Post for Aug 20-26 2017 (updated Aug 24 & Aug 28)

TaN (new update): In the August 26 post of articles on is one that is titled “DNA testing a waste?  Even after people find out their disease risks they don’t do anything to change their health habits” by a certain Jhoanna Robinson — please refer to: — it is actually not surprising because most people will have the attitude (because they have been convinced) that.since it is DNA (btw, it is the initials for deoxyribose nucleic acid) and DNA is inherited, there is nothing they can do but accept their fate.  Changing for the better is futile.

Most people do not understand that, in this temporal world with the exception of one’s mind, nothing is set in stone.  Everything — the entire universe; this very existence; all of reality — is in constant flux.  Everything is in motion.

In fact, even many abstract or immaterial things are likewise constantly changing…evolving.  So, by extending this to DNA and heredity and inherited (lifestyle) diseases, it is clear that even if, for argument’s sake, that it is already in the DNA, still the (chemical) switches in the genetic code are ON/OFF switches or toggles and the positions can (chemically) be changed.  Ergo, it is not “the end of the world” for those “diagnosed” with genetic dispositions to some kind of DNA-controlled or -determined medical or health condition.

DNA testing is good in the sense that it can be used to eliminate the possible causes of (existing) diseases and illnesses — in our effort to determine the root cause in order that the appropriate intervention or solution can be chosen and applied.  However, it must be likewise be understood that whatever protocol selected to address the medical/health issue, natural — as in nature’s intended way and not some cockameme scheme by Big Pharma and vested interest parties with a profit-driven agenda to make money out of our misery and suffering and not our best interest but at our expense — is the only way to go.

TaN (new update): In the headline by a certain Edith Regalado in today’s hardcopy issue of The Philippine STAR, “Rody admits: I can’t end shabu menace“.  Now he tells us.  After believing in him — in his campaign promise to rid the country of illegal drugs within a (very ambitious but unbelievable) 6 months upon assumption to office — and electing him president with a historic landslide victory, now he concedes that he is not up to the job.  Moreover, he had already moved the deadline back several times thereby effectively breaking his campaign promise repeatedly — so his admission today comes as no surprise, at least not to me.

What now?  So, shouldn’t he resign as he kept reiterating whenever critics and detractors lambast him for his draconian and Machiavellian style of governance?

I knew right from the start (even during the campaign trail) he was not up to the job but…nnoooooo…all his voters gullibly believed in his bovine ordure and empty boasts.  By examining the immensity of the problem and, add to it, his over-simplistic strategy of merely killing everybody and conveniently forgetting that there will be an endless supply of successive generations who will follow in the footsteps of their predecessors if the youth is not properly educated and given a good example to emulate and if poverty and unemployment — which are at the very root of the problem — are not adequately addressed.

The illegal drug menace is a multi-faceted problem that requires multiple and concerted solutions simultaneously brought on to bear, otherwise it will be an exercise in futility, a Sisyphusian task that cannot be eradicated.  With respect to Mr Duterte’s strategy on the eradication of the illegal drug problem, he is a dreamer.  Its obliteration will never come to pass.  The best would be that it will be brought under control but is here to stay — not unless all people unite against it.

TaN (update): In the video “Truth about cancer: A global quest, episode 2“, there was mention of genes and genetic disposition to certain diseases and it suddenly dawned on me that there are no such things as good and bad genes.  All genes have a purpose or function but not all are functioning at the same time.

Many genes within the same cell complement others and they are usually tasked to kick in when the usual set is unable to express properly.  This is somewhat nature’s way of further ensuring survival of the organism.  This is the Plan B and one of these is cancer.

When the body is not doing well due to the incorrect and unhealthy lifestyle and diet and has reached a critical point that could irreversibly threaten the continue existence of the organism, the body activates these dormant gene sets to provide an alternate group of body processes to ensure continued survival.  In the meantime, there (should or) will be attempts to rectify the problem/s so as to be able to revert to the normal.  When this fails, this is when it becomes a desperate struggle to keep alive.

To think or ague otherwise would not make sense.  It is illogical that, even putting aside intelligent design or Divine Creation for argument’s sake, the body will develop genes that will be detrimental or threatening to its very existence.  It just cannot be — that the body will develop genes that are detrimental to its survival.

In addition, granting the validity of this aforementioned argument (that there are no such things as bad genes), then whatever the develops from the body is to be taken as part of its arsenal of strategies to stay alive.  And since cancer is not of an external but of an internal origin, it cannot be addressed in the same manner that Big Pharma has been accustomed to and popularly or routinely prescribe or recommend (because they reap huge profits).

It is likewise for this reason that Big Pharma and conventional or allopathic or mainstream medicine adheres to the “bad genes” and “inherited diseases” — when, in reality, it is neither nor has ever been true but most people has been gullibly and faithfully believing.

In previous TaNs, I have extensively discussed and (I believe) clearly elucidated how it is not possible that diseases can be inherited and how is it that the same diseases appear in later generations and frequently at earlier ages.

TaN (updated): In today’s (August 20, 2017) article posted on, titled “According to new science, food choice quality matters as much as calories” by a certain Frances Bloomfield, I fully subscribe to it.  Calories may be the same for all foods but the food choice determines how beneficial to one’s health are the calories and how the body treats those calories.

In the image accompanying the article, an apple is held against a hamburger.  Clearly, assuming (for argument’s and discussion’s sake) that both foods have equal amounts of calories, the apple would still come out the better choice because its nutrients are essential to the health and sustenance of the body, whereas the hamburger has few nutrients that the body can utilize.

For one thing, we are omnivores leaning more to the herbivorous side rather than the carnivorous.  Ergo, the nutrients in the apple will be better broken down, assimilated, and utilized by the body — plus the important fact that the apple is usually eaten raw.  As for the hamburger, there is very little of the nutrients that are recognizable by the body (as food) therefore much of it will be treated as something alien and must be disposed of as quickly as possible — although much of the excess amino acids that are in the meat are not needed by the body and has been known to be significant factors in arthritis and diabetes mellitus, plus the fact that the meat is frequently overcooked and used dry-heat which are the causes of the formation of nitrosamines and other cancerous substances which are primary vectors in colorectal cancer.

In conclusion, health is providing the body with what it needs and not what we want to eat — especially because the latter is tasty and addictive.

TaN: In this world today with all the inter-connectivity and interactions between and among different cultures and societies, it is increasingly important that the terms we use in our language, in our speech, in our communication, in our correspondence be as accurate as possible.  Frequently, it spells the difference between getting the correct information and the intended message across or not.

A case in point is the difference between “I learned” and “I was taught”.  In the first instance, the implication there is that — whether deliberate or not — the person imbibed or took in a lesson, whereas in the second instance, there appears to be some degree of resistance or reluctance and that the lesson was somehow “forced” upon the person.  Moreover, in the first instance, it appears that the person acquired the lesson on his/her own, whereas, in the second instance, it implies there is another person responsible for “delivering” or teaching the lesson.

In addition, seemingly innocent incorrect use of terminology may have or leave subtle (and frequently delayed) impact or influence on the perception, understanding, or (perhaps lasting) impression on others and these may eventually emerge or become latent in later behavior.

A(nother) case in point is when people, especially those who have a public persona like broadcast media, use words or phrases such as “chansa” (Tagalog) when they actually mean “pagkakataon” and as “promise” when they are really meaning “swear or no kidding/joking” (because an affirmation or attestation cannot be promised but rather sworn to).  At the onset, this seems innocent and causes little or no harm but, in the long-term, it confusion among people not familiar with the “expression” and have to rely on the “official” definition or meaning of the term or phrase — especially foreigners.

These examples are primarily due to the increasing interactions between and among cultures, societies, and (diverse ethnic) peoples who usually have or are significantly different from each other and frequently use a different language and have unfamiliar idiomatic expressions.  Because they have to “interpret” the language and behavior of others into their own understanding, a different meaning to the terms (that is not generally or universally defined and understood) will have some effect on relations and understanding of one another.

In conclusion, it is good to choose words carefully in conveying information or a message, especially if it is potentially a political “hot potato” or a sensitive and controversial issue is involved.

TaN: Another way to slow down filling up the landfills is to reduce bio-degradable waste at the source — i.e., in terms of food wastes, at the household and eateries and food centers.  By this, I am referring to coming up with a system in which (still animal- and pet-)edible food discards and scraps are gathered and put up a feeding station.

As it is, there is just too much highly perishable edible stuff in the garbage and this is what accounts for the stench, the liquifying sticky rotting mess, the bulk of throw-aways.  This invites scavengers — both human and non-human — to sort through the trash and scatter the contents about.  And to make things worse, there will be non-human scavengers who will take their “booty” far away — usually females with young to feed.

Reducing bio-degradables at the source addresses a host of issues: (1) amount of waste going to landfills, (2) health and santiary issues such as disease, pest infestation, and foul odor, (3) uncollected garbage will not pose any health risk nor be the subject of scavenging animals.  A side benefit is there will be less to clog up drainages and sewers from garbage that was not collected when the heavy rains and floodwaters came, although it will be full of non-biodegradables and biodegradables that take a long time to degrade.

The only (significant) drawback will be for the trash collectors as they will have less garbage to collect and their income is based on the weight per (dump) truckload.

In any case, putting kitchen waste and other household perishables in a community composting facility would not only benefit the residents — in that the resulting organic fertilizer can be used to enrich the soil for the local trees and greenery and those in vacant unattended lots — and may even be a source of additional income as the resulting organic biomass may be sold to gardeners, landscapers, farmers, residents with private gardens, and whoever will be interested.

TaN: And just when I was already convinced and set that gossip and talking about others is as low as we can get, it got worse — reality television.  Reality TV, if I understand it correctly, is plain voyeurism.  Just when I thought things could not get lower with gossip(-mongering), now there is mass voyeurism.

With “popularity” of reality TV, it would appear that a whole lot of people are closet-voyeurs.  They will do it when the opportunity presents itself.  It is much like a regular person who seems to be a very nice person but changes totally when given the opportunity. It is the perfect example for the saying,  When in power or authority, your friends know you; when you are no longer in power or in a position of authority, you know your friends.

Another equally applicable saying is,  Power and fame do not change a person, they reveal him/her for what s/he truly is.  Our deepest and darkest desires suddenly rise to the surface under the right conditions.

Of course, there are (many) exceptions, such as Mr Duterte, who has been up front with his (braggadocios) macho image and “kanto” boy tongue. He has never tried to be hide it.  This is to his credit.  He has always been “brutally frank”.

However, there could be a deep underlying reason for his crass and ill-mannered public persona.  He could be hiding a secret that he deems to be very embarrassing and damaging to his ego — as many extremely extroverted people as wont to do — as in the case of bullies who are really psychologically cowards who try to project an image of toughness to offset his real personality thus preempting others from “bullying” them.

Anyway, back to topic, people who regularly patronize and may even enjoy, rave about and feed on reality TV may be harboring a twisted and tortured past, an upbringing that has scarred them immensely which may have been unloved and not given much needed attention and re-assurance.  These are truly sick people and it is pitiful.

As a parting word, I end this TaN with this item I found many years ago in cyberspace titled “Children learn what they live” supposedly to be by a certain Dorothy Law Nolte (1924-2005):
“If children live with criticism, they learn to condemn.
If children live with hostility, they learn to fight.
If children live with fear, they learn to be apprehensive.
If children live with pity, they learn to feel sorry for themselves.
If children live with ridicule, they learn to feel shy.
If children live with jealousy, they learn to feel envy.
If children live with shame, they learn to feel guilty.
If children live with encouragement, they learn confidence.
If children live with tolerance, they learn patience.
If children live with praise, they learn appreciation.
If children live with acceptance, they learn to love.
If children live with approval, they learn to like themselves.
If children live with recognition, they learn it is good to have a goal.
If children live with sharing, they learn generosity.
If children live with honesty, they learn truthfulness.
If children live with fairness, they learn justice.
If children live with kindness and consideration, they learn respect.
If children live with security, they learn to have faith in themselves and in those about them.
If children live with friendliness, they learn the world is a nice place in which to live.”

TaN: Politics today has degenerated into something full of deception and scheming and dirty and nauseating and frequently murderous and just plain nasty — aside from the acknowledged and generally accepted features of corruption and dynastic nepotism.  Although the degree varies from culture to culture and country to country, there are similarities and there are more of them than differences.

It is sad that, with the passage of time, things just deteriorates instead of improves, especially in politics — where there is more deceit, corruption, and trickery.  Politics has devolved into ways of attaining, expanding, and maintaining power and influence and wealth instead of making people’s lives more harmonious and pleasant and comfortable.  Particularly in Third World countries and immature societies, politics has degraded into exploiting and subjugating people and restricting the sharing of power and wealth among relatives and cronies.

But there is no way about it because it has been foretold in the Holy Scriptures — that (most of) mankind will increasingly fall victim to the devil and there will be repetitions of Sodom and Gomorrah throughout human history with escalating wickedness and evil and debauchery and hedonistic narcissism with each repetition and finally climaxing in a moment when the Son returns and reckoning becomes at hand.  [But this is for another TaN.]

Politics is actually good and is the art of motivating people.  Used (altruistically) for good, politics can achieve a whole lot of boons and benefits for man.  Man’s achievements will seem boundless and soar to dizzying heights.

But politics, as with many other good things, have been hijacked and “cartelized” — not so much as to the benefit of a few but to the detriment of many (the rest). And this is not a local but global phenomenon.  Many governments — of course, there are exceptions but they are rare and far between — have been “nepotized” and even turned into a “family business” (dynasties).  There are even those where government has been turned into “revolving doors” and passed back and forth between and among oligopolistic families and syndicates — rotating and sharing the power only within and among themselves.

Moreover, many politicians today have morphed politics into a twisted version of its former self and has used legality to circumvent certain good points and features in order to suit their self interests.  Being familiar with the law, they would take advantage of the loopholes or flaws in the system to do what would normally be regarded as bad or illegal.

A case in point would be when children below a certain (legislated) age cannot be held responsible for their actions even the actions are criminally liable and they still commit such acts because they know they would not be held accountable.  Or, when a person known to be ruthless publicly makes threats against another person and something happens to the latter because there is no existing law covering (public) threats.

As for politicians that skewing politics, they would enact laws that would enable them to perform acts that would normally be considered as wrongful but have been legalized.  As in when gambling is legalized — like the state-run lotto and the Philippines’ STL or small town lottery — in order that the politicians can operate gambling activities.

In conclusion, politics today has been made into a tool to legalize what is immoral or unethical.  This way, we can commit wrongful acts without being held accountable.


About anotherworldispossibleforall

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s