Post for Sept 18-24 2016

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, I am still falling behind my posting schedule and it is not easy when your connection is deplorable despite the prohibitive cost. As to this blog site, I have nothing (much) to complain because, as they say, Beggars cannot be choosers. Have a nice day.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Sept 11-17 2016

TaN: In truth, there is no such “animal” as chaos, at least not in the contemporary definition.  In truth, there is order, a system everywhere — even when it appears to be none — be it obvious or subtle.

The main reason is due to our limited or narrow view of the world.  “Limited or narrow” means that we are accustomed or have the habit of generalizing from a restricted view or a pre-conditioned perspective.  This can be better understood by the phrase, Looking at the trees but missing the forest.

One case in point is Albert Einstein’s — I hope I have cited correctly — pronouncement that there is no such thing as a straight line (except in theory), which is in contrast to the declaration of Sir Isaac Newton that “The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.”

We measure out straight lines and flat surfaces almost daily but in truth they are neither straight nor flat.  Even with the aid of a plumber’s level or a ruler/meter stick, we cannot really measure out anything straight nor flat.  This is because we live on a roundish planet.

What is perceived to be straight or flat is because the curvature of the arc (of the circle or sphere) is so slight that it gives the illusion of straightness or flatness.  This can readily observed when we draw several circles of different sizes and look at the amount of curvature of the circumference.  The larger the circle, the less bent or noticeable is the arc of the circle.

Another case in point would be finite in infinite and infinite in finite.  It seems contradictory but the world is full on contradictions.  There is finite in infinity because even if the number series is infinite, the numbers that make up the series are finite.  As for infinite in finite, there are an infinite number of fractions between two finite numbers, like between 0 and 1 — there is one-half, one-third, one-fourth, one-fifth, one-sixth, until one-infinity, all less than or never equal to 1 but greater than zero

Therefore, going back to chaos and systems, in any perceived chaos or randomness, if one observes carefully enough (and probably distantly detached enough), one will and can see patterns emerging and those patterns mean there is order or a system.

Take the case of astronomical and cosmic bodies and star systems.  There is now evidence that the apparent random spacing between stars, star systems, galaxies, and star clusters may be part of larger “picture” or pattern that constitute or form strings.

So, given this, there is really no chaos but only systems and patterns of order that we cannot see.

TaN: Eating healthy does neither make nor guarantee longevity but that it merely provides the needs of the body to perform properly.  And it is not even as simple as eating the correct foods but the matter in which the nutritious food is prepared and consumed.

And in connection with this is the fact that viruses, bacteria, fungi, and whatever mainstream medicine and science blames as the cause of our diseases are not actually the cause but rather only the trigger or instrument by which we become diseased.  The actual reason why we get sick is due to a weak or weakened immune system.  This explains why, when someone in a cold sneezes in an enclosed room with other individuals, not every person catches the cold — assuming that the probability that there will be at least one person with a fully functioning immune system otherwise everybody gets the cold.

If the microbes and what-have-yous are responsible for our diseases, then whenever an infected or diseased person spreads the sickness, every person should get sick.  But this is not the case, therefore the argument pushed by mainstream medicine and science does not hold water.

And this is not to mention that mainstream health experts are — wittingly or not — endangering people’s health by espousing and openly and publicly disseminating their erroneous and misguided advocacies.

In conclusion, it is no longer enough to eat organic foods because commercial and for-profit food processors and producers have found the flaw in the organic definition and can and are now implementing it to sell and market their deficient products to the unsuspecting health-conscious consumers — this is to plant crops in nutrient-deficient soil and raise livestock with nutrient-deficient “natural or organic” feeds.  Free-range is meaningless if the farm or feed area is full of mineral- and nutrient-deficient soil.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to live healthily everyday, what with for-profit businesses continuously finding ways to skirt regulations and procedures.

TaN: In this (temporal) reality, all of creation is divided into matter and energy but only matter has the characteristic of time — as well as the other physical dimensional properties.  Energy has a different set of characteristics or qualities unique to it.

The problem is that matter is so obvious that we cannot seem to get pass it and focus on the real world…the metaphysical.  This is the world that really matters.

Most people live in and acknowledge the material world and give little significance to the immaterial world.  It is easier this way.  They fail to realize that it is the immaterial world that truly controls and manipulate the physical world.

It is said that “What the mind can conceive, the body can achieve.”  This means that the mind — not the brain but through or via the brain — that we control our body.  Our body, aside or with exception to the autonomic system/s, respond to the commands or directives coming from the brain and, in turn, the brain is being controlled or instructed by the mind to give out specific “orders” for the body to perform.

For instance, unless and until the arm receives the command to clench, it does nothing.  It is because our brain sends out an electrical impulse to the specific arm muscle group that the arm responds.  In turn, the impulse from the brain is sent out due to a conscious instruction from our mind.  We are our mind.

In much the same way, the key or secret to strength of material is not the material itself but the design.  A case in point, a piece of paper is limp and cannot support a book placed on it.  However, if the same piece of paper is rolled into a tube, it can easily support a regular book.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Sep 4-10 2016

TaN: Once again, I reiterate my argument that, according to the Holy Scriptures, since man was made in the (figuratively) image of God, this would have many implications, the first of which is that we likewise have free will.  Another implication is that we are co-creators — i.e., we likewise possess not only the ability but also the “itch” to create (where “create” is defined as producing something that was never before and not something from something/s else, which would only refer to re-arranging and re-inventing but not creating).

It is man’s destiny or God’s intention that man join Him in His eternal desire and love to create and share goodness and righteousness to all.  To this end, we are given free will and time to prove ourselves worthy to be His “partners” in His quest to share all that we can with others.

Those among us deemed unworthy (or not up to par to His standards) shall be discarded, but not after giving us all the opportunities and time we need to prove our worth.  We are given so much redundant opportunities and time that, if we still fail, there will be none to blame but ourselves.

To be God’s “partners” is a monumental responsibility and this is why He gives us free will and all the time and opportunities.  He cannot afford mistakes for it will be disastrous and messy.

It is for this reason, likewise, that there will be two judgment days but only one resurrection.  After the resurrection, those who will be given second and the ultimate chance will, for the entire duration leading to the second judgment, there will no more deaths.  Death will have been conquered in the resurrection.  And along with Death will be all of the other worldly concerns, such as diseases and food and families and fame and wealth, but focused on living the way God has intended

TaN: To ensure that natural or universal equilibrium is maintained, it is necessary that as time passes or progresses, good things get better but bad things must (accordingly) get worse.  Observing Rupert Sheldrake’s theory on Morphic Resonance (and if I comprehend it correctly), it is to be expected that things become easier and easier to repeat or replicate — as in DNA testing, genome mapping, etc.

It is the “balanced” influence of the constructive and destructive forces and events in this ever-evolving temporal world that ensures and maintains equilibrium.  Once constructive or destructive forces “get out of hand” and the complementary force is unable to respond or react properly and within a particular lapsed duration that things begin to unravel and become awry.

But this will never happen because God has designed it this way.  There will never come a time or a situation when/where nature will be “unbalanced”.  There is a built-in mechanism to ensure continued equilibrium.  It is just that sometimes the complementary response takes a long time to occur — much like when the pendulum swings all the way to one side, it will take a longer time for it to swing back.

No matter how “unbalanced” man makes or impacts the environment, it will eventually restore equilibrium to itself.  Sometimes, the reaction time is so long that many species, including man, may have to become extinct before the reactive response brings everything back to equilibrium.

This is where man should be wary of and take extra care not to come to this point (of no return for us).  It is my fervent hope that there will never come the time when man negatively impacts so much to the environment that he will not survive the consequences of his irresponsible (and unsustainable) act/s and normalcy or equilibrium will return only after man’s disappearance.

If and when this happens, there will be none to blame but ourselves, our selfish, arrogant, stupid selves.

TaN: There is really no such “animal” as chaos; there is order, a system, in everything in this temporal world.  More accurately, there is order or a system in all of creation, from the obvious to the subtle.

No matter how chaotic a situation or something is, there will always be a pattern to that chaos and this is the order or system that I am pertaining to.  Even in randomness, there will be some kind of order; it is just that we may not be able to “see” it (yet).

Even in an explosion or a quake or a storm surge, the destruction or resulting scenario that is left after the devastation will always have a pattern and that pattern is order.

The problem is in the size of the pattern.  Just like when Albert Einstein declared that there is no such thing as a straight line — I hope I quoted and attributed correctly — we measure or draw straight lines and surfaces every day, with rulers and meter sticks and with plumber’s levels, yet we know that the earth is not flat.  The explanation is that the planet has such a huge circumference that the slight bending in the tangent of the arc is so unnoticeable that we perceive things as straight and flat.

This is the same with the patterns in something seemingly chaotic.  Usually, when it is not obvious, the pattern is either too small to be noticed readily or too large and requires that we shift our perspective — much like the writings on streets as we approach them but is almost unrecognizable when viewed from the air or above.  This is usually because we have been conditioned to look or search for patterns within or in proportion to our size or significance.

TaN: We should encourage businesses that can significantly and really improve people’s lives and frown or discourage — by not patronizing or boycotting — those that are purely for profit and self-gratifying and self-indulging only.  Businesses or income/revenue-generating endeavors like manufacturing junk (and the deceitful and unscrupulous who pretend to produce organic or healthful but are really toxic and unhealthy) foods, engaging in professional sports and athletics (where one plays for money instead of prestige and for pure sport), designing and creating clothing and garments more or primarily for appearance (and uniqueness or “one-of-a-kind”) rather than for functionality (like most of those seen in fashion shows), marketing and advertising deceptive and harmful products and services where the original worthwhile purpose has been twisted into creating and spreading deceptive information just to turn (mostly) a profit rather than to benefit others, and those in the gossip and rumor industry (where the main purpose is to pry into the private lives of publicly well-known personalities and not for investigative purposes), to name a few.

It is sad that so much time, effort, and resources are poured into such activities that do not improve the lives of fellow human beings (and the environment), not to mention the unsustainable ravaging and wanton destruction of natural resources and the environment.

As mentioned in earlier TaNs, consumers must unite and have the political will and commitment to demand that businesses be responsible for all its activities and hold them accountable.  Business should not (or no longer) be permitted to “ride roughshod” over and at the expense of the environment.

We must understand that, no matter what we do and however long it takes, man can never remove himself from nature.  Man can never exist, let alone survive, outside or without nature.  And as we have recently — as in noticeably last 2015, especially among the coastal and island or archipelagic nations and areas — witnessed and, unfortunately, experienced, extreme weather disturbances is becoming the (new) normal.  And this is no thanks to the protracted and sustained unsustainable exploitation and practices of the utilization of the (natural resources of the) environment by business.

It is therefore paramount for man to take care of the environment if man intends to survive, not to mention live comfortably and under “pleasant” weather and climate conditions (in contrast with the extreme weather experienced currently).

In conclusion, regardless of whether we would like to live with fairly good weather and climate conditions or not, the environment must be properly managed and this can only be achieved if and when we set aside profit motives or at the very least put profit as third or lower in our priorities list.  In the temporal world, man’s welfare — i.e.. all of humanity and not just the privileged few — must be paramount and only second to God’s.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Aug 28-Sep 3 2016

TaN: The trouble with solving (national or public) problems by modeling or imitating the successes in other countries is that there are instances where adaptation must first be done prior to implementation — much like what Japan has been doing ever since end the of World War II in its rebuilding efforts.

Remember that different cultures and societies (may) have different values and customs and terrains or environments and climate conditions — i.e., temperate zones with four seasons as compared to tropical zones with only two seasons (wet and wetter, ha-ha) — and these affect and determine how solutions to problems are crafted and implemented.  Just because a solution to a similar problem has been successful somewhere else does not necessarily mean that it will equally be successful when adopted — not adapted — and implemented en toto and without the slightest bit of alteration or change.  This is a common fault in many “less mature” countries.

In fact, a good example would be a manufactured but not immediately consumable good or product (as compact electronic gadgets such as computers and household electrical appliances).  Many electronic gadgetry with a primary market in industrialized temperate countries may not be designed to operate (as efficiently and effectively) in tropical, especially archipelagic, areas where the humidity is high and the air moisture are probably saturated with moisture and salt, both of which severely impact the performance and life span.

Extra moisture and the salt content in the atmosphere gets into the internal components and corrodes the more sensitive circuits and gears which lowers the performance and shortens the productivity life span.  Manufacturers should take into consideration and “customize” products that are intended to operate or be used in different environmental conditions.

Another good example is in packaging of certain foods that are sealed — in plastic or plasticized packages or in air-tight containers.  When such products are brought to markets located in significantly higher altitudes, the air pressure equilibrium inside and outside the product package or container is compromised.  The external air pressure drops (in the high altitudes) which causes the internal air to expand.  In the case of packaged goods, they tend to balloon and, if the packaging is not strong or durable enough, pop open whereas in the case of rigid containers,  the product becomes difficult to open normally and, if the container material is not sturdy enough, will cause bulging and even cracks or damage to the container integrity.

What I am explaining is that when adopting solutions, one must always consider the differences in situations, therefore changes and alterations may be in order to ensure that application success is maximized.

TaN: After watching several episodes of the Flash where he repeatedly returns to the past to prevent the deaths of his parents, I suddenly realize that it has been ordained that man cannot and will not be able to go back in time.  This is because going back to the past will involve bringing back to life the dead and it has been explicitly and repeatedly specified and demonstrated in the Holy Scriptures that it is the sole prerogative and province of the Lord.

Moreover, even philosophically or logically, going back in time does not make sense.  In the repeated episodes, Flash goes back in time and, according to the screenplay, creates a new alternative time reality.  If we continue with this, this would mean that there will be new realities every time we go back in time.

The argument now is: What if other people — who have their own respective consciousness — are able to go back in time.  This would mean that each other person who goes back in time will create another new and his/her own version of reality.  How now can you imagine, if you are able to grasp the enormity of it all, a universe where there are so many alternate realities existing simultaneously?

Each person has his/her own consciousness.  Now, with so many alternate realities, imagine what it will be like when more than one person goes back in time (and create a new alternate time-line).  Imagine the confusion, the pandemonium, the chaos.  Imagine how the consciousness of each person in all of the alternate realities created.  What happens to the consciousness of every person in the other alternate realities?

This illustrates the absurdity and inanity of even considering that we can go back in time.  Going back in time remains and will always remain wishful thinking — unless we change the definition of “going back in time”, much like what we are doing today when people can lie without hesitation and remorse, especially many politicians and unscrupulous public personalities.

TaN: “Do as I say and not as I do.”  This is frequently the rule or situation with most people most of the time, especially among the elderly, those with moral ascendancy, and those in positions of authority or influence.

This adage illustrates the weakness of the human spirit and will over the temptations of the (material) world.  It shows man’s eternal struggle to extricate himself from the primary or fundamental base desires and needs of man.  It further demonstrates man’s propensity to choose the easy but wrong way over the more difficult but rightful way, to give in to our bestial side rather than to reach for loftier and better levels.

Moreover, it shows how we frequently merely pay lip service to doing what is righteous (because evil just proves to be too irresistible).  We want to project an image of righteousness but without having to make the sacrifice of actually putting our money where our mouth is or walking the talk.

It implies that we would like to reap the benefits — being hailed as good and righteous — of teaching others how to behave rightfully without having to lead by example.  It is shameful and lame to want others to behave or act in a particular manner but we ourselves do not do it — unless, of course, it is because we are really and truly incapable, in which case it would be justifiable (but this justification would be under the assumption and condition that there is no malice involved).

TaN: It is so incredibly unbelievable that so many people (still) believe in the myth of gender equality (or inequality, as the case may be).  It is still incredible that people, especially the educated — probably because they were wrongly or mis-educated — do or cannot comprehend the gender issue.

People fail to understand that equality does not (necessarily) mean sameness.  People can have commonality by being different.  Our differences is a common factor — i.e., we are all equal in that we are all different (from each other); we are unique and it is this uniqueness that makes us equal.

In this light, gender equality means that no gender can do everything; there are things that both genders can do but there are likewise particular things that only one gender can do.  Equality of the genders means that both genders share in their respective responsibilities.  One gender complements the other.  This is the essence in the wisdom of the Holy Scriptures.

Eve was created (from Adam’s rib) to assist Adam because he cannot do everything that needed to be done.  There are things only Eve can do — just like there are things that only Adam can do.

The problem with the world today is that people think that equality means literally equal.  How can that be possible and logical when the obvious is glaring.  For instance, men cannot be pregnant and give birth while women cannot sire children (although this is not in the same category as pregnancy and giving birth, it is still a difference) — cloning and bio-genetics aside.

Moreover, with the exception of assistance from or with bio-mechanical exoskeletons, women cannot (and should not) do heavy lifting.  This is because their physical anatomy is not built for such work.  The curvature of the spine is greater — which is intended for pregnancy — so to subject the spine to heavy lifting would cause irreparable damage (down the years), even if she practices proper heavy lifting — as in using the huge thigh muscles instead of the (lower) back muscles as most people ignorantly and improperly frequently do.

Each gender is created and designed to be complementary to the other and it is for this reason that both genders are equal.  Actually, if you want to be very “honest” or biblical about it, the bad news is that in the Holy Scriptures, God’s order is: The Father is at the top, followed by the Lord Jesus, then by men with the last being occupied by women.  This is the “natural” order of things according to God.

In conclusion, it is not so much the “anything-you-can-do-I-can-do-better” thing.  It is all about sharing and doing what we can for the other.  It is about doing what is our responsibility/ies and what we can and not take over what is intended for the other gender to do — even if one is able to do it.  It is about defining what is the responsibility of each gender and sticking to it and, on occasion because the necessity arises, partially assume the responsibilities of the other.

The duty of the woman is to be the companion of man whereas the duty of the man is to take care of the woman.  There is no shame in being taken cared of — women’s liberation is wrongly defined and implemented, because women have been liberated since the Biblical times.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Aug 21-27 2016

TaN: Marriage is for procreation; if no offsprings result from marriage, the union can morally and legally be void and subject to divorce — even the Holy Scriptures provide for it (please refer to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Matthew 5:31-32  KJV or see:  Anything else cannot be considered as marriage, as in same-sex marriage.  Even in the Holy Scriptures, once a union produces offsprings, it cannot be voided or annulled.

Same-sex marriages are an attempt to create confusion and discontentment and animosity among people.  If people of the same gender wants to enjoy some semblance of married life, they can always enter into a (legal) contract with all the trimmings of marriage but please never refer to it as marriage.

In addition, because of advances in medical technology, it is now possible — although as to its (long-term) safety and health issues is totally a different matter — to change one’s gender.  This is an abomination and no amount of argument and justification can make it moral or right(eous).  The matter of same gender marriages gets even more confusing because one may no longer be sure whether one is marrying a true opposite gender.

Moreover, gender alteration may and should be grounds for dissolution or annulment of a marriage on the grounds that there was (deliberate) deception — unless it was made clear to both parties, especially to the one who think s/he is marrying a true opposite gender that s/he is not.  It is morally deceptive to lead other people into thinking and believing (their eyes) when, in fact and in truth, it is entirely something or someone different.

But going back to the subject of marriage and same gender marriages, I really cannot understand why such people insist on marriage when there is a perfectly identical solution except that it will not be called a marriage.  So what is in a name?  Is it so important that the “union” be called a marriage?  Are we losing focus on what should be?  I fail to see and comprehend the adamant insistence wanting marriage when there is an alternative solution that will not complicate matters.

We can even concede to as far as calling the parties involve a “family”, but just not “married”.  I guess there are just people who feel so left out or so excluded and so in need of belonging and being accepted that they would go to the extent of labeling others as gender-biased or some kind of prejudice against homosexuals just so they can be extended marriage privileges.

Come on, if you are so desperate, you can always agree to live together as though married.  After all, what is that piece of paper?  It could not bind many couples from filing for divorce or separation, after perjuring themselves from the vows they took — of “…till death do us part“.

From what I can understand, these people are just trying to make an issue out of nothing or something that can otherwise be resolved simply.  They are acting like spoiled brats who want what they cannot have.  It is soooo shallow.

TaN: It is not wrong (nor immoral nor unethical) to use “bad” or derogatory words for as long as it is the truth.  It is the falsehood or untruth that is immoral, unethical, and politically incorrect, prejudicial, or whatever you want to call it.  This increasing wave of harassment from people with petty minds regarding the use of terms that are allegedly insulting or otherwise derogatory is absurd and getting out of hand.

There is nothing wrong with calling someone a “fool” if s/he is truly a fool, just as it is wrong to heap praises and compliments on someone undeserving — like saying someone if intelligent when s/he is actually stupid.  To call someone stupid when in fact s/he is stupid is just telling the truth and not slanderous.

I am not sure when it all began but it came into my notice when terms such as “chairperson”, “directress”, “spokesperson”, and “doctora” came into popular use (especially among the media and public speakers).  I would hazard to guess that it is due to the popular wave in the United States of America of being “politically correct” and not wanting to be accused of being gender biased.

There is no such term and using them is actually exhibiting or causing the exact opposite of what the purpose is supposed to serve.  By using such terms, one actually shows that one is gender conscious and being gender conscious means that one is or has a tendency to be gender biased.

Using the traditional terminology, in truth, implies that one is not very particular with the gender of the person and that one is merely going by the customary terms and addresses.  It is more prejudicial or politically incorrect to use chairperson rather than chairman, even when the person is not male, because it only shows that the speaker is prone to giving importance to a person’s gender where the gender issue is actually irrelevant (to the current situation).

In short, being politically correct — by being gender conscious or label conscious or what conscious — is, in effect, creating barriers and putting up walls to separate and segregate people when we should be building bridges and breaking down barriers to treat people as people rather than labeling and “sorting” them into particular stereotypes and categories.  We are all people, regardless of our skin color, our gender, our religious or ethnic background or heritage, our nationality or citizenship, or whatever else that sets us different from others.  We must discard our tendency to focus on the material and superficial and focus more on the true being and person of others.

TaN: It is easy to tell whether a person is honestly and sincerely ignorant (i.e., telling untruths is unintentional and with no malice) or outwardly and unabashedly lying (through his teeth).  In the former, they will stand pat and face the truth and defend him/herself and his/her actions or decisions, while the latter will scurry and run away, shunning the light o truth.

This is what happens to people who are caught in ambush interviews.  Those unintentionally telling untruths will not be ashamed or embarrassed and will agree to be interviewed, whereas those who know they are lying will try to flee or avoid (ambush) interviews and will not agree to or grant interviews and will not respond to attempts by media and researchers (truth seekers) trying to shed light into certain issues.

Moreover, those who tell untruths unintentionally (out of ignorance or incomplete knowledge of the whole truth) would not hesitate to correct themselves and admit their mistakes (in public) the first chance they get.

On the other hand, (deliberate) liars will stubbornly insist on their lies and would even swear “on a stack of Bibles”.  These frequently is due to the need to “save face” and preserve their “credibility”.  They have no compunction to speak falsehoods even when other people’s lives or reputations are jeopardized, all in the name of keeping their own reputations and social standing.

There is nothing wrong about telling untruths — to be differentiated from (outright) lies, which are implied to be deliberate as against untruths which imply unintentional — for as long as it is not done purposefully (and will not hesitate to admit and correct oneself upon learning of the falsity).

The disturbing realization is that there are quite a number of people these days who will not hesitate or resort to lies whatever their reason may be — and will not feel any remorse nor the slightest guilt.  Frequently, these people will claim “ignorance” or will continue to adamantly deny lying even when faced with overwhelming and undeniable proofs.  One of the most common ways by which they keep from feeling guilty is to resort to redefinitions of terms to delude themselves they are not lying.

Nowadays, it has become so sophisticated and complicated to discern the truth that the only possible way to determine the truth is to look into the heart — which only God can do.  There are, however, attempts being done to replicate this sole purview of the Lord, as evidenced by the current research by the United States of America initiated by the Obama administration — there are attempts to find some kind of physiological and/or chemical processes in certain regions of the brain which the researchers believe provide clues to detect impure and evil thoughts (shades of Minority Report and George Orwell’s 1984), see or refer to:

TaN: There is a fatal flaw in the logic of Mr Duterte with respect to his campaign against illegal drugs — it is but a palliative and will sure to make a (bigger) comeback after he leaves office, unless and until he ensures its continuity by changing the behavior of the Filipino.

It will require a complete overhaul and change of attitude or an honest and comprehensive “straightening” of the way we practice our values — from the aging population to the newborns.  Without that critical change in attitude, sooner or later — just like what happened with Mr Marcos’ Bagong Lipunan — the old ways will come back and perhaps even with a vengeance.

On the one hand, the good thing about being president is that one has the opportunity to make changes on a national level.  On the other hand, the drawback is one gets only one shot at success.  There is no extension, at least not in the present form of (presidential) government, not unless one resorts to martial law for an indefinite stay in power (similar to what Mr Marcos did in the 1970s and into the 80s).

The Constitution expressly prohibits a second term for the Presidency.  And drawing from previous experience — as aforementioned in the case of the Bagong Lipunan — the change that was first seen at the few weeks or months of martial law has returned to the “old” ways.  Iron fist tactics, by itself, may work but will never last.

Unlike local positions, for instance being a mayor where you may have a shorter (three-year) time span, there is only a minor hindrance: a short three-year term but with 2 (successive) re-elections but may be repeated after a one-term hiatus.  This means you can “remain” in office “indefinitely” which increases the chances of achieving a successful and lasting change and little or no chance of backsliding.

Moreover, working at the local level means one can only affect your local constituency.  The only way for it to reach a nationwide scale is to have all local governments follow suit.

There is already an impending harmful “side effect” in this campaign against illegal drugs.  It has brought about vigilantism and if it is not nip in the bud, it may grow too big to stop.  In addition, in last week’s news, the Philippine National Police chief “Bato” dela Rosa’s defense that most of the extrajudicial killings or summary executions were not done by law enforcement operatives but by vigilantes and by drug syndicates trying to rub each other out.  This is a lame excuse for not being alarmed enough to give it as much importance as the anti-illegal drug campaign.  This kind of “collateral damage” is simply not acceptable.

In conclusion, the argument of Mr Duterte that the UN and other foreign entities should stop meddling in the internal affairs of the Philippines and not single the country out because there are other countries with similar or even worse records is just not justifiable.  It is like arguing that the police should not run after me, a minor thief, when there are murderers and plunderers running around.  It is not the point.  The point is that the killings by others aside from the police should not occur, regardless of whether it is worse in other countries or not.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Aug 14-20 2016

TaN: There is something subtly strange about the article titled “De Lima admits ‘snippets of truth’” in The Philippine STAR‘s August 20, 2016 issue.  Throughout the entire article, there appears to be only mention of the (vehement) denial of Ms De Lima regarding the illegal drug links but nothing about the supposed love affair with the former driver.  Does this imply that that segment of the issue is true?  Is that the ‘snippet of truth’ being referred to?

It was not so much what was said — in the long article — but what was not discussed.  It is not as if the article was so short that there was no space to fit.  This is quite intriguing indeed, at least to me.

The allegations made against Ms De Lima were sexual escapades and involvement in illegal drugs and yet she answered only those pertaining to illegal drugs.  It is highly unlikely that someone with a background in law and experience of many years of practice and now an elected official to no less than the Senate can leave some of the allegations unanswered.

Moreover, it is not as if there are numerous allegations made against her.  There were only two allegations so it is strange that she would “opt” to answer only one and not the other.  This would lead people to make assumptions that the unanswered allegation must have a significant amount of truth.  In addition, should she have a good reason for not answering the other allegation, if she does not want to answer it is her prerogative but at least she should give an explanation her choice.

TaN: Regardless of whatever is the argument — be it regulations, policy, law, etc — the fact remains that the Libingan ng mga Bayani is literally translated as burial grounds of heroes.  The controversial word is “bayani” or hero.  It would appear that emotions and sentiments are getting the better of everybody.

A hero is defined as a person whom one wishes others to emulate or imitate.  A hero possesses qualities that other people hold in high regard and would like these qualities to be present and practiced by others.

Given this aforementioned definition and remembering or knowing what happened during the Marcos years, it would seem obviously blatant that what Marcos did is not worthy of emulation by anyone (decent).  However, the argument of whether Marcos fits the image of a hero or not would hinge on which aspect of Marcos’ life is being considered.  He may have been a brilliant scholar and even bemedaled war veteran but it does not erase or even slightly mitigate what he did — i.e., declare martial law and subject the country to horrendous acts of unspeakable suffering and misery.

Regardless of the amount of goodness and heroism a person displays in the past, all that matters is the totality.  In addition, a hero does not subject his/her country to atrocities no matter how good the intention/s.

Machiavellianism is never a justification to inflict suffering and misery on others, especially when they are innocent lives.  No amount of justification can be acceptable to hurt an innocent life in exchange for serving justice regardless of the number of guilty people involved.  The greater or common good can never be served, no matter how many, when the innocent is hurt, especially when there are alternatives.

This is the same principle that Mr Duterte is employing in his campaign against illegal drugs and all the other (great) evils of (Philippine) society.  The question in his (Machiavellian) argument is how many innocent lives will it take to make Mr Duterte say that enough innocent lives have been shed for the sake of serving his country.

Both Messers Marcos and Duterte cannot use the excuse of inflicting harm and suffering on the few innocent (collateral) lives, no matter how unintentional it may be, and a hero does not harm the innocent, not for any justifiable Machiavellian reason.  The violence and destruction employed in bringing justice to the guilty cannot be justified by the (undeserved) suffering and misery endured by even just one innocent victim.  I reiterate, It is better to let the guilty get away free than to jail an innocent person.

In conclusion, there is no argument as to the many achievements the late Mr Marcos has done.  The argument is whether his deed of declaring martial law and causing, even indirectly, the suffering and misery of many innocent victims in his campaign to make the Philippines “great again” cannot be swept under the rug and make him a hero — someone worthy of emulation.  I, for one, do not want my descendants to follow in his footsteps.  Either change the name of the cemetery or keep Mr Marcos out of it.

TaN: In spite or despite all the boastful talk about killing, I sincerely doubt if Mr Duterte has ever, even just once, actually “pulled the trigger or the lever” himself.  Being a (savvy) lawyer, I am sure he is wise enough to get other people to do the dirty work while he stays “immaculately chaste”.  But then again, this is but my own opinion.

This perspective of mine comes from experiences with people who boast of nefarious deeds and those who remain quiet.  I am not saying that Mr Duterte is all wind but that I cannot believe that he has actually done any direct killing.  For all I know, he may have given the orders or even just hinted about it but never really done it himself.

From my talks with some people, those who have actually killed people prefer to remain silent and not advertise themselves and their deeds.  It is the silent ones that are more dangerous — the doers.  People who espouse killing wantonly are usually the ones who do not have the guts to do the job themselves.

Of course this is just my opinion and I can be wrong.  For all I know (and there is no cause or reason for me to think otherwise), Mr Duterte is a man of his word — when he says he “will kill you”, he means he will personally do it and not let some stooge proxy for him, otherwise he should have said “I will have someone (else) kill you”.  However, Mr Duterte is a thinking and calculating man (what him being a lawyer, a former prosecutor, a politician and all) and it would not surprise me should he use some technicality to “worm” himself out of a messy situation.

His law background enables him to exploit the technicalities to his end.  After all, it was once said in the television series Law & Order (and I paraphrase, because it was a long time ago and I cannot recall the exact words anymore), The law is not about what is right and wrong; it is about technicality.  In others words, he who knows the rules best wins.

One problem here is that Mr Duterte has forgotten about the verse in the Holy Scriptures — as in my previous post, in 2 Corinthians 3:6 [KJV], “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; NOT THE LETTER, BUT THE SPIRIT. FOR THE LETTER KILLS, BUT THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE” — where practicing or using the letter to interpret the law frequently brings death (though not always literally) but the spirit gives life.  This means that basing our decisions and actions on the letter is using the technicalities to go around the moral or ethical aspect, which is the spirit (as well as the rationale behind the law).

Mr Duterte is using technicalities to escape guilt from the consequences brought about by his literal interpretation and exercise of the law.  His claim of having compassion is selective and limited only to those who are good citizens.  Well, that is commendable but what if an innocent becomes a victim of his selective compassion or the other way around — i.e., what if a guilty gets away scot-free?

Remember it is likewise said in the Holy Scriptures that the rain falls on both the just and the unjust.  God so loves us that when he pours out his love for us, He does not discriminate or withhold against those He deems undeserving.  In other words, the Holy Scriptures is teaching us that it is not our place to pass judgment on the goodness or evilness of a person but just his/her actions and decisions.  We cannot see into the future nor into the soul of a person.  It is the sole purview of God to determine the ultimate and final judgment of a person’s goodness or evilness.

While in this temporal world, until a person breathes no more, there is always still the possibility that no matter how much evil a person has done or caused, that person could still make a 180-degree turn-around — as in the case of the thief who defended Jesus at the cross who supposedly has been bad all his life but that last moment saved him.

In addition, one can never say what can happen in the future.  Let us say that the “guilty” person you put to death, had you let live, would have, sometime down the generations, be the ancestor of a person who will prevent a future epidemic, be the chief executive of a country, make a world-changing discovery, or invent something globally revolutionary.

TaN: I guess it is normal or expected that when we say that something or someone’s time has come, we usually think of time as a moment — as in the time and day — but it can also be based on a precondition.  This is similar to the Bible prophecy regarding the end (Matthew 24:14, which says “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations. AND THEN THE END WILL COME.” (emphasis mine).

In this instance, the end of the world is not based on a specific time (hour and date) but rather on a condition…when the gospel has been preached to all nations.  God will never base the world’s end on time; it would be too quantitative, too rigid, and too easy.  Instead, He based it on when a certain condition or situation He has defined or ordained to take place to bring on the world’s end.  This way, it would be more unpredictable, more fluid or flexible, more “un-guessable”, more certain that the conditions He wants to exist as a pre-requisite would be achieved prior to passing judgment.

Most, if not all (except me), would be thinking of a particular time, although it is known that the Holy Scriptures mentioned signs to watch out for, but these signs are but mere forebodings of the beginning of the end but not the end itself.  The end itself is written to be the moment the gospel has been preached to all.  The specific moment is not fixed because it will all depend on when the gospel has reached everyone.  It may be tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, next decade, next century…

To set the end of the world to a particular fixed date (and time) would be too unfair for those who would not be able to satisfy God’s pre-conditions for salvation through no fault of theirs.  It is for this reason that God is making it impossible for man to guess when the world will end.  He knew it would be one of man’s penchant to guess the unknown and the greatest unknowable of all is when the end of the world will be.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Aug 7-13 2016

TaN: “Rody apologizes to Sereno: Harsh words unintended“, The Philippine STAR, banner, August 12 issue.  If Mr Duterte would really learn and change the ways of his mouth, he would not need to repeatedly keep apologizing.  From what I can gather and to repeat from an earlier TaN (below), Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth.  This way, a lot of apologies and hurt feelings can be avoided.  In this case, the damage done by hurtful words cannot be undone.

It would appear that the consistent and persistent tough talking style of Mr Duterte is borne out of his being brought up in an environment where one has to act and talk tough to earn some respect and not be bullied.  It has been typical for the average Mr Juan Masa confuse fear for respect.  The typical Mr Juan Masa will give “due respect” to tough talking people, which explains mania that overwhelms the country during Paquiao fights.

It is sad to see that Filipinos do or cannot seem to want to behave maturely and responsibly and ethically, not unless or until s/he is coerced.  It is getting to be that acting and doing good is something to be embarrassed about.

If Mr Duterte learns to choose his words more carefully before blurting them out, it would save him a lot of apologies and hurt the feelings of others less and there would be more time to do so many other important things instead of being hounded by controversy.

TaN: In today’s (Aug 9) issue of The Philippine STAR with the story headline “Duterte tells Sereno: Don’t create a crisis“, it would appear that Mr Duterte means well but continues to fail to understand the rationale behind the constant and consistent voicing of human rights advocates and other concerned sectors and individuals regarding the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the limits of rights (specifically the right or freedom of speech and of expression) and the concept of precedence.  Once you announce that someone is “guilty” of something without going through due process and respecting the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and it turns out that the public announcement is wrong, the damage is done and there is no take back.

The Holy Scriptures had warned (in 2 Corinthians 3:6, KJV), “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; NOT THE LETTER, BUT OF THE SPIRIT. FOR THE LETTER KILLS, BUT THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE” — emphasis mine — from  Taking the letter of the law and the easy (and expedient) path is dangerous and lives are at risk.  Failing to understand and fully appreciate the spirit of the law, the rationale or intent behind the enacted law, may result in the taking of an innocent life.  It has been said that it is better to let a guilty man go scott free than to jail an innocent man, much less put him/her to death.  Death is irreversible; there is no take back when it is later proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that the victim was innocent of the charges or allegations.  There should never be an instance when we have to say “Oops, sorry” to the innocent who died unjustly.

We understand there are more lives (of victims) and their rights being killed every moment than guilty ones, but it is no reason to ride roughshod over the rights of the living, be they guilty or not.  It is good that there was an attempt to clarify the “marching orders” of Mr Duterte — that killing of suspects and individuals should only be due to the suspect or individual resisting arrest or there is clear and imminent danger to police operatives or innocent bystanders and for no other reason.

However, in my following of the event relating, it did not appear clear enough to me regarding the explanation/clarification.  Moreover, the “marching orders” only cover law enforcement and armed forces personnel and operatives.  What is happening alongside is the vigilantism and Mr Bato dela Rosa should look into the matter immediately, if not sooner, and fast.

While it is commendable that the government is moving heaven and earth going after everyone in the illegal drug trade — btw, marijuana should not be included or must be delisted (soon) from the illegal/dangerous drugs list because there is mounting evidence that it is beneficial, not only in terms of health and medicine but likewise in terms of industrial and other non-traditional uses, such as fabrics and textiles, but this will be saved for a later TaN.

As to “creating a crisis”, I seriously doubt if the Chief Justice would be the one to start something.  Everything was calm before Mr Duterte came in with his “kanto boy” style of governance.

Don’t get me wrong.  I admire his courage and conviction and many of what he is doing coincides with what I believe should have been done many administrations ago.  However, it is in the methodology that I disagree.  With almost every statement coming from his speeches peppered with |I will kill you”, it only shows that Mr Duterte is seriously lacking in tact.

Just as he resents being lectured and admonished in public, has it ever dawned in him that others may feel the same way?  In his nearly 8 decades of living, has he not imbibed at least the tiniest iota of diplomacy, to consider the feelings of others before he blurts it out in public.  I understand he (believes what he) is saying is truthful but it does not mean that he can just ride roughshod over the feelings of others.  There is a saying, You can catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar.  Another is, There is more than one way to skin a cat.

What I am saying is that Mr Duterte can still achieve his goals and objectives without resorting to acerbic and “kanto boy” language.  This way, there will be less chances of being “misquoted”, “misunderstood”, and “misinterpreted” and save his staff the trouble of explaining and smoothing things out with the media.  There is still another saying, Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth.

In conclusion, the creation of a crisis Mr Duterte is alluding to is but a reaction to what is happening ever since he took office and his ongoing war on illegal drugs.  His statements are “encouraging” people to become vigilantes and disregard due process.  It must be remembered that due process is not just a matter of giving a person a chance to defend him/herself but to do so in public and to have counsel advise his/her rights (especially against self-incrimination).  The rash of summary executions and killings do not follow the standard and legal due process where separate and limited functions are distributed to avoid being judge-jury-and-executioner.

Finally, though I must admit that I agree with the sentiments of Mr Duterte — that the current set-up is tipped in favor of the accused rather than the victim/s — this does neither take away nor reduce the responsibility to give due rights to the accused nor make the accused (even if s/he is guilty as hell or caught red-handed) any less entitled to the same rights as everybody else.  This is how democracy works.  Remember the principle of, Innocent until proven guilty.  [Unfortunately, the global trend, especially with respect to the global war on terrorism, has that principle turned around and this is commonly witnessed in body searches at airports, malls, and ubiquitously anywhere one can think of.]

TaN: Taxing the personal income is double taxation and not only unconstitutional but immoral.  How is this?  Because there is already the sales tax.

It is said — according to the video from YouTube, titled “AMERICA — From Freedom To Fascism” — there is no federal law that mandates citizens to pay income taxes.  It said that the only taxes collected from income or revenue are corporate income — and that makes sense.  To collect tax from personal income is a duplication or redundancy because there is already the sales tax from corporations, especially with today’s VAT (value added tax) which usually passed by the business to its consumers.

Although not all, it is a very benevolent corporation to absorb the tax for the consumer.  This would mean a reduction in their profit margin.

There should be no direct tax from labor.  The personal income is minute enough as it is, with many employees pulling double shifts or double jobs just to make ends meet while the fat cats at the top of the corporate ladder not only enjoy obscenely humongous salaries but even have perks and benefits, not to mention that their taxes are close to nil with its percentage or ratio to the overall salary.

And it is the lowly income earner that is the life blood of the economy.  Imagine: No matter how much a rich man spends, there are only a few of them while the teeny tiny spending of the laboring masses, when multiplied by how many of them spend, makes up the bulk of the government revenue.

Moreover, removing (direct) personal income tax would not reduce government revenue because people will have more money to spend and that redounds to much the same — i.e., the loss from personal income tax will be covered by the increase in taxes from sales.

This is simple economics and many economists have acquired the “Einstein syndrome” — Albert Einstein is said to be able to solve the most complex of mathematical and physics problems but struggle with simple arithmetic.  In addition, economics is supposed to be a social science but it seems that what has remained is the “science” — in terms of statistical analysis and other complex formulas and equations used — while the “social” has all but vanished.  Economics has stopped being people-friendly and become corporate and wealthy elite friendly.

I see the wisdom in the non-taxing of direct personal income.  I just hope others will eventually see it too.

TaN: With international agencies, such as the United Nations and the European Union, it suddenly dawned on me — in a podcast by David Knight a couple of months ago when he commented on Brexit and the potential and impending break-up of the EU — that it is good to have international cooperation but only when the cooperation is bound not just by executive agreements et al but by treaties that have been ratified by popular vote from and by the citizens (and not merely their elected (much less appointed) representatives).  Brexit reveals how the unelected (global) elite, through their positions and international agencies, are able to change and dictate the course of entire countries and subvert the will of the population.

Such situations are or should be illegal because there is no accountability, much less to hold the unelected foreigners with no loyalty to consequences of their decisions and actions on the lives and future of entire countries and their populations.  People occupying positions in international agencies and bodies — such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Health Organization, and the like — should have no power or influence over governments, in terms of policy and such.  Such people are not expected to have any loyalty nor compassion for the governments they deal with.

Although it is understood many (developing or underdeveloped) countries that “voluntarily” agree or submit to these agencies — mostly out of desperation or gullibility — this does neither grant permission nor even tacitly imply that they have surrendered their sovereignty or autonomy.

Entering into a (binding executive) agreement or treaty or even being a signatory to some accord or whatever does not mean that a country has given up its freedom or right to self-governance and to chart its own destiny.  Any and all such agreements or contracts are immoral and unethical and the disadvantaged country has every right to unilaterally terminate or cede or otherwise abrogate the unjust transaction.

Moreover, the practice of representatives — whether political as in congressional representatives or governmental as in cabinet and other similar positions in the executive (including the President him/herself) or even in the judiciary — getting scot-free when transactions and agreements entered into by them in behalf of the country is proven to be detrimental to the interests and welfare of the state is unethical, immoral, irresponsible, and unjust in every way.

Such people who enter into agreements and transactions in behalf of the country should be more careful when exercising their prerogatives and duties and scrutinize all details and small print and their ultimate ramifications to ensure the country is not put into a disadvantageous position (when implementation time comes).  If and when that happens and the country (and especially the taxpayers and the poor) have to shoulder the (usually financial) burden, the people involved in the transaction or agreement should be held accountable and liable and must be dealt justice.

It is very wrong that a population is being dictated to by the unelected (with no superior appointing authority to be accountable to), especially by foreign individuals who cannot be depended upon to consider the interests and welfare of a country other than his/her own — to lose their right to self-determination — is an abomination.

The composition of people to preside over such international agencies should be by some kind of a committee or council whose members take turns in heading it — much like the United Nations, although the UN still has many kinks to work out to make it truly responsive to its member states (which will be taken up in another subsequent TaN).

In conclusion, persons in authority must be elected by the governed and an republican form is more appropriate and conducive for large populations (instead of the true democracy where there is direct consultation with the people in all matters concerning the state).  One word of caution: Even with a republican form, there is still the danger of a large bureaucracy (of the representatives).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment