Word of the Day: USELESS

Two days ago, after much political maneuvering, the U.S. government was shut down.  Once again. 

This is not the first time a government shutdown has taken place.  The U.S. government has been shut down a total of eighteen times, including this shutdown, over the past thirty-seven years.  While polls, for what they're worth, show that most Americans blame the Republican party for the current shut down, it is easy to make an argument that such a move is usually mostly one or another party's fault.  Such an argument is easy and lazy.  Historically, it is a mixed bag.  Ten out of the eighteen times, the President has been a Republican, while Democrats have controlled the Congress half the time during shutdowns.

The first government shutdown was in 1976, during the Gerald Ford administration, and lasted ten days.  In the 1970's, the average length was around eleven days, with a total of six shutdowns.  In the 1980's, the average length was roughly two days, but the number of shutdowns increased to eight.  The 1990's saw only three shutdowns, but the average number of days went up to ten. 

The 1990's average is so high with the fewest number of shutdowns because that decade saw the longest government shutdown in history, three weeks, running from mid-December 1995 to early January 1996.  This number is often coupled with an earlier shutdown in mid-November 1995 that lasted for five days. 

The 2000's saw no government shutdowns, but the same is now no longer true for the 2010's.  The current shutdown is in day three as of this posting.

This shutdown is based on House Republicans wanting to attach a defunding or delaying of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) to a spending bill that would also raise the debt ceiling.  A short, pointed statement by President Obama on the afternoon of September 30 did nothing to stop the shutdown from happening at midnight that night.  A meeting at the White House yesterday between the President and congressional leaders to find a way to end the shutdown proved fruitless, with some news outlets saying it did nothing but cause both sides to dig their heels in deeper.  It is being reported today that President Obama issued a challenge of sorts to House Speaker John Boehner to allow a vote on an already-Senate-approved spending bill which has no strings attached to the Affordable Care Act.  My speculation is that Speaker Boehner will not bring the bill to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote.

If nothing is done soon, the benefits and government employee paychecks that are cut-off will be added to by Social Security benefits not being paid out as well as other services being stopped.  (Let's not forget that the Congress recently voted to cut billions of dollars from the food stamps program.)  With my mother on Social Security, living on a fixed income, I do not want to see that happen.  A CNN online article hihglights that members of Congress -- not their staffers, just members of Congress themselves -- still get paid, no matter what.
        "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives,
        shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
That is the 27th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and it means any change in congressional pay cannot happen until the mid-term elections in 2014. After that, it cannot happen again until the presidential election year of 2016.

Minnesota Representative Rick Nolan has introduced a bill in Congress which would stop congressional pay during the entire stretch of a government shutdown, calling for common sense to be used in governmental operations.  I think it is a great idea, but it cannot be implemented until at least next Fall at the mid-term elections.

Now that I have presented all this, let me get down to brass tacks.

As great of an idea Representative Nolan's bill is, do you think it has any chance of passing?  Seriously, do you?  Politicians agreeing to have their pay stopped?  Politicians willing to accept their "just desserts" and operate under the same standards as you or I do?  Politicians working around the clock to fix a manufactured crisis that they themselves manufactured?  I could say that I would believe it when I see it, but that seems pointless.  I doubt Representative Nolan's bill, or any bill similar to it, will get anywhere in Congress.  If it does, there will be so many additions, exceptions, loopholes, and conditions included within that it will be watered down from the get-go.

I ask you, is it a sensible expectation that those who hold the power to screw over the American public without any likely repercussions to themselves, other than possibly not getting re-elected, are completely willing to do the right thing all the time, or completely willing to admit they screwed up and to fix it, and completely willing to restore the integrity of government that government had generations ago?  My response is it is not a sensible expectation at all.

Again, for what polls are worth, the public's congressional approval rating is down to a pathetic 9-10%, depending on whose information you read.  Whether it is that low or even a little higher, it is clear that Americans hate Congress and it job it is isn't doing.  I cannot blame them; I wholeheartedly agree.

Are you as sick and tired of hearing terms like debt ceiling, fiscal cliff, sequester, defunding, and delaying, year after year, as I am?  They are nothing but advertising buzzwords for ideological squabbles and agenda advancements at the expense of the American.

This is the oath of office taken by U.S. senators and representatives: "I do solemnly swear/affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."  How does this shutdown support or defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies?  (Is President Obama the enemy or, more importantly, are the American people?)  Are we to assume that the shutdown is an example of discharging the duties of office well and faithfully?  (Are ideological battles and agenda advancements part of those duties?)  And they want God to help them benefit themselves while allowing Americans to suffer?  (What does that say about their religion and their personal religious beliefs?)

It is not hard to imagine those in politics for centuries have received perks that they should not have or that they have made deals to benefit themselves.  This is not to say doing that is okay, but it has been even more obvious for many years that the benefit of themselves, and their business interests, is standard operational procedure.  That increased obviousness has led to an increase in America's dissatisfaction and disillusionment with Congress.  It may or may not be hard to accept that those in power receive perks, but the willful intent to do so is not part of what those in Congress were voted in to do.  

However, I find it unacceptable to engage in obstructionism and see it as what those voted into office are supposed to do.  I find it unacceptable that a faction of one of the two political parties controls that entire party, and even steers the entire country directly toward actions like a government shutdown, is what those in office are supposed to do.  I find it unacceptable that those who can take paychecks and benefits, as well as access to public places and health care, away from both federal and non-federal employees suffer no consequences for their actions is the way that things are supposed to be.  And yet, these are the things that have been, and are, happening.

Therefore, Congress is useless.

Terry

Phrase of the Day: PLEA FOR CAUTION

[The following is the Op-Ed letter posted yesterday in The New York Times newspaper and on its website from Russian president Vladimir Putin.  What do you think?]

A Plea for Caution From Russia

What Putin Has to Say to American About Syria

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

Published September 11, 2013 

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders.  It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies. 

Relations between us have passed through different stages.  We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together.  The universal international organization -- the United Nations -- was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again. 

The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter.  The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades. 

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage.  This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization. 

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria's borders.  A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism.  It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa.  It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance. 

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country.  There are few champions of democracy in Syria.  But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government.  The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations.  This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world. 

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern.  Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria?  After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali.  This threatens us all. 

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future.  We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law.  We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos.  The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not.  Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council.  Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression. 

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria.  But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists.  Reports that militants are preparing another attack -- this time against Israel -- cannot be ignored. 

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States.  Is it in America’s long-term interest?  I doubt it.  Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan "you’re either with us or against us."

But force has proved ineffective and pointless.  Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw.  Libya is divided into tribes and clans.  In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes. 

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect. 

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security.  Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction.  This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you.  We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded. 

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement. 

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days.  The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction.  Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action. 

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria.  We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations. 

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust.  It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues. 

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust.  I appreciate this.  I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday.  And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional."  It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.  There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy.  Their policies differ, too.  We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.


Terry

Words of the Day: UNCONVINCED & OPPOSED

I have been watching with great interest for the past two weeks the developments in Syria.  I have also been watching with great interest the response by President Obama to those developments.  To say that he has been banging the war drums would be an understatement.

The premise is based on the following: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is alleged to have launched a chemical weapons strike on his own people on August 21.  This was the latest action by Assad's regime against his people as part of the Syrian civil war that has been going on since 2011.  The civil war broke out as a part of the Arab Spring, which began back in 2010.  The Syrian people want political reforms, reinstatement of civil rights, and greater freedom.  Assad and his representatives have been repeatedly stating publicly that the fighting between government forces and rebel forces is due to outside involvement.

After the August 21 attack, President Obama began to call for military action against Syria.  Not all U.S. politicians were convinced.  Not all world leaders were convinced, either.  In the ensuing two weeks since the attack, the rhetoric has been ratcheted up by President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, directed to U.S. politicians and world leaders.  President Obama drew a proverbial "red line" that Assad has crossed, only to later roll back that comment by saying, "The world set a red line."

President Obama's argument is partly on moral grounds.  (More on that later.)  He has stated that several nations agreed to find the use of chemical weapons as unacceptable under international agreement.  The result of the Chemical Weapons Convention was an arms control agreement, first drafted in September of 1992, signed into ratification in January of 1993, and took effect in April of 1997.  The agreement, in effect, outlawed the use of chemical weapons, as well as their production and stockpiling, in addition to regular monitoring and inspection of chemical plants and military bases.  To date, all but seven U.N. member states have signed the agreement.  Syria is one of the seven, along with Angola, Egypt, Israel, Myanmar, North Korea, and South Sudan.  

The rhetoric being used sounds very similar to that was used in the lead up to the Iraq War.  We are certain ... We have proof ... We are convinced . . .   Britain just released a report that said clothing and soil samples taken from a patient treated for apparent chemical weapons exposure last month near Damascus showed the presence of sarin gas.  Interesting about Britain, though, was a vote in British Parliament on August 29 that was against the use of military force in Syria. 

It seemed to many observers, as well as current Prime Minister James Cameron, that it was a foregone conclusion that Britain would stand side-by-side with the U.S. on this matter -- considering former Prime Minister Tony Blair's walking in lockstep with former President George W. Bush regarding Iraq -- but they did not.  (At least for now.)  France seems to be the closest ally to the U.S. on this matter.  (Considering the past historical relationship between France and the U.S. on matters of military engagement, this is quite the historical development, in and of itself.)  

The talk of coalitions has resurfaced.  It has been mentioned by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry that all of those who signed the Chemical Weapons Agreement are in opposition to Assad's actions in Syria.  Thus, they are part of a coalition.  If so many other countries and nation-states are against what's been happening in Syria, then why aren't any of them stepping out to the forefront on this matter?  It has been suggested that the U.S., being the superpower that it is, should take the lead.  Okay, fine.  The U.S. has taken the lead on this and, so far, no one is else, save for France, is jumping on the bandwagon.  So, where is the coalition?  If President is at the G-20 Summit in Russia attempting to drum up international support, then where is the coalition?  The pushback and lack of gung ho attitude in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives shows that Iraq is still fresh in peoples' minds.

Let me return to the idea mentioned earlier of attacking Syria as the morally correct thing to do.  That is a tricky argument, at best.  Yes, the use of chemical weapons is immoral.  No, it should not be treated with impunity.  Yes, the use of chemical weapons is an act of aggression, but so is the use of any weapons.  I do not find merit in the use of missiles fired by U.S. warships as a deterrent to the use of chemical weapons fired within Syria, since both are weapons of mass destruction.  Or do the American people think (or do our politicians want us to think) that only countries that are not our allies possess "weapons of mass destruction"?  Not to mention the civil war going on, and how likely we are to get embroiled in that, as well as the likelihood of Iran jumping into the fray.

I do not believe our military involvement is warranted here.  Something needs to be done, but not militarily.  To that end, let me posit the following scenario: (You can use 9/11 or the attack on Pearl Harbor for an example, if you wish, but I mean this in the broadest possible sense.)  We are attacked by another country's missiles.  Wouldn't a likely response be retribution?  Wouldn't we see that as an act of war against us?  Of course we would.  

If our government used chemical weapons against us and another country was thinking about bombing our country, albeit military and chemical locations, would we, the masses, see that as an act of war?  Some would; some would not.  (Depends on where the bombs and collateral damage end up.)  Would our government see it that way?  Of course it would.  

The point is not that President Obama is using chemical weapons against U.S. citizens, just as Syrian President Assad is doing against his people.  The point is that any government, attacking its citizens or not, is going to see this as an act of war.  Yes, they are 100% in the wrong and on the side of immorality in the Syrian government, but their government will still see it that way, just as our government would.  (In both cases of 9/11 and the attack on Pearl Harbor, the actions of Al-Qaeda and the Japanese were seen as acts of war.)

I am not siding with Assad.  The reality is that those doing such immoral atrocities don't want to be found out and attacked themselves, and those not doing such immoral atrocities have no reason to be attacked.

I have learned how our government got us into the Vietnam War, to my chagrin.  I saw how our country was viciously attacked on 9/11, to my chagrin.  I saw how our country destroyed the goodwill shown to it in the shadow of 9/11 by engaging in an ongoing "war" against an ideology, including the use of preemptive strikes, to my chagrin.  

If Syria has not attacked us and has not said (or it hasn't been discovered) that these attacks are a precursor to attacks on the U.S., then where is the imminent threat to the U.S. that could lead to a military response?  In short, a bombing campaign that sounds as though it might rival "shock and awe", even if intended for military and chemical locations, will have collateral damage.  There is no such thing as a "surgical strike"!  I am unconvinced to the merit of President Obama's argument, except to the military industrial complex.  (And even if Congress votes against action, the President is likely to proceed, anyway.)  Sadly, very sadly, Eisenhower remains 100% correct.

My plea is for restraint in the midst of this crisis.  We are becoming what we stood against for generations.  In addition to being seen as such, our military action will be an act of war.

Terry

Term of the Day: HATRED

Imagine being a grandmother who has her daughter's son over on mornings during the summer.  Your grandson is thirteen years old and is autistic.  One day, a letter arrives in the mail.  When you open it and read it, it is about your grandson.  The author has a problem with your grandson, but expresses this problem in more terms of flat-out hatred and heartlessness with a clear lack of understanding.

And this is how the letter reads:

In addition to being the grandmother, imagine being the child's parents and how you'd feel:

The author of this letter is clearly misinformed, overflowing with hatred, and empty on compassion.  How that person can feel comfortable to not only write the letter, but to actually send it is beyond my comprehension. I want to take some time with specific elements of this letter, although I will begin by saying the whole letter is nothing but hate speech.

"Discard the Defective Ones" Syndrome
(aka "Ew, They're Icky" Syndrome)
(aka "Human Race Purity" Syndrome)

The author herself clearly has an inability to deal with a child with autism being in her midst.  Although the term "dreadful" is used to describe the sounds that the boy makes, it would seem more likely that having someone who is not "normal" is what's dreadful to the author.  I would suggest the statement about how her "normal" children are scared is really camouflage for her own fear.  If her children are truly scared, a wonderful educational opportunity to overcome hatred exists, which the author is incapable and/or unwilling to pursue. 

The mentions of moving clearly translate to the author's lack of desire to confront her own feelings, and wanting the boy removed from the neighborhood as the solution.  The suggestion of euthanasia for the boy means, for the most part, his existence is wrong and ending his life is "the right thing".  (Anyone heard of racial cleansing?)

"Insults Equal Intelligence" Syndrome
(aka "Insults Equal Strength" Syndrome) 

One of the major rules of hatred and hate speech involves putting down your enemy/aggressor/problematic person(s) so that they seem less of a person than you, maybe even less human than you.  Thus, the use of such terms as "idiot", "dope", "retarded", and "wild animal", in addition to equating the boy to an animal (read as "sub-human") by suggesting letting him run around park trails and living "in a trailer in the woods" shows that the author believes these heartless insults are big enough and powerful enough to get this family to move.  It is similar to the propaganda put out during World War II by the Nazis equating Jewish people to rats.

"Permanency Should Result in Futility" Syndrome

I would say that this could be applicable to a terminally ill patient, qualities in a partner or spouse being intolerable and unchanging, or a supervisor treating someone unfairly on a regular basis.  In this instance, it is applicable only in the author's mind.  Addressing the boy's autism being a lifelong condition, the author is correct.  However, the author takes that truth and twists it into justifying an alleged uselessness of the boy, even adding "take whatever non retarded [sic] body parts he possesses and donate it to science".  Syntax error aside, the boy's condition is equated to the boy being no different than an old car that is only good culling spare parts. 

"Right is Wrong" Syndrome

The author questions, "What right do you have to do this to hard working people!!!!"  The family has every right to do what they need to do for their autistic son.  There is no right for them to do whatever to others, and it would appear they are not behaving that way.  Behaving perfectly within their rights is wrong in the author's eyes.

"There's More of Us Than You Think" Syndrome
(aka "You're Outnumbered" Syndrome)

More often than not, when someone makes a statement along the lines of more than me, I'm not the only one, we all, or all of us, or when they pat themselves on the back by saying no one else has the guts to say this, the odds are really good that they are the only one who feels that way.  If they are, in fact, not the only one who feels the same way, it is an even surer bet than it's neither "everyone" nor a majority.

"Correctness is Mine" Syndrome

The author clearly feels she is the only one who knows the correct way to handle this situation... which doesn't even need handling.  The example of this is the suggestion that the parents and grandmother "deal with it...properly!!!!"  I have two words to that point: They are!

"Cowardice is Conviction" Syndrome

Instead of the author providing her address or adding her name to the letter, she thinks the letter itself shows her conviction.  Notice that nowhere in the letter does the author state any fear of retribution.  In reality, the lack of any identifying information, aside from a concocted monicker, shows cowardice on the part of the author.

"I Know You Are But What Am I?" Syndrome

So, the grandmother -- which is where the boy stays on weekends during the summer -- is being selfish?  No, the author is! 


The police are searching for the author of this hate speech letter.  I do hope they find the person who wrote it.  When the identity of "One pissed off mother" is revealed, let's see that same bravado from her.  I doubt we will. 

Terry

Word of the Day: BORED

When I was bored during my teenage years, I did one of two things: either found something to do or simply dealt with being bored.  I wouldn't say that I was bored a lot of the time -- there were high school and college, as well as get-togethers with friends -- but I was bored more than a few times.  As a loner by nature, dealing with boredom from time to time was part of my maturation process.  I can say with absolute confidence that never, not once, did killing someone seem like a great idea to cure my boredom.  It wasn't even a bad idea.  It just wasn't an idea.

Georgia teens James Francis Edwards Jr., Chancey Allen Luna, and Michael Dewayne Jones did have the idea ... and a gun ... and they acted out their boredom-ending idea.  Last Friday, as he was out for a jog, Christopher Lane, a 22-year-old Australian college baseball player who was studying here, was gunned down by the youths.  (Edwards and Luna are being charged with murder; Jones is being charged with accessory to murder after the fact.  All three are being charged as adults.) 

Had Lane done something terrible to any one or all of the youths?  No.  Did the youths mistake him for someone else?  No.  Then what was the reason for the shooting of Lane?

Boredom.

Yes, that was the reason, boredom.  According to police chief Danny Ford, "They saw Christopher go by, and one of them said: ‘We were bored and didn’t have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody’.”  Christopher Lane was shot at random . . . and in the back.

Even if my parents had a gun in the house, which they didn't, I still wouldn't consider shooting someone as a viable option.  What we have here are not simply under-engaged teens who were ill-equipped to deal with their boredom.  What we have here are psychopathic cowards. 

The youths are also reported saying that they did it for "the fun of it".  I wonder if it still seems like fun to them now.

Terry

Word of the Day: EVOLVE

Back in mid-June, a conference was held over a weekend in New York City.  Experts in a wide variety of disciplines took part.  Those disciplines included robotics, neuroscience, neurology, transhumanism, ethics, bionic prostheses, cybernetics, neo-humanity, meta-intelligence, consciousness, spiritual development, and science and spirituality, all gathered with their collective eyes looking toward the future. 

A couple of those terms are either foreign to you or greatly sparked your curiosity.  Terms like "transhumanism", "meta-intelligence", and "neo-humanity" likely caught your attention more than simply not knowing what they were.  Maybe they made you think a little more on them.  Maybe they gave you pause; they should.

The conference was of the Global Future 2045 International Congress (GF2045), an initiative spearheaded by Russian billionaire Dmitry Itskov.  To date, Mr. Itskov has spent approximately three million dollars of his own money to fund this initiative.  Some say that his intention is for himself to live forever.

The ultimate goal of GF2045 is achieving immortality. 

Let me step back for a moment and do some defining of terms.  "Transhumanism" refers to the international movement that is working toward the goal of transforming the very nature of humanity and what it means to be human into something far different, something bio-mechanical, if you will.  The movement even has its own symbol:

Symbol for Transhumanism

The following description from Promethea.org helps to explain the term "meta-intelligence": "[C]apacities beyond the capacity to work at a particular kind of thinking...the neural system of a person ruling over and helping to direct each specific capacity a person has.  Meta-intelligence relates to awareness, adaptability, and the relative comparisons of different mental frameworks, models, and sets of behavior.  [It] enables a person to understand when their brain is wasting its time, or working against their interests. Meta-intelligence keeps a person from digging themselves into a hole with their abilities."

Finally, Dmitri Itskov is the one who coined the term "neo-humanity", which means the humanly-engineered evolution of humanity.  It does not refer to what we will be like x-number of years in the future, but rather into what we will be reconfigured.

GF2045 is humanity's attempt to not just play God, but be God.

Here is a video that gives you an idea about what the GF2045 movement is:

(Like the dramatic music in the background?)  Let me interject here to say I was shocked and scared after watching this.

Let me address several points brought up in this video.  To begin with, we are in the twenty-first century, so how about using the term "humankind" instead of "mankind"?  If you mean this for everyone, that would include females as well.  (Or does that play into suggestions that Itskov is greatly interested in his own immortality?)

I would suspect that the "deepest social transformation" mentioned refers to society accepting this in the first place as well as the transformation from human to human-wannabe android.  I'm wondering how the transference of someone's personality works.  Does that mean that the human wannabes will be us or act like us?  Included in this transformation will be new philosophy (eradication of spontaneity?), new ideology (necessity of political backing and implementation?), new ethics (removal of live brains to be widely accepted?), new culture (living with "others" and then becoming the "others"?), new psychology (convincing humanity of the righteousness and necessity of this?), and new metaphysics (redefining what "reality" is?).

The term "future man" used in the video is an interesting choice, almost paradoxical...not to mention bereft of "hu" in front of "man".  Yes, the year 2045 is, indeed, in the future.  Humans, however, in this construct are not humans, unless part and parcel of this initiative is to completely redefine what "human" means.  "Humanoid" or "human-wannabe androids" would be more correct.  Humanity as we know it would cease to exist.  This future being would not be the vehicle of immortality, but rather a replacement for humanity.  Seems like an askew form of Darwinism looking to the future.  Think of the Isaac Asimov novelette 'Bicentennial Man' (from his Robot series) in reverse.

That is not living; that is merely an "existence" of sorts.

What about the practical concern of supply?  Once everyone's converted, although this technology is surely only for the wealthiest among us -- okay, let's say IF everyone's converted -- then all of us who are alive now would be redesigned to live exist on.  No future generations.  Does this plan include any form of "procreation" (i.e. "re-creation", "engineered insemination")? 

One of the more interesting statements to me made in the video is: "May everlasting spiritual ideals and values help us avoid going astray."  (Going astray has been accomplished so perehaps avoiding going any further is more apt.)  It is not mentioned in the video, but it has been reported that creation of a new religion will be part of this initiative.  I'm curious: what relevance do spirituality or religion have to biomachines?  No other living creature has spirituality or religion as part of its experience.  I have never seen a machine, any machine, have spirituality or religion included in its functioning well or not, or its being turned on or off.  If spirituality or religion are to be a part of this initiative, I would be in favor of the absence of us-versus-them or better-than.  Then again, why wait?  We certainly could use that now. 

And wouldn't spirituality and religion equal things that cannot be proven?  What use would that be to a biomachine?  It would seem to me that spirituality and religion would return the following responses:

does not compute

logic error

operand missing

unable to perform function

It also sounds like a one-size-fits-all spirituality or religion, which is invalid.  Spirituality and religion would be reduced to nothing more than applications.

This might seem far away, but keep in mind that 2045 is a mere thirty-two years from now.  If thirty-two years seem a relatively safe distance in the future, keep in mind the advancements in robotics being made in Japan, with creations such as Asimo and human-like robotics.  Still not convinced?  Read this.

The GF2045 initiative is immoral, unethical, and an example of science and technology used as tools of human arrogance.  It is not human immortality.  It is human insanity.  If this is evolving, then we should collectively say no thanks.

Best to leave this to the realm of science fiction.

Terry

Phrase of the Day: YOUR HELL IS JUST BEGINNING

On Thursday this past week, Ariel Castro, who had kidnapped three young girls and brutalized them regularly, beginning in 2002, learned his fate.  As a result of pleading guilty to more than 930 charges, including assault, rape, and murder, Castro was sentenced to life in prison without the chance for parole plus 1,000 years. 

Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus were in their early- to mid-teens when they were abducted.  The first victim was Michelle Knight, who was 21 at the time of her abduction.  Amanda Berry was the one who got the attention of a neighbor, Charles Ramsey, who helped to free her and the other girls from their decade of hell on May 6.

Ariel Castro's trial began in June and on August 1, he was sentenced.

What makes what Castro did so horrific -- and that, in no means, is meant to minimize the horrors these young woman suffered year after year -- was that he tried to continue his manipulation of the facts in the courtroom at his sentencing hearing.  He was allowed to make a statement at that hearing.  Just by the nature of what he said, one can tell he is, at the very least, in denial. 

He had the unmitigated gall to portray himself as a victim by stating he was a "victim of sex acts as a child" (for which I've seen no proof), and that his accusers are "trying to paint [him] as a monster, and [he's] not a monster".  He suggested he is a victim of his sexual addictions by stating, "My sexual problems are so bad...I'm impulsive."  I know of stories of people who have had sexual addictions for several years and most do not hold young women hostage for a decade or so.

He had no problem laying blame at the feet of others, including his wife for calling him a wife-beater (even though he was known for abusing his wife multiple times and threatening others in the neighborhood) and others for calling him a "violent person", something he denied multiple times.  He also had no problem being defiant about the outcome, claiming that Amanda Berry appearing on stage an outdoor concert and Gina DeJesus acting "normal" are certain signs that no abuse took place in that house of horrors.  Not to mention blaming him was "uncalled for".

You could say that Mr. Castro was a bit of a historical revisionist (or outright liar) with the following claims": (a) "most of the sex that went on in that house, practically all of it, was consensual"; (b) "there were times when they even asked me for sex, many times"; (c) "We had a lot of harmony going on in that home"; and (d) "I never beat these women; I never tortured them."

Scorecard: A) "Consensual" does not mean "forced upon".  B) I guess no one ever told him what "No!", "Don't!", and "Stop!" mean.  C) 'The Brady Bunch' had a lot of harmony; he had captives and the girls had horror.  D) Just shackling them to the wall is a form of torture, and violence was part of what he did them.  Four out of four wrong.

And let's not forget his claim that masturbation is an "art", and his hope that the victims "can find it in their hearts to forgive [him]".  Is your jaw on the floor yet?

Two of three victims, Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus did not attend the sentencing hearing, having family members speak on their behalf.  However, Michelle Knight, did appear.  Ariel Castro had impregnated her several times -- I've read it was five times -- from which she gave birth to a girl.  The other times, he repeatedly punched Knight in the stomach while she was pregnant in order to induce her body to abort the baby.

In a display of more courage that Ariel Castro could ever have and more courage than most survivors could muster, Michelle Knight stood up, faced the judge, her back to Castro, and spoke.  In a fraction of the time he took, Michelle Knight brought the impact in her impact statement:

Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight's hell is finally over.  I wish them well on their own road to recovery.

Terry