Just recently, our company filed a petition to the court to convert its trust fund into mutual fund. To put it simply, if ever the court will approve the petition, the policy contracts of the planholders will be exchanged into mutual share, wherein they will end up with certificates of a mutual fund. The plan therefore of the company is to visit our branches and explain to our planholders.

Being one of the officers of our company, I am tasked to visit at least two of our branches and explain the “mutualization plan.”

This puts me in a dilemma.

As an individual, I am not in total agreement to the management plan. I believe, for lack of a better word, that the planholders are “short-changed.” That in filing for such a petition, the company is reneging on its contract. Personally, I believe that this is a one-way decision. The argument of pre-need companies is that the SEC did not consult them in its implementation of the Actuarial Reserve Liability (ARL). However, the pre-need companies are acting in the same manner by implementing decisions which did not consult the planholders.

As an officer and an employee, I do not question the management’s decision in its court petition. It is a business establishment, and must do everything in its power to survive the business. The board of directors are also saying that the welfare of the planholders is the company’s priority. Thus, a decision must be made that will strike a balance between the company’s survival and the planholder’s welfare. But is there such a thing?

I mentioned to my boss my hesitancy to travel. He replied that he will not make me do things that is against my will. In end up going after all.

Should I disobey my duties if it goes against my principle? If I do so, should I resign from my job and face the possibility of being jobless for how many months? Or should I just ignore my principles, face the planholders and explain to them something which even I don’t agree with?

In the news, the headline reads “Papal Nuncio hails RP abolition of death penalty.”

The news writes “PAPAL Nuncio Fernando Filoni has hailed the abolition of the death penalty law by Congress, saying this reflects the government's respect for life.”

If abolition of death penalty means respect for life, what does it say to those whose lives were not respected by such offenders? Where does one draw the line between being humane and being just?

Below are excerpts from two US Supreme Court Justices Harry A. Blackmun and Antonin Scalia. Blackmun begins his opinion with a description of how death penalty is administered:

"Bruce Edwin Callins will be executed by the state of Texas. Intravenous tubes attached to his arms will carry the instrument of death, a toxic fluid designed specifically for the purpose of killing human beings. The witnesses...will behold Callins...strapped to a gurney, seconds away from extinction. Within days, or perhaps hours, the memory of Callins will begin to fade. The wheels of justice will churn again, and somewhere, another jury or another judge will have the...task of determining whether some human being is to live or die."

Scalia replies with a description of the murders committed:

"Justice Blackmun begins his statement by describing with poignancy the death of a convicted murderer by lethal injection. He chooses, as the case in which to make that statement, one of the less brutal of the murders that regularly come before us, the murder of a man ripped by a bullet suddenly and unexpectedly, with no opportunity to prepare himself and his affairs, and left to bleed to death on the floor of a tavern. The death-by-injection which Justice Blackmun describes looks pretty desirable next to that. It looks even better next to some of the other cases currently before us, which Justice Blackmun did not select as the vehicle for his announcement that the death penalty is always unconstitutional, for example, the case of the 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat. How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!"

We live in a world where values are warped.

Note: check out Angel on DeathRow, a documentary of Frontline, the (PBS) Public Broadcasting Service's flagship public affairs series.

Irregardless. I often get uneasy whenever I hear this word. The word “irregardless” is redundant. The negative prefix “ir” and the negative suffix “less” makes it a “double negative.”

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Edition reads:

Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir– prefix and –less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

This verse in the book of John is perhaps one of the most quoted and most popular verses in the Bible. The belief that the Christian God so much loved his created being, that he gave his only son in order for them not to perish. I realized however that there seems to be something wrong with this verse. But before analyzing the details of the verse, consider the following first:
First, God is acknowledged by Christians, without a doubt, as the Creator.
Second, God, as Christians put it, is both omnipotent, meaning having virtually unlimited authority or influence and omniscient, meaning all knowing.

Now, here’s my argument:

First, If God is the Creator, and he is omnipotent and omniscient, why would he create something which is bound to perish? Surely he could have done some remedy or perhaps foreseen such "disaster” to happen.

Second, If God is truly just, then why is there a condition that only those who believes in his only begotten shall not perish but have eternal life? Surely, one will contend that the justice of God is different from man’s definition or sense of justice, and that man should not question God, and that it is upon his pleasure that he does such. But then again, isn’t it pathetic for a creator to subject his creation to a conditional salvation? It is somewhat similar to a child playing with his toys. This will lead me to the predestination of man. That man is either destined, or appointed to salvation or perdition. If that is the case, then whatever man does, in no means can he redirect his appointed destiny. If that is so, he is either destined to believe, or destined not to. Thus, God has already decided for his creation in advance, and man has no control over this decision. He is either created to believe or he is created not to.

Quite pleasurable then huh?

Again, I would say, that the belief in God is not a logical one. For no amount of reason can explain or satisfy such a belief in God. Thus, belief in God requires faith, and faith alone.

“Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.” – Epicurus

I somehow tend to agree with Epicurus in my view of death. We shall never know death while we are alive. And once we experience death, our life ceases. Is there a certain period, where life and death meet? Is it not a fact that when you are alive, you are alive, and when you are dead, you are dead? Is there such a thing as being half alive and half dead. Even those who are in a state of comatose should still be considered alive, be it that their life is resuscitated by artificial life support system.

Because we have no knowledge of what happens after this life, there should be no fear of death then. On the other hand, does it then mean that we should live an immoral life because we have no knowledge of death? Perhaps not, The issue of morality however does not lie primarily on one’s view of life or death for that matter.

Is this then the only life we live? I’m not sure. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But if in case that this is the only life we live, wouldn’t this view lead us to appreciate life even more? To cling to it very dearly, and to love every second of it?