[another last-minute insertion] TaN: As to the news article title “Binays confident Trillanes has no evidence on justices”, if one ponders on the implications of the wording, the presence or inclusion of the word “confident” in the title seems to suggest that there is evidence against the justices. It is just that Sen Trillanes is not in possession of it.
If the news article is trying to say that there is no evidence against the justices then it should have been written without the term “confident” and just simply say “Binays say there is no evidence on justices”. Moreover, if what Mr JV Bautista, from the political party of the Binays UNA, claims is true — that if Sen Trillanes really have evidence, why wait until May and bring them out now — and that Sen Trillanes does not have (parliamentary) immunity because the statements were made when the Senate was in recess and it has nothing to do with his being a senator.
However, if Mr Bautista is questioning why Sen Trillanes was delaying his revelations, then why is the former likewise delaying the filing of slander charges against the latter?
It would appear that both sides are equally guilty of all these public displays of “affection” that they expertly “milk and manipulate” to maximize media exposure and mileage for optimum benefit and self-interest.
Take the news for its informative value and just ignore the lame attempts of politicians to get free media exposure. And remember this on election day.
[last-minute insertion] TaN: Still on the issue of Mr Iqbal using an alias during the BBL (Bangsamoro Basic Law) negotiations, signing the same alias to the BBL, and continue to insist on using it in the Congressional Mamasapano probe is not only risky, disrespectful, and deceitful, it would or should also invalidate the BBL. If and when the true names of all parties involved in a transaction or endeavor — as important as the creation of a sub-state — are not used to sign and confirm a legal document, this should render the document null and void (because everything in the document, including the signatures, must be true regardless of whether the other parties involved (i.e., the opposite party and the notary public et al) objects or questions or challenges it or not.
Should the issue of the use of an alias to sign or notarize legal and other similarly important documents be permitted (to go unquestioned, unchallenged, and not withdrawn), it sets a dangerous precedence. If such an important document can be signed with an alias, what is to prevent aliases for less important documents (such as contracts and leases, affidavits and sworn statements, bank and financial transactions, treaties and international agreements, and court documents and oath-takings and many more) from following suit?
Mr Iqbal’s security concern for using an alias does not hold water. As mentioned in an earlier TaN, since his face is and has been all over media, what security is Mr Iqbal referring to? If he is concerned with facial recognition, is it not a bit late for that now? If it is about family and loved ones put in peril or at risk, “hiding” behind an alias will not be of much help. Mr Iqbal probably think the decades-long BBL negotiations are but a (trivial) game and aliases are “cool”.
Finally, even if we grant that Mr Iqbal has a number of aliases (and nom de guerres), these are applicable only when and during times of war and conflict, as he has admitted. Well, Mr Iqbal may notice that he is nowhere near a battlefield or arena of conflict where an alias may be necessary for whatever purpose he may reason out or justify, ergo aliases have no bearing. There is no state of belligerency therefore he has no basis to use an alias. Whichever way you slice it, aliases have no place in the Mamasapano incident probe and and certainly not in the August halls of Congress. His statements and testimonies, especially those under oath (if any), are perjurious and hence no longer carry any weight nor significance.
TaN: At present, the law regarding minors committing criminal or wrongful social acts — i.e., children in conflict with the law (an attempt to be politically correct or diplomatic/technical with terminology or semantics) — absolves the minor (as legally defined as children below a certain age, called age of discernment) of all obligations and responsibilities. This is well and good but wrong.
Whenever a wrongful act has been committed, someone must be held responsible. We cannot pretend that it never happened or that just because it was committed by someone considered incapable or unable to discern or comprehend the significance of a wrongful act that this in itself absolves the perpetrator and the damage or injury is to be chalked up to experience or bad luck.
In this instance where the wrongdoer happens to be someone deemed incapable of appreciating and understanding the impact of a wrongful act (whether due to young age or a medical/physiological or psychological condition of the brain), the person/s to be held responsible should be either the parents or guardians or stewards. Clearly, these are the people tasked with ensuring that minors and people with mental and/or emotional disabilities commit acts that hurt others or damage property. Since they — parents, guardians, stewards — have been tasked to look after such people and to either teach and guide them or to prevent them from inflicting harm or damage, they will have to be held responsible and accountable (and punishable) when such unfortunate events transpire.
And the recommendation of lowering the age of discernment, and therefore the age of accountability, does not serve the purpose because when younger and younger children commit wrongful acts, one or the law cannot keep on lowering the age limit because there will come a point where it can be lowered no further.
A wrongful act, especially one that hurts or damages, must be accounted for. Justice must be served. To permit the wrongful act to go unaccounted for is a travesty of justice. The person/s whose person or property had been hurt or damage must be given justice. This is but fair.
Finally, this also solves the issue of irresponsible parents who have no qualms in having children but bear no responsibility in their upbringing. If one wants children, one must accept the consequences and responsibilities that go with it.
And this should be extended to reproduction — that people cannot engage in carnal pleasures and use (artificial) contraceptive methods and contraptions for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy and responsibility. This is the height of irresponsible parenthood — and not being responsible, as most if not all mis-guided advocates of reproductive rights are screaming about. Deliberately avoiding pregnancy with the use of artificial — there are not natural devices and only one natural method…abstinence — is the epitome of irresponsibility. As one of the 7 Deadly Sins of Mahatma/Mohandas K Gandhi declares: Pleasure with conscience.
TaN: The bottom line is: overweight is a direct result of over-eating. Though others argue that there are other factors or causes of being overweight (like too much fat or carbohydrate intake or sedentary lifestyle), it is still over-eating that is the main or ultimate culprit. All the other causes are merely contributory.
Before continuing, let me set the record straight first. When I say over-eating, it is not simply eating a lot. For me, over-eating is consuming more calories than one dispenses or burns off. Thus, even when one eats constantly and in large amounts, if one burns them off in intense and grueling physical activity (with the implication that the physical activity really does burn off calories — because there are a few physical activities that do not burn quite as much calories as expected).
When you say “too much” of anything, that is already an indication and admission of over-eating. When you say sedentary lifestyle or not physically active enough, it means you are over-eating — eating more than you need to stay alive and not be hungry. [Clarification: Eating calorie-dense but nutrient deficient or bio-incompatible foods will pile on the weight due to the calorie content but because the body cannot make use of the nutrients, it will trigger frequent hunger pangs to request for proper nutrition even when or while the calories of previous meals have not been expended or burned off.]
Even if you say counting calories, it is still over-eating because calories are of no consequence unless and until they are consumed. No matter how much calories are in your food, if you don’t eat it, it will not make you overweight.
One other possible cause of being overweight even when consuming less calories is when one is taking in toxic substances — in tiny insignificant non-lethal doses — but not excreting/eliminating/detoxifying them. This will still cause weight gain and increase in body mass. Toxic substances that cannot or are not expelled from the body are stored and rendered inactive in fat cells. When all the available fat cells have been filled up (and there are still toxic substances in the body that have not been addressed), the body creates (more) new fat cells. If this continues, weight gain and increased body mass results. So, even if intake is in small amounts but is loaded with toxic substances, one still tends to gain both weight and body mass.
TaN: Commercial products that tout being natural or natural look are so insulting one’s intelligence. Common sense tells us that what we have is natural and anything else we “add on” cannot be natural — even if the add-on is natural. The add-on is not natural in the sense that it is not inherently or should be part of you, This is especially true with cosmetics and beauty enhancement products.
How can a product claim to be natural when none of its component ingredients occurs naturally in nature? In fact, for a product to have the slightest right to claim being natural requires that everything in it must be natural — down to the teeny tiniest speck of ingredient.
Moreover, just because something is natural does not necessarily make it good. Gravel is natural but I doubt if anyone wants any of it in food; poison ivy and poison oak are natural but I do not think anyone wants to come in contact with them. When one puts something on one’s skin that was never there or is not vital to its function and nature, despite it being natural cannot be natural — simply because it is not innate to nor vital to the skin.
So please use your common sense and do not permit unscrupulous business marketing practices and ploys to make fool out of you — unless you are willing to be a fool for them. In that case, you are free to be a FOOL! It is your right. Be my guest.
TaN: Product (or anything else) endorsement, especially for financial gains or public exposure, is SO CHEAP! Any product or service that needs endorsement by public figures, and especially by popular personalities, are so lame and should be taken with a grain of salt. If a product or service is good, its publication should be enough. It should be able to sell itself, by its own merit.
Employing the assistance of well-known people to endorse the product or service implies that the product or service is inferior or all together dubious. Products and services that are good will spread by word of mouth and will not need further assistance.
One of the most irritating and insulting endorsements is by dumb movie goers who unwittingly market and advertise the film FOR FREE! These people are usually those who are easily swayed by the bandwagon effect or herd mentality. They have no true appreciation of what is truly of value and can easily be impressed by special effects and hype or even by just being able to be seen on television or any mass media. Their endorsement is of little value and only shows that such endorsers have low intelligence quotients.
Another are the gullible patrons and consumers who stupidly purchase fad items, mostly from fast food chains, when the items should be given for free — to say the least. In fact, such fad items are always — not mostly — plastered and covered with advertisements and stupid patrons unwittingly PAY GOOD MONEY TO ADVERTISE in behalf of the fast food chain FOR FREE! How much dumber can you get?!
It is bad enough that the consumer pay good hard-earned money for (often) low quality and often nutrition-depriving junk food but even “donate” more money to get inane marketing fad items loaded with advertisements for the “privilege” of becoming part of the companies’ sales force and work without pay nor benefits. If that is not stupid, I really do not know what it.