs cardiac functions.

Aside from gene sequences that control and determine what functions and duties a cell will carry out, it is possible that there are numerous other independent gene sequences that are for supportive and miscellaneous duties — like apoptosis or cell death, which is the suspected reason behind the appearance and proliferation of cancer.

TaN: It is a bit late (because I heard it more than a year ago) but I absolutely and unequivocally agree with the late Joan Rivers when she said in a television interview about what she said to her daughter some time ago (and I paraphrase, because I cannot remember it verbatim anymore): If you sleep with a man and you do not wear his ring, you are a whore.  Yes, no bones about it.  It does not matter what the reason may be, no matter how valid, sensible, practical, or even cockamamie it is, you are a whore — consenting adult or whatever crap you may use to try to justify it.

One principal problem is the maliciously-motivated but subtle change in our value system.  It has, just like in Sodom and Gomorrah, become “fashionable” to be what is detestable and unsightly for God.  Our values have either been subverted or were twisted.

A case in point is debt of gratitude — where it is a sense of indebtedness one feels when a good deed or favor has been done without having to ask for it.  It is how one feels when s/he has been done a favor without having to ask for it and the doer of the deed did it out of the kindness of his/her heart and not for anything else — there is no expectation of reciprocity or a return deed (any time in the future).  It ceases to be a debt of gratitude if and whenever there is any one of the following: (1) expectation of a return favor or reciprocity, (2) no intentional keeping tabs on the frequency of favors done but suddenly calls in favors as “payment” for previous favors and good deeds, and (3) return favor is immoral or a wrongful deed.

Today, debt of gratitude (or “utang na loob“) has been misunderstood into thinking that reciprocity is mandatory and/or that it can be imposed on another.  Furthermore, many take advantage of it by reminding of past favors and making the debtor do wrongful or unethical deeds even if the said deeds are minor and may not be significant enough as to be considered illegal or felonious.

Another case is loyalty or fidelity — where is and remains true to another (in whatever circumstance or situation).  However, this obedience to another, like all other values, are conditional.  Its negative form has a different terminology — blind loyalty.  It is only loyalty for as long as right and good are involved.  It ceases to be loyalty when it goes into the realm of the wrong and immorality.

There is a mistaken concept or understanding or appreciation of loyalty when it comes to conspiracy.  It is commonly but erroneously thought that loyalty is or should be extended even to circumstances involving conspiracy — i.e., when one has to connive with others for wrongful purposes, such as covering up the truth, especially those wherein the public is concerned and should know about, regardless of whether for public safety or national security.  In the two latter instances, there can be a temporary suppression of the emergence of the truth but must eventually, and within a reasonable span of time, be revealed.  Moreover, reasonable requests for partial revelation through freedom of information may and should be permitted for as long as the requesting or petitioning party is responsible and the purpose is clearly stated and contains no apparent trace of malicious intent.  The loyalty should always be either for the greater (like the public) or the higher (like morality) good.  As it was once attributed to the late President Manuel Luis Quezon: “My loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to my country begins.”

Still another case is word of honor — which is a solemn or sacred promise.  It ensures or guarantees another regarding the fulfillment of a deed or decision or an agreement.  Just like all the aforementioned, it is restricted only to what is good and right.  Promising on one’s word of honor does not extend to wrongful acts.

Despite giving one’s word of honor, there is no obligation or meaning or compulsion when wrong or immorality is involved, especially after realizing that one has been tricked into giving one’s word of honor.  In many cases, word of honor is tied to family honor, when the name or honor of the family is at stake.  To break the word is to bring shame and dishonor or ill-repute to the family.  It portrays an image that all family members cannot be trusted to fulfill what has been agreed upon, that any promise or agreement made carries no value.

There are much much more but I cannot go on indefinitely so I merely opted for some of the more socially and currently significant ones.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Dec 11-17 2016

TaN: The end of the world has two major interpretations: personal and universal.  Personal end of the world is when a person dies, it is the “end” of his world; whereas, universal end of the world is the true and objective — as compared to the subjective which is the personal, the end of all things (and life, as we know it).

Time is a very complicated concept and, like many of the things in this temporal world, has duality.  This can be illustrated by our personal time — our age — and universal time, which is everything else.

Take the case of a 50-year-old man traveling on his birthday from Hawaii westward to Jakarta and, after a short appointment, returns to the USA.  There is a time difference of 17 hours between Hawaii and Jakarta (i.e., Jakarta is 17 hours ahead of Hawaii).  Let us say he departs Hawaii Dec 16 at 7AM and the flight takes 5 hours.  He would be in Jakarta by noon Dec 17, but this is Hawaii time.  In Jakarta, his departure time would be 2PM Dec 15 and he would arrive 7PM Dec 15, on the eve of his birthday.  By some misfortune, he died in Jakarta.

The problem now would be the date and time of his death and his age.  The facts of the case is that he is 50 years old when he left Hawaii but he died in Jakarta where the date and time is a day before.  Regardless of the circumstances, he is 50 years old at the time of his death but the time the world goes by — because the date and time of the place when an event happened is the convention for recording purposes.  And this is the dilemma of time.

TaN: Being educated, especially in these times, does not (necessarily) mean that you are intelligent or smart or logical.  More often than not, today’s education is systematically and deliberately (with purpose) being manipulated and shepherded to indoctrinate people into mindless and illogical facts — science or otherwise and instead of truths — for the purpose of serving the selfish interests of the (global) elite.  This has been the purpose or intention ever since formal education replaced home schooling centuries ago, at the prodding and machinations of (allegedly) Dale Carnegie.

One very good example in the training received from formal education that turns us into unthinking zombies is the issue on mercury.  On the one hand, vaccine manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies maintain that thimerasol (which is a mercury substance) in vaccines is perfectly safe to be injected directly into the body, especially into children and at multiple and unprecedented doses and schedules, as well as the dental amalgams in our tooth fillings by dentists and oral health professionals.  Meanwhile, on the other hand, government health authorities warn people regarding consuming too much tuna and other wild-caught ocean-going fish because of the high mercury content.

And yet studies have shown, repeatedly, that the mercury content in vaccine is much much greater than that which can be ingested from ocean fish.  In addition, the dietary mercury has to pass through the alimentary canal or digestive system before it can get into the bloodstream whereas the mercury in vaccine is introduced directly and unobstructed and unchecked into the bloodstream, bypassing all the safeguard barriers such as gastric acids, stomach and intestinal lining, and all.  Isn’t there a disconnect there somewhere?  Hello?

Is this the kind of logic or rational thinking that we are being taught in school?  Or is it irrational thinking?  Is it not obvious that there is a contradiction between the two claims or assertions?

Truthfully, schools today — i.e., formal education and not necessarily home schooling — are not teaching but rather training people.  Formal education is actually dumbing down everybody and it is doing a darn good job and ably assisted by stupefying and mind-altering pharmaceuticals and anti-depressives and psychoactive drugs and by the dental industry using fluoride.

Wake up!  Wake and smell the roses, the coffee, or whatever you would like to smell break out of the stupor.

TaN: The paradox of infinity and finiteness can be best illustrated in a circle (or cycle).  Since one definition of a circle or cycle is something that has no beginning and no end, it is both finite and infinite.

A circle is finite because we can perceive its limited dimensions.  There is a limit to its measurements and we can quantify it, ergo it is finite.

However, since there is no beginning and no end, it can likewise be said to be infinite since “no beginning and no end” are characteristics of infinity.

This is very similar to numbers — say, between 0 (zero) and 1 (one).  Zero and one are definitely finite because they are quantified.  However, there are an infinite number of fractions or decimal values between these two numbers, thus there is infinity in the finite.

Mind-boggling but only the mind can conceptualize such paradoxes and contradictions.  It is said that (and attributed to one F Scott Fitzgerald): “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function” — from and from

TaN: It used to be that wild-caught fish — the equivalent of free-range raised — is much better than commercial or farmed fish but with the state of the ocean (and the “plastic islands” now dotting the seas globally), there seems to be no advantage.  The amount of nano particles from degraded plastic wastes ingested by fish has rendered fish and other sea products almost as unhealthy as commercially raised ones or even worse.

It used to be that wild-caught fish is better because they not only have a (naturally) balanced diet — eating a great variety of food from the surroundings, most of them containing vital micro-nutrients and trace minerals essential for good health and immune systems — but they even consume food that commercial raisers do not know about but are important for well-being.

In some cases, the natural food of wild-caught fish are just too expensive or impractical to feed commercially raised fish.  A case in point is salmon.  Salmon’s natural food source are crustaceans — as in shrimp, crab, lobster — which gives salmon meat the distinctive orange or reddish color.  Now, if commercial salmon raise salmon using crustaceans, do you think you can afford the price — unless the salmon farmers will sell at a loss.  How altruistic of them.

Moreover, even wild-caught salmon has no guarantee that it is safe to eat.  From what I have read, between the two main species of salmon — Pacific or Alaskan or pink and Norwegian or Baltic — the Norwegian is less preferred due to its feeding grounds.  While the Alaskan variety roams the Pacific, the Norwegian is based in the Baltic Sea where it is dotted with oil rigs and drilling platforms, therefore the waters there are bound to be contaminated.

Furthermore, in the farmed variety, there are the Chilean and the Californian but both started out with using ordinary fish feed which produced gray meat — very unsightly and unappealing.  So, to make the farmed salmon more like their relatives in the wild, the feeds are incorporated with a red dye in order to make the flesh reddish or orange.  This, by the way, is unethical as consumers are being misled into believing they are wild-caught.

Finally, even among vegetables and fruits, or poultry and cattle and hogs that are supposedly raised “organically”, there is no guarantee that observing the guidelines set for organic farming will guarantee healthier and safer food.  This is because there is so much pollution contaminated the land that there appears to be no place “safe” to raise crops or food animals.  And this is not to mention the water source — think polluted rivers and streams and brooks from agricultural, industrial, and mass urban runoffs and untreated sewage.

In fact, there are more and more studies coming out now showing that more and more waterways (in the United States of America, specifically) that are tested positive for pharmaceuticals.  The principal culprits are the dumping from pharmaceutical plants as well as households that are instructed to discard their expired and unused pharmaceuticals, so people simply flush them down the toilet and sink.  And what about the untreated water from household laundry and car wash and restaurants, just to name a few more.

So what should we do?  There is no place to run to.

The good news is that it is not as important to find a safe and clean place to live as to build up the immune system.  Supporting the immune system with the proper nutrients and lifestyle choices ensures that the body can face whatever environmental challenges and threats to comes along.  Surprisingly and believe it or not, our bodies have the amazing capacity to fend off most whatever assaults coming from the surroundings.  We just need to support it by living a truly healthy and proper lifestyle — and not those being espoused by the health and fitness charlatans that have proliferated the landscape with their fake claims and marketing spiels.  As has been fore-written in the Holy Scriptures (Matthew 15:11): “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”  God has made us such a perfect body that it is capable of withstanding any external threat that may be deemed unclean.  Our body can manage and cope, just give it the proper support.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Dec 4-10 2016

TaN: Food is something that can be eaten uncooked — i.e., not subjected to heat.  This does not mean that you have to eat it raw, just that you can but may choose not to eat it raw.

If something must be subjected to heating prior to eating, then it is not (your) food.  It may be food for some other creature but not for you.

Heating prior to eating only means that you have to “disguise” or transform the “food” — both in appearance and taste — for all intents and purposes, into something the body will not recognize as foreign or alien.

All consuming living creatures have an innate knowledge of what is food — specifically, what its own food is supposed to be (except probably for man).  The body recognizes what is food and what is not because it is essential to survival — and proper health.  Not knowing which is food and which is not means the organism will starve to death.

However, this does not mean that consuming what is its own natural food will cause death or at least not immediately — with the possible exception of those that are poisonous or at least will cause delirium or hallucinations.  And this is where man comes in.

Almost instinctively, newborns seek out food and know what to eat.  For man, infants depend on mother’s milk for initial sustenance but eventually starts to “experiment” — when we, as babes and toddlers, begin to put things in our mouths.  It is an early effort to determine what is edible and what is not.

Inherently, we knew that our food is to be taken from our surroundings and food does not need heating in order to be edible.  It is when we grew up, unduly influenced by society (principally by relatives and kinfolk first then by business, mostly restaurants and those in the food industry and aided ably by the medical profession) that we learned — and eventually mistakenly believed — that raw food is bad for us so we obligingly cooked (and even nuke and zap them in the microwave oven) our food, making them difficult to digest and became the primary source of our health and medical issues.

We only have to take a look at other creatures, mostly our fellow vertebrates especially our mammal cousins, who need no physicians and medical experts yet never seem to have any need for them — yet we eat much of the same food.  We eat plants like our herbivore relatives and meat like our carnivore relatives but we get these lifestyle diseases but they do not.  How strange and puzzling.  Moreover, we have human relatives who maintain a largely carnivorous dietary regimen yet they, likewise, do not succumb to lifestyle diseases.  What gives?

There is only one common factor linking our animal and human relatives who do not suffer the same fate as much of the rest of us — they do not heat (and even over-heat) their food.  [Btw, the carnivorous human kinfolk I am referring to are the Inuits or Eskimos and the Okinawans who still stick to their traditional diets and not those who have shifted to heating food like the rest of us.  They are virtually “immune” to our lifestyle diseases.]

And there you have it.  The secret is: It is not so much what food you eat but how that food is prepared and eaten that is at the root of our modern lifestyle diseases.

TaN: If it is not so, it should be — personal income should not…NEVER…be subjected to taxation.  To do so would mean double taxation, because there would be sales or value-added tax that would be built into the purchase price whenever a sale is made.

It would mean that the employee’s income is already taxed even before s/he receives it (first taxation) — because the employer deducts all necessary and government mandated financial obligations and taxes, respectively, during the payroll — and the same would (still) have to pay the sales tax built into the purchase by businesses (second taxation) of any good or service.  You would have to be absolutely so gullible and so naïve to think (and believe) that businesses will pay taxes from their income…from their profits.

Hello!  Wake up.  What do you think the value-added tax is?  It is a consumer tax, plain and simple and no bones about it; it is a tax paid by the consumer on the value added to the good or commodity or service being sold or purchased.

In other words, it is still the consumer who pays the tax and not the business.  It is even so dubiously clever to disguise it — i.e., the value-added tax or VAT — as a tax that CAN (not must nor should) absorb or pay instead of the consumer.

In other words, the vendor has the option or capability to absorb or to pay the sales tax for the consumer but, honestly, how many businesses are so conscientious and so concerned with the consumers’ welfare and interest as to be so generous as to pay the tax for their consumers?  Puh-leeeease!  Give me a break!

But I digress.  Returning to topic…permitting the laborer to receive his/her full pay means that the consumer has more disposable income — notwithstanding incidental deductions as social security/retirement pension, health care, union and other dues, (outstanding) loan payments, and other regular or periodic obligations.

A larger disposable income translates to more spending which fuels the economy — much more than the combined spending of all the wealthy members of society.  It can largely be attributed to the continued concentration of wealth to a diminishing group of wealthy and ultra rich individuals and families.

In an article in the Washington Post titled “Where the poor and rich really spend their money“, it reported that not only do the rich spend quantitatively less than the poor but the former further — please refer to  To quote, “… The rich save more than the poor, and the more they have, they more they’ll save. Money that’s being saved isn’t being spent, which means less business for everyone from the dry cleaner on the corner to the owner of a five-star hotel. In turn, that means less work for everybody and a lethargic economy.”

Since people, regardless of whether they are rich or poor have the same basic needs (i.e., food, shelter, clothing, transportation, utilities, the like), the affluent spends a smaller percentage of their income and this means they save quantitatively more.  This larger savings means more and more wealth are not circulating which would have otherwise added to economic growth.

To totally do away with personal income tax would result in more spending by the greater majority which will stimulate greatly the economy.  It is like ants and lions competing over the carcass of an elephant — the lions may have a larger bite but will not be able to consume the elephant in one meal whereas the ants can pick it to the bones if left alone.

In other words, quality trumps quantity only up to a certain point.  Thereafter, quantity takes over.  So it is far better for the overall economy to leave personal income tax intact.  The poor may spend much less than the rich individually but, collectively, the latter is no match against the former.

TaN: It is still unethical to manufacture (and sell) counterfeit products even if the proprietary products are or have been proven (conclusively) to not only be inferior but even harmful to human health or detrimental to society or the environment.

It is not so much that the counterfeit is better but that it is producing fake products.  The manufacturer (and seller/s) of the “better” product can always do it under its own proprietary label or brand name.

The counterfeit is capitalizing on the publicity or reputation of the original or proprietary product instead of spending for its own marketing campaign.  In fact, it is the unauthorized capitalization of/on the work put into by the original that is a principal reason for it being unethical — to gain from the effort done by others.

Although there can be another issue regarding the pricing difference — in most cases — between the original and the counterfeit.  In other words, why does the original cost so much more than the counterfeit?  It cannot be all in the cost of marketing and image or reputation building — because, if this were true, the original product will have unethical issues too.

It must remembered that one of or the main reason behind the development and manufacture (and marketing) of an original product is for the public good.  It is not unreasonable to make a profit but the profit or mark up should not be more than what it takes the business to stay viable and operational plus a little for the “trouble” of developing it.  In addition, it is likewise the reason for a patent (or monopoly) period in order to incentivize or encourage the development of the said original product.

It is a totally different issue if and when the profit or mark up is so substantial that it is no longer (just) about providing a benefit for the consumer but has become clear that the motive for development is purely commercial or for self-interest — and the public is merely being made a patsy or source of profit.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment