TaN (update): Today (Aug 1 for me), on NaturalNews.com (posted for Aug 1), are the articles — with the titles: “FAKE NEWS ALERT: CNN falsely claims ‘transgender man’ gave birth to a baby boy” by the web site’s owner Mike Adams and “PRODUCT: Top 10 magnesium-rich foods and their health benefits” by a certain Jhoanna Robinson.
This set me into thinking (and basing it entirely on the title alone) that:  Transgenderism will be a humongous aspect in spreading confusion (and fake news or dis-information) and  just by basing our food choices on the “Organic” certification alone can still be misleading and dangerous to health.
First, just because a person has “changed” gender does not mean that there is a corresponding and actual change. The DNA (deoxyribose remains the same) and reference to the person’s “new” gender can cause a lot of confusion, especially in the fields of law (and order) and of medicine (and etiquette). And then there are the lesser matters of sports, (public) toilets, news reporting, and daily social routines (like commuting).
In law and crime (as discussed in earlier TaNs), crime investigations rely heavily on both witnesses and forensic evidence. What witnesses saw and DNA evidence will not clash as the two will not corroborate each other — because transgender only alters the physical but not the cellular level.
In medicine, prescription medication that are gender-specific now pose a serious medical risk as the therapy may not work or may even endanger the patient — like giving HPV vaccines and treating for prostate issues. HPV is useless for men because they affect only women while treating for prostate issues are a waste (at the very least) for women.
In etiquette, the issue would be how to address the transgender — with the former gender or with the new gender? For me, I will address them with their birth gender because changing genders is superficial (aside from being just plain pitiful) — one must be man (or woman) enough to go with what we have been born with. Changing genders is but a cop out. I do not believe the crap of being “trapped in a man’s/woman’s body”. That is a load of bovine ordure and the transgenders know it; denying it would be dishonesty. They are merely trying to escape facing up to their responsibilities, duties, obligations, and what is expected of them.
People are just twisting everything around to suit their whims and caprices — transgenders included. Claiming that it is their right is crap. There is no such right to being a certain or preferred gender.
In the other fields of sports (physically demanding sports and athletic activities favor the men so transgenders will now be “fraudulently or incorrectly” breaking records), of toilets (how men and women feel when a transgender is in their midst in toilets), of news (how reporters will refer to transgenders, especially when the transgender had been in the limelight before the transition and there is a need to refer to and compare with past pre-transgender information), and of commuting (where there is discrimination between men and women like in the coaches of mass rail transits and some buses).
Second, it would be so nice and simple to just rely on the “organic” label for food choices but a very significant factor in growing food is the nutrients that went into the food. A certain food may be certified “organic” but what if it were grown in nutrient-deficient or -depleted soil? [An exception would be the essential element Magnesium — needed by 300 metabolic processes in the body — which is (at) the core of chlorophyll.] It is not enough to address the macro level because the micro (nutrient) level is just as essential — if not more so.
To increase the reliability that the “organically-raised” food is nutrient rich, one good guarantee is to know or be acquainted with the grower (farmer/animal raiser) and his production operation. But to be totally or a hundred percent sure, grow or raise the food yourself — and make sure you provide all the necessary nutrient input.
TaN: Not all but cherry-picking or selecting the good that one does (from a variety of good deeds available) cancels or voids any good that should come from the good deed. There is no room in good to be choosy of which good one will do. It is either all or nothing. The only hindrance would be opportunity — since one can only do one thing at a time. However, that fact does or cannot justify cherry-picking, especially if there is intent to discriminate in order that the other good deeds will not be done.
It is only in evil that deliberate or intentional discrimination of what or which good deed will or is to be done. This is (one of) evil’s way to justify doing evil — to say that one is doing something good ergo one is a good person. And people frequently (and conveniently) forget the bad deeds done and focus or retains only those that make them feel good or comfortable with.
Moreover, doing good deeds with ulterior motives likewise negates whatever good the deeds are supposed to have. Good deeds are good only because they are done precisely because they are good deeds and not for any other reason. Rewards arising from good deeds should only be unexpected or unanticipated bonuses, for doing the good deed is the reward in itself.
This is similar to doing good deeds because one either is afraid to go to hell or expects to gain favor for entry into Paradise. This would imply that the good deed would not be done if the prospect of hell or Paradise is absent. Good deeds are done because it is the right thing to do and not for any other reason.
TaN: In a documentary I was able to download many moons ago, with Steven Hawking on the topic of the universe and the story of everything, I learned that it is imperfection that is the driving force of everything. Without imperfection, everything will be static or constant. Change would not exist. Literally, nothing will happen.
It is precisely because there is in-equilibrium or unequal distribution or differences that things go into motion and motion means change — change in position, whether the change is relative to others in the same quadrant or from its original position. Even a spinning on its own axis comprises a change.
Hawking explained with an example of a room full of spheres at equi-distant locations. If there is no inequality in, say, air pressure or gravity, everything will remain in their position and nothing will change. However, should there be even just a slight difference in the state of equilibrium, the point or area of air pressure or gravity change will cause the sphere/s in that location to change or shift. And this shifting or change in position will (usually) result in a chain reaction, snowballing to the other neighboring spheres.
This is a very interesting concept and I wondered why I never thought of it. Perhaps it is why is the world-renowned physicist that he is and I am just me.
TaN: What is in the public domain or in the commons cannot be patented, copyrighted, or otherwise claimed to be or awarded as the property of anyone or any entity — which is what nature is. Moreover, it also goes (or should go) for those that have been in the public domain that may have once been private property, otherwise this would be a regression instead of a progression.
Progress is when something that used to be paid for eventually becomes for free and not the other way around. This means that things in nature that we enjoy for free should never become a commodity. Moreover, when we say nature, it means all of nature so we cannot claim ownership of, say, a certain gene (like the BRCA), much less have it patented.
Nature encompasses not just one’s locality or surroundings but the entire planet and beyond — all the way to the edge of the universe. This means that one cannot (just) patent anything in nature because there can be (other) places beyond one’s country — or group of countries (not necessarily adjacent to each other as in a region) sharing the same trade agreements or whatever economic interests — where people are availing of it freely and commonly. Patenting something in nature that is freely and commonly availed of by people (anywhere) violates their right to its use even though they may be too far to be affected. The issue here is regarding legalities (and ethics); its boundaries — because nature’s and man’s are not always the same.
Moreover, can something (in nature) be patented in one place but will only be effective within the jurisdiction where the patent has jurisdiction. Although it is being done today through trade pacts — like the GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariff) and the WTO (World Trade Organization) et al — and coercing foreign governments to police their citizenry to ensure compliance (with or without a patent pending in that country), still it is wasting so much effort and resources when it is so much easier if it was never patented. Ah, the things people do for greed.
Aside from nature, when a patent lapses and it goes into the public domain, it should never be patentable anew, even if there are subsequent (and substantial) changes or modifications that qualifies it for patenting again. Moreover, that which have been made available in or to the public domain at the onset should likewise be unpatentable. Finally, by “patent”, I am referring to any and all forms of monopolistic mechanisms and devices that enables someone to exclusively profit or obtain financial or monetary gain.
In conclusion, it is not right to charge for something that was previously available for free. This is regressive and runs counter to all that is beneficial and altruistic. It only shows one’s greed.
Also, it is not right that a freebie (or something that used to be freely available) is used as “bait” — i.e., to lure and lull people into becoming comfortable and familiar with something free only to be discontinued or taken away and replaced with something “better” but we have to (now) pay for.
Anyway, it still remains that things can go from for-profit to cost-free but (should) never the other way around. It is just plain wrong and not done.
TaN: The Philippine system of securing (government) clearances is absurdly annoying and frustrating. It is understandable that clearances are required for certain situations but there are numerous instances where it is clearly just for the government to increase revenue and has absolutely nothing to do with the reason behind the securing of clearances.
For one thing, there is blatant redundancy. How is it that in order to get clearance from, say, a court, a prerequisite for a clearance from the police or some other agency is required? What does clearance from the police have to do with securing clearance from the court?
I take it that securing clearance from the court is for the purpose of ensuring that there are no pending cases. So what does the police have to do with it? I fail to see the connection. It is not as if the court records (of cases) are kept with the police. I am sure that each has its own independent and exclusive repository of record of cases.
Moreover, why not simplify everything and come up with an agency or bureau or any repository (with a national scope) tasked with keeping records of any and all cases filed against any person or entity, be it with the courts or with the police or with the barangay or with the NBI etc. In other words, have the whole thing centralized (but with satellite back ups at the local or barangay level) — oh wait, is it not that that is (part of) the responsibility of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)? If not, it should be.
In this manner, the cash-strapped average Filipino will not have to shell out transport fare (going to and fro and back and forth), certification fees, and whatever other expenses just to secure multiple clearances when only one is adequate. In fact, if the purpose for requiring clearances is to ensure there are no pending cases (or charges) which can negatively impact a person’s chances in whatever endeavor s/he is applying for.
In any case, there are ways in which all these need for clearances can be “waived”. Since this is the Information Age (following the Age of Interconnectivity which is the World Wide Web) and information is digitized, most every information needed can be searched in cyber space. It would be foolish not to take advantage of this, unless there is a profit motive behind keeping the hard copy system (which is to charge a fee for providing a physical copy of whatever information sought or desired). But even then, digital access can still net some income, except that the one who profits may shift to another “beneficiary”. [Btw, there may be a way to mitigate or even totally eliminate cyber intrusion, but only for inquiry-only situations. The discussion will be taken up in a later TaN. Please scroll back up to later posts.]
Information regarding current (legal, criminal, administrative, or other kinds of) cases that may be of interest or concern, such as for employment purposes, can be made available online through an “inquiry-only” — to protect against cyber intrusions — database by the aforementioned national repository. In this manner, it not only saves a lot of time, effort, and resources using the “old school” style but it is more reliable since the employer will be the one to obtain the clearance and directly from the (legitimate) source.
And if the profit angle — where a fee is charged for the production of a hard copy, say a certification or clearance — is a concern, the fee can still be charged except that it will now shift from the manual to the electronic. This may not bode well for those profiting from supplying the paper or whatever physical material is needed as the storage medium of the requested query but that is their problem. After all, it is the interest of the public that should come first (over the vendor or commercial provider).
In conclusion, there should be — and there is — an easier way to secure clearances. Having people shuttle back and forth is just plain cruel and unnecessary.