Saturday, September 15, 2012

Population and Contraceptives

And kung sino pang mahirap sila pa talaga.... tsk tsk tsk. nice one LIM
Like ·  ·  · Share · 4 hours ago
  • Matthew Daniel Torres Sendon Point is, the number of children in a family is not an issue if resources were sufficient. And one big reason why there is insufficiency is because of corruption. It affects the budget that will provide education, security, peace, and so on.
  • John Granada then dont rely on the government, just plan and do things the is best for your family, resources will always be uncertain, but what can be certain of is your decisions. lagi nalang blaming government tau eh, kaso kailan pa ba nakabuti yun, i say suck it up and do something about it yourself cause at the end of the day yourself is your worst enemy, if you think ahead and strategize about family and life then you should follow it. DISCIPLINE should be instilled among the Filipinos. BUT SADLY MANY OF US, referring to the vagrant community is uneducated about these things, and is very undisciplined!, also the contraceptives are preventive measure against the spread of STDs. also the poor community are aware that they are poor are they not???, that being said then they should limit themselves already to what they only sustain. also IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A COUNTRY WITHOUT POOR PEOPLE. REGARDLESS OF HISTORY and ETC.
  • John Granada also you are responsible for what actions you have done, not the government.
  • Matthew Daniel Torres Sendon To clarify the point, the reason why people are against the use of gov't-supported/funded contraceptives as 'a solution' to hardships experienced by, especially, the poor people, is because it is a morally-sensitive issue. And, if there are other ways to make life better than that, other purer ways (i.e. clean governance, effective government, etc.), then why not?

    Everyone will pay taxes for bills that are passed into law. Imagine having a law that some people are okay with, but to others are completely against their principles. Those that did not wish for that law to be put into law will suffer. It is not a win-win situation if the said bill is put into law. Even those who aren't the poor making lots o' kids; even those who live decently; even those who pay taxes decently. The cost is theirs to bear, and theirs is the heaviest. Imagine the logic of paying for something you don't want to buy. It's like being charged for a ring tone you didn't order, and especially that which you hate. And is it their fault that the bill is there? Why should they make that sacrifice?

    If however the bill was not put into law, no-one really loses. Status quo, you can say. But the point is, and the argument to not push a law that people are against is that there are other means to achieve goals. Instead of investing money (we are actually talking 'money' here), why not invest more on infrastructure? On agriculture? On national defense? Etc.?

    The aim of the bill is to 'make life better', isn't it? But there are many ways to it. If you had to only choose one way to get there, which would you choose? As the moral maxim goes, "the end does not justify the means." Speaking of morals, it seems like people are willing to bypass or minimize/modify their morality nowadays. But oh well, times are indeed changing. We are getting worse (mankind, that is).

    Also should we not blame the gov't but blame the poor? Lemme share a saying from C.S. Lewis:

    "See the bear in his own den before you judge."
    See the bear in his own den before you judge of his conditions.
  • Matthew Daniel Torres Sendon Is a big population, in essence, really a bad thing? Think about it. What makes a big population really bad? Is it because of the number? The size? Nope. The only thing that makes it 'look' bad is resources. We are pointing our fingers to the wrong ones.

    Compare the two scenarios:

    1. A family of 8 children with enough money.
    2. A family of 8 children with no money.

    We clearly see the bias/discrimination here. Does money guarantee you the right to bear children? Is it a privilege of the rich? Nope. The rich does not have more right to bear more children than the poor. And the rich shouldn't dictate to the poor that they should bear less children because they don't have money. Also, the rich should not blame the poor for the evils in society, because they bear a lot of kids.

    The only real difference, and the factors that makes it 'bad' are the following (the way I see it):
    - education
    - resources
    - support
    - culture

    Conclusion is, the population is not the problem. It's the system. And by system, I mean it's the way we think. We are to blame for this all. We have the wrong mindset on population.
  • Matthew Daniel Torres Sendon Do we really have solid evidence that a big population is a bad thing? Last time I've heard the news, coming from the mouth of the Finance Secretary, he's got a positive comment on the pop'n of the Phils since the working age is quite young (ave. of 22) in a few/several years projection. He said it was a good thing, and the way he said it was not even morally-based, but statistics based.

    Look at the country who have pop'n control laws (excuse my rough representation of information):

    *Russia - the age-proportion of their pop'n is an inverted pyramid. There are a lot of old-aged people vs. young people.

    *China - they force abortion due to the one-child policy.

Sunday, September 9, 2012

My sentiments about Jesse Robredo's untimely demise.

Unresolved. This is what it is. Jesse Robredo's death remains a mystery. We are not stupid. You don't just die from a plane crash without any reason aside from engine failure. Where is the investigation at right now?

I think all those awards, honours, and what not given to Jesse Robredo were all a show. These are not enough to ease from the loss we had when our dear Jesse died. If the dead could speak, I bet Jesse would say that he'd be pleased, and his death not a waste, if what he started in the local government reform was continued.

About the government, what are you doing right now? P-Noy? You could have focused more on figuring out what had happened (unless you already know), instead of showed us some grandeur on TV like when Cory Aquino died from some cancer (a lot of people die of the same disease, even worse, but don't get that much attention). Attention does not solve anything. All those fancies are worthless. They don't change a thing. I would have appreciated it and would genuinely say that I see the government is really doing something if, instead for a grand ceremony for my modern-day hero Jesse Robredo, I see some real investigation, some real concern, some real effort to find out why things happened, why our Jesse died. Yeah I appreciate that grand stuff, but it's not supposed to close the curtains on what's happening. Gov't, I'm not saying you're evil or what, but there are two types of sins: one if you do something evil (commission), and the other is when you don't do something that you should have done (omission).

I don't know about this traditional politician Mar Roxas, but he's nothing like Jesse Robredo. This Mar Roxas goon is all about the position, about the elections, about climbing the political ladder. I hope that you do your job well, or at least even match what Jesse has done. We don't need another pretty politician face in that, not that you have one. We don't need another personality who looks good on screen. We don't need someone who waves confidently on camera, and flashes a smile when on the microphone.

On a final note, I just want to inspire a response from anyone who would be reading this. You may have your own thoughts on his death, speak up. Here's a report about Jesse's last actions before he died:

"Robredo confronted head of anti-illegal logging task force, Paje says "


Real Freedom.

I've always reflected on the real meaning of freedom, and I even sometimes doubt rules (although I follow them). I am sometimes confused, and I do doubt myself sometimes whenever I preach that rules and freedom are not mutually exclusive. But it's just really refreshing to read the below article regarding freedom. It speaks so much truth about freedom, and the illustration on freedom and rules blending well together just shows what it really means to be 'free'.
"Most people in our post-modern society are crying freedom from rules and regulations. Surely freedom means that you can do what you want, doesn’t it?
"By way of illustration, picture this scene: a high speed train is hurtling along its tracks towards its destination. Now imagine the same train leaping off its tracks, crying freedom and running across open fields, completely out of control. Which of these scenarios is a true picture of freedom? The train running smoothly along its tracks as it was designed to, or the train hurtling out of control, throwing passengers out, killing and destroying right across the field? If a train leaps its tracks, it’s not free – it’s dangerous.
"To use another illustration, imagine you go out to a concert one evening to hear a solo pianist perform. You are expecting to hear some relaxing classical music or perhaps some jazz, but the pianist announces that he is a “free” musician and is going to play some of his own compositions. Being a “free” musician means that he doesn’t believe in or follow any of the conventional rules of music – he just plays a random, discordant and unrelated series of notes and chords. How many of us could listen to that for any length of time? Maybe you would you like to go to such a concert – but that’s just the novelty element!
"A train off-track, picture of real freedom?
"The fact is, all good music is expressed within the framework of a set of rules which are interpreted in various creative ways. Even a genre such as jazz, which many consider to be very “free” in its expression, has certain rules that govern it. A jazz pianist will drop the root note of his chords and “colour” them by sharpening or flattening notes in the middle – to put it roughly! But he is still moving within predefined boundaries to express subtle nuances of sound."
Read more:

So, to conclude, freedom and rules are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary. :-)