TaN: The Big Bang did not come from an infinitesimal dot in empty space but literally from nothing, as written in the Holy Scriptures. Man’s incapacity to grasp the seemingly impossible is what is keeping him from truly and fully understanding and comprehending the absolute and complete splendor and majesty of God’s awesome power and glory.
The conventional or contemporary understanding of the Zero Second of or in the Big Bang is that scientists cannot seem to accept and admit that, with God, something can come from nothing — that is exactly what creation is, which explains the saying: God creates; man re-arranges.
Further proof that something can come from nothing — with God — is the generally accepted fact that when two opposites, such as matter and anti-matter, collide, the result is oblivion or total annihilation. And this means that these two opposite things end up as nothing. So if this is so, how is it so difficult to believe the reverse can (and did) transpire — that everything came from nothing.
It guess people can be so stubborn, especially when one’s pride is at stake for those supposed learned and well- and highly-educated people with masters and doctorate degrees.
[As a sidebar, it is a little known fact that the higher the IQ (intelligence quotient) or educational attainment of a person, the easier it is for him/her to be hypnotized. You would think it would be the other way around, but no. What does this tell us?
TaN: All the headaches of Mr Duterte and his administration, with respect to its image of human rights abuses and violations, comes from perennial and persistent public pronouncements regarding “killing” all those who seek to harm his beloved country, such as illegal drug personalities, corrupt public officials, and criminals.
Assuming that all the reported deaths attributed as extrajudicial killings and summary executions are merely empty boasts and not to be taken seriously, it must be remembered that Mr Dutette is the president and as such, his utterances, no matter how trivial or absurd can be taken as policy by the public.
Moreover, either Mr Duterte is unaware or has forgotten the adage (and I paraphrase), “Not only must Cesar’s wife be chaste, she must appear to be chaste“. This means that, in many instances, especially when it comes to the public, perception is just as real as reality — sometimes much more vital, especially in public perception and opinion. It is for this very reason that Mr Duterte’s public relations team is having such great difficulty doing damage control.
Regardless of whether the allegations and speculations being heaved on Mr Duterte are true or unfounded, the fact remains that “People will believe what they want to believe” and it may not necessarily be or is rarely the truth.
And that is the problem with being too legalistic — which is what Mr Duterte is, given his prosecutor background. Where the legal system requires hard evidence and convincing and undeniable proof, public perception requires only that bits and pieces of information and rumor gets around and the public paints its own picture and draws its conclusion from there. The conclusion may be as wrong and as far from the truth as can be but that will not matter because all that is important to the public is what it perceives is (its version of) the truth.
In like manner, from “To Kill a Mockingbird“, “People generally SEE WHAT THEY LOOK FOR, AND HEAR WHAT THEY LISTEN FOR [capitalization emphasis mine], and they have the right to subject their children to it.” has the same connotation. And this is the problem that is haunting and hounding the Duterte administration, giving its public relations people a real nightmare to tame and convince otherwise; to clean up the “dirty” reputation arising from the negative information reaching people who have no access to further clarificatory information and who may be just too much in a hurry to jump to conclusions.
The best option for Mr Duterte (that I can think of) is to be more prudent with (and choose his words wisely for) his public statements and pronouncements and limit his boastfulness (his braggadocio, as the New York Times editorial once wrote about him sometime last week or two), especially when it comes to making promises he did not think through enough and repeatedly breaks — like his six-month ambitious project to rid the Philippines of illegal drugs and the 3-day Marawi seige, to name the first and the latest as of this writing), where deadlines were repeatedly extended or moved back — but the people are either just too plain patient or gullible or understanding to realize that the promise(s) kept being broken. It is not so much the broken promises as that Mr Duterte should refrain from making erroneous, misleading, or outright empty boasts that are the stuff of controversial issues that is fodder for the media — unless Mr Duterte enjoys being controversial and/or it is all part of his (long-term) strategy to keep people guessing his next move or real agenda.
But I guess if you have lived to his age with that attitude or behavior since early youth, it will take a miracle to change (for the better, i.e., to be more choosy with his public pronouncements and promises). As the saying goes, when an irresistible force meets an immovable object, something has got to give. It remains to be seen which one will give.
TaN: It would appear that the Duterte administration is becoming to resemble a cult government where the titular head can do no wrong and all the lackeys, croonies, stooges, and thugs are in synchronicity in support and total (blind) obedience.
Mr Duterte has repeatedly made promises he did or could not keep. From the very first promise of solving the country’s illegal drug problem — which he promised to solved within six months upon assumption to office (which is approximately 11 months and two-and-a-half weeks to date) — to the latest Marawi City siege — which he first promised to solve in three days, then until Friday of the said week, then by Independence Day, and now, when?
The end of the siege is not only still nowhere in sight but Mr Duterte is even hinting on expanding martial law to the entire country. If that does not clearly say failure or an unfulfilled promise, I do not what is. My guess is that it is going to drag on for some time more.
TaN: This article in the New York Times by a certain Thomas L Friedman date posted June 21, 2017 and titled “Where did ‘We the People’ go?” is very timely and apt and, in my humble opinion and perspective, especially for Mr Duterte — URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/opinion/where-did-we-the-people-go.html?mcubz=2. I am inviting everyone to peruse it and ponder on its significance, especially in Mr Dov Seidman’s (quoted) statements in paragraphs 6 (“What we’re experiencing is an assault on the very foundation…”) and 7 (“But when there is no ‘we’ anymore…”), 10 (“This anger industry is now either ‘sending us into comfortable echo chambers…”), 13 (“While our system can’t function without leaders with formal authority, what makes it really work…”)-14 (“In fact, we have so few we’ve forgotten what they look like. …”), and 17 (“There’s an adage, explained Seidman, that says: ‘Ask for my honesty and I’ll give you my loyalty. Ask for my loyalty and I’ll give you my honesty.’…”) — just substitute “Americans” with “all people”. This is a really worthwhile essay and transcends time and situation and all boundaries. It is a keeper.