TaN: Being biased or prejudiced is not necessarily a bad thing. In this world — and even in Heaven — there is bias. It cannot be avoided. It is part of being alive. In being alive, one (be it human, a beast, or a plant) will always have the bias to survive (against all odds).
The preservation of life is the strongest and most fundamental bias. A living creature will (naturally) go to the extent of harming, or even killing, others just to preserve its own life. In fact, every time a creature “eats or consumes” (to sustain its own life, it does so usually by taking life away from others — with the possible exceptions of bacteria and microscopic organisms that may live off minerals and organic compounds, such as rust-eating microbes.
Unlike the wrong or bad side of bias (where or when we apply unfounded and baseless opinions or attitudes or claims and judge others on the whim of our personal feelings, emotions or animosity towards others), this one involves commitment and dedication or determination — to do what is right and good. The most challenging bias is among those that possess free will because it has to make a difficult choice especially when it is between doing the right thing against doing an act that is based purely on personal and self-interest gains.
In conclusion, the claim by many outstanding and upstanding journalists and media practitioners regarding that the news they report are fair and just and without bias, that statement itself already reveals a bias.
TaN: If and when an organization is intended to serve the general public, not just particular sectors or segments of society, it must always be a public or common good — i.e., policy and operational control must be determined by the public and not by private interests. Aside from the obvious public utilities, media must likewise fall under this principle.
If and when a public utility or the media is in private hands, it is almost a certainty that the utility or media shall serve the interests of the private owners. Media can be trusted (most of the time) except when a case or issue is raised against the owners of the media, then it would be no surprise that there will be no reportage. In the case of a public utility, since its purpose to be of service to or for the general public, no policy decision or action, especially those detrimental to the public, should be made or at least not without proper consultation — not mere information — and popular consent. Any and all policies and actions should be for the benefit of the public.
Another thing regarding organizations intended to serve the general public is that of NGOs — non-governmental organizations. They are good to a point but it reveals a serious implication…that government is incapable or incompetent — willingly or unwillingly — to perform its functions and responsibilities. This is not a good sign as it shows that government is weak.
Not that government itself is weak — because government is an institution and institutions cannot or are not subject to such frailties that plague man — but rather it is the administration, the human component or element of a government that is susceptible to inadequacies, incompetence, and insufficiencies. It is the weakness of the human aspect that run or carry out the functions and responsibilities of government that is lacking and it is this inabilities that create voids where NGOs have to come in to fill up the gaps in services and obligations.
The more NGOs there are, the more incompetent the people running the government are. However, most of the blame for incompetence usually fall on the upper echelon where orders and directives are handed down. The rank and file only carry out the orders and seldom are responsible for the deficiencies and inadequacies. In any case, NGOs expose gaps in government services that are vital yet absent.
In conclusion, this is one of those instances when incentivising does the opposite — i.e., instead of spurring, cultivating, or encouraging greater productivity or performance, it actually achieves the contrary and becomes an obstacle or a disincentive. People become more focus on the incentive rather than on the task at hand and become less motivated to perform better unless incentives are present or offered. All in all, working for the common good is still the best way to go.
TaN: Two things man will never have control over: time and the past. Man has always or perennially been a control freak and seeks to dominate anything and everything, not fully understanding the futility of it all.
For time, once lapsed, nothing man does can bring back the second that has gone by. As they say, when a second has passed, no amount of money or gold can bring it back, Even with all the talk about advancement in science where they put tons of money and effort into pushing technology to make light go faster with the hope of proving if we can go back in time.
What waste! Common sense and logical argument dictate that this is an exercise in futility because if it were possible, this would mean that the past, present, and future would have to exist simultaneously and we would have had “visitors” from the future. Moreover, even if it is granted that there are successes in “breaking the time barrier” — i.e., based on the argument that “time slows down as the speed of light is reached” and, by extension of the argument and thought, that going beyond the speed of light will “reverse” time — it is be remembered and understood that time is not wholly a singular thing but has (at least) two aspects: personal and universal.
In personal time, this is referred to as our age, where time governs us from the moment we come into existence and our true age is the elapsed or difference in time between the date and time we came into existence and the date and time when we end our existence or leave this temporal world, based on or referenced at the time of the place or location where we were born — i.e., our true age must be calculated from the date and time in the place of our birth and not that of the date and time of the place where we die. Moreover, personal time is independent of universal time and will always be forward-moving. Although it may “slow down” as evidenced in the time pieces that accompany astronauts/cosmonauts and space travelers, I seriously doubt if time can be reversed.
I maintain that time cannot be reversed and is immune from the machinations and attempts of man to tamper with it. I doubt if there is anything man can conceive of that nature has not (yet) done, even reversing time through faster than light. In the first place, I do not think man can ever hope to even come close to traveling at even a tenth of light speed — imagine, our speeds are measured in distance per unit of time and our unit of time is almost always by the hour and light travels at (approx) 186,282 miles PER SECOND! Even with our claimed successes at making light travel faster than it is supposed to be, that is still light that has done so. [Btw, I wonder how or what makes light travel?]
In the case of universal time, this is the transition that (literally) everything in this temporal reality undergoes or is subject to…each and every one of us as well as all of creation — material or otherwise. Universal time governs or affects us all. However, as to whether it can be manipulated is another story, but in all likelihood I am betting it cannot be done. But assuming that it is (or will be) possible one day, there is still the matter of going back in time, into the past, but only relative to all of creation. Our own (personal) time (or age) continues forward — i.e., we do or cannot become younger.
I just cannot comprehend how it is that one can go back in time and one’s time remains forward-moving, notwithstanding that it has already been “proven” — i.e., Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity — that (personal) time slows down the faster we travel, as in the atomic clocks and those that accompany astronauts/cosmonauts. The best that we can hope for is to slow the passage of time just a teeny tiny bit…NO MORE.
As for the past, something or an act/deed done cannot be undone. Sure, one can always argue that we can reverse time and undo what we did. However, it still remains to be a fact that we can really travel back in time. But even then, traveling back in time and “undoing” something is not the same as not having done it at all. Travel back in time and undoing something still leaves a “loop back” which will not be had that something not been done. It is just not quite the same thing to not do something and undoing something that has been done. Confusing? I hope not. For one thing, every person involved and/or with knowledge of something being done and then undone will have that memory and that memory means that it was undone and not that it never happened.