[last-minute insertion] TaN: Just this morning, in NBC News where one of the items is the consumption of alcohol increasing the likelihood of stroke, has made me epiphanize on the inaccuracy of the report — the information of most medical findings (especially those based on thorough and solid studies amd trials) are accurate but the subsequent conclusions are misleading. I tend to agree that irresponsible or even “responsible but misunderstood” indulgence can lead to negative or even fatal medical conditions but it does not necessarily end in death.
This is in congruence with my early TaNs where I advocate, posit, and argue that only God determines our moment of death while we determine the manner of our death. The medical findings may result in the medical conditions are “predicted” by medical science but the death is an entirely different matter. The odds or statistics in the findings or report are merely your chances of contracting or developing the disease or medical condition but is in no way a prediction of certainty of death.
This must not only be made clearly understood to the public but must even make sure they subconsciously remember it always because people are frequently — though may not be intentionally — tend to be taken in by manipulative and unscrupulous merchants out to make quick profits by capitalizing on the “generalization and simplification” of most new health findings.
TaN: Pope Francis’ message for Filipinos of not to “breed like rabbits” must be coupled with his idea of responsible parenthood. As I have maintained in previous TaNs, there is nothing wrong with having lots of children just as long as one can properly provide and care for them.
Furthermore, many claim to understand the idea but appear to either have an honest nisunderstanding of the “responsible” aspect of parenthood or they have other ideas. “Responsible” means ensuring that the child/children will get the basic needs — i.e., not just food but ample and nutritious food, decent and livable shelter, proper education, enough “children time” and attention from the parents, and a good environment or neighborhood, to name a few.
In short, what I have been advocating ever since (and in previous TaNs) is that only people who are mature and be responsible parents, who can properly provide and care for children, should have children. In this world (especially today), only people who are mature and respponsible should have privileges; all others are limited to their (basic and inalienable) rights.
[A brief lecture on Rights and Privileges: Rights are fundamental and inherent to all. We are born with them. Rights are not given to us but form part of our being us. Meanwhile, privileges — which are also entitlements, just like rights — are endowed, accorded, or otherwise earned or deserved. We have to show that we deserve to have them, like driver’s licenses. Marriage and having children should be privileges and not rights. One has to show one is mature and responsible enough to handle marriage and having children. These should not come automatically. These privileges can be revoked upon determination that one is incapable or unable to exercise them responsibly. Finally, mercy and compassion are good but must be done justly. When one refuses to change or repent after shown mercy and compassion, s/he must be “abandoned” — but, to qualify, there must be an exhaustive process of determining “refusal to change or mend one’s ways” before rendering the “abandonment” decision or to leave them on their own. After all, everyone deserves a second (even a third and a fourth) chance, but these chances should not be forever — just as in the Holy Scriptures (in Matthew 18:21-35, KJV) and I quote, in part: “…Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. … So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”]
TaN: Is there are law against making false charges against another? What I mean is when a person who is providing testimony regarding another individual where the latter vehemently denies the accusations and files a libel/slander case against the former. Later, it was found that the testimony was truthful and that the libel/slander case was only intended as a harassment or intimidation.
There ought to be a law, if there is none, to make the filer of the libel/slander case accountable for the attempt to derail and distort justice and truth and should automatically be charged and convicted not only of/for the attempt to evade justice and truth but any other appropriate and applicable (legal) charges.
The purpose of automatically charging and convicting is to discourage and deter those who have intentions to dodge and escape accountability and responsibility.
At the present, if I observe correctly, after the (main) case has been rendered a decision — and it is final and executory — the libel/slander and other similar legal means used by the unscrupulous to thwart justice and truth are left “to be forgotten”. There is no accountability for wasting the judicial system’s precious time and resources with harassment cases and this a principal or major cause of all the backlogs and “trash” cases clogging the courts and diverting their attention away from the more meaningful and urgent cases.
In other words, libel/slander and other such charges resulting from an ongoing case, especially when or if the case is widely publicized, should be set aside or integrated into the main case so as to prevent too many cases overwhelming the justice system. Either there should be a law or a mechanism with the force of law that is designed or intended to prevent mis-used of a law.
TaN: My take on the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, after reading a New York Times editorial regarding it, entitled “Charlie Hebdo and free expression“, is that like all entitlements — i.e., rights and freedoms — they are for mature and responsible people only and that all entitlements have limitations and must be exercised or availed of with full realization and comprehension of the limitations.
As was mentioned in the article, rights and freedoms are never absolute in this temporal and imperfect world of ours. The greatest problem, in my opinion, is how to exercise it while ensuring that there will be no misunderstanding or misinterpretation as to the intent. I agree that the limitations are that it should be made clear — to those who might take it wrongly — that there is neither insult nor malice intended and that the intention is merely to bring something into objective and impersonal attention (and probably discussion).
It is therefore prudent that, before one exercises the right to self-expression or the freedom to express oneself, one must take all necessary steps and all manners of precaution to ensure the true intent and purpose of expression. The only problem that I can see is when people pretend to intend — i.e., pretending to make people believe that there is nothing personal in the expression when, in truth, there is malice.
In this world of ours today, there is so much deceit and deception that it is almost impossible to discern whether there is really any intent to insult or malign, especially when the true intent and purpose is known only to the one who makes the expression.
Moreover, it will help greatly if people will also not be too “onion-skinned” and to take things too personally. In this case, it can always be argued that one has been personally hurt or insulted even when there is actually known, for the purpose only to get back at the one who made the expression.
It is a crazy, bewildering, and confusing world and it does not seem to be getting better. And so the world continues to turn.
TaN: All these squabbling, arguing, haggling, quarreling, and conflict over ownership are symptoms of an immature and selfish (but not necessarily greedy) nature. In truth, all these belong to God.
Remember that God made everything and He GAVE everything to us. We never paid for them. Then, He said in the Holy Scriptures (Matthew 10:8, KJV), “…freely ye have received, freely give“. I am not sure how it is meant to be understood but it can be applied to anything we received for free.
About the only instance when we can “charge” is when we have added value. And the only value that can be added (that has not been paid for) is our — not another’s — labor or effort. This means that we may profit only when we made changes or improvements, and the profit must be proportional to the amount or degree of labor done/added.
Furthermore, the most puzzling of all is our ownership of land (which I had taken up in earlier TaNs). Of all the things that man buys (and owns), land is different from all the rest. It is the only property that is paid repeatedly every year even when the purchase price (and all accompanying mandated charges and costs) have been paid in full.
Finally, it used to be that one cannot claim a patent over what is natural and yet, it is slowly but steadily becoming the case. Take for instance patenting genes (like the BRCA1 and BRCA2) and specific strains of the Ebola virus (by the CDC or Center for Disease Control and Presvention), where none of the aforementioned are made by man and yet they are patented.
It will not be long before entire human beings will be patented — look up the case of “designer babies”.
TaN: CSR (corporate social responsibility) is very much mis-implemented and much of it has no meaning and are even damaging. For CSR to have any meaning at all, business must first ensure and guarantee that what it is offering — be it a product or a service — is not detrimental, that society, the consumer, and the environment will not be unduly negatively impacted.
Think about it. What meaning is there for a business to set-up, implement, and maintain a CSR program when, all the while, it is selling or marketing a product or a service that is harmful or bad. A case in point would be cigarette companies and junk food producers and vendors. Such businesses do more harm than good and they would be more beneficial by omission rather than commission.
The way business, in general, is going about it, it is making — intentionally or not — a mockery of the concept and purpose of CSR. It is just like business, especially those whose priority is to make quick profit and little or no regard for consumer satisfaction and interests, to put up a CSR program without really thinking it through — much less reflecting on the impact their product/s or service/s are doing to society and the environment and whether there is a “disconnect or hypocrisy” between their CSR program and the business.
Finally, many businesses fail to (fully) comprehend the true purpose and manner of (properly) implementing a CSR program.