TaN (update): In the video regarding global warming and climate change but I just cannot remember whether it was by a certain Mike Adams or some other webcaster which I downloaded quite some time ago, the narrator mentioned something that escaped my notice.
He said that it used to be that the issue was global warming but when more and more revelations came out indisputably showing scientific data that that has been many occasions in the past where the global (surface) temperature was a lot warmer (by as hot as ten times what it is today), global warming pushers changed their terminology and now uses “climate change”.
Climate change provides a more vague phrase since it applies to both the temperature getting warmer or cooler. This flexibility permits those who are pushing the climate agenda more wiggle room to worm out when cornered by their opposition, those who argue that conditions are not as dire as what is being portrayed.
In conclusion, one really have to be alert at all times when receiving information, especially that which affects us all. One really has to keep an open mind and make our own research and discern the truth from lies to avoid being — like it or not, wittingly or unwittingly, we will be — manipulated.
How I long for the days of yore when people were more honest and not so driven and consumed by greed and lust for power and domination. But, alas, the God’s prophecy must come to pass. We just have to make do and be vigilant and be ready to “fight the good fight”.
TaN (update): In today’s hardcopy of The Philippine STAR headlined “Unlawful killings not allowed” by a certain Lexis Romero with the subheadline of “Rody tells cops: KIll only when faced with resistance“, if the text is accurate and means what I think it means, it only shows that either our rules of engagement for law enforcers are mis-written or Mr Duterte appears to have an incorrect concept of one of the directives of a law enforcer.
Any person, even if they are already convicted or have been found guilty, should not be killed on the grounds of mere resistance to police officers. Killing of a person by the police is justifiable only when there is imminent danger to the life of innocent people — the police officer included. Moreover, the (self-defense) killing cannot be justified if there are other (incapacitating) options available.
In the subduing of a person by a police officer, the rules of engagement regarding armed persons are: disarm and subdue when possible (with superior strength and tactic), maim or injure when physical subduing is not possible (like shooting in the leg or any non-vital body part), and kill only when (innocent) people’s lives are in imminent danger and there is no alternative left available. Mere resistance is never grounds for killing, even if the person is a known offender.
If we take the argument of Mr Duterte regarding the law, he is being very legalistic. This is evidenced with his “favorite” argument on the matter of threatening criminals — i.e., there is no law preventing or forbidding threats against (suspected) criminals. In like manner and Mr Duterte seems to be a good Christian, the Fifth Commandment — Thou shalt not kill — is very specific and contains no qualifications. This means that killing is not permitted, whatever the circumstances or reason. There is no exemption found anywhere in the commandment. To strictly obey the commandment, even the state cannot sanction executions as this still constitutes killing.
If ever, only the giver or awarder has the right to take back and the Creator is the one who gave us life therefore only He can take it back.
There is always incorrectness in the headline, but the subheadline is much worse.
TaN (update): Rejoinder to last week’s TaN on Mr Duterte’s admission of his inability to end (illegal) drug menace in the Philippines — First, Mr Duterte’s concession is too little too late but, nevertheless, after seeing his behavior and utterances since the campaign then upon assumption to office, he still deserves some kind (even just a tad) credit for the admission.
The problem or issue now is “quo vadis“?
But the real issue is: the average Duterte supporter typically adores boastfulness and has a strange taste for violence — which may explain the mania whenever there is a boxing match among top contenders, especially their “hero”. Me? I prefer Flash Elorde and Pancho Villa and the all-time Rocky Marciano. They are silent and humble — to the best of my knowledge. The current crop of pugilsists are more show men than sportsmen.
Anyway, now that the trail of hot air on illegal drugs has come to its natural and inevitable conclusion — Or has it? — can and will Mr Duterte be man or rather macho enough to fulfill his promises (every time he lashes back at his critics and detractors for constantly hounding him on his bloody, savage and frequently lethal methods of solving problems)?
He keeps bragging that he does not really like to be president and is ready to resign and step down at a moment’s notice and especially if he cannot keep his promises and that he is out to save the country.
Until now, I still fail to see how killing people left and right and, especially encouraging LEOs (i.e., law enforcement officers) to conduct irresponsible acts in the name of the law and “serving” the people, is saving the country.
His methodology of solving problems is very similar to the marketing campaign of urging people to save more by spending — frequently needlessly — more! You know, like those stupid promotions and sale events of “Buy 1 Take 1” — which, as I have previously taken up in TaNs is actually grammatically and literally incorrect and misleading — when the buyer needs only one. What will s/he do with the extra or second one s/he is “stuck” with. It is actually a clever and time-tested marketing ploy to get rid of idle and un-saleable inventory.
Finally, returning to topic, it is so pathetic of Mr Duterte’s supporters and lackeys to continue heaping their confidence on him but I could be wrong. It could be that the lackeys and leeches have their own agenda and keeping Mr Duterte in power is to their advantage and still serves their interest (discarding him when he is no longer of value) whereas, for the gullible and ever-trusting supporters, it is because they either have too little time as they are too concerned with staying alive and making ends meet or are too proud to admit their mistake in voting for him or just plain too blinded by the popular and ubiquitous behavior of putting undue admiration on boastful glib-talkers.
TaN: How things change: It used to be that reading the biography of how (well-known) people struggle from their humble (or even lowly) beginnings and made their lives a lot better. Now, biographies of such people, especially the very wealthy and/or the very famous, either read like a fairy tale novel (with events and chapters in their life’s journey all made up to look so very sad and miserable that the reader would feel bad for or even pity them) or very stereotypical like all the rest with only the circumstances and situations changing.
Moreso, when the biography was commissioned by person him/herself. Biographies or life stories are no longer believable in the sense that they seem to be following a template. Everyone seems to have come from the same situation, differing only in details such as geographic location, and have almost identical plots or story lines — how they were deprived and maltreated, how they were discriminated and frequently went hungry, how they had to get up early to help their parents with chores and take care of their younger siblings, how they had to depend on the kindness of relatives and even strangers to get by, and stuff like that.
Since there are still many useful lessons and information that can be gleaned from the biographies even though they may not exactly be credible (anymore) we just have to be more discerning and filter out those which are not to be believed. If all else fail, they can be good fiction reading.
TaN: The way I understand it, diplomatic immunity only exempts the perpetrator or suspect from criminal prosecution for committing any transgression when the crime or wrongful act is done in foreign soil. It does neither absolves the person nor means that the act did not occur or cannot be pursued in other ways.
However, this should be illegal — because it “encourages” immoral and criminal acts by those who enjoy diplomatic immunity and who have weak (or “compromised”) value systems — or should not be unconditional (i.e., complete or without exemptions). Diplomatic immunity, as it is (being practiced), is highly subject to abuse and mis-use.
It is admitted that some degree of diplomatic immunity should be made available otherwise certain embassy functions may be hampered. In this light, it will be a compromise to qualify that the extent of diplomatic immunity should be restricted to crimes and misdeeds that are: (1) categorized as minor or misdemeanors, (2) categorized or considered crimes or misdeeds against property (below a certain amount or worth), and (3) categorized or considered as forgivable or so trivial that it is not worth prosecuting. In this manner, there is still some degree of check and balance to somewhat ensure that there will no or little opportunity for abuse and mis-use.
All in all, diplomatic immunity has its good points and role in today’s complicated and interconnected world. And cultures and societies have varied and frequently dissimilar values and customs so certain compromises and considerations must be made for harmonious and mutually beneficial existence is to be had.
And this is not bad. It becomes bad only when and because certain selfish interest and elite groups want to monopolize and dominate the rest of us. This is when it becomes a problem…A BIG PROBLEM!
TaN: Ideally, the donor’s or benefactor’s identity should never be revealed — at least publicly, with exception for tax purposes — especially if the donation is in kind or material. However, should the identify of the donor/benefactor be necessary to be made known, as in putting the name on it or in a memorial plaque or marker, though it is not unethical, it is in bad taste if it is done by the donor/benefactor. It is better to let others reveal it, especially without hinting.
Moreover, it is even worse when donations from philanthropic organizations and associations put their stamp or identity on items donated, especially in the form of goods that are intended to be use frequently and in public (like shirts, bags, blankets, and such). The exception here would be a closed or private organization like a foundation where the funds come from identified donors rather than from the (anonymous) public — where the organization accepts money from unidentified donors such as plain ordinary good-hearted people.
Publicly-funded organizations have no right to put their imprint on any items they donate because the funds did not come from their own pockets or private funds. Instead, the funding came from anonymous donors and the organization is taking the credit. This is shameful, unethical, utterly disgraceful, and in bad taste. Credit must be given to where it is due.
The only correct and ethical way to this is to mention or make public the names of all those who donated. The amount donated is irrelevant.
TaN: It is interesting to observe how Mr Duterte continues to make sick and pitiful jokes and his loyalists and admirers and idolizers as well as his critics and detractors predictably react, with laughter and applause and with condemnation, respectively. People (i.e., the critics and detractors) just cannot seem to grasp the technique of how to “neutralize” Mr Duterte’s propensity to make off-color and offensive jokes and remarks.
The psychology of a person when it comes to making him/her stop doing something intended to amuse (but is not) is to simply pay it no mind. Let the whole thing just lapse with nary any reaction at all. This will embarrass the person — unless s/he has no shame or without scruples — and will or is expected to subsequently or consequently cease from cracking such obtrusive statements.
It is in our psychology that for as long as we get some kind of reaction, even negative ones (for as they say, bad publicity is still publicity), we tend to continue with our behavior. It is only when we no longer get any response that we will desist from our disagreeable behavior.
So let us try not to “humor” Mr Duterte and hope that he gets the message, otherwise it will only mean that he is hopeless, beyond any redemption.