Illinois Shooter

Whenever I read about shootings like the one that occurred today at Northern Illinois University, I feel somewhat interested that the first thing the media does is look for those convenient "reg flags" that identify people as potential gunmen. Sure, being uneducated, from a poor family, of a minority, of poor mental health, and having unconventional views might be the traits of some shooters, but I feel as though this focus of the media on these kinds of issues is a poor focus.

Everyone is capable of murder; and while finding a factor to rationalize why such a "good student" would commit such a "heinous act" is important, I think the media is only trying to find ways to hype up the news.

Everyone has their good qualities. So when the media bemoans on how a smart students could fall to the dark side, I simply scoff. I think that smarter people are more likely to be radical agents anyway. The question is not one of how someone with good qualities could kill others. It's not how such a "quiet" or "smart" or "shy" or whatever person did it; it's why they were pushed into doing the action.

When the media's angle shifts from trying to find the true cause of the action to trying to garner reader attention and shock by juxtaposing the shooters personal attributes to the atrocity of the crime, they create sensationalism by creating an obvious disparity between the two- but answer no substantiative answers.

Thank you, media.

Economic stimulus plan.

George Bernard Shaw once wittily quipped that "if you took all the economists in the world and laid them end to end, they would still not reach a conclusion." Fortunately for us, there is one issue for which this quote does not apply. According to the Associated Press of February 4, 2008, an economic aid plan to send rebates of $600-$1,200 to most American taxpayers passed in both the House and Senate. Now, all the remains is for both legislatures to kink out the differences between the two versions of the bill and put the law into effect. At a time when the Federal Reserve has reduced the interest rate by three times within the past two months and the stock market has now been classified as a "bear market," meaning a twenty percent fall in value from its last peak, and the economy of the United States is officially entering into a recession, the government's fiscal aid plan is welcome news to all. Nevertheless, will this plan succeed? I would answer no.

First, the economic aid package's indirect nature makes it ineffective at stimulating the economy. As Daniel Deneen of the Bloomington wrote on February 3, 2008, an economic stimulus plan in the form of tax rebates is indirect at best. The government's expectation that American's will spend the money on Americans goods and thus stimulate the economy is flawed because it does not necessarily ensure that goal. The Business Week of the same date also notes that Americans tend to save in times of economic hardship. However, this trend is the exact opposite of what is needed to get the economy back and running. Furthermore, even if Americans spend them money saved from the tax rebates, there is no guarantee that that money will be retained by American companies. The Pantagraph believes that "the majority of the funds will probably end up being spent on electronic goods from Asia, oil from the Mideast or Venezuela, the lottery, riverboats or exorbitant charge card interest and fees." The only way for the government to truly stimulate the economy is for the government to pass a "New Deal"-like bill, to directly pump money into the American economy. Thus, the current stimulus bill fails because it does not directly ensure that it will stimulate our economy.

Second, the stimulus plan will not fix the economy because it is only a temporary fix to a problem that needs a permanent fix. As the Economist of February 3, 2008 notes, the current recession and economic crisis America is facing primarily stems from the credit crunch. The only real way, the magazine argues, to solve the economic problem we are facing is not to pass temporary measures, but to target the structural deficiencies in the market. The Forbes of February 5, 2008 reports that current Secretary of the Treasury, Henry M. Paulson said while a stimulus bill might be a temporary solution, it does not provide a real solution: "My apprehension is that with unemployment at 4.9 pct, to extend benefits would be unprecedented and would send a message to the world that I think would be the wrong message." Furthermore, Paulson claims that simply giving off tax rebates and other forms of savings to Americans will only make them dependant on government funds and the economy will continue "to worsen to the point that it stops growing and the problem becomes more severe."

Which leads me to my third point, this bill could potentially worsen the current economic situation of America. As previously mentioned, the root of the problem is too much credit. However, part of the economic stimulus package increases to the maximum loan limit eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to $729,750. While the point of this section is to encourage businesses to invest money easily, it ignores the root of the problem. Thus, the seed for another credit crunch has been replanted by this economic stimulus package. Investor Morgan Housel of the Motley Fool wrote on February 5, 2008, "The reason we're in this mess has nothing to do with consumers not spending enough money. If anything, it's that we spend far too much money and finance it with fictitious real estate valuations." The problem, thus, with this economic stimulus package is that it could potentially worsen the economy is another credit crunch is allowed to manifest.

On your marks, get set, Go!

Joe Klein's most recent article in the Time magazine, named "How Hillary Learned to Trust Herself," deserves props. I am glad he is apologizing on the media's behalf for their savage media coverage of Hillary Clinton.

He is right, the media has exaggerated on her emotional states and exploited her to heighten reader sensationalism: "But we in the press have to be smarter too. We were wildly stupid in the days before the New Hampshire primary, citing Clinton meltdown after Clinton meltdown — the tears, the flash of anger in the debate — that never really happened. We really need to calm down, become more spin-resistant, even if our sleep-deprived sources tend to overreact to every slip and poll dip in the campaign. If we are lucky, this will be a long and complicated race — which is exactly what this country deserves right now — and we need to watch it with our very best, most patient eyes, just as the public seems to be doing."

Thank you Mr. Klein for that excellent article, even if you don't completely support her, but still recognize what the savagely wrong nature of media coverage of the elections.

Another article in the same January 21, 2008 edition of Time I read even took this further to state that the media, "fourth branch," was the loser of the elections and the common people were the winners because the voters ignored the "pompous punditry" of the media who claimed Hillary was finished and voted on their own beliefs.

Yes America. It's time for us to get our own opinions. The media should be giving us news. It's called news for a reason. While I love good analysis, I don't want to know a future that only materializes because of a self-fulfilling nature crated by apathetic and ignorant population who takes what the media says as the golden truth.

Thank you America. It's time for a real race.

Kuomintang's landslide victory in Taiwan

It was predicted by political analysts that the Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party, in Taiwan would do well in the January 13, 2008 parliamentary elections over the incumbent party, the Democratic Progressive Party. However, the landslide victory with which the Kuomintang won astounded even most liberal forecasters. According to the National Post, the Kuomintang won almost 75% of seats in the 113-member body, compared with only 27 for the Democratic Progressive Party. As a result of this shocking political defeat to the Democratic Progressive Party, the current president of Taiwain, Chen Shui-Bian, has resigned as the head of the Democratic Party; however, he will still carry out the remainder of his term as president. There are three primary reasons why the Kuomintang did so well.

First, one reason why the Kuomintang did so well was because of Taiwanese people believe that the Democratic Progressive Party has lost touch with the people of the island. According to the Asia Times of January 15, 2008, many Taiwanese felt that that Democratic Progressive Party no longer served the needs of the people. The New York Times of January 14, 2008 attributes this feeling of discontentment partially to the corruption scandals involving President Chen-Shui-bian and his advisors. Furthermore, the Financial Times of January 15, 2008 adds that many Taiwanese people felt that the very campaign strategies of the Democratic Progressive party showed that it had lost touch with the people. The Democratic Progressive Party’s strategy worked in the 2004 presidential election when Chen Shui-Bian attacked the Kuomintang as a Chinese puppet and to rally for more moves towards eventual Taiwanese independence. However, it did not work this time because most voters felt that there were more important issues to address. In an interview with the Financial Times, Sandy Chow, a Taipei student, stated "I need to worry about whether I will find a job after I graduate. I really do [love Taiwan], and of course Taiwan must be independent but, meanwhile, let's move on and get some work done." In fact, Hsu Yung-ming, a professor of political science at Soochow University, stated that the election results reflect the fact that "the DPP [is] losing touch with the voters". Although the Kuomintang has not held majority power in the parliament for eight years, many Taiwanese in this election voted for the Kuomintang because of its appeal to the “common man.”

Second, the economic policies of the Democratic Progressive Party have upset the Taiwanese. A major reason why many Taiwanese voted against the Democratic Progressive Party in this election is because of the failing economy. Although Taiwan’s economy is growing, it is much slower than was previously expected. Part of this reason, as the Houston Chronicle of January 14, 2008 reports is that current president Chen limited “the size and type of Taiwanese investments on the mainland” and reduced trade between Taiwan and China by preventing direct trade between the two. As of right now, China and Taiwan can only trade through intermediaries, like Hong Kong or the likewise. As a result, economic growth has slowed down under Mr. Chen’s rule, which many voters link to the Democratic Party’s unfavorable economic policies. The Houston Chronicle further elaborates that “Taiwan's economic growth averaged 3.8 percent annually during Chen's years in office… The rate [for the past decade]… was 6.5 percent.” The Kuomintang is an exact opposite to this policy. The Kuomintang wants to reopen direct trade between the two countries and reverse the economic policies of the Democratic Progressive Party. Therefore, another major reason why the Kuomintang won was because of the Democratic Progressive Party’s unfavorable economic policies.

Lastly and perhaps more importantly, Taiwan wants to make reconciliatory moves towards mainland China. The main stance that separates the Democratic Progressive Party and the Kuomintang is their stances towards mainland China. The Democratic Progressive Party favors independence whereas the Kuomintang, according to the National Post of January 15, 2008, supports “close economic and cultural ties with China and [is] not ruling out eventual reunification.” Many people voted in favor of the Kuomintang because they want to see better ties with China, especially since China has a booming economy. It is clear that the issue of China is big because immediately after Chen Shui-bian resigned, the new leader of the Democratic Progressive Party, Frank Hsieh, even conceded to tone down his anti-China stance and promised to be less confrontational to China to try to appeal to voters. Jing-dong Yuan of the Monterey Institute of International Studies noted that the results of the Taiwanese parliamentary elections indicate that "after 60 years of hostility and alienation, a new era of reconciliation and rapprochement between the mainland and Taiwan may be in the offing;" and this peace is exactly what the Taiwanese want and have voted for in this past election.

5433 Hits!

I wanted to thank everyone who takes their time to actually read this blog.

Apparently, I currently have 5433 visitors total come to this blog. I wonder how many of those are me just constantly checking out my site though...

The Minx Mandate + I'm In your Manger Killing Your Savior

Perhaps the best online comedy clip for transhumanist nerds... since... ever.




Speaking of which... another nerd video I have been itching to share.... (more for RPG'ers though)

Response to Brint Montgomery's Transhumanism and the so-called "future good" of humanity.

Bravo to this article: Brint Montgomery's Transhumanism and the so-called "future good" of humanity

Brilliant point about the so called "paradox" of transhumanism.

If I gathered so correctly, here is the basic premise Mr. Montgomery is making. Human morality is not relative; however, the values that the human race embraces as an ethics system at any given time is subject to change, and therefore relative. Our values that compose the ethics system we abide by are subject to biological constraints to environmental constraints. As a result, as the human species continues to exist, values may change based on present conditions.

Therefore, what may be considered good, or moral today may not be so within 100 years. Thus, transhumanists are faced with a problem. What if what transhumanists deemed a moral imperative- the modification, enhancement, and growth of human beings into something greater- is seen as bad, or evil to the post humans created by the transhumanists now.

This is clearly a problem because the transhumanist would have created a self-destructive transhuman (or at least self-hating).


Let's go back to the part where we assume that "This is clearly a problem because the transhumanist would have created a self-destructive transhuman." This statement is a paradox in a paradox. Is it really a problem that we've created a self-destructive transhuman? Based on our current ethics system yes, a contradiction of a moral system, even if its a moral system that will be used in the future, is considered bad. But...is what we define a good and bad subject to change? Yes it is. So, it could very well be that it is "good " to have a self-destructive transhuman or good that the value systems of the humans vs. the transhuman are different. The point is that even though moral values may change, we don't know what impact it will ultimately have on a posthuman entity.

It should be important to note that many transhumanist believe in a morally superior posthuman, in addition to the other enhanced aspects of the posthuman; and therefore, a posthuman would have a moral system that is above that of the evolutionary and biological constraints of before. As such, it doesn't matter if the moral system clashes, the post human maintains its own. For example, Taiwan and China might have different political and moral systems (let's just pretend they do for the sake of argument), just because Taiwan branched off from China (like a posthuman will branch from humanity), does it matter that they have different moral systems? Not really, they both function independent of each other.


By the way, when I read this blog, I thought of Mary Percy Shelly's Frankenstein. The monster created by Frankenstein clearly was greater than human, being able to posses great intelligence, reasoning, and strength, but hated its existence. It was consumed by its self-destructive nature because what Frankenstein deemed good at first, the monster detested later. The monster loathed its creation and as a result, only destruction follows. Whooo, tangent.

Now, this is the not the best example of what Mr. Montgomery is trying to describe; nevertheless, it still touches on the important fact that transhumanists really have no clue how to be transhuman.

So I take from this blog article the important point that transhumanism is really a hit and miss philosophy. We are trying to philosophize on something that is not constant and bound to change. We are blindly trying to predict the future without even knowing the future.


In my opinion, a huge flaw within the thinking of many transhumanists is that they believe there is only one ultimate path to be transhuman. Unknown, but predefined. However, I hold that being transhuman is a umbrella term for varying human modifications and enhancements. Maybe all of these different transhuman will merge into one superior posthuman, but there is no one way to be transhuman- and if there is, there is no way in hell we know what that is.