TaN: In the NaturalNews article “New York abandons Ebola quarantine after pressure from Obama; politics now driving all medical decisions” (by Mike Adams, dated October 27, 2014; URL: http://naturalnews.com/z047418_Ebola_quarantine_New_York_City_politics.html), “…insist unvaccinated children should be sent home from public schools so that they are isolated (quarantined) away from other children” is a rehash of a previous TaN and I reiterate the inanity of the argumentative logic utilized.
Examining the statement carefully, we see the inconsistency in the logic. Vaccination is supposed to provide (some sort of a) protection against a particular pathogen or harmful organism, ergo vaccinated children should not be affected and have nothing to worry about. Vaccinated children will no longer contract or become infected, so I fail to see why they have to be “protected” from unvaccinated children — who may become or are already infected. So what if vaccinated and unvaccinated children co-mingle — not unless the vaccines do not work or are totally worthless and the vaccine pushers and advocates will be proven to be hoaxsters and scam artists.
Why should my vaccinated child be kept apart from unvaccinated children? If the unvaccinated children are infected, the infection will only circulate among them since my child has the protection of his/her vaccination.
In addition, as the argument of Mr Adams, why is there a different set of (quarantine) protocols for Ebola and the rest (like MMR et al)? Are not the two both infectious diseases?
Politics is neither good nor bad. It becomes disadvantageous only when greed (via profit) gets into the picture. When greed is the cause behind political decisions, it becomes bad. As has been repeatedly cited from the Holy Scriptures (in 1 Timothy 6:10, KJV), “For the love of money is the root of all evil…”.
In these instances, again, the “love of money” is behind the decisions — Big Pharma wants to guarantee that profits continue to roll in and line their padded pockets while peddling and pushing not only worthless but always harmful and toxic allopathic treatments, like vaccines laden with thimerosal (mercury-based preservative), aluminum, MSG, and loads of other lethal and carcinogenic substances). Only when people continue or remain sick will Big Pharma profit.
And topping it all is the immunity from suit when their deadly vaccines claim victims.
TaN: Though one is entitled to one’s (right to) privacy in cyber space, the reality is that one should never expect it. One of the most recent controversial issues is one concerning the hacking of cloud accounts. It is foolish to even consider that, just because there is right to privacy (in such a public and open place), it remains a fact that there will be risks from crackers — please stop referring to violators and criminals in cyber space as hackers, who were the ones responsible for giving the world cyber space at no cost.
When one (agrees to) make use of cyber space and there are numerous accounts of crackers and other malicious users getting into supposedly private accounts, one should not expect that one’s rights will be respected. For as long as there is the ability or technical knowhow to break into another’s account and there will always be people who do not exhibit or practice self-restraint, courtesy, and ethics, it is prudent not to put one’s trust on the security of cyber space.
I, for one, has and will never put anything I hold dear in cyber space. Anything I put in cyber space is assumed to be “public”, not matter how much guarantee of privacy I have been assured or given. I do not expect my space in cyber space to be respected. My little niche in cyber space is presumed to be disposable and public. No matter how convenient it is to put valuable things in cyber space, I will never put anything that I expect to be kept secret and private.
Furthermore, with the NSA (National Security Agency) and many of its cohorts and perverted think-alikes going through everything in cyber space with nary the slightest respect for privacy (under the guise that they are going after the “bad guys” — i.e., terrorists, pedophiles, pornorgraphy spreaders, and what-have-yous), the more I would not put an iota of trust on the security of cyber space. No amount of convenience cyber space offers is worth my privacy.
The problem with most people is that they do not — or prefer not to — realize that convenience is diametrically opposed to control and security. The more convenient, the less control, the less security. I, for one, want control over convenience, anytime and every time.
Don’t get me wrong. I also make use of cyber space but I keep things in cyber space only if and when privacy is a non-issue or non-concern — like this blog. This blog is personal but people are welcome to read it. However, you will notice that I do not provide a feedback mechanism. I just keep this blog for my own personal record of my thoughts and opinions. I do not need the reactions of others. If you want to read this, you are more than welcome.
If someone intrudes and attacks this blog, I will just put up another. They can have it. It is but a back-up because I keep a copy of it offline.
And I am not a fan of social media. I am not lacking in self-esteem that I have to get — let alone beg — it from others. I do not care if you like or dislike me. It is your right and I have my own rights too.
So, remember: If you want privacy or secrecy, keep it off cyber space. You will have no one to blame but yourself. If someone blurts out your secrets (because you keep them in cyber space), even if you get satisfaction — like winning a suit, getting the violator punished, or whatever — it will be of little consequence because the damage has been done and nothing can undo it.
TaN: The issue of Jejomar Binay’s supposed or alleged ill-gotten wealth should be a non-issue because he was clever. The fault lies in the people in authority who signed and approve whatever transaction that made it possible for Mr Binay to acquire his ill-gotten wealth. Stupidity, and not cleverness, should be the basis of determining the guilty party — unless there was a violation of rights (the right to know, i.e., full disclosure of the details and important aspects of the transaction).
The problem with the world today is that we are penalizing the wrong people. In the case of corruption in government and burdening the citizenry with massive (public) debts, instead of running after those who should be held accountable, it is the people who are left holding an empty bag. Public officials who put their imprimatur in any binding government transaction where the people and the country will be at a disadvantage should likewise be brought forth to account for their decisions and actions.
A perfect case in point will be borrowing from financial institutions (like the IMF or WB) where it resulted in saddling the country with a huge debt (that must be paid using taxpayers’ money) with no significant benefit, especially among the poor and the not-so-poor, the owner of the signature that approved the transaction — in this case, it is often a Cabinet member or higher up in the echelon — should be held accountable even after s/he leaves public service. A more specific case would be the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), which has proven to be a huge white elephant. The signatory to the transaction should be the one to pay the bill. The people were not party to the deal so why should they be the ones to pay.
Worse of all, signatories who are appointed public officials are not accountable to the people and should not have any authority to enter into any kind of transaction or agreement because they cannot claim to be representatives of the people. The people never chose them to represent them.
I am not saying that parties like (in this case) Mr Binay should be left scott-free (i.e., assuning that the outcome of all these probes and investigations and whatever result prove him guilty). I am saying that, aside from the plunderers and corrupt public officials being brought to justice, those who are supposed to look out for the interests of the people — but did not — should be made to answer for their involvement, their (willful or otherwise) negligence, their incompetence (whether the incompetence was true or they were just pretending to be incompetent).
This is similar to the case where a product has been determined (after a while in the market) to be detrimental to consumers. Aside from the manufacturer or importer being held accountable for damages, the endorser and the marketing or ad agency and the media, to name a few, should likewise be held responsible and accountable because they are also party to the damage caused on consumers. If it were not for them, the product may not have been patronized by consumers. It was through their involvement that consumers were beguiled into purchasing the (harmful) product.
TaN: Pope Francis’ (alleged) statement regarding evolution has very serious implications — and contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. Evolution is contradictory to the Holy Scriptures in the sense that it is avered in the Book of Genesis (KJV) that God commanded and “…the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind…” and “…Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth…” and “…created great whales, and every living creature that moveth…” and “…bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind…”.
The fact that there is some degree of specifications of the different life forms — grass, herbs, trees, whales, cattle, etc — implies that there is very little evolution but direct creation of each unique and distinct genus and family during creation. To say that there was evolution implies that God just created one fundamental life form and evolution took care of metamorphing the basic form into the myriad of life forms we have today — much of which we still have not yet discovered — which would run counter to Holy Scripture accounts.
The different species are but changes in the settings of specific DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid) protein sequences and these changes in setting is achieved both by chemical and radiation exposures as well as adaptation to specific changes in the environment to ensure the continued survival of the species — as in the famous Galapagos finches as chronicled by Sir Charles Darwin.
Another instance was exhibited when an experiment was conducted some decades back where a group of scientists “backwards engineered” a certain breed of dogs “back” to their wolf ancestors. As each succeeding generation physically came closer and closer to resembling a wolf, they also began to acquire (or re-acquire) the behavior of wolves. This attests that so-called evolution is nothing but the manipulation of genetic protein switches — from ON to OFF or vice versa — to ensure the survival of the lineage of certain species to address adverse long-term and permanent environmental changes.
Finally, even the slightest hint of agreement or acceptance of the Big Bang is likewise an implication that God did not create — for creation starts from nothing and becomes something. Even if the argument was that God caused everything in the universe to become such after the Big Bang implies that He merely “re-arranged” everything and that the Big Bang provided the materials for God to “do His work”. And even if it is argued that God created what was before the Big Event, it now mean that God did “indirect creation” — that His creation of the universe was through matter provided by the Big Bang, even though the Big Bang matter was His creation.
One of the biggest problems encountered by the average reader of the Holy Scriptures is when to take the passages literally and when figuratively.
TaN: From what I can understand from the news item on NBC News (circa: October 29/30, 2014, depending on which part of the world it was viewed, 30 for me but 29 in the USA) regarding problems and complaints about the Common Core education reform (program), the problem seems to center around what appears to be more topics required for the pupil/student to take in and show that s/he comprehend.
In the news, the topic explained concerned mathematics and it showed that teachers provide several approaches or methods by which a problem can be solved. The rationale behind the multiple techniques is not only to show that there is more than one way to solve the problem but likewise to address the possibility that different pupil/student may (find it easier to) comprehend and appreciate different techniques. This is good, because pupils/students can choose which technique best suits them or they comprehend better.
The problem lies in the program’s requirement that the pupils/students (i.e., the entire class or batch) must show adequate comprehension via their performance during tests. What should be is, instead of requiring the pupils/students to show comprehension, they should just be required to show proficiency in one technique. It should not matter which technique. The point is that pupils/students are able to do the mathematics using a technique and get the correct results every time.
Is the whole point of the education reform to ensure that pupils/students learn? It is irrelevant — unless the pupils/students will one day become teachers themselves — which of the techniques they comprehend and use. In this way, everybody get what they want — the pupils/students learn without being overwhelmed, the teachers teach effectively because their pupils/students learn, and the system accomplishes it objectives — a win-win situation.