TaN: It should be illegal and unconstitutional — because it is unethical — to appoint someone, no matter how competent or ideally suited, to serve for less than a (calendar) year. When it happens, it is usually to accommodate some sort of a “debt” or merely to satisfy a tradition to choose the most senior candidate in line or simply to “reward” a favorite or close friend.
The short duration will not be enough to do anything significant and lasting — except if it is to make things worse — and it will just be equivalent to a “waste of time”. Of course, there are special instances where the nominee has a proven track record to get things done in a very limited period.
The impropriety is even more glaring when it is a public office because not only will precious time and public resources will be squandered but an opportunity to do something for the country. And to make matters worse, when the short-lived nominee finishes his/her term of office, there will be a “pretend” turnover ceremony that further wastes time and resources and bestow undeserved accolade and praise for a trivial performance.
TaN: Knowledge of the proper language in marketing significantly impacts the sale of a product. The proper use of the appropriate terms are essential to successful marketing.
Product A and Product B are the same but the wordings on the packaging differ. Given the following, which would you purchase: Product A has the wording “healthier” while Product B says “less harmful”. It is a no-brainer yet the two may provide the same nutritional value.
Today, marketing and advertising people even go to the extent as to “redefine” the term so as to mislead the consumer. It is no different from the claim by mainstream/conventional medicine when they say that a certain patient who underwent chemotherapy and radiation and is still alive 5 years after the initial treatment is a survivor even though s/he may drop dead on day 5-year-plus-1-day. For them, for as long as you are still alive within the 5-year duration, you are considered a survivor of cancer regardless of whether you will still be alive beyond the 5-year limit.
In marketing, this kind of (deceptive) strategy is not being considered as fraudulent (and unethical) and therefore “perfectly acceptable” and normal. The problem arises when the language used in marketing connotes a different meaning to the consumers. It is for this reason that the marketing language be “in sync” with that of the intended consumer or target market.
Finally, it is likewise vital that the marketing language be phrased positively — as against negatively — even if the analytical outcome is the same.
TaN: If the world is progressing, why are there more and more: suffering, hunger, diseases, violence, stress, environmental damage, and extreme weather and climate disasters — among many more others? So-called experts and pundits, supported and mindlessly echoed by mainstream media and even peer-reviewed studies, constantly and consistently declare that capitalism- and consumer-drive science and technology has made the world a lot better everyday.
However, a careful and sincerely objective assessment of the other news items say otherwise. A grim and dismal picture forms and belies all the claims touted…
— claims of better healthcare (but there are more and more people becoming or contracting/”inheriting”, plus emergence of new or supposedly eradicated, diseases like polio as well as exotic diseases that were once the sole domain of animals),
— claims of higher food production (but there are more and more people going hungry and who subsist on barely one meal a day and produces, like farmers (in India), who commit suicide because they sink so deep into debt that the only way out for his family is for him to take his own life because he was promised high yields if he shifts to and adopt Big Chem’s and Big Biotech’s patented seeds and pesticides),
— claims of more effective medicine (but diseases and illnesses are no longer “curable” and people have to contend with maintenance medications for the rest of their lives),
— claims of solutions to environmental crises, such chem trails and geoengineering (but extreme weather is becoming the “new normal” and both the terrestial and the aquatic surfaces of the planet are filling up with mountains of garbage while the rest are pot-holed with pits from fracking and mining activities),
— claims of better nutrition (but countless millions and even billions are severely malnourished, both over (as in obese and morbidly obese) and under (starving)), and
— claims of economic growth (but the growth is exclusive and not inclusive and the rich are getting richer (and fewer) while the poor are getting poorer (and increasing in numbers by leaps and bounds)).
Where is the progress? What progress are they talking about? Better still, define “progress” so that we can understand and “appreciate” it.
TaN: [brief rejoinder to previous blog on: difference between reason and excuse] Although an excuse is also a reason, the fundamental difference is that an excuse is a reason but it is an attempt to explain for the purpose of avoiding or evade blame or guilt. In other words, there is a quality of responsibility which is not present in a simple reason. It can be said that an excuse is a reason with a (self-serving) purpose.
TaN: When a student is studying — a course or subject — for the purpose of future or prospective employment, there is and should be no such thing as a failing grade. The grade received at the end of the course should or merely represents an approximation of the percentage of topic comprehension and/or absorption of the student.
A low grade would indicate that the student did not comprehend much of the topics taken up for the term. However, it does not mean that just because much of the topics were not understood or learned, it does not necessarily mean that the student will never be able to perform effectively when s/he eventually gets employed. For all one knows, the topics that were not understood (or learned) may not or never be needed or used in the subsequent employment.
Given this, it is but appropriate and right or fair that the only obligation of any educator or learning institution is merely to impart whatever knowledge and wisdom a student will or may need and rate or evaluate — at least as accurately as possible — the degree of comprehension and absorption and no more. It will be up to the student to decide whether s/he will repeat the course/subject to try and learn the topics missed or were not learned or just let things be and “take his/her chances”. It will also be up to the prospective employer to decide whether the student’s knowledge and skill deficiency will be acceptable to or significantly affect the competence of the particular job the student applicant will be hired for. [Nota bene: In this regard, the academic transcript of the student applicant should reflect the deficient topic/s in order to enable the prospective employer to properly determine whether the said applicant is suited for the job.]
The sooner corrections to the current educational evaluation system is made and implemented, the better it is for all — especially for the student/s.