TaN: [last minute insertion]: The call for action versus ISIS on the grounds that the beheadings and other alleged atrocities pose as threats to global security and peace by Obama is like “The pot calling the kettle black.” When we consider the air strikes and the killing not only of the allaged “guilty” terrorists but also innocent civilians (often referred to as collateral damage) that number of military personnel on all sides who have died not knowing what they are really fighting (and dying) for, where is the comparison?
In fact, air strikes are precisely what ISIS wants Obama to respond with. By increasing the intensity of the violence and conflict, not only with it “scatter” (or metastasize) the “terrorists”, it will likewise generate sympathy all over the world and these sympathizers will come up with their own schemes and plans of action. But theh again, perhaps this is also what Obama wants — something to justify the continued action around the world so that Big Business continues to profit from it. After all, remember the adage, Be like the soft breeze that calms the rough seas — strong winds will only make matters worse unless making matters worse is the objective all along.
TaN: [2nd last-minute insertion/addendum]: The book “Starters” by a certain Lissa Price appears to be a good way to push and goad vaccine fence-sitters (i.e., who are either still “weighing the facts” or hesitant), to ensure greater profits for Big Pharma, specifically the vaccine manufacturers — if they are not the ones behind it. It is sad — but that has been prophecied in the Holy Scriptures and God’s words must and will always come to pass — that people can still so blinded by money (i.e., GREED) that they will go to any and all lengths just to make a profit, even to the extent of harming or causing the death of others.
The book is supposed to be about some kind of a “contagion” that wipes all humanity, sparing only those who have been vaccinated — thus, perpetuating and reinforcing the “beneficial vaccine” myth. I guess this is another instances where it proves further the veracity of the adages, (1) A fool and is money are soon parted; (2) There is one born every minute; and, (3) None are as blind as those who refuse to see.
TaN: It is very interesting as well as shameful that marriage in the Philippines is being made into a business venture — where there seems to be a competition for having the most number of (principal and secondary) sponsors. This is likewise true for baptisms where there are multiple couples of godparents.
In the case of marriage, the purpose of sponsors (or ninong/ninang) is to serve as “second parents” because the couple regard them (the sponsors) as people they can trust and depend on for guidance and assistance much like their own (birth or adopting or foster) parents — people the couple looks up to. To have more than one set (of sponsors) defeats the purpose and would suggest that the couple either cannot find a set of “second parents” who embodies or comes close to their own parents or the couple are just after the money that the sponsors are traditionally expected to shell out for the privilege of being sponsors. Today, it has gone even further by categorizing the sponsors into primary and secondary — where the primary are the moneyed or wealthy ones who can give sizeable amounts for the couple and the secondary are the ones who are not expected to give money (but it will not be rejected).
As for baptism, the purpose of sponsors are similar to that of marriage — where the male sponsor will serve as a second father (ninong or godfather) and a second mother (ninang or godmother). Likewise, there should be only one set. However, in the Chinese tradition, there is only one sponsor — not a set or couple — and it is dependent on the gender of the child. If the child is a boy, then the sponsor will be a male (a godfather or ninong) only — and accordingly for a girl child, a female sponsor (a godmother or ninang).
At present, the emphasis is on money. The true meaning and purpose of sponsorship has been lost and (almost) forgotten. In this age of materialism and consumerism, money is god — and that is all that matter.
TaN: The statement by an Apple “spokesman” that they are in the business to offer consumers a product that they “do not know they really wanted” is both self-contradicint and revealing. It does not make sense that people will not know what they want. In such situations, it would only mean that they do not really want it or the want or desire has been discretely “introduced”.
As for “revealing”, the statement shows that Apple — or at least the spokesman, in case the statement is retracted, “clarified” later, or denied by management to be their official stand — is not really after the interest of the consuming public but merely their own profits. It further reveals that Apple apparently has taken upon themselves the task of deciding for (and telling) their “loyal” consumers the latter’s wants — thankfully, not needs.
Quite presumptuous and arrogant, I must say.
TaN: Talks of federalism versus republicanism — democracy is out of the picture because, in this day and age, direct participation in any political process is virtually an impossibility — has its advantages and disadvantages.
Ideally (i.e., a great majority of the population or citizenry are mature and responsible), federalism is suited for massive societies where they are subdivided into small political units (states) where the government will be more responsive to the sentiments and concerns of the constituency.
The drawback of federalism is it can be prone to political dynasties and this especially true in situations where the population is easily intimidted, majority of the population is in poverty, or majority of the population is immature and short-sighted.
In the case of republicanism, the idea is that when direct participation (democracy) is impractical, the next best thing is to designate representatives to serve as proxies of a group of constituents to look after their interests.
States with very large populations are vulnerable to graft and corruption because the levels/layers in the bureaucracy increase proportionately to the size of the population. The larger the population, the larger (in terms of layers or levels) the bureaucracy. The more levels/layers in the bureaucracy, the less likely the government is responsive to the concerns and sentiments of the population. The population will not be truly represented.
TaN: As a rejoinder to the past week’s issue on the looming power crisis next year and the granting of “emergency” powers (or “authority to contract” or whatever semantics chosen to define or describe it) to Mr Aquino, there is one requirement that should be paramount. If this power crisis were to have happened during the first two years of the present administration’s term, it would be understandable that there would be “request for ’emergency’ powers or authority” because it would be assumed that the previous administration had been neglect so the request would be the most probable solution.
However, the “power crisis” had no valid reason to be a crisis because there was more than sufficient time to identify or be appraised of the problem. The only reason or possible explanation for the power crisis was there was willful neglect or gross incompetence by the Secretary of Energy and nothing short of his/her unconditional and immediate resignation is acceptable as a first step in the solution of the crisis.
It is, in no uncertain terms, that the continued stay in office is absolutely unacceptable and a revelation of someone without the slightest shame and insists in clinging to office. Although there is no longer any way out but to accede to the urgency of the situation, it is nevertheless mandatory that no resolution can be acceptable without the unconditional removal from office of no less than the cabinet secretary responsible.
TaN: Trade treaties (today) are being crafted in total secrecy and countries that enter into them unwittingly (and unilaterally) cede or sacrifice their sovereignty and leave themselves open to litigation and law suits from Big Business when events do not turn out as planned or expected like for something as preposterous as loss of (guaranteed) profit.
Trade treaties are the latest sneaky and nefarious tactic by which Big Corporation are not only circumventing and frustrating the (properly enacted) laws of a country but even give Big Corporation the option to sue countries for loss profits or revenues that they should have taken in or but were not realized, even if it was not the fault of the other party or even the government. Moreover, this is on top of the fact that Big Business (i.e., the management and the other decision makers) were never elected by the population and therefore do not possess any kind of authority to make decisions in behalf of the latter, unlike the (elected) government officials.
In addition, it is rumored that among the provisions in the (secret) trade treaties is the condition that in the event of a conflict or an obstruction between Big Business policies and decisions (or agenda) and the laws of the land or even the Constitution, the latter should yield or be amended or otherwise be dealt with in favor of Big Business. In other words, Big Business is supreme and all others must accede or submit to its whims and caprices.
Finally, trade treaties have actually been around for quite a while already — as in the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), which is some two decades old. And a close and honest or objective scrutiny of its impact reveals that it was far from its promise of economic prosperity to the mutual benefit for all parties involved. In short, it was a dismal failure and only Big Business benefited — at the expense of all others.