Post for Jan 7-13 2018 (updated Jan 9, re-updated Jan 15)

TaN (update 2): This is a three-in-one update, posted on Natural News for January 13 for the first two and for January 12 for the third: (1) “Psych QUACK: Yale psychiatry professor who attacked Donald Trump doesn’t have a license to practice psychiatry in her home state” (URL: by a certain Jayson Veley and (2) “Trouble sleeping? Eat more fish research suggests a connection between omega 3s and enhanced cognitive performance in school children via better sleep” (URL: by a certain Michelle Simmons and (3) “What happens when socialists run out of money: Venezuelans reach point of desperation as starvation and inflation both go ballistic” (URL: supposedly sourced from News Editor.

(1) There are many points I would like to raise in this article post: (a) psychology and psychiatry are different so it is inconsistent that a psychology professor will be making psychiatric diagnosis and public comments, (b) I agree that “Arm-chair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the mis-use of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical“, (c) though it is possible to make some kind of diagnosis culled from public and social media statements and media reported patterns of behavior, it would at best still be inconclusive and should not be made public as it can be misconstrued to be something official or credible, (d) it is improper and very unprofessional and unbecoming for a medical practitioner to (permit him/herself to) be used for political ends, much less participate actively in (and mixing medicine with) politics, and (e) the current constant bashing of Mr Trump especially on superficial and trivial matters is a terrible waste of time, energy, and resources which could be invaluable to the country if it were used for national interests — as the saying goes, “Progress in a canoe can be made when everyone paddles in the same as compared with in all or different directions“.

(2) For this article post, I suddenly had an epiphany that, although fish is universally accepted as good brain food, just like the plant foods I had been advocating — insisting that, among the considerations for healthy eating and proper nutrition, aside from being raw, whole, and natural or wild-harvested, food has to be local and (whenever applicable) seasonal.  In the case of fish, this (should) likewise apply.  There are certain fish that are endemic or native to certain geographic areas and, due to “modern” commerce, there are fish from far away places that are now also accessible.
This is dangerous because, for the same argument I have always posited for eating local and seasonal, fish that are not traditionally locally available should be eaten sparingly — i.e., on occasions so as not to “appear” ignorant and we have the right to enjoy foods from other geographies every now and then.  However, for the same argument, God or nature has intended certain fish to be eaten (on a regular basis) only by inhabitants of certain geographical locations otherwise the fish should be widely available (i.e., has a wide and migratory range like salmon and large tunas and those of the deep oceans).
Moreover, seasonality likewise applies to migratory fish because they are not available to certain areas at certain times of the year — precisely because they migrate.  Nature is wise when bears feast on migrating salmon only during their spawning season because they are not only mature (thus giving the population enough time and leeway to replenish itself before being eaten en masse to ensure survival of the species) but they have fattened over time in preparation for the important task of reproducing and replenishing the species.  Since the young were left to mature and there will have been enough to ensure survival of the species to survive the feast that not only bears enjoy but many other animals as well as the trees beside the bodies of water along the migratory route from the decaying leftovers to populate the next generation.

(3) In the last article post, as I have been repeatedly arguing that money is at the very core of most, if not all, of our global problems, the Venezuelans is at a critical point in their national life to implement and prove (decisively) that if money considerations are set aside, there will be none of the big headaches that beset people everywhere. If they begin to rely on themselves — i.e., to return to tilling the soil and not focus so much and so fast on “enjoying” the fruits of (Western) technology — I believe there is still a sufficient mass base with the necessary skill and folk wisdom to start a grand agricultural revolution to feed the population and practice (at least for the meantime) the ancient system of barter and (direct) trading of goods and skills for necessities in life.
I believe and maintain that if we remove money from the center of our world — not totally discard money because I likewise understand and maintain that there are certain instances or situations where money is called for like large-scale trade and commerce with other cultures and countries or even just neighboring communities where value of goods and commodities need to be measured and quantified — things will be so much better and people will not be so enslaved by money.  We keep conveniently forgetting that man had survived very well long before money came into the picture…and we still can.
With food security comes a sense of community and self-reliance and guaranteed survival.  After all, if it were not for the need of food, everything else seems trivial.  Without food, we die.  And, if we die, nothing else matters.  Everything else becomes redundant.
Moreover, there will be better relationships (with our neighbors and community members because there will be no more distinctions between the wealthy and the poor or the haves and the have-nots because there will be no (need for the) accumulation of wealth).  And people will rely on the goodwill of others and the common good.  Naturally, the community expects some kind of reciprocity among its members in order to remain viable — as in the Marxist principle of: From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.  Since one’s (basic) needs are assured, there will be no need to amass wealth and property because, aside from things personal (mostly those dealing with hygiene), all will be communal property.

TaN (update): In the recent Golden Globe event where it was reported that a record number of women (in coordinated black gowns and garments) won, it was reported — and I quote from the article in the hardcopy of The Philippine STAR titled “Oprah triumphs as women take center stage at Golden Globes” on the front page as well as previous TaNs discussing the same issue) — “…the Golden Globes were transformed into an A-list expression of female empowerment…”.

As I have repeatedly reiterated in previous TaNs, to “wait” for recognition by others in order that we feel empowered reflects the exact opposite.  If I have to wait for other people’s recognition and approval before I (can) feel empowered then I am not empowered at all.  Empowerment should be and is self-proclaimed.  I do not have to wait for other people to be empowered. It comes from within ourselves.  I feel and am empowered because I have decided to be empowered.

It is just like the Women’s Liberation movement of decades past.  If women have to wait for recognition and approval to feel or be liberated, then it only shows that women are still “at the mercy” of those in control (usually men).  If one needs another person to avail of what is rightfully and inherently one’s (inalienable) right, then it reveals that one still feels subjugated or dominated and that the right is not a right but, at best, a privilege — an entitlement that needs to be earned and can be taken away any time for any reason by anyone.

Btw, the burning of the brassiere is so lame and I still, until now, fail to see how it signifies liberation or even mere defiance.  There is one good thing, I think, that came out of that “burning act”.  I read several reports back then that (and I am inclined to believe the accuracy and veracity of the report) when a cancer survey was conducted among only women who do not wear brassieres, the percentage was almost identical to that of men in terms of breast cancer.  How curious.

TaN: Senior citizen benefits can be very complicated when it comes to utilities.  It seems that the law is silent when it comes to the interpretation and implementation of the senior citizen discount when it comes to utilities.  While it is valid and perfectly reasonable (and rightly so) to argue that the senior citizen discount is intended to benefit only senior citizens, it, however, becomes a question of practicality to pursue the “purity” of the philanthropic benefits.

In utilities — i.e., power, telephone, and water — it is extremely rare, if any exist at all, that there would be an instance where all the occupants of a dwelling are all senior citizens and the company policy (or implementation of the privilege) of permitting the discount only if all the occupants are senior citizens.  Keeping this in mind, it is quite foolish and rather idealistic or even utopic to expect that there will be a (substantial) number of cases where this policy will be applicable.

In a culture where the tradition of extended families are prevalent, there are bound to be other occupants of a dwelling that are not senior citizens.  In this instance, how will or can the application of the discount be done?  If the discount will be applicable only to households with senior citizens only, literally millions will be disenfranchised.  There should be some leniency or practicality where some kind of reasonable compromise is reached.

In another related but not quite similar instance, there are certain businesses that grant senior citizen discounts but, for some reason that still escapes me, do or cannot seem to make much sense.  In one case, there are those that permit the discount only once a day — e.g., a beverage business dispensing fruit shakes and concoctions.  This is strange because if the senior citizen is taking the beverage with his/her meals, then this would mean that s/he can only avail of the beverage for only one meal in the day.  What about the other meals, especially when s/he is taking it for health or nutritional purposes?

It is understandable that there is need to ensure that the discount not be abused — i.e., used for the benefit of those other than senior citizens — but it is unethical to presumptively “imply or pre-judge” a senior of inappropriate use of the discount privilege just because of that possibility.  The beneficiary of the privilege should be given the benefit of the doubt — i.e., it is truly s/he who is availing of the discount and not someone else — until s/he has been proven to abuse or mis-use the privilege.  Moreover, even if it has been proven that a certain senior citizen indeed had committed such indiscretion, it would be unfair to generalize or universalize the incident and penalize all the rest of the senior citizens who abide by the spirit of the privilege.

But returning to utilities, there seems to be some confusion with respect to the implementation in particular situations such as in eateries where food is “to go or take out”.  It is supposed to be that there should be no discount since it cannot be guaranteed that it will be the senior citizen who will eat the food.  However, there are establishments who extend the discount but some extend it fully or partially — at their discretion or company policy.  Though this reflects on the good will of the eatery, still it is a mis-application of the discount privilege — a case where the customer is given the benefit of the doubt.  Although I am not about to “look a gift horse in the mouth”, I am obligated to tell the truth (even at the risk or expense) of causing a “benefit” to be taken away despite what it means to many senior citizens.

In conclusion, it is important that senior citizens get the benefits they deserve and the provisions and specifications as stated in the (IRR or implementing rules and regulations of the) law must be the minimum to be met.  The application or implementation must be according to the spirit and not the letter of the law — because all laws will always be imperfect (i.e., subject to changes through time and progress) so by merely following the letter of the law will always have loopholes and flaws and this is where disenfranchisement and deprivations and injustice occur but will never happen if and when the spirit of law instead is used.  And, in the case where the law is vague or unclear, the senior citizen deserves the benefit of the doubt, especially in the case of utilities billing and instances where non-senior citizens inevitably share in the benefit such as taking taxis where people are not individually billed and calculating the proportional cost to be charged is impractical.

Moreover, after reading a (supposed, because it was written by a noted lawyer, one Atty Rester John Lao Nonato in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI), supposedly sourced from or posted in the Cebu Daily News dated August 24, 2012, 6:52AM, URL: an explanation and elaboration of how the senior citizen discount is to be properly implemented, I realize that there is much “injustice” being done by numerous commercial (retail) establishments and senior citizens are merely either ignorant about the injustice being done to them or apathetic so the mis-application is being tolerated.

TaN: One tell-tale sign that our body is toxic or loaded with toxins is the odor that comes from it — be it in the form of fart or body odor or bad breath (and not just halitosis).  Foul smelling fart indicates that the diet is high in animal protein and so it is with the body odor (which is beef eaters smell of beef while goat eaters smell of goat) — which people try to mask or camouflage with perfumes and other deodorants (never mind the lame excuse of wanting to smell good) — and likewise with bad breath (which is also another sign of decaying teeth).  Let us take these three individually.

First, foul-smelling fart — this is a very clear indication that the colorectal area of the digestive tract is filled with putrefying matter.  This is very dangerous as the waste products from digestion and cellular metabolism is overstaying their “welcome” and should have been eliminated long ago.  Its continued stay in the body means that all the toxins gathered from all over the body for elimination is being re-absorbed and this is frequently (but not being admitted by conventional and corporate-backed medical and health authorities) the root cause behind cancers such as colorectal cancer, anal cancer, and stomach cancer.  You can always tell when a person is predominantly an animal eater, his/her fart is foul — or the toilet reeks with the stomach-churning odor that lingers for a while even when there are exhaust fans to draw out the stench.  [Note: Silent farts are often foul-smelling whereas noisy farts are usually odorless.]

Second, body odor — this is likewise a classic manifestation that toxins fill the fat cells under the skin — as well as the gastro-intestinal tract.  We perspire what we eat.  The most common reason our perspiration may not reek of rotting or putrefying meat is the ambient temperature — i.e., when the climate is cool or when inside an air-conditioned room.  The smell does not permeate the air but it will still be noticeable when one gets near enough (to the source).  The only way to reduce the intensity of the body odor — but not necessarily the toxicity of the body — is to bathe or shower as frequently as possible (but not too much).

Third and last, bad breath — besides halitosis or bad breath caused by tooth decay or bits of meat stuck between teeth and at the gums, bad breath can rise up the esophagus from the smell of putrefying meat from the meal you have just eaten (like when burping or belching) — just as certain foods, especially those with strong and pungent odors like raw onions and garlic — or those that lingers in the mouth because the eater failed to clean the mouth after the meal.

In any case, it is not healthy to have foul smelling body odor.  Decaying meat smells horrendous as compared to decaying plant matter — which is almost odorless, except in certain cases such as asparagus, eggs, and pungent vegetables.

And then there are those that result from too much chemical-laden junk food.  Many junk foods contain chemicals that are harmful to health and creates foul-smelling fumes with digested.  It is important that toxins and chemicals that turn into toxins — like triclosan (when mixed with chlorinated water forms toxic and carcinogenic chloroform which taxes the liver and kidneys) and aspartame (when digested is broken down into its components amino acids, methanol and other chemicals which, according to the USA FDA web page URL:, is quickly absorbed and converted into the highly toxic and carcinogenic embalming liquid formaldehyde) — be avoided because we should not put too much burden on our body’s defenses and elimination organs lest they be eventually overwhelmed and become a liability to our health.  Our body is a wonderful and “perfect” machine created by God but even it can and will succumb to toxins and damage when exposed to enough of them.

If these are not enough to deter us from shunning toxin-laden and chemically-produced commercial foods, I do not know what will.

TaN: As a rejoinder to the first update in the post for Oct 22-28 TaN regarding missing links or evolutionary transition species, still another is how a cold-blooded parent cares for a warm-blooded offspring or how a warm-blooded offspring adapts or copes with the sudden change (from cold-blooded to warm-blooded) and how will a cold-blooded parent teach a warm-blooded offspring the ways of being warm-blooded.  Moreover, is there such a thing as tepid- or lukewarm-blooded?

We are, of course, going by the assumption by conventional evolutionary science that warm-blooded creatures simultaneously split and arose from cold-blooded forebears — unless there appears to be a previous posit that the over-sized reptiles — especially the dinosaurs — were actually warm-blooded.  This is based on the argument that cold-blooded creatures rely heavily on the sun (and ambient environmental temperature) to raise its body heat high enough to become active.

In addition, it is a scientific fact that a larger mass requires a longer time to absorb heat and raise its internal temperature as compared to a much smaller mass, it makes sense that the gargantuan dinosaurs — such as the brontosaurus, diplodocus, brachiosaurus, iguanadon, triceratops, stegasaurus, titanosaurus, allosaurus, megalosaurus, ankylosaurus, hadrosaurus, and even the Tyrannosaurus — must have to be warm-blooded because it would take “forever” for the sun, even in the hottest summer day, to raise their enormous body mass one degree in a 24-hour period.  The only possibility is that these monster reptiles must be able to generate their own internal body heat to be active and survive.

Even if it is easy for them to rely on solar heating when they are young — because of their much smaller body mass — I cannot imagine a transformation from a cold-blooded youngster into a warm-blooded adult.  It just does not happen (in nature).  So this is still another argument in favor of a Creation-based theory of evolution — yes, there is evolution even if it is Creation and not Darwinian but these are merely evolutionary variants within the same species and not inter-species.  This means that domestic dogs can evolve into their wild canine ancestors and back just as the finches of the Galapagos of Darwin (differing in their beak and bills sizes and shapes which dictate their diet).

TaN: In a traffic accident some weeks ago, I realized there are primarily two types: simple negligence (or stupidity) and criminal negligence.  Criminal negligence are those other traffic accidents or violations resulting after the felony has been committed (such as those occurring during car chases or exchange of gunfire).  Simple negligence — or as I would like to call it, STUPIDITY — are the accident themselves and go no further (like collisions or self-accidents).

Either case, these drivers should not have been granted the privilege — i.e., issued driving licenses — in the first place.  And the problem with the current system is that those who were party to the issuing of the driver’s license get away with no accountability.  Moreover, it reflects badly on our screening process to determine who is granted the driving privilege.  The screening process is not thorough enough.

Whenever driving accidents occur — with the exception of force majeure or acts of God, like natural calamities and disasters — all those concerned should be held accountable (and not just the drivers and owners/operators).  Even without probing deep into the system of screening, I can tell what are some of the (major) flaws in the system.

Many, if not most, drivers have the “bad habit” of not going through the motions of safety checks even before getting into the vehicle — let alone starting the engine.  The proper procedure is divided into two three phases: pre-entry, entry, and ignition.  It may be overkill but its faithful practice ensures 98 percent safety — of course, the most important is still driver attitude, especially once behind the steering wheel.

Pre-entry includes checking of all externals — i.e., front and back lights, tire condition (thread, wear, and pressure), external mirrors, brake fluid and oil and water, and others.  Entry includes all inside the vehicle short of turning the ignition — i.e., windshield wipers, front, back, and signal lights (especially if ambient lighting is low), horn, [power locks and windows,] side and rear view mirrors, and others.  For ignition, this includes all involved in operating the vehicle — i.e., foot and hand brakes, clutch and gear shifts, steering wheel, battery status, and others — but these will have to be done when the vehicle is in motion.  In addition, all obstructions to the driver’s full view around the vehicle, especially those dangling from the rear view mirror or mounted on the dashboard and resting on the rear deck and those that are glued on the windows (like stickers and decals), or heavy tints that distort or may obscure small or faintly reflective objects should be removed or taken down.

Of course, as aforementioned, there will always be things beyond our control, like metal fatigue and other drivers (who may intentionally or not be distracted as in tending to the portable electronic device like a mobile telephone).  In any case, defensive driving is always the best.

In conclusion, being extra cautious may not avert the inevitable but it is still best not to tempt fate.


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