TaN (update): In the apparent never-ending word war between Mr Duterte and his defenders against Mr Duterte’s critics and detractors with respect to Mr Duterte’s style of solving (the country’s) ills and problems, the former seems always to be missing the whole point of the criticisms.
First, the criticisms are meant to be constructive but it is coming across to the Duterte camp as destructive.
Second, the so-called attacks against Mr Duterte by critics and detractors are directed against Mr Duterte but against his style. If one studies the poll results carefully and with an objective eye, one would notice that (almost) everyone is — because the criminal elements obviously would not be — for the eradication of the illegal drug scourge and the reformation of the users as well corruption in government and other forms of criminality. It is the style that the public (and Mr Duterte’s critics and detractors) are against.
In Mr Duterte’s way, there seems to be no room for second chances. Moreover, his policies have a way of being carried out without clearly defined terms and conditions — for instance, “nanlaban” can be interpreted in many ways, from struggling and wresting for a weapon to something as simple as pulling the arm away to avoid being handcuffed or accosted. Without clear-cut definitions and guidelines, a suspect can quickly become a victim in the hands of over-eager and overzealous police officers. Each police officer is left to interpret “nanlaban” in his/her own way and every unfortunate casualty can easily be justified as a case of “nanlaban” and therefore the death is justifiable.
It is a puzzle to note that being a former prosecutor and a lawyer, Mr Duterte seems to have forgotten how important it is to be meticulous in making statements as they may be misconstrued, unless vagueness is the real intent so as to ensure plausible deniability.
In conclusion, perhaps it is even possible that what is happening with the word war between Mr Duterte and his critics and detractors is part of the original grand design to ensure that the oppositors are kept busy while he advances his real agenda of draconian campaigns to establish his legacy in Philippine (political) history — to be remembered (in infamy)?!
TaN: Good is absolute and so is bad. The (relative) good and bad that we generally refer to (in this temporal) world actually means beneficial and detrimental, respectively.
The relative good that we speak of is the good that is taken from or based on our (subjective) point of view or reference. We say something is good because we benefit from it. We say it is bad because it is detrimental to our interest/s.
It is for this reason that there is confusion as to what is good and what is bad. We are not taking the definition from God’s perspective — because His is absolute and will always be right; it will be just.
The problem with adapting God’s Good is that, due to our selfish tendencies, it will always be tainted — one of those instances is when we label it as situational. The only way that we can ensure that God’s Good is applied or done as it should be is that we surrender to Him and let Him take over our lives. Since we will be but mere instruments and it will be His will that will prevail, we can be assured that it will truly be Good.
TaN: In the vaccine controversy, particularly in the United States of America, that has been going on for some time already is overlooking one very important issue — violation of the Hippocratic Oath, unless the oath has already been disregarded, amended, or totally discarded. Physicians and other medical or health care professionals who refuse to treat or help someone who has not or refuses to be vaccinated are in violation of their solemn oath — i.e., not to refuse aid to anyone who needs it, especially to murderers and even to killers of their loved ones and the innocents.
It is utterly wrong to refuse help to anyone who needs it — assuming that you possess the capability and ability to help. No amount of justification can be used to deny (medical) assistance to anyone, even to a sworn enemy — taking our cue from the Parable of the Good Samaritan in the Holy Scriptures.
It is bad enough to deny help under (more) ordinary circumstances but to deprive someone of it in instances of medical emergencies or situations is reprehensibly unthinkable.
But for this TaN, to withhold much needed medical assistance is already very wrong but to go to the extent of inflicting harm — as what the vaccine industry is doing, with the (whether wittingly or unwittingly) connivance of medical professionals — is an abomination, especially when done to the defenseless (i.e., children and elderly).
It is an even greater embarrassment when we consider that the vaccine manufacturers (in the USA) are practically and virtually immune from lawsuits. What unmitigated gall! What an affront to decency! How Luciferan!
TaN: It is important that while we are young that we develop good habits and behavior because we do not what the future brings — whether we will live long enough to a ripe old age when we will become senile or not. Since there is no way to truly and definitely with absolute certainty what our individual future will be, it is vital that we make preparations for what is to come.
But why is this so?
Because should we be so “lucky” as to live long enough to become senile, all that will remain with us is not our memories — since losing those is what senility is all about — but our habits and behavior.
Having bad habits and bad behavior not only will be haunt us and cause trouble, they will likewise become a burden to our loved ones or our caretakers — because those will remain until we die.
It is the long-term memory that endures. This is the same reason why people with amnesia — be it temporary, hysterical, or permanent — may forget certain things like their identity and people and places and events (even happy memories) but eating, walking, sleeping, talking, and many other daily routines remain. And it is these routines that are our habits and behavior.
TaN: In a recent experience with cognitive decline, I began to notice a pattern emerging. It would appear that it is not so much as learning new skills or engaging in a (new) hobby or being more sociable but having a positive attitude to want to learn and no new things and expand one’s social and personal horizons. It is the desire to want to grow and explore new experiences that forestalls or even reverses cognitive decline.
I came to this conclusion from observing that playing mahjong — which, they say, is supposed to be a way to improve memory — did nothing to those who are depressed despite playing. It is not so much the mechanical activity but the psychological state of the mind that is responsible for deterring memory loss. The will is not there so any attempt to master a new physical activity does not do anything to counter memory loss.
Moreover, in the case of playing mahjong, I think it is said to help mitigate or even reverse cognitive decline on the condition that mahjong was never played before and that it is a new experience, something new for the memory to learn. In other words, it is not so much what activity is chosen that would help in the arresting of cognitive decline but the learning of something new — preferably something complicated yet not too complicated as to result in frustration and thus defeating the purpose.
The key to all our issues on cognitive decline is our will. We must have the (intense and determined) desire to engage the memory in something new and takes significant effort to learn — but still achievable.
All efforts to address cognitive decline will be an exercise in futility if the subject is unwilling. Once again, the power of the will is shown to be formidable and key to success or failure — much like those accounts in the Holy Scripture of miraculous transformations and events and the repeated statement of Jesus that it is not so much He but more of the person’s intense faith in the success of whatever the desire is that made the desire come true (be it the Roman centurion wanting to cure his favorite slave, the lame who walked, the blind who saw, and the sick who was healed).