Post for Jan 3-9 2016

TaN: In The Philippine STAR article — titled “Noy to SC: Return unused funds to treasury” dated Jan 5, 2016 — and just basing my argument on the article title only, it would be but legitimate and lawful that whatever unused funds of another co-equal branch of the government remain with that branch.  To ask that the unused funds be returned to the (national) treasury would constitute a transgression of the co-equality — because it would imply that the executive can dictate on the judiciary — unless of course if the unused funds were not utilized not due to savings.  [Nota Bene: “Savings” is being defined as leftover, residual, or unspent amounts from a project or purpose that has been (successfully) completed or carried out.  Unused funds due to unfinished, half-finished, abandoned or canceled, or for whatever reason cannot constitute savings because the project did not reach normal termination and therefore there is no way to determine just how much would really remain after completion.]

Such instances or situations should be carefully and morally considered before taking action as it would create an erroneous precedence.  For the Supreme Court to voluntarily remit or return the unused funds back to the National Treasury would not only be ideal but would show patriotism and concern for the country — thinking of the good of the state over its own “personal” interests or benefits (that is already above and beyond what it is entitled to).  However, should the act be for any other reason except voluntary (on the part of the judiciary), it could be tantamount to coercion, bullying, or intimidation which, in turn, could be the basis for a precedence in the future where and when the executive wants to either get its grubby and sticky little fingers on excess or unused funds of other agencies and offices not within its authority or supervision or take away excess or unused funds from (potential or otherwise) political non-allies in government.

Especially, where and when funds are involved or concerned, one should avoid “overstepping” into other segments of government that are not within one’s jurisdiction — independent (as in constitutional bodies), co-equal (as in the three branches of government, or otherwise) — else they be perceived as attempts or efforts to usurp, undermine, coerce, manipulate, or otherwise influence the prerogative or independence of a co-equal to one’s agenda.

In such matters, it is best that each co-equal branch avoid or refrain from dipping one’s itchy and grubby little fingers into the purely internal affairs and decisions of another.

TaN: A colonizer should understand that there is very high probability that they will be “colonized” by the colonized — i.e., there will be an influx of colonized people into their (home) territory (unless they keep a tight immigration or migration policy, which hardly ever really work) and eventual assimilation or a blending of the cultures, values, and systems.

A good case in point is the colonization of the British empire where they now have British citizens who are not of British ancestry or descent — i.e. and specifically like people from India and the Chinese of Hong Kong (when Hong Kong was still a British or crown colony).

There is a martial art principle that says, One cannot attack without leaving one to (a) counter-attack.  One creates an opening in one’s defense(s) whenever one goes on the offensive.

In like manner, a colonizer leaves itself open to “counter attack” from the colonized by migrating or even just residing in the territory of the colonized to move to its own territory (and intermingle).  Eventually, there is bound to either be intermarriage or children outside of wedlock (whether consensual or not).

Finally, this intermingling is not really such a bad thing as cultures and races interbreed because, for one, the gene pool will be enriched, cultures will blend (or retain their uniqueness, for conservation and preservation purposes), and greater understanding and tolerance (hopefully) will be fostered — assuming there was no “bad blood” between them or there has been forgiveness and reconciliation and atonement.

TaN: I retract my earlier position that man cannot be perfect but I retain that man is not perfect.  After listening to and watching the videos by Hugh Ross (PhD), I am convinced that there is a way — and it is the only way — that man can achieve perfection in this temporal world and that is to obey God.  Complete and utter obedience and subservience to the Almighty’s Will is the only way man can achieve and be perfect — to be otherwise and foolishly believe and follow the flawed ways of man is folly and fall victim to one’s own foolishness.

People in general have the notion that perfection is somehow the quality of being or possessing the ability to be everything and do everything (well).  In a sense, that notion is correct but it is correct only if it is applied to this temporal world and in conjunction with the intended design or purpose — just as in the example of a knife is perfect when used in or to cut or slice but, even though it may be used to turn (some) screws, it will be awkward, especially when compared to a screwdriver.  It is in this point that we can say that perfection in this temporal world is relative…relative to its intended design or purpose.

In the same manner, man can be said to be perfect is we carry out or perform our intended purpose — i.e., why we exist.  We each have our individual and specific jobs and assigned tasks but in the overall scheme of things, our common purpose or design is to carry out the Will of God.  It is only in that manner that we can be (called or considered) perfect — nothing else.  To do otherwise is to be imperfect and this, I contend, is the very reason and argument that we are not perfect.

In conclusion, I agree and admit that man is not perfect but I can neither admit nor agree that we cannot be(come) perfect.  Moreover, we are born into this world perfect and, somewhere along the way, we somehow become imperfect (as we succumb to the temptations and evils of this world).  It is for this very reason that the Father — through Jesus Christ (and written in the Holy Scriptures) — said that when babies die, they go straight to Heaven, for they are pure and unblemished.  It is in such like manner that when we surrender and submit our will to His Will that we are “born again” — and become as innocent babes — and become acceptable and worthy to enter Heaven.

Advertisements

About anotherworldispossibleforall

nothing
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s