TaN: The trouble with solving (national or public) problems by modeling or imitating the successes in other countries is that there are instances where adaptation must first be done prior to implementation — much like what Japan has been doing ever since end the of World War II in its rebuilding efforts.
Remember that different cultures and societies (may) have different values and customs and terrains or environments and climate conditions — i.e., temperate zones with four seasons as compared to tropical zones with only two seasons (wet and wetter, ha-ha) — and these affect and determine how solutions to problems are crafted and implemented. Just because a solution to a similar problem has been successful somewhere else does not necessarily mean that it will equally be successful when adopted — not adapted — and implemented en toto and without the slightest bit of alteration or change. This is a common fault in many “less mature” countries.
In fact, a good example would be a manufactured but not immediately consumable good or product (as compact electronic gadgets such as computers and household electrical appliances). Many electronic gadgetry with a primary market in industrialized temperate countries may not be designed to operate (as efficiently and effectively) in tropical, especially archipelagic, areas where the humidity is high and the air moisture are probably saturated with moisture and salt, both of which severely impact the performance and life span.
Extra moisture and the salt content in the atmosphere gets into the internal components and corrodes the more sensitive circuits and gears which lowers the performance and shortens the productivity life span. Manufacturers should take into consideration and “customize” products that are intended to operate or be used in different environmental conditions.
Another good example is in packaging of certain foods that are sealed — in plastic or plasticized packages or in air-tight containers. When such products are brought to markets located in significantly higher altitudes, the air pressure equilibrium inside and outside the product package or container is compromised. The external air pressure drops (in the high altitudes) which causes the internal air to expand. In the case of packaged goods, they tend to balloon and, if the packaging is not strong or durable enough, pop open whereas in the case of rigid containers, the product becomes difficult to open normally and, if the container material is not sturdy enough, will cause bulging and even cracks or damage to the container integrity.
What I am explaining is that when adopting solutions, one must always consider the differences in situations, therefore changes and alterations may be in order to ensure that application success is maximized.
TaN: After watching several episodes of the Flash where he repeatedly returns to the past to prevent the deaths of his parents, I suddenly realize that it has been ordained that man cannot and will not be able to go back in time. This is because going back to the past will involve bringing back to life the dead and it has been explicitly and repeatedly specified and demonstrated in the Holy Scriptures that it is the sole prerogative and province of the Lord.
Moreover, even philosophically or logically, going back in time does not make sense. In the repeated episodes, Flash goes back in time and, according to the screenplay, creates a new alternative time reality. If we continue with this, this would mean that there will be new realities every time we go back in time.
The argument now is: What if other people — who have their own respective consciousness — are able to go back in time. This would mean that each other person who goes back in time will create another new and his/her own version of reality. How now can you imagine, if you are able to grasp the enormity of it all, a universe where there are so many alternate realities existing simultaneously?
Each person has his/her own consciousness. Now, with so many alternate realities, imagine what it will be like when more than one person goes back in time (and create a new alternate time-line). Imagine the confusion, the pandemonium, the chaos. Imagine how the consciousness of each person in all of the alternate realities created. What happens to the consciousness of every person in the other alternate realities?
This illustrates the absurdity and inanity of even considering that we can go back in time. Going back in time remains and will always remain wishful thinking — unless we change the definition of “going back in time”, much like what we are doing today when people can lie without hesitation and remorse, especially many politicians and unscrupulous public personalities.
TaN: “Do as I say and not as I do.” This is frequently the rule or situation with most people most of the time, especially among the elderly, those with moral ascendancy, and those in positions of authority or influence.
This adage illustrates the weakness of the human spirit and will over the temptations of the (material) world. It shows man’s eternal struggle to extricate himself from the primary or fundamental base desires and needs of man. It further demonstrates man’s propensity to choose the easy but wrong way over the more difficult but rightful way, to give in to our bestial side rather than to reach for loftier and better levels.
Moreover, it shows how we frequently merely pay lip service to doing what is righteous (because evil just proves to be too irresistible). We want to project an image of righteousness but without having to make the sacrifice of actually putting our money where our mouth is or walking the talk.
It implies that we would like to reap the benefits — being hailed as good and righteous — of teaching others how to behave rightfully without having to lead by example. It is shameful and lame to want others to behave or act in a particular manner but we ourselves do not do it — unless, of course, it is because we are really and truly incapable, in which case it would be justifiable (but this justification would be under the assumption and condition that there is no malice involved).
TaN: It is so incredibly unbelievable that so many people (still) believe in the myth of gender equality (or inequality, as the case may be). It is still incredible that people, especially the educated — probably because they were wrongly or mis-educated — do or cannot comprehend the gender issue.
People fail to understand that equality does not (necessarily) mean sameness. People can have commonality by being different. Our differences is a common factor — i.e., we are all equal in that we are all different (from each other); we are unique and it is this uniqueness that makes us equal.
In this light, gender equality means that no gender can do everything; there are things that both genders can do but there are likewise particular things that only one gender can do. Equality of the genders means that both genders share in their respective responsibilities. One gender complements the other. This is the essence in the wisdom of the Holy Scriptures.
Eve was created (from Adam’s rib) to assist Adam because he cannot do everything that needed to be done. There are things only Eve can do — just like there are things that only Adam can do.
The problem with the world today is that people think that equality means literally equal. How can that be possible and logical when the obvious is glaring. For instance, men cannot be pregnant and give birth while women cannot sire children (although this is not in the same category as pregnancy and giving birth, it is still a difference) — cloning and bio-genetics aside.
Moreover, with the exception of assistance from or with bio-mechanical exoskeletons, women cannot (and should not) do heavy lifting. This is because their physical anatomy is not built for such work. The curvature of the spine is greater — which is intended for pregnancy — so to subject the spine to heavy lifting would cause irreparable damage (down the years), even if she practices proper heavy lifting — as in using the huge thigh muscles instead of the (lower) back muscles as most people ignorantly and improperly frequently do.
Each gender is created and designed to be complementary to the other and it is for this reason that both genders are equal. Actually, if you want to be very “honest” or biblical about it, the bad news is that in the Holy Scriptures, God’s order is: The Father is at the top, followed by the Lord Jesus, then by men with the last being occupied by women. This is the “natural” order of things according to God.
In conclusion, it is not so much the “anything-you-can-do-I-can-do-better” thing. It is all about sharing and doing what we can for the other. It is about doing what is our responsibility/ies and what we can and not take over what is intended for the other gender to do — even if one is able to do it. It is about defining what is the responsibility of each gender and sticking to it and, on occasion because the necessity arises, partially assume the responsibilities of the other.
The duty of the woman is to be the companion of man whereas the duty of the man is to take care of the woman. There is no shame in being taken cared of — women’s liberation is wrongly defined and implemented, because women have been liberated since the Biblical times.