TaN: “Tons of aid undelivered” – Philippine STAR, Nov 14, 2013 (http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/11/14/1256476/tons-aid-undelivered); a late update. This is not only pitiful but downright infuriating. Reading the article, it pains me and I grapple with words to describe my outrage over this incompetence – THE INEPTITUDE – and the callousness of putting protocol before the urgent needs of man. It is a wonder that foreign aid still continue to flow. This is bureaucracy at work.
TaN: Happy Birthday Bayo-nic man!
TaN: “… They say the system works. What they mean is ‘the system works for me’.” – Russell Brand, We Deserve More From Our Democratic System, Commondreams, Nov 6, 2013, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/11/06-0?print [a last minute addendum]. My sentiments exactly…whenever people I share the stark and revealing truth about the events and their true significance. This is almost similar to the adages (1) None are as blind as those who refuse to see and (2) Ang pinakamahirap gisingin ay ang natutulog-tulogan [the most difficult to wake are those who pretend to be sleeping].
I guess this is because it is the (false) pride in us where we refuse to accept reality. Accepting reality shatters or shakes the very foundation of our self-assurance. People just do not want to be wrong, even if the wrong is the truth or for our betterment. It forces us to question ourselves. We defend our beliefs and our opinions to the point of justifying anything and everything that may be contrary.
Moreover, yet another explanation would be that we tend to cling persistently to anything that we are benefiting from even when it is already proven erroneous or untrue. This explains the phrase “the system works for me”. We defend or deny there is something wrong with the system because we have something to gain by its continuance or its preservation.
I must admit that there are times that I likewise am guilty of it, but I try to change, to accept the bitter reality, the naked truth simply because to do otherwise would be wrong.
TaN: Unthinkingly, (medical) doctors are not only mis-titled but are the only people who get paid legally without doing their jobs; lawyers are considered good because they win cases; and, people have the mistaken notion that it is the government’s duty to create and provide jobs. It is very unfortunate that these wrongs continue to persist. Let us tackle them one at a time.
First, it is not government’s duty to provide or create jobs. That duty belongs to business or the private sector. Government’s duty, among others, is to ensure a level playing field and to regulate. It sees to it that no one is unduly disadvantage and to intervene when injustice is being done or rights are being violated or deprived. It is, therefore, incorrect to blame the government for not creating jobs for the people.
However, indirectly, the government may be held accountable or negligent. It can be held negligent if and when there are opportunities that require government support but it failed to do so – as in failure to provide the proper infrastructure (like access roads and bridges) so that private sector financing and businesses can come to offer development as well as business and employment opportunities. And, government can be held accountable – often due to politics – if and when it permits itself to be an instrument of disenfranchisement of the people’s right to (employment) opportunity (as in the Department of Labor taking the interests of business over the interest of the workers).
Second, lawyers are duty-bound to protect our (their clients’) rights – to see to it that the client’s rights are not violated during the course of whatever proceedings undertaken. It is commonly misunderstood that people think lawyers are sworn to defend their clients – instead of their rights – and is considered a good (and successful) lawyer if and when his clients are freed or exonerated or acquitted. On the contrary, a lawyer’s job is to ensure that his client’s rights are observed and protected, regardless of whether the client is convicted or acquitted. This is, precisely, why a lawyer should be reluctant or even not answer when asked if s/he thinks his/her client is innocent or guilty. The lawyer’s “opinion” is irrelevant because it is not his place to judge but the court’s. His job is to only ensure that his client is treated properly and justly and his rights are not violated or ignored. For as long as the client’s rights are respected and observed, notwithstanding whether the client is found guilty or innocent, the lawyer is a good lawyer. [BTW, No lawyer will ever say that the client is guilty.]
Third and last, the term “doctor” originates from the Latin “docere” which means “to teach”. Therefore a doctor is one who teaches. A person who heals is more aptly called a physician. Unless the doctor (also) teaches – whether medical students or his patients – he cannot, honestly and rightfully, be called a doctor but a physician. Furthermore, a physician’s duty is to cure people (of whatever ails them). Ethically – with legally being an entirely different matter – a physician who does not heal the patient should not be paid, for the job is not done.
[Take the cases: (1) when a car is returned to the owner from a repair shop not in running condition, the owner is not required to pay; (2) when a watch is returned to the owner from a repair shop and still not functioning, the owner is not mandated to pay; (3) when a garment is returned to the owner still unmended, the owner does not have to pay; and countless more similar situations. So what makes a physician a different? When a patient leaves the office and the medical condition still persists, why is there payment?]
The only exception is when everything has been done to cure the patient and is accepted by all that cure is (sincerely – and not just because Big Pharma has declared it to be so) not possible. It was clear from the onset that the patient is terminal and all the physician could do is to make the passing more comfortable and more dignified. In this particular instance, the physician is not unethical in receiving payment. (However, if I were the physician, I would be ashamed to accept payment or at least a small portion for the effort that was put in.)
In addition, how can a disease be uncurable? And, why is conventional cure always some sort of chemical, radioactive, or amputative solution? Is it not that health is equilibrium, which means that everything is in balance? So, to be out of balance or equilibrium is to be diseased (or dis-eased) and this means that there is either something missing or has too much presence. So, how can sick people be deficient in toxic chemicals, in radioactive exposure, or having an excess body part?
I just love it when a medical quack is able to achieve what the entire conventional medical professionals and pharmaceutical industry is incapable of achieving – i.e., to cure or to reverse a medical condition that has been deemed to be uncurable or irreversible by conventional medicine.
TaN: The Key or Secret to Happiness is expressed in many ways but they all have the same theme or idea: Knowing what is True Happiness. Some of the more familiar adages or sayings are: (1) Happiness is wanting what you have, not having what you want; (2) If you want happiness for an hour, take a nap. If you want happiness for a day, go fishing. If you want happiness for a year, inherit a fortune. If you want happiness for a lifetime, help somebody – Chinese proverb; (3) Happiness is a choice – you will be happy if you want to be happy; and the list goes on and on.
Many people confuse happiness with what they have been told to want – like worldly possessions, wealth, fame, power, and all the other fleeting and transient things in this temporal world that can be taken away or lost. True happiness is that which no one or nothing can deprive you of; it is a choice; we choose to be happy, ergo we will be happy.
It is like in the story of the old lady who was finally admitted to an old-age home after a long wait and was given the worst room. As the previous room occupant had passed on, the room was being readied by a nurse. She noticed that the room is small and the last room in a long dimly-lit corridor. It has only 1 small window that opens to a blank wall. When the new occupant arrived, the nurse picks up her luggage and leads the way. Along the way, the old lady keeps talking about how nice the room will be but, knowing the true state of the room, the nurse tries to tactfully tone down the enthusiasm and optimism.
Finally, when they get to the room and opens the door, revealing the gloomy interior, the old lady exclaimed “Oh, what a wonderful and nice room.” The surprised nurse asked, “Now that you have seen how the room truly looks like – cramp and gloomy with a tiny window that opens to nothing – how can you still be so cheerful and happy?” The old lady replied, “I am happy because it is my choice. My happiness is not dependent on how it looks nor how far it is. I choose to be happy therefore I am happy.”
And there lies the secret or key to true and lasting happiness. We can be happy wherever we are. Our surroundings nor our possessions do not determine nor dictate our happiness. If they do, we will always be disappointed because they are temporary and will not last. They can be lost. But, if we choose to be happy, we will always be happy. It is a choice. It is our choice.