Post for Sep 10-16 2017 (updated Sep 20)

TaN (update): In the recent news in the Philippines regarding the measly budget for its Commission on Human Rights (CHR) by the House of the Representatives, the social media storm that ensued is but expected, right, and moral.

Perhaps it is high time that the taxpayers dictate where their share of taxes go. In this particular instance, from the news in The Philippine STAR, it was reported that reactions such as wanting to send their taxes to the CHR instead of Mr Duterte’s bloody and barbaric campaign against illegal drugs and/or the salaries of the (unabashed) congressmen who “conspired” in approval of the said CHR’s measly P1,000 2018 budget.

In addition, it would be prudent for the constituents to remember the names of those congressmen who “proudly” conspired to such a dastardly deed come election time and mete out their just desserts — if only they will remember to outrage because Filipino voters have very short memories.

In conclusion, with exception to the family and friends of the victims (especially if the casualty is an innocent collateral victim) I sincerely doubt if the voters will not let their choice be clouded by money, friendship, and other biased reasons and re-elect these embarrassing members of Congress.

TaN (update): In an article appearing on the September 15 issue of The Philippine STAR titled “Rody’s sister says he’s a chauvinist” by Reuters, the piece was very well written and, as far as I can tell, was objectively done and was very careful to avoid using biased terms and descriptions in order that a more accurate image of Mr Duterte is presented.

From the article, I can discern that Mr Duterte’s vulnerabilities are in his: inability to tolerate dissension and disagreement, constant need for re-affirmation of his ego and self-assurance, and an obsession to prove (to himself and others) his machismo and masculinity (especially his superiority complex towards women) — revealing a feeling of inadequacy and self-doubt of one’s capabilities.  Only people with self-esteem issues need to constantly and perpetually prove themselves — not only to others but mostly to themselves.  They have to convince themselves that they are important, that they have worth, that they (and what they do) matter, that others do not look down on (or feel sorry for) them.

Another character trait is the tendency to put down others — insulting and abasing them — because it appears to be the only way Mr Duterte can feel good about himself, to feel that he is brave, to feel that he is a he-man.  His constant bragging and use of expletives and off-color language is a manifestation of his feeling of inadequacy.

It would appear that tyrants and authoritarians all share and exhibit these same character flaws and as well as the messianic complex — that they are the (self-)anointed saviors of mankind.

I wonder how history will finally judge him — and how his family and descendants will feel when they learn of his deeds (or misdeeds).

TaN: In today’s (August 24) hardcopy issue of The Philippine STAR headlined “Nobody wants to kill innocents — Rody” by a certain Alexis Romero, apparently either Mr Romero or Mr Duterte has mis-stated his sentiment because if the statement were true or factual, why then are there innocent victims?  I believe that the statement should have been “No good person wants to kill innocents” instead of just “nobody”.

Although I may be just splitting hairs, still it is better, whenever possible and applicable, to avoid making inaccurate statements as they can cause confusion in people, especially those with very simple minds.

TaN: Yet another argument that proves there are neither intelligent nor dumb people is that the difference between a smart person and one who is not is thinking.

An intelligent person thinks.  When one does not think, one becomes, for all intents and purposes, dumb.  All that sets an intelligent person apart from a dumb one is thinking and, by thinking, I mean that the person is having thought processes which were caused by a situation or condition and requires a solution, resolution, or answer.  Therefore, thinking is a thought process with a purpose and not just for the sake of having something for the mind to do.

No matter how high the intelligence quotient (IQ) is, it is absolutely of no significance when a person is not thinking.  This is the same as the argument regarding common sense, where having it but not using it is as good as not having it at all.

In any situation, mere possession or having “it” is not equivalent to or does not necessarily mean that “it” is being used and, since it is not being used, its presence or existence is just as good is good for nothing, especially when “it” is immaterial or an abstract (where its presence or existence can only be confirmed by its use, like a talent or skill).

In other words, the sure sign of an intelligent person is when the person speaks or is doing something (particularly when solving a problem or resolving an issue or dilemma).  One cannot discern the intelligence of an idle person.  A perfect case in point is when a person is asleep — i.e., I am referring to a total stranger and not someone well known and therefore people might already know of his prowess.

TaN: A truly healthy person still gets sick every now and then but gets well within a short period of time (usually within 3 days, especially if it is viral) and without much assistance from external (i.e., medical or pharmaceutical) interventions, while a truly fit person does not achieve fitness through regular and intentional fitness regimens and routines but achieve fitness along with his/her daily activities.  The common notion that healthy people do not get sick is just as inaccurate as the idea that there are cancer-free people — i.e., differentiating “cancer-free” from “free of cancer cells”.

[This last phrase segment — “cancer-free” versus “free of cancer cells” — is for another TaN but permit me to partially and initially clarify this to avoid (early) confusion.  To the best of my knowledge, cancer cells are the “rogue” cells of the body that have lost or deactivated the natural process of apoptosis or cell death whereas cancer is the condition or disease which is made up of cancer cells.  There are cancer cells present in our bodies at all times but are kept under control and are eventually sought out and destroyed by the immune system so there is not enough of it to make up the disease.]

Anyway, there is no such person who never gets sick.  It is just like the garbage that the medical industry is spreading regarding diabetes and pre-diabetes and high levels of serum blood sugar — where they base their prognosis of diabetes just because a person’s blood sugar levels are high.  If there were so, then all people are diabetic because the blood sugar is very high right after a meal, especially one high in carbohydrates be they complex or not.  In truth, it is the amount of time it takes for the body to bring blood sugar levels back to normal after a meal that determines whether one is diabetic or not and not just the mere presence of large amounts of blood sugar.

Moreover, getting sick is not exactly a bad thing, especially childhood diseases.  Childhood diseases are nature’s way of preparing the body for future pathogens and infectious agents that will attack the body.  Diseases such as mumps, chicken pox, measles, and the rest are training sessions for the body defense system and the occasional bouts with the cold and influenza are follow-up training exercises to keep the body’s immune system in fighting condition.  For as long as we know what to do to deter the onslaught of a disease, there is really no need to worry.

God made our body so perfectly that it can literally go on forever.  It has a constant replacement protocol or mechanism to ensure that worn out or damaged cells are broken down, recycled, eliminated and new ones take their place.  This is what stem cells are for.  The proof are those Biblical personalities who lived hundreds of years, the longest of which is supposed to be Methuselah who is alleged to have died at the age of nine hundred and sixty-nine.  The most recent longest lived person — on record but Western medicine still refuses to acknowledge it, arguing that it was never authenticated — is a certain Li Ching-Yuen of Kai Xian, Sichuan who was said to have died in May 1933 at the age of 256!  He may be far from Methuselah’s 969 years but it is still long enough to be enviable.

In conclusion, being healthy is not about living longer — primarily because, since one does not know when one will die, it is impossible to say with certainty that one has added years to one’s life by being healthy.  Being healthy is avoiding being sick as we wait to die.  Remember that: When will we die is the prerogative of God, but how we die or in what state of health are we at the moment of death is our choice.  You can either be sick and miserable in the last years of your life or be healthy and disease-free.

TaN: Ever since the Mayan December 21, 2012 declaration of the end of the previous 4th cycle and the beginning of the new 5th (supposedly the Age of Enlightenment and Transparency) Cycle, there appears to be an increase intensity of the struggle between good and evil, between the truth and lies (aka fake news and untruths).

It would seem that this is the winner-take-all all-in make-or-break age where both sides — good and evil — is pulling out all the stops to emerge triumphant.  And evil has the advantage of (owning or “owning”) mainstream media in order to discriminate against efforts by good to spread the truth that evil is so desperately trying to conceal so that the people will be confused or convinced of the lies and fake news and remain to believe that everything is all right with the world.

Moreover, there is increase in worthless things and events in order to distract the people from the more important and urgent matters that are transpiring — things and events like more fantasy and sci-fi films, more music concerts and celebrity news, more dumbing telenovelas and escapist fantasy series (like Hunger Games and Game of Thrones), more sleazy and racy reality television series (where media broadcasts anything and everything that happens in people’s lives every moment of the day) and game shows, a deluge of infotainment and infomercials and sports events, and many more of the like.

The other side is relying on alternate media and alternate online news sites to put the truth out to the people.  But it appears to be an uphill or losing battle as people are more prone to patronize the mundane and trivial than those that can benefit their personal, spiritual, and moral growth.  No wonder the Holy Scriptures mentioned that very few will be worthy of Paradise.

TaN: If you want praise and flattery, ask your subordinates; if you want the truth, ask your peers.  How true this adage for people who are wanting of validation of friendship and social status.

Subordinates, especially in the workplace, will always tell you nice things and whatever you want to hear — mostly out of fear r(for their jobs) rather than respect and honesty.  Peers, precisely why they are so, are not threatened by you so would not hesitate to tell you the truth.

Another similar phrase regarding truth and honesty (but not quite) is: When one is in power, our friends know us; when one is no longer in power, we know our friends.  These are what are known as fair weather friends.  They are friends only for as long as they can benefit from the relationship.  These are opportunistic parasites and leeches.

It is so difficult today to find true and lasting friendships.  Friends are relatives that we chose; relatives are friends we did not.

In this materialistic world, true friends are a rarity and should be cherished.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Sep 3-9 2017 (updated Sep 4 & Sep 8)

TaN (update): In the (broadcast) media today, September 6, one of the news items is regarding the ever-worsening vehicular traffic in mega Manila.  The same old argument is repeated — ad nauseam — where the ever-widening gap between the annual increasing quantity of vehicles purchased and the pitifully slow pace of paving new roads and building new bridges (to accommodate the additional vehicles).

The problem is that the argument fails to consider that the construction of new roads and bridges does not really address or will solve the deplorable traffic situation because the new roads and bridges may not be in locations where large volumes of vehicular traffic will traverse.

Therefore, the argument of not enough new infrastructure for vehicular traffic to mitigate traffic jams does not hold water.  There is a pattern to where traffic snarls occur and this must be taken into (serious) consideration when adding new infrastructure to relieve some of the vehicular traffic problems.

However, existing infrastructure where frequent traffic jams occur can no longer accommodate additional infrastructure — else there will be roads and streets every few meters which will be ridiculous and this is aside from the fact that the only places where additional roads can be constructed are at the outer areas and fringes of the megapolis where no vehicular traffic may be interested in going and using.

Still, the new roads that may be added in the outer edges where there is still a lot of open spaces may prove to be “useful” to motorists will need to be coupled with the transfer or putting up of commercial and industrial complexes and establishments otherwise there will be no reason to go there and use the new roads — or at the very least housing projects and developments.

It is not enough to apply the saying, Build and they will come.  You must give the people a reason to come and that reason must be convincing and what they want.  Look at the “ghost cities” in China — entire cities with lots of skyscrapers but devoid of people…only dogs and other animals.

TaN (update): In the NaturalNews article titled “Obesity epidemic continues to ravage American youth: Nearly three-quarters aren’t eligible for military service” and posted for September 4 and authored by a certain J D Heyes, it occurred to me that obesity has its benefits — both personally and for the world at-large.  Personally, it conveniently provides an excuse not to be drafted to military service, should the draft be re-implemented and one happens to be against war, and, on a global scale, it reduces the possibility of waging senseless wars.

This does not mean that I am for obesity as it is a health hazard.  However, obesity, as with most, if not all, lifestyle diseases can actually easily be remedied.  What is needed is the critical first step — which is determination with commitment.

There is this age-old saying, If you want it, there is always a way; if you do not want it, there are always many reasons.  Determination and commitment are all that stands between success and failure. The only issue for success will be the duration.

TaN (update): As I watched the video on YouTube titled “The Cancer Pharma, Big Oil, Jewish Scam To Pay Them for Your Slow Death — Depopulation Agenda 21” (URL:, it suddenly dawned on me that, just as conventional mainstream allopathic medicine and Big Pharma argues that it is genetic, it is true because there is undeniable evidence that the genes of cancers are different from normal healthy cells.  However, what is wrong is that it is the changes in the genes that are the cause of cancer.

Genetic mutation does not just happen and it is not the cause by merely the symptom.  Something caused the genetic mutation.  What actually happened is that gene switches are or have been changed or toggled that translates into cancer but what essentially transpired was that certain chemicals — be they ingested, inhaled, absorbed through the skin, or in whatever process that enabled them to enter the body — caused the switch positions to change.

It is important that the cause be determined because otherwise it will be an exercise in futility and there will be a recurrence.  In the initial attempt to rid the body of cancer, there may be success but without addressing its cause will only make the cancer come back (and with a vengeance).  This accounts for the 5-year period that conventional allopathic medicine sets are the duration to which the cancer is to make a re-appearance.  Without getting to the cause of the cancer, it has been estimated that it will take 5 years before the cancer returns.

Finally, as in previous TaNs, I reiterate that: [1] cancer is not a disease but the body’s Plan B to survive; [2] the return of the cancer is inevitable without addressing the true cause; and, [3] it does not make sense that with all the miraculous and wonderful advances in telecommunications, in travel or transportation, in science, and in practically all fields of human endeavor and yet the battle against cancer has not made an iota of progress and we have even reverted to primitive and barbaric chemotherapy and radiotherapy — two of the three conventional (official) treatments that are and have been confirmed to be carcinogenic.

TaN (update): Lately, I find myself watching local crime news and notice that the common disclaimer of “I did not know it was illegal“.  My question is, when the newscaster reports and shows the accompanying video — showing the suspects making the disclaimer or their alibi — the newscaster does not point out the principle in law that states: Ignorance of the law excuses no one (“Ignorantia juris non excusat” or more literally “Ignorantia legis neminem excusat“).  It is not as if the newscaster is ignorant of the legal principle, especially if s/he is or has been a crime reporter with some kind of legal or para legal experience and more so if s/he has a crusade against crime and wrongdoing.

If the principle is repeated by all newscasters whenever their story contains some suspect who claims ignorance of illegality, the excuse may eventually become obsolete.  Until then, it is very annoying to hear people use the alibi as a means of escaping guilt or liability.

I repeat: IGNORANCE OF THE LAW EXCUSES NO ONE, so stop using this alibi.  You are no innocent babes who were just born yesterday.  [And stop wasting your time engaging in useless and unproductive activities like gambling (as in cock-fighting) and the like.]

TaN: Although there are instances and occasions where and when one feels and knows true friendship at the moment upon meeting, a tried-and-tested and traditional way is when people go through rough or difficult and good times together.  It is only then that one can truly know true friendship.

However, true friendships can also arise from just going through tough times together, but those only during good times may not really be truly lasting.  Vindication will come when difficult times happen and the friendship is now put through the gauntlet.

It cannot be denied that “instant” friendships are possible because there are still so many mysteries in life and the universe that man can not yet fully comprehend.  There are times when we feel that we know somebody even though we have just met.

TaN: If a particular commercial advertisement is repeatedly aired within the same program — like a television or a radio program or any other form of broadcast media — or within an hour, it can mean only one of two possibilities: [1] the advertisement is trying very hard to sell itself (which implies that it is either not moving as fast enough or as well as the manufacturer/producer wants or hopes) or [2] that the broadcast media station or the specific program is not getting enough sponsors.

Either way, it does not reflect well on the product or service.  It could only mean that the consuming public is not interested or the broadcast station or program has a small audience (which does not reflect kindly either).

On the side of the audience, it may be tolerated or even be amusing at the onset but when it continues to a rather extended duration, say a couple of months or so, it becomes annoying and frequently has the opposite desired effect — i.e., it will have the tendency to turn off the audience thus spelling disaster for the product or service.  However, there are certain audiences that appear to have a degree of tolerance to such irritating repetitions — usually those with low IQs, like in the saying [ad I paraphrase]: The duration in which one can tolerate loud noise is inversely proportional to the IQ level.

In any case, being bombarded by the same commercial advertisement within a short duration is annoying and frequently get the opposite effect, except in cases where the audience has a very low intelligence quotient and can tolerate repeated and continues indoctrination to point of being brainwashing.  These are the ideal target audience that most profit-driven businesses are hoping and looking for.  These are the ones who will easily be convinced to patronize whatever is being advertised, especially if the product is worthless, endorsed by a celebrity, and/or develops a mania or hype.  And, as they say, A fool and his money are soon parted.

TaN: All secrets are truths.  Secrets cannot be lies or falsehoods because it will not make sense.  Why hide lies and untruths?  Truths are hidden in lies and untruths — lies are deliberate and frequently outright while untruths may be unintentional, partial truths, and/or temporarily factual.

We hide truths because they may pose as potential threats or harm to us (our self-esteem and our psychological and/or emotional integrity), our reputation, or public image.

Secrets — i.e., the deliberate ones that are kept from the knowledge or awareness of others as compared to those which are technically not yet known to us such as “secrets of the universe” — will eventually come to light because it is in its nature to be or become apparent.

On the bright side, secrets give us gems of discovery and (hopefully) pleasant experiences.  They provide us with occasional surprises to dot an otherwise (would be) a boring existence (in this temporal world).

Secrets, especially of nature and all that is around us, cultivates in us a sense of optimism that keeps us looking forward to something new and yet undiscovered or unknown ahead.  Secrets of and in nature awaits us all to surprise and enlighten us with the wonders that have yet to be unveiled.

The main difference between the secrets of man and those of nature is that the former is a secret only if it is known by a single individual whereas the latter is a secret because no one knows of it yet as well as the former may either be beneficial or detrimental but the latter will always be neutral — i.e., depending on how man chooses to make use of it.

TaN: It is so lame to name babies with titles, as if they are just dying with delusions to have children with an air of royalty or some kind of highly coveted title — like Sir So-and-so and Prince This-and-that and whatever royalty title attached to their children’s names.  I feel sorry for the parents and pity for the children who will have to bear the stigma of being labeled or at least perceived to be wannabes.

It is understandable that parents dote over their children and think of them as the best but giving them names that have “built-in titles” is really so pitiful.  It is as if they are so desperate to create and believe in an illusion that their children are part of the nobility or have achieved some kind of prestigious status so in case they end up as nothing (or less), they will still sound important.

It is so sad.  I feel sorry for them and I pity their children.  I hope some of them will realize what has been done to them and, when they become adults and have the opportunity and ability, change their names so it would be so embarrassing.  This is probably the epitome of shamelessness.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Aug 27-Sep 2 2017 (updated Aug 29 & Sep 4)

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Aug 13-19 2017 (updated Aug 16 and Aug 19)

TaN (new update): It is both very true: [1] We deserve the government we get and [2] All that is needed for evil to triumph is for all good men to do nothing.  This is exactly the situation in the Philippines and with the latest news article regarding Mr Trump on page 4 of The Philippine STAR August 19, 2017 hard copy issue titled “Trump cites dubious Muslim execution story anew“.  It would seem apparent that people have become apathetic, callous, and lost their compassion for what is happening around them — both socially and environmentally.

It is not just that there is not enough people but people with conviction.  The kind of conviction I am referring to is that which one is ready and willing to die for, to stake everything on that commitment.  People have not just accepted violence and injustice but embraced it wholeheartedly.

This is just plain insanity and the end is still not in sight.  There is (or seems to be) nothing in the horizon showing even the slightest hint or glimmer of hope for a reversal…not in the (foreseeable) distant future.

There is actually something that can be done but it will take a collective and unanimous majority to halt and effect a reversal.

However, I can (and hope to be) wrong.  The only miracle for the near future would be that the apathy will have been so saturated and nauseating enough as cause people to rise up and take action.  So far, there is no indication of that wishful thinking ever coming true.  People are still not appalled enough as to make their stomach churn and turn to demand a true and complete change (for the better).

Moreover, I doubt if there will be accountability in the aftermath when the perpetrators are hauled off to be meted justice.  To atone for their sins.  But then again, I doubt it.  From what can be gleaned by the public pronouncements and social media releases, these leaders have nothing in their character, their person, their souls that will make them see the impact of their misdeeds.  Probably the only time is on Judgment Day, when they will be brought to face the ugly truth of their evil.

TaN (updated): Today (August 16), an article in Naturalnews titled “Processed meats or cigarettes — which gives you cancer more quickly?” by a certain S D Welles illustrates perfectly the argument that there is no such thing as “lesser of two evils”.  It is but a clever scheme to get people to do evil or harmful things.

Making a choice between (or among) two or more things that are (all) evil is a trick to get a person to make a choice, but whichever choice is made, it will still be evil.  And as discussed and elaborated in previous TaNs, there is no such thing as Lesser of Evils.

So, in answer to the question in the article title, the question of which gives you cancer more quickly is misleading and it does not matter because you still get cancer.  The choice presented is but an illusion, a ploy to get someone to make a selection of which both have the same evil or harmful result.

TaN (updated): Another article today likewise in Naturalnews titled “Vertical-axis wind turbines potential sources of cheaper electricity in urban and suburban areas, researchers discover” by one Frances Bloomfield is a vindication of my earlier argument that vertical-blade or -fin turbines are more efficient than the conventional lateral type or version.  By “lateral”, I mean that the fins or blades are aligned horizontal to each other, that they are perpendicular to the (spin) axis in arrangement, like the common household electric fans and in external propeller fixed- or rotary-winged aircraft.

I have been arguing and proposing that vertical blades (aligned parallel to the axis) is a better design because of several reasons: [1] they can adjust automatically to different wind speeds and can be made to function even with a very slight breeze; [2] they do not have to be “pointed” towards the wind to function, the wind can come from any direction and even vary hither and yonder and it would still catch the wind; and, [3] they can be segmented on a tall mast to catch winds at different levels and each can function at different speeds.

I first noticed the superior design many years ago on rotating advertisements that are painted on vertical fins on the sidewalk.  They spin no matter which direction the wind is coming from — except from an up-down direction but no wind moves in that manner anyway.  The speed and efficiency would depend on the design of the blades — i.e., how curved are the S-shaped blades, especially at the edges.

TaN (updated): Meanwhile, in the front page of The Philippine STAR (still same day), a photograph captioned with “YUMYUM: Agriculture Secertary Emmanuel Piñol (right) and Pampanga Vice Gov Dennis Pineda eat balut and fried chicken, yesterday, in San Luis town, bird flu Ground Zero” and credited to photographer Michael Vargas shows the two aforementioned government officials feasting.  Its purpose, I would suppose, is to quell fears of the spread of bird flu and intended to allay fears of the consuming public.

In such public display, I would not put too much confidence in it because it would run counter to logic that whoever thought of and provided the publicity meal to prepare food that is contaminated with bird flu — aside from the fact that bird flu is supposed to be a threat to birds, especially nutritionally malnourished commercially farmed birds, and not the eggs which is what “balut” is.  It would not be wise to expose the government (“guinea pigs”) officials to any health danger — i.e., because otherwise they risk reaping their ire if and when they do get infected.

Photo ops of public or government officials showing them eating whatever the consuming public is supposed to be wary of due to rumors of health risks in specific food products cannot be believed.  The “guinea pig” officials will always be ensured that what they will demonstrate eating will be of the utmost untainted food.  There is no guarantee that what we will be buying and eating will be of the same risk-free quality as those in the photo op.  It is all a gimmick, a stunt to allay fears of the public.

TaN: Climate change and global warming is still undergoing a lot of debate and scientific scrutiny.  And, assuming, without admitting, that human activities — power generation, emissions from agricultural activities, internal combustion exhaust (from land, sea, and air transports), heating and cooling systems in residences and buildings, commercial and industrial business activities, etc — are the principal causes, the issue most people are missing is that palliative solutions are being done instead of addressing the root causes which is to stop all activities that significantly contribute to the increase in global temperature.  [This is assuming that climate change and global warming are really happening and are the results of man’s doing.]

Moreover, what exacerbates the whole situation is that, even though many people acknowledge and agree that something has to be done (to address the issue), everyone is waiting and expecting the other person to be the one to make the sacrifice and put in the effort instead of themselves.  It is always the other individual who is expected to be the one to act and make all the sacrifices while we simply lay back and enjoy the fruits of other people’s labor.

In any case, if we examine closely and carefully both sides of the issue, focusing on the information, that both sides claim to be factual, with critical and discerning minds, we will notice the flaws and disconnects and conflicting so-called facts on both sides.

Although it is understandable that each side is interested in winning the argument and there are certain parties on or of both sides who will do (almost) anything to ensure victory — the fanatics and the paid shills and spin doctors and lackeys.  And it is in this light that the issues are muddled and mixed with lies and half or hidden truths so as to create a convincingly argument at the expense of truth and accuracy.

Finally, from the climate change/global warming side, certain information and evidences simply do not add up, especially if you go far back enough into historical, archæological, and geological records.

Meanwhile, from the opposition side of the issue, even as new evidence regarding the claimed GHGs (greenhouse gases) being the chief causes behind climate change and global warming arise, certain questions need answers, like: If global temperatures are not rising, then why has the ice cap of Mt Kilimanjaro retreated (and continues to retreat) to less than 15 percent of its 1912 size — from “Mt Kilimanjaro Ice Cap Continues Rapid Retreat” from the New York Times issue dated November 2, 2009 by a Sindya N Bhanoo (  A more recent account may be referred to in URL: (photographs to have been taken late October of 2014 but posted January 2015).

Another, by David Suzuki — as of June 11, 2017 — argues that climate change deniers have recently repeatedly shifted their positions and arguments and says (certain) deniers are now acceding (average) global surface temperature has actually what climate change “deniers or co-conspirators” have been saying ever since.  But this is expected because the truth will always come out in the end — some sooner, others later, and then longer — but they will do it discretely and surreptitiously and time it when people are “concerned” with or distracted by other matters.

My take on all this is that man’s (economic) activities does have some impact on the climate but I seriously doubt if there is enough significance that it will sufficiently alter or cause climate to change to such a degree as to severely impact planetary meteorology or weather systems.  It must remembered Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion (Action and Reaction) and most people engrossed in the climate change debate appear to — wittingly or not — ignore the corresponding reactions of and from nature for each action of man.

A case in point would be — as mentioned by Mike Adams in his video “Why carbon dioxide is the ‘Miracle Molecule of Life’” — the impact of a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere where it may be a greenhouse gas that traps solar radiation preventing it to return to outer space at the end of the day but it is also a vital ingredient in plant metabolism to produce its own food.  With increase carbon dioxide presence in the atmosphere, there should be a corresponding increase in plant growth and it is known that plants absorb much of the solar radiation to cool down the planet.

This can be attested in the New Manila model in Quezon City (in the Philippines) where there is so much lush greenery (decades-old trees) that the ambient temperature is usually 2 to 3 degrees (C) cooler than the surrounding areas.

It is the “concrete or urban jungle” that is a major factor in the increased feeling of heat because solar radiation is bounced and amplified by hard flat smooth surfaces (such as concrete walls, glass windows, metal roods, and asphalt or concrete roads) — much like what happens with a laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation).

TaN: Of the environmental movement’s 3Rs — i.e., reduce, recycle, re-use — “Reduce” is and should be the most important and be pushed aggressively because it has the greatest and most beneficial to he environmental cause. It ensures that there will be less waste and unnecessary discards to deal with.  There will be less to re-use and to recycle.  Less things to recycle and re-use means less resources to be “harvested” from the environment which leads to a more sustainable development and more responsible use of available resources.

The next best is Re-use, leaving Recycle to be the least best of the three.  Re-use means that what has been used should be re-used repeatedly whenever applicable and possible until it is no longer viable for re-use.  This mitigates the need to purchase or acquire new items which leads to more waste and discards.

But, recent developments in plastic bags, specifically and particularly grocery or shopping bags, see the use of bio-degradable plastics which are supposed to be environmentally-friendly but does not bode very well for re-users because the plastic, its “expiry date” unknown to the re-user, would bio-degrade anytime and frequently occurs during inopportune times.

Recycling, which has become and is the most popular, is the least desirable because it merely encourages those responsible for producing the waste — mostly packaging, containers (bags and boxes), and wrappings — and discards to produce more.  They would claim that they are providing valuable assistance by “creating” job opportunities for recyclers and their downstream industries and businesses (such as vendors and distributors).  However, in reality, it is merely an excuse they use to justify increasing production of waste and discards — under the guise of supporting rising “cottage” industries to provide livelihood projects for the indigenous and the marginalized and the jobless who cannot, instead of will or do not, find job opportunities.

In addition, (again) due to the introduction of the bio-degradable plastics, this now poses a problem for recyclers who use them as resource materials for their livelihood products.  Imagine using the biodegradables and your recycled product (say, a bag) “decides” to break apart in the middle of whatever you are doing — like when you are carrying groceries (in an eco-friendly sando bag) or your “eco-fashionable” hand bag or your recycled (plastic) home decor and, following Murphy’s Law — “If anything can go wrong, it will and at the worst possible moment” — it biodegrades at the worst moment in the most unlikely place and causes embarrassment (among other things).

Finally, some years back, in a film feature from the Japanese Embassy, a process was developed to reverse and recover the oil used in plastic making.  I wonder what happened to it.  If I recall correctly, there was some kind of a compound or enzyme extracted from the orange peel.  I think we should give it another consideration, especially with all the mountains and oceanic islands of plastic trash and discards accumulating.

TaN: Although it is not illegal to withdraw (or reduce) a (commercial) benefit, it is unethical since it implies bad faith.  Something beneficial given voluntarily to a client/customer/patron then withdrawn or reduced implies that the business has prioritize (further) profit over customer satisfaction.

In business, once a benefit has been voluntarily granted, it can not be changed for the better or for some other equivalent.   To reduce, much less totally withdraw, implies that the business granted the benefit only to “bait” customers/clients.

Reasons given for the reduction or withdrawal of the (commercial) benefit will only (be perceived as) attempts to justify the decision, as alibis, as a means to convince the public of a profit-based corporate policy decision — and much of the public will readily and “gullibly” accept it, especially if it is crafted or worded carefully and cleverly.

All in all, since public opinion is not particularly strong especially along this matter, the public is not expected to react or if there is a detectable or noticeable reaction would actually amount little or no consequence (from the concerned entity that withdrew or reduced the once-freely-given benefit).

As a last word, morality or ethics trumps legality always.  Legality has evolved — due to the increased interaction between cultures and societies that once was far and remote from each other — and had become something that ensures peaceful and harmonious co-existence between and among people of different cultures and backgrounds.  However, due to spreading apathy among men (of morals and integrity), unscrupulous few have hijacked the legal system and has twisted it to suit and conform to their hidden agenda, ulterior motives and self-interests and is able to get around obligations and institutions that are supposed to protect the majority against exploitation and manipulation.  Legality today is not what it used and ought to be.

TaN: What we do today with food (in the First World and the highly urbanized cities of Third World countries) are no longer good food and good presentation.  It has devolved in opulence.

What many so-called chefs do to food today can no longer be considered food preparation or cooking.  I do not know what it is called but I am sure it is not or cannot be food.

It is both really irritating and exasperating, at least to me, that there are people with just too much time on their hands and with nothing better to do that to tinker with food.  Stop playing with food.  Food is for eating.  Appreciating — not admiration — food should be limited to how it is presented — simply and sumptuously.  They should not be in teensy tiny portions and arranged in some bizarre manner that will just tempt and arouse the taste buds but will not even reach the stomach.

Food should be respected and not “ridiculed” in some kind of “artistic” design.  The primary and sole purpose of food is to nourish and not to be admired.  What these so-called “artistic” chefs are doing to food today is SICK!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Aug 6-12 2017 (updated Aug 10)

TaN (last-minute update after week’s post is done): This week, as the bill regarding free tuition is signed into law, a classic dilemma for government — when it comes to programs and projects — is the perennial problem of funding.  Almost always, in this world where money has become god, good deeds and worthwhile projects will always suffer the problem of funding.

On the one hand, it is foolish to enact a law with full knowledge that it will be inutile because there are no funds to implement them.  Therefore, the law just sits there accomplishing nothing. It is an empty shell worth only for display and nothing else.

However, to wait for sufficient funding before enacting a law would almost always “take forever” as there will be those — with hidden agenda and ulterior motives — who would benefit if the bill is not passed.  Moreover, since the bill is not yet law, there will be no “incentive” to piously seek for funding as there is no urgency.

What to do. In the meantime…

TaN: Imposing a tax on personal/salary income is double taxation and is morally wrong and should be illegal — I think I have taken this issue up in a previous TaN but I shall repeat and expound on it further.  Only corporate or business income/revenue should be taxed.

In almost all countries, personal or salary income is taxed by the state but this practice, even though common, is not justifiable — especially if the only or main reason is that all, if not most, countries are doing it.  Just because a majority is doing something does not necessarily make it right.

As it is, it is the (ordinary rank and file) employee — through salary and other deductions — that is supporting the government (expenses) while business and the fat cats of management enjoy all sorts of tax exemptions and deductibles to achieve a smaller taxable revenue or income, respectively.  Even then, the salaries of the privileged and upper crust is subject to the same “double taxation” imposed on the toiling masses.

Just like (agricultural) products, which where the (food) supply chain begins, enjoy little or no (value-added) tax, so should employee income.  By exempting personal income from taxation, this increases the ability of the ordinary individual to make more purchases which redounds to increased sales and, consequently, government revenue from sales tax.  The “supposed” loss in revenue from not taxing the personal income (as against corporate income or revenue) will be more than compensated or recovered by the increased collection from sales tax.

The problem is the government is too “greedy” that it wants to collect from both ends — from the onset in the salary and wages and at the end in the consumption or sales.  Government thinks it is inherent or owed it that it owns everything and that any use of its property mandates some kind of a tribute or rent, forgetting that the government is nothing without the people.

Without the people, there is no government.  The government owes its very existence to the people.  In fact, it is due to the consent of the people to be governed that there is a government.

Government’s primary role, in this case, is to serve as a regulator and arbiter to ensure that there is fair play and that people know and behave by an agreed set of rules and policies.  Exacting taxes is only a means for government to stay viable, to be self-sustaining, to be remain functional.  Government is not in the business of profit-generating; that is the role of business.  Government cannot and should not compete with business — unless it is to prevent a monopoly, a cartel, an oligopoly, which is unfairly advantageous and beneficial only to a certain person or group of people and, more importantly, detrimental to the rest of the population.

Government’s taxing power should be limited only to corporate revenues and income — and the only possibility of extending it beyond the corporate (and into the personal) is when the disparity of the individual’s salary against that of the national average minimum wage is atrocious.  And never double taxation.

TaN: Having a large following (or audience) today, more so and most especially in social media, has lost most of its meaning and importance.  This is because most people today are merely “zombie lemmings” — those who “mindlessly” go with the flow, follow the trend or craze or mania, who are bandwagoners just because they feel the need to belong, to be “in”, to be accepted by peers and their immediate circle of friends and community like in the workplace or in school (as if acceptance is all there is or all that important).

This is oh so sad and makes one extremely vulnerable — vulnerable to manipulation, to deception, to exploitation, to become unwitting co-conspirators, to be “cannon fodder”. I once heard it said that it is better to have a few true friends and fellow like-minds than a multitude of mindless idolaters and fanatical followers.

However, such unthinking crowds are ideal for profit-hungry commercial interests and these or they are usually targeted by (unethical) marketing campaigns and clever ads — because they are seen as gullible and easy prey — who are always on the prowl for money-making opportunities.

Moreover, there are now paid shills whose jobs are to drum up and hype a mania in order that they can be herded into an amorphous mass to be targets of commercial interests, fleecing them of their hard-earned already-meager savings.

And if that fails, there is always “lobbying” the government to make it a policy or even legislation to coerce and compel people to patronize worthless products (and services) — like what is happening in many parts of the United States of America where children will not be admitted into school and employees are threatened with sanctions and even dismissal unless they get vaccinated.

Social media sites are frequently monitored for frequency of hits or visits by vested interests to capitalize on the “popularity” to sell products and services.

And many public personalities — especially those in the entertainment and sports industry and most especially in movies and (popular) music — are not letting this opportunity lapse and have embarked on their own to commercialize their popularity.  This is very evident in movie and music personalities who have launched their own brands of products (like garments/lingerie/undergarments, perfume/scents, beauty products, and the like).  Furthermore, most actually merely lend their names to the products but do not have significant contribution to product development.  [Note: Most of the products (of those in the entertainment and sports industries) are superficial and vanity products, as compared to educational and developmental products.]

As a last word, I do not mind — in fact, it does not bother me one bit — to have no one follows this blogspot of mine.  I am not in need of attention and validation from others.  I know and am confident in myself. If my words give comfort, assurance, or in any manner provide something positive, you are welcome.  If it provides useful and beneficial information or insights to others, that is good enough for me.  I prefer the thinking crowd, not those who blindly follow, especially because many others are following.

TaN: The best thing in this temporal world is not to know everything or all the answers but to ask the correct questions.  Since it is not possible to know everything — because only God knows everything and even His knowledge is limited to all the possibilities but not the certainties due to free will.

God can know everything — meaning all the possibilities — but because He chose to gift us with free will, this limits His knowledge of the certainties of everything and, instead, is restricted to knowing only all the possibilities but not which ones will be true or the certainties.

To illustrate further, a (dedicated) teacher is familiar with all the behaviors and performances of his/her students and can predict the outcome of each student at the end of the school term with great reliability.  However, there are unforeseeable circumstances or events that may significantly alter the outcomes thereby changing the results and prove his/her predictions inaccurate — like when a poorly performing student suddenly and unexpectedly aces the final examinations because s/he realized the s/he could fail.

But returning to topic, it is not important to know everything.  What is important is knowing those that matter because the rest (of the possibilities) are irrelevant.

A case in point would be knowing all the different routes and the dangers along the way for each of them.  Knowing the dangers of all the routes does not matter.  What matters only are the dangers along the route which one will take.  The other dangers will not have any impact on the route chosen.

Finally, why clutter one’s brain with so many useless and irrelevant information when we will need only a tiny portion of it?  Why bother with so much when only a minuscule fraction will be applicable?  Why amass what is basically trivia when there are so many other knowledge that are more useful and beneficial?  Remembering so much useless information only takes up valuable memory storage that can be used to keep more relevant and worthwhile stuff.

TaN: What is transpiring with all the paranoia on terrorism and its threats is that we keep focusing on the outcomes or manifestations and not on the cause.  The first thing is to answer the question: Why is a particular person a terrorist?  What is his/her reason or motive behind becoming a terrorist?

Frequently, the answer to those questions is the continued and persistent and constant — and may even be increased or scaled up — injustice by the perpetrators in order to stay in power and control over the lives of everybody (else).

The history of (global) terrorism stems from the injustices suffered by certain sectors of society who have been disenfranchised and marginalized by the privileged who intends to maintain and even broaden the status quoi.e., their privileged and affluent lifestyle.

With terrorism, especially it being commonly associated with Muslims, is that the global power elite needs a scapegoat and what better than Islamists who have been demonized for a long time now. Muslims have been the underdog and favorite whipping post for centuries — from the crusades (or even before then) until today.

In fact, this is the latest issue in the United States of America with Mr Trump’s policy on travel in and out of the country which discriminates heavily and unjustly on nations that are predominantly Muslim even if the said country is not usually associated with terrorism.  Furthermore, it likewise does not necessarily mean that there will not be terrorist from non-Muslim-majority countries.

In addition, it has long been known but intentionally ignored or considered as a non-issue that most of the terrorists responsible for the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center attack in New York City were Saudi nationals and yet Mr Trump is very chummy with the Saudi royalty — or at least that is what the media has been portraying all this time.  It would appear that money and oil speak louder than terrorism or any other thing for that matter.

I guess Muslims are the favorite whipping boys of the global power elite.  And they have (read: own) the dominant mass media to assist them and ensure that Muslims are demonized constantly.  But the bigger problem is that there are Muslims (and Muslim sympathizers) who react as expected, playing right into the hands of the global power elite.

The proper way to deal with terrorists is to find out what made them terrorists — i.e., low-level, middle-level, and high-level frequently have varying and different reasons — what made terrorists become terrorists.

Unless they are plain and simple anarchists, people, even terrorists, always have a reason for doing anything.  Currently, the predominant mindset (of authorities, especially the security forces like the military, police, and intelligence agencies) is to just keep killing terrorists as they pop up — as if the technique is making any headway.

It is very tempting — partly because it is the easiest way that people can think of — to focus on and address the symptoms of problems and issues instead of the (original) cause.  Getting to the root of the problem takes time and lots of efforts but it is the only way to a lasting solution and resolution.

So, the only correct way to combat terrorists is to determine why they became so in the first place.  Problematic people always have a motivation for their being so. In fact, there is always a reason for everything and anything we do or decide — we eat because we are hungry; we sleep because we are tired; we bathe because we are dirty or feel hot; we laugh because something amuses us; all activities are driven by a reason (and for a particular purpose).

Once addressed, terrorists will no longer have any reason or excuse to continue being terrorists — unless they were not (completely) truthful or honest with their reason.  There is always the possibility that there was dishonesty or did not explain their reason clearly.  In this case, it would only mean that, deep down, they want to be terrorists and will not be truthful as to the reason why.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Jul 30-Aug 5 2017

TaN (update): Today (Aug 1 for me), on (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: [1] Transgenderism will be a humongous aspect in spreading confusion (and fake news or dis-information) and [2] 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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment