Way before his death, savant Carl Sagan wrote this eerie prediction.
“Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."
The US today as forecasted by Carl Sagan above.
1. "Becomes a service and information economy."
(Google, Instagram, Facebook, etc. are now the biggest and most powerful entities.)
2. "Nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries."
(Steel, shipbuilding, consumer appliances, vehicles, etc. are now essentially manufactured abroad, like in China.)
3. "Awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few."
(Like Google, Facebook, Instagram, they now are able to manipulate and sway elections and laws in manners not witnessed before.)
4. "No one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues."
(Listen to the politicians, the biased media, the deep state operatives from the different bureaucracies, the military top brass, etc., they could not be seen as divorced from their assigned goals as they are today.)
5. "The people losing the ability to set their own agendas, or knowledgeably question those in authority."
(Watch how from the president down they have completely forgotten why they are holding their exalted positions and who put them there. All this aided by media and academia. thus, we have mandates galore and an administration essentially avoiding dialogue with its constituents.)
6. Many people unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true.
(Wokeness and cancel culture persist and gain grounds, again aided and assisted by media, academia, big business, etc.)
0000000000000000000000
Marking a milestone!
Time is a Man-made Construct
God is eternal. Man is immortal. And yes, a regular year is 365 days, a day of 24 hours, the hour of 60 minutes.
All part of accepted conventional wisdom, which upon closer scrutiny cannot rest on the bedrock of credibility. This is so because our narrative of time is anchored on a false premise. For us, temporal time is our own construct of measurement. It is nothing more than a marking of the movements of heavenly bodies against the vastness and inky darkness of an unknown universe. Thus, a day is nothing more than the measurement of the earth making a complete turn on its axis; while the year of the earth’s travel around our sun.
It appears logical until we run head on against the concept of our Creator, who exists apart and separate from time, our concept of time. He is not just simply eternal, He simply is!
Being such, everything He does or touches also exists apart and separate from any temporary constructs man has initiated and implemented.
When sentient man enters into an act, a promise, or a commitment that transcends the temporal, it is timeless!
Our earth-bound measurement of time becomes meaningless.
00000000000000000
Here is a thoughtful topic on elections in general. If you ask the “experts” they would undoubtedly come up with these premises and rationale.
If the contest is between an incumbent and a newcomer, typically the contest will be a referendum of the incumbent and his record of accomplishments. So votes cast will be either for or against the incumbent, based on his record. The against votes would be popularly referred to as protest votes.
However, if the contest is between two newcomers to the position, meaning neither one is incumbent, then the contest will be decided on who voters believe can better serve or is a better fit for the position being vied for.
If one turns to the experts again, they would readily qualify that those above-described premises are not always so. There will be times when both contestants having been so exposed publicly whether in public service or in the private sector, that both their records of accomplishments could become critical measures to determine their viability and electability. Thus the election would not necessarily be a referendum of the incumbent but a contest of electability based on records of both.
Thus in prognosticating, we assume (to a degree) voters decide like text-book voters, that is, they base their decisions on which candidate is a better fit for the position, which we would agree is for public service and the pursuit of the common good. Rather than based on personalities, level of erudition and/or eloquence, or even likability, etc.
But all could agree that it is doubtful in reality that voters are beyond not consulting and/or relying on the latter criteria. Man is such an emotional creature that it is difficult for him to thoroughly divest himself of those when making choices.
Still, it is good to know not only where candidates are coming from, but also the voters who decide on who wins.
I myself will put on my thinking cap and start the mental exercise on the real election events unfolding.
0000000000000000000000000
Just discovered another ugly wrinkle that surfaced in today’s chaotic world.
Unless it is self-evident or previously expressed, it is not right to impugn the character of another person because of probable or possible motives/intentions that that person may have against another.
It is not only outright baseless but irrational to do so. It could then also possibly mean that there is some projection involved in making that judgment.
Judge a person on what he has actually done and what he has expressly said as his motive for doing so. If not, it is considered prudent to withhold judgment.
But the following is an example where motives/intentions are not just express but written and thus not imprudent to cast judgment on those involved:
https://www.youtube.com/post/Ugy8TgcAQ9_gEgUi6ux4AaABCQ
00000000000000000000
Be careful what you all wish for, they could all come true.
When Duterte won, I grudgingly had a wish that was both all-encompassing and straight-forward.
Given and based on all that he had represented and personified, my wish was that he would “upset” all the traditional values and traditions that we had accumulated over the years as a nation and people living free from any foreign domination. Since I had concluded that those had gotten us nowhere.
So that every time he would be required to think, say, and act as expected by his high office, he would set aside the protocols and promulgate his own based on values he had acquired not only for being part of the common man but more importantly because he self-identifies with their plaints, plights, and hurts.
Remember it started with the manner of dress, the pomp and elegance of official gatherings, down to the elevation of the lowly “maruya” as part and parcel of official and stately repasts.
Now it has been a series of issues concerning foreigners or foreign countries and organizations. Before anything else, we shall pre-emptively declare that this cannot be stemming from any aversion or revulsion to anything foreign or extraneous. Remember his marriage was that to a foreigner.
Anyway, now his detractors are steaming hot on the collar because of his strident and negative remarks about the US.
Reflexively, they point to the foreign aids and other giveaway goodies we might have to forget about because of this. Or all the negative financial repercussions this affront will engender. Like when he insulted the UN, immediately people started counting the coterie of assistance the country was receiving from that body, and the insinuation that the country may now have to kiss them goodbye. And this financial angle appears to be quite likely to come out immediately when something negative like this comes out of the office of the president.
But isn’t our mendicancy slip showing all over the place? As a country and as a people, is that what characterizes or is important to us? Again, where has all this gotten us? That ought to be the Square One that we always try to get back to.
For all his flaws and inability to amply verbalize his thoughts and ideas, I am thinking that in his jumbled rhetoric what he is trying to bring across is the good idea that at this point we should aim for something grander and harder. What about trying to wean ourselves from the good graces and benevolence of other countries, which appear to always look upon us by default as needing extra help just to stand on our own?
Maybe what he is conveying is that we try to cut that damned umbilical cord and go all out to better our future, over and above just simply surviving. To wean ourselves from foreign hands and crutches and lifting ourselves with our own bootstraps. Such a success ought to truly be meaningful and sustainable for us.
If so, then, hey, it is not such a bad idea.
00000000000000000000000000
He probably is the most unusual democratic president of all time (my time, at least). One so unwilling, so reluctant at first, giving all excuses both silly and understandable, to assume the formidable burden of a rugged campaign and now the intolerable rigors of the office.
The most consummate model of an outlier president any country could possibly enlist.
A solitary outsider, having only limited his political career to local governance in the most southern part of the country, away from notice and fame. A section of the country considerably isolated and different from the rest. And not desiring any or having no political alliances or dalliances with the rest of the country, showing great reservations and impatience in such methods of governance.
And now he holds the reins of government, being buffeted on all sides because of his coarse and uncharacteristic ways. Unfazed, he goes about parrying and deflecting blows, allowing those who understand him and his intentions to do battle for his avowed causes.
So now many of his detractors claim given the most recent developments in high echelons of government, that we now have a dictator reminiscent of the Marcos misrule, a ruler bent on dominating and singularly acting on his own lonesome to steer the entire country forward.
A dictator not ruling by force and duress, but by the trust and confidence his followers and believers invest in his rule?
Such a unique despot. Is this a fine sample of a benevolent tyrant?
Or maybe derisively, signs of mass hypnotism of a good part of the country?
0000000000000000000000000000000
