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.

Irked by media coverage of the elections

Media coverage of the 2008 elections are seriously flawed.

My main issues with the coverage are these:

1. What happened to the other candidates? After the Iowa Caucus, the only news I can find are on Romney, Huckabee, Clinton, and Obama. What ever happened to the other candidates? Let us not forget that Richardson is still a candidate (even if he might not win). And what about Edwards? HE only won second at Iowa. What about McCain and Guliani? There are not too many articles on them as well. And how about Mr. Libertarian as Republican Ron Paul? The disproportionate coverage on the elections is extremely disturbing and skews bias as well as reader knowledge of the elections.

2. Deceptive nature of media- The media can be a vicious hound dog in some instances. I find it highly annoying that articles like these exist. Watch the video for yourself, I do not sense anything wrong with her tone in that rebuttal. In fact, I found that there WAS much sense in that argument she was making. Obama is only riding on a word, change, and an empty paper trail. I understand the appeal he has as a "fresh page" in politics. But unfortunately, that kind of wide-eyed idealism doesn't usually work out too well in the real world. I'm not saying I hate Obama. I think he's a great candidate and has good stances. However, I find that when you boil it down, to a large degree, Clinton and Obama have similar stances (though Obama has more liberal economic policies). However, Obama does have some troublesome contradictions in his rhetoric- such as promoting bipartisanship but also the largest tax increase in a while- and doesn't have the experience and know-how like Clinton. Certainly, it doesn't mean that Obama can't do the job, but I'd rather be more conservative when it comes experience. Wooo, tangent.

3. Superficial nature of media coverage- when you look at the news articles around, most of them talk about matters like "Hilary making a last ditch attempt" or "Huckabee makes a surprise victory." Ok, that's important. But when every article I find is about the logistics of their strategy, the small, pithy issues surrounding their candidacy, and their bickering amongst each other, the media makes politics look like a insult-fest. What is more important is to actually consider what these candidates stand for. I would like to see the media continuously consider the politician's stances and write about the feasibility and effects of their policy. I would also like the media to give better coverage and break downs of the debates. I understand you can watch them. But seriously, who has the time to watch all of it? I would like the media to cover salient points, not over which candidate looks the angriest and thus deserves to lose or which looks the most "presidential" and thus deserves to win.

Thank god for blogs, where would the media be without people like us to give them real feedback.

Effects of Bhuttos' death

I previously blogged on the tragedy of Bhutto's death; now, it's time to consider the effect of her death on both Pakistan and US foreign policy.

First, the death of Benazir Bhutto has greatly weakened President Musharraf and his administration. According to the Forbes of January 4, 2008, the death of Bhutto has weakened Musharraf because many protesters in Pakistan have blamed him for her death. The Financial Times of January 4, 2008 reports that while the “Western media were virtually unanimous in blaming al-Qaeda for Bhutto's murder… Pakistan's protesters generally blame Musharraf.” The Associated Press quoted a Pakistani man in December 29, 2007 saying “I don't know who killed Benazir Bhutto. But I do know that it is the result of Musharraf's wrong and bad policies." While some Pakistanis believe in a conspiracy by Musharraf to have Bhutto killed, most Pakistanis blame Musharraf for not providing her enough state protection. In fact, in the initial days of the assassination riots broke out throughout Pakistan in outrage. The Associated Press of the same date notes that in three days, protests have left “more than 40 dead and tens of millions of dollars in damage.” These riots are another reason that Musharraf’s government has been weakened. As a result of the increasingly unpopular status of Musharraf and the riots that broke out from the assassination, his administration has been severely weakened and his credibility reduced.

Second, Bhutto’s death in Pakistan has forced the United States to rethink its Pakistan policy. The New Statesman of January 3, 2007 reports that the United State’s policy in Pakistan was centrally based on their prediction that Bhutto would win the January 8 elections. However, with her death, the United States has been forced back to the drawing board. The SF Gate of January 5, 2008 states that the assassination of Bhutto has forced the United States to completely rethink its Pakistan policy. The Kansas City Star of January 4, 2008 notes that “the assassination of Benazir Bhutto killed the Bush administration’s last hope that President Pervez Musharraf could simultaneously defeat al-Qaida and the Taliban and return Pakistan to democratic rule.” The Philadelphia Inquirer of January 4, 2008 reports that the death of Bhutto has severely destabilized the region and allowed for terrorists to gain a stronghold in the country. Considering the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapon capabilities, it is crucial for the United States to think of a new plan to ensure peace and stability in the region.

Lastly, the assassination of Bhutto will hurt the economy of Pakistan. This is a less reported fact that still has an important bearing on the issue. According to the Australian Market of December 28, 2007, the death of Bhutto is a sign that Pakistan could be becoming more unstable and thus cause many investors to pull their money out of the region of fear that instability will hurt economic growth. This fear has already partly manifested in the riots of last week. Bryan Collings, a managing partner at an investing firm in Pakistan stated that "My main concern is direct investment in the area” because the “people in the Gulf who are putting money into this equity market will have to have a rethink." Perhaps even more damaging to Pakistan’s economy is the fact that the assassination could hurt the country's credit ratings as well. The Forbes of December 28, 2007 notes that the Standard & Poor's ratings director stated that this recent development in Pakistan potentially could result in the S&P reducing its grade for Pakistan’s sovereign credit rating. One of the major services that the S&P does is rate countries with a letter grade to determine how safe it is for an investor in invest in that particular country. Pakistan’s grade is already a B-; however, the death of Bhutto has caused concern in the S&P that the grade should be lower. A lower grade for Pakistan’s sovereign credit rating would mean reduced investor confidence in the investment environment of the country and thus further hurt Pakistan’s economy. Thus, Bhutto’s death will hurt Pakistan’s economy.