TaN: I completely agree with The Philippine STAR article titled “House panel OKs ban on gift check expiration” by a certain Jess Diaz. It is absolutely immoral and unethical to have expiration dates on gift checks.
Gift checks are a form of guarantee or promissory note that a business offers to patrons and the public. It assures the public that the gift check is redeemable for service, product, or item being sold. It is, for all intents and purposes, a contract and (should) have all the properties of a contract.
To impose an expiration date on gift checks are immoral and unethical because all the advantages are already with the vendor and the gift check holder has none.
First, the gift check can exclusively be used to purchase only from the issuing business. This ensures that the holder cannot use it to transact with other businesses, especially rivals or competitors.
Second, the money used to purchase the gift check is already with the vendor so they can go on about with their business as if they already have made a sale, while the gift check holder only has a piece of paper. His/her money is already spent.
Finally, should the service or item be phased out or no longer available when the gift check is being redeemed, it is at the expense of the gift check holder and not the business so it is an all-win-no-loss on the part of the latter.
Btw, gift checks today have been replaced by a new form which many businesses have caught on: privilege or membership cards. Although many are not really outright purchases (of the card, i.e., the card in exchange for cash and at face value) but merely require payment of a fee to obtain the privilege or membership to purchase at discounted prices and/or can avail of special offers that may be available from time to time, still there is an outlay of cash on the part of the public at the outset but the public has not yet gotten anything in return.
TaN: To baptize a child and claim that s/he is now a Christian is absurd and utter nonsense. The very definition of a Christian is someone who believes — and I mean believe…as in really and sincerely act and behave the way as instructed us by no less than — the Lord Jesus Christ (Himself), hence the term “Christian”.
No one can make me believe that the infant has any knowledge, not to mention understanding, of what it is to be a Christian and who is Jesus and what are His teachings and admonitions.
One becomes a Christian only when one finally understands what Jesus’ coming and His teachings and examples are all about then practices or obeys them. No sprinkling or even bathing of water can make one a Christian. There is only one way.
So stop all these stupid and inane belief and thinking that the mere act of baptizing makes one a Christian. Not even on paper can baptism make one a Christian.
TaN: It was not until I saw a Ripley’s Believe It or Not item that made me realize there is a slight complication or confusion brought about by DST (daylight savings time) — one of them is the time to be filled up in reports, especially official or legal reports like date of birth or of death.
The Ripley’s item made me wonder how it will be recorded with multiple births, like twins, when the younger twin is born after the implementation of the DST, especially when the clock is being rolled back (where the younger now is born “ahead” of the elder).
This likewise pertains to the time of death (in the death certificate) for the coroner/medical examiner or when the (attending) physician when a patient dies or is declared dead.
And how about transnational transactions, especially in stock market tradings where there is bound to be one open on the other side of the world and when the same stock is bought and sold as the DST is being implemented — i.e., the DST implementation occurs between the buying and the selling event. What time goes into the books. Again, it becomes confusing for clock rollbacks, but not so much with the roll forwards.
TaN: I just occurred to me that would it not be ironic if all, if not most, of those killed in the bloody and horrific campaign of Mr Duterte against the illegal drug trade voted for him? I wonder how the families of the victims who voted for Mr Duterte feel now that their loved ones have been mercilessly and without due process — because, according to Mr Duterte, (1) the victims have no rights and/or (2) it is cheaper than to go through the length of due process and a court trial and feeding them while incarcerated — murdered under orders of Mr Duterte? Do they feel regret regarding their vote?
This reminds me of a “joke” during the martial law days. During the early part of the martial law days, a curfew was imposed and anyone caught on the streets during curfew will be shot. A couple of military personnel were manning a barangay outpost when a young man walked pass them. As the man passed, one of the military men shot and killed him. Stunned and bewildered, the other military man asked, “Why did you shoot him? It is not yet curfew.” The shooter answered, “I know where that guy lives and he will not be able to get home before the curfew starts.” This is Mr Duterte’s idea of saving the taxpayer’s money to prosecute drug offenders — judge, jury, and executioner.
Anyway, as the saying goes, We get the kind of leaders we deserve. And it looks like we deserve to be slaughtered like cattle. We do not have the backbone to stand up and say: Enough is enough! Too many people have died for nothing — because this is one war Mr Duterte will never win. Once again, it shall be proven that: One cannot legislate morality. We cannot force people to be good; they have to be good willingly and under no coercion nor intimidation. It is for this reason that God has been very patient with us and has not pre-judged all who have sinned — which is every person.
If God had done what Mr Duterte is doing, no one will be going to Paradise for, as Christ has challenged, Let those among you who have not sinned cast the first stone. Who are we to judge others but merely their acts. And one act (of indiscretion) — or even repeated acts — do not define or determine who we are. We shall be judged in the totality of what we did during our entire life and not specific moments, which is what Mr Duterte is doing. Clearly, Mr Duterte is dementedly mistaken but he cannot claim insanity as a defense against his acts for he is fully cognizant of his decisions and actions.