TaN: I would hazard a guess and say that Mr Duterte has a bad case of the messianic complex — “bad” because of the instant judge-jury-executioner character of his campaign/s to “save his country”.
I dare say that he would appear to think that he is above or better than his Creator for he can already pass judgment on his victims whereas God has to wait until the person dies (and even that, He waits until Judgment Day) before He makes His decision.
It is either Mr Duterte is so arrogant as to imply that he has the right, just because he was elected president and by a great margin, to decide on who is to live and who to die, or that he thinks there is a different Creator for him and another for his “victims” so much so that he passes the blame to his Creator for all his wrongdoings — like bad mouth and no chance for wrongdoers to reform and change for the better — while the same cannot be claimed by his “victims”.
But what is sad is that the people is just letting him get away with murder (and some foolishly or cowardly and tacitly support him) either out of apathy or callousness or of fear (which the average Filipino frequently mistake and confuse with “respect”).
TaN: Today, I had two epiphanies, that: (1) incarceration is a form of cruel and inhuman treatment, exactly what our (modern) society regard as inappropriate and try to eradicate and (2) in an episode of the television series Bones, it was mentioned that (and I paraphrase), “A man is not a man unless he treats women as they should be treated — with respect, due courtesy, reverence, and recognition of her abilities, unique characteristics and difference (from males), among others.”
I guess one has to experience it to know what I mean — because I was a political detainee and it was not rehabilitating. This is because there are neither facilities nor programs in the penal system that are designed to rehabilitate and reform inmates. It is true that there are spiritual and religious ministries that are conducted among the convicts but these are not institutionalized — i.e., not part of any government effort but are purely initiatives of private individuals and organizations.
In the lesser known detention and jail or prison facilities (like those in remote barrios and barangays or villages), rehabilitation is virtually unknown. To make matters worse, the current penal code is archaic and does not really address the issues like: Is the punishment really appropriate for the crime? Does the community or society benefit after the convict is released or while being incarcerated? Is there any special program for repeat offenders? And, if the crime is against life, does the victim/s’ family really get justice (and due compensation)?
A good (and comprehensive) study would reveal how successful current incarcerations are in rehabilitating ex-convicts by determining the frequency and number of repeat offenders as well as new offenses committed. I am willing to wager that the percentage would be quite significant which will prove my argument that just simply putting offenders in prison is not sufficient to reform sociopathic tendencies.
With regard to what is a true (gentle)man, it is the general attitude — without acceding or agreeing to its propriety — that a man must be brusque or rough (but there appears to be a movement for some time now, though slowly, among a small segment of the population that is changing for the better).
The global movement that sprung from the Women’s Liberation before the millennium is making a lot of progress. The problem is that there is “too much” progress and the pendulum seems to be swinging too far to the other side and emphasis on women’s treatment and rights have escalated beyond what should be — to achieve equilibrium. [Remember the saying: Woman was not taken from Adam’s head to be above him nor from his foot to be trampled upon but from his side (ribs) to be a partner.]
The prevailing atmosphere now is that women can not only do everything that a man can (traditionally) do — and more and better and, in fact, may not need a man anymore — that there are many laws that are designed specifically for women (and children) only. This is, of course, absurd because the law should be (used to) discriminate between and among people and having laws specifically for a certain segment of society only, regardless of how marginalized or disadvantaged they had been, is just wrong.
As for the second epiphany — that a man is only a man when he treats women properly and as women should be treated — I could not have put it any better.
TaN: There is actually no such thing as good or bad luck. Good luck is when things you like or look forward to happen but bad if they are not. Therefore, it is a personal things and since it is personal, there is really no such thing. It all depends on one’s point of view, whether one like what is happening or not.
Moreover, good luck for some person may be (considered) bad luck for another. In this case, good or bad luck is merely a matter of one’s personal preference or choice.
Given this, the conclusion (that must be) arrived at is that there is no such thing as good or bad luck. And, for this matter, since there is no good or bad luck, there would hence be no such thing as luck but merely events that happen (to us) due to the choices and decisions one makes in the past — which determines how our future will unfold.