[another last-minute insertion] TaN: Looks like another stupid and inane decision by a currently popular Hollywood actress, castrating herself of her ovaries because she was told that she has a 50 percent chance of contracting ovarian cancer due to her mother dying ot it and after castrating herself of her breasts because she is afraid of contracting breast cancer after being told her chances of contracting them. A case of Dumb and Dumber, if I ever did see one. I cannot wait for the next sequel: Dumber and Dumber Still.
What next? If I were her medical professional, to bring in more business, I will tell her next that, since she has a genetic disposition to some “imaginary” body part, there is a statistically significant percentage of contracting its cancer — like the kidney, since people can afford to lose a kidney. In the end, the actress will end up as a cyborg or something.
Perhaps her psychiatrist can likewise make money from her OC (obsessive-compulsive) paranoia. Now, how many gullible people has her for a role model or idol? A body parts industry may emerge because of her — even name the industry after her, in her honor.
Would it not be ironic and even “hilarious” — tragic but hilarious in a sick sort of way — that she still ends up with cancer?
[last-minute insertion] A response to a certain Tiffany’s comment found in my spam queue: Print media still has a significant role in our modern interconnected world. It provides several advantages that online media can never offer. (1) The contents can still be read during power outages, fluctuations, and low battery power or there is no worry over running low on power. (2) Few people, if any, would care to steal it. (3) When you are through with it, the print media has other uses (like wiping the dirty seat before sitting, provides a bigger shade on a sunny day in the absence of an umbrella and trees along the way, swatting flies and other insect pests, compost for plants, soaking up oily surfaces, and more than one person can read simultaneously). (4) It is always ready to read…no need for powering up. And (5) there is no need for an ISP and pesky ads can be ignored and can even be cut or torn out. All in all, don’t knock old-school, old-tech.
TaN: The principle of command responsibility — to determine or ascertain (final or ultimate) accountability, guilt, or blame — does not (always) extend all the way to the top(most) superior, otherwise the President/Prime Minister/Premier/Chief Executive will always be the one to blame for even the tiniest of faults, incidences, or conflicts. Instead, the chain ends with the immediate superior of the person-in-charge or whoever approved of the operation or action — unless a higher authority or superior interferes or takes direct command or control, in which case the accountability or command responsibility will go beyond the normal “termination point” and is transferred to the higher authority or superior.
As in the case of the controversial Mamasapano tragedy, being the SAF director Getulio Napeñas, the chain of command ends with him even though he alleged that he delegated the execution of the operation to a subordinate (the ground commander). Delegation of authority — i.e., passing the buck — does not does not diminish nor absolves one of accountability.
Under ordinary or normal circumstances, the above statement would be true. However, in the news reports, it appears that President Aquino has “interfered” or had a direct participation, at least, in the incident therefore the chain of command, which should have stopped with Napeñas, was extended all the way to Mr Aquino.
A mistake in the statements given after the Board of Inquiry submitted its report that referred to President Aquino was that the latter is commander-in-chief of the PNP (or Philippine National Police). According to the structure of the executive branch of the Philippine government, the President is commander-in-chief of the military (or AFP, Armed Forces of the Philippines) and not the PNP. The PNP’s commander-in-chief is the Director General of the PNP.
TaN: Anything in the public domain cannot and should not be patented or patent-able. By “public domain”, this includes all things natural and all (other) things that have been existing (without a patent or claim of any kind of personal or private ownership) for a certain period of time — say, 5 years, considering the rate at which current things and events are transpiring and “evolving or progressing”.
This is to prevent further erosion of the public domain by the shameless greedy profiteering Big Business — in their (second to the) latest scheme in raking in obscenely massive amounts of money at the least cost, risk, and effort, which is bio-piracy (or patenting and laying unfair and unethical claim to traditional medicine practiced by the poor and the ethnic tribes in remote jungles and far-flung areas) like what happened in India and in the jungles of the Amazon some time a couple of years ago. Big Pharma patented traditional medicine that has been practiced and used by the poor and masses for centuries just because there is no existing patent, thus depriving the poor of the much needed medical treatment they depend on for generations.
I just cannot believe that there are such kind of people with such greed that it shames even Satan. And as if it is not enough, their latest scheme (actually it is a few years old already) whereby (in the United States of America) there appears to be a law that absolves the vaccine industry of any and all possible liabilities and obligations and responsibilities arising from damages and harm — proven or not — caused by vaccines.
It is precisely this that is behind the current mad surge to get every individual vaccinated — even though and, in fact, rightly the very reason why most vaccines today are not only full of toxic substances but has never been tested or which the results have been manipulated to reflect effectivity — cajoling and conspiring with governments and various Big Pharma funded and affiliated organizations to persuade and convince the unsuspecting (sheeple) public into submission (or more on subjugation). And to add further insult, those who resist or refuse because they are aware of the machinations and orchestrations of Big Pharma and the risks involved in vaccination are being hounded, persecuted, threatened (with no admittance of their children into schools and disqualification or separation from work and all sorts of schemes, pulling all the stops), and even outright ridicule, banishment (from social circles), and incarceration.
The seeming unbridled push for mass vaccination is due to the fact that injury or even death from vaccines, by law, can no longer be a cause for bring a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers but will be taken up by the (United States of America) government. Who says one cannot have one’s cake and eat it too. Big Pharma does!
TaN: Rethinking and re-evaluating my arguments and posits on health, I had an epiphany — that, strictly speaking, there is (really) no such thing as unhealthy food but there are such things as healthy and unhealthy lifestyles. If something is unhealthy, it cannot be food. Food, by its nature or design, must be healthy.
Given this argument, there cannot be such a thing as unhealthy food. Furthermore, this would imply that not everything that can be eaten is food. Ergo, junk food is not food; processed food is not food; artificial or unnatural (i.e., like GMO and clones) food is not food. Whatever you may want to call them, you cannot call them food. Food is supposed to be healthy.
Moreover, this argument also implies — and I have been repeating this in earlier TaNs — that there is no such thing as “superfood”. There is nothing “super” about food. They are merely behaving as they ought to. If by “super”, one is referring to the ability to provide lots of benefits, then all foods are “super”, in which case since all are “super” then none are “super”.
However, I will agree and admit that there are foods that provide less nutrition but these are not because they are not “super” but by how they have been prepared (or processed) prior to eating. As has been repeatedly and consistently argued and proven, the more food is subjected to heat, especially high heat, the more nutrients are damaged or destroyed or rendered unrecognizable (therefore unusable or non bio-assimilable) and becomes useless or toxic to the body. It is this “toxicity” that causes inflammation in the body (as a natural response to potential threats to the body) that leads to (lifestyle) diseases.
It is for these reasons that I have advocated, posited, and maintained (adamantly) that foods, to be “super” or beneficial, must be consumed as near their original state as possible and as soon as they have been harvested or slaughtered. This is why animals, even though they have no physicians — veterinarians are our physicians for them, not theirs — yet they seldom need physicians. This is because they do not cook (i.e., heat) their food and they consume their food immediately. Even vultures and other carrion feeders do not touch kills that are over a certain period of time. Only bacteria and decomposers take over the digestion and breaking down process beyond a given time frame (when the organic matter is beginning to turn acidic, which is why spoiled or rotting or decaying organic matter always smell acidic or sour).
TaN: Dirt is not necessarily dirty. This is a common mistake of people, including me (at times but unconsciously, only to realize later). There are many words that, when used as an adjective instead of its noun form, take on a different connotation and “dirt” is one good example.
Just because something is considered dirt does not (necessarily) mean it is dirty. Dirt is a general term used to reference something that is a mix of tiny particulate matter generally deemed worthless. However, just because something is considered as dirt does not mean it is dirty (again, depending on how “dirty” is defined).
Soil is normally regarded as dirt and yet it has nutritive value. It provides not only essential but all nutrients and substances needed for plant growth and survival. If dirt (or soil) is dirty, it stands to argue that plants are dirty and the vegetables and fruits that most people rely on would be dirty. And by extension, we would be eating something dirty, yuck and double “eeeeeww”.
This TaN was brought about when I saw someone washing the plate eaten from using utensils and dish sponges, taking care not to touch the leftovers and morsels stuck to the plate, not remembering and realizing that just a while ago, food from the same plate was being shoved into the mouth. How can something left on a plate you have just eaten on be dirty? I have seen people touch much yuckier things and then pick up food to eat without washing their hands first. Now that is yucky.
As mentioned in earlier TaNs, most people today, especially those with (dirty and embarrassing) secrets to hide — intentionally or not — resort to semantics to avoid guilt, shame or embarrassment, and responsibility. They also turn to literal definitions to escape blame, obligations, and accountability — not remembering that the Holy Scriptures have already warned that (and I paraphrase): the letter of the law is or brings death while the spirit of the law gives life. This is most prominent and rampant among politicians — the unscrupulous kinds.
Let us behave and be guided by Truth and what is Right. Let us not be tempted to skirt responsibilities and take the consequences of our decisions and actions.