City of what-now?

For many years now, Topeka has attempted to bolster its public image with an advertising campaign urging Topekans to become better people by being upright citizens. They did this with a campaign called “City of Character” or something like that.

The media blitz amounted to nothing more than occasional television or radio advertisements, as well as lots of billboards, which gave some quality the Topeka government thought should be promoted, and a brief explanation of the term’s meaning.

Unfortunately, in each of the characteristics I’ve ever seen them try to promote, they got the meaning of the term wrong, or added extraneous language which added something to the term which isn’t part of the definition of the term.
A week ago, I saw a billboard in the campaign which said:

“Punctuality: Doing the right thing at the right time.” Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, punctuality is only the characteristic of doing something on time. Can a prostitute be punctual in keeping an appointment with her pimp? Surely so. If I tell the police that I will murder someone at 5:00 pm, and do so at 5:00 pm, I have murdered in a punctual fashion. Nothing in the meaning of punctuality actually means doing the right thing; it simply entails doing something on time.

I’ve seen them get the meaning wrong for dozens of terms from the first one I ever saw (beneficence) to the most recent. Just this afternoon I passed another billboard listing the latest character-building word: Tolerance.

Tolerance was defined thusly:

“Tolerance: Realizing that everyone is at varying levels of character development.”

Now, again, the city government got it wrong. Tolerance, as a positive characteristic, is probably never really used this way. We aren’t urged to tolerate the varying character development levels of people. We are urged to tolerate those with differing opinions, backgrounds, ethnicities, or faiths. Further, suggesting that our differences (the very things we are supposed to tolerate) are the result of varying levels of character development is deeply offensive.

Can you imagine trying to function with that mindset? No longer are disagreements the result of issues on which reasonable minds might disagree. Your opponent no longer becomes a person to reason with, but an unfortunate holdback who needs to develop his character a bit more to rise to your level.

To make matters worse, the Topeka Capital-Journal has a special section devoted to the City's latest word where they explain what the word means more fully. I'll quote the CJ-online explanation here for full effect:

"Tolerance is:
Not confusing what is right with what is popular
Expecting the same of myself as I expect of others
Looking for ways to help others mature
Accepting my own unchangables and the unchangables of others
Listening before I form an opinion"

Thoroughly shocking, in my opinion. Of the five explanatory phrases the TCJ adopts to explain 'tolerance' only 1 (number 4) comes close to the actual meaning of the term. The others may be valuable lessons for people to learn (though some of them are dangerously un-nuanced), but they do not explicate 'tolerance' or give examples of tolerance.

I’m starting to think that the city government should listen to my suggestion here. The next billboard should read:

“Dictionary: That big thick book the city council ought to open before dipping their fingers into the waters of philosophy.”

The Million-Dollar Man

I am returning from my brief hiatus from blogging to entrance my readers once again with my brilliant observations and storytelling, as well as my over-awe-inspiring humility.

For a long time, I have been a fan of the transhumanist movement. For those who are not quite up with the latest science-fiction theories, the transhumanist movement is centered around the idea of moving humanity past the pitiful restrictions that our frail bodies place on our indomitable spirit.

To a transhumanist like myself, there are few problems (if any at all) that are not ultimately solvable by using advanced technology. More to the point, though, there are few human diseases and injuries which are not able to be controlled and eliminated using science.

For instance, why should we have bones made from actual bone, when we could craft lightweight bones out of durable synthetic materials? We could infuse them with catalysts to create blood cells just like your natural bones, and these false bones would be more resistant to breakage.

Why should we have eyes that degenerate over time when we could replace their lenses with actual lenses that transmit photons to microchips embedded in our eyes which stimulate our optic nerve? For that matter, if I wanted wings, why shouldn’t I be able to have artificial wings grafted onto my back and rigged up to my nervous system and musculature?

Stop and think about the possible benefits of an altered human for a moment. How fantastic would it would be if I could use powerful mechanical legs to leap over buildings, run at 65 miles per hour, or use my own wings to fly to work? Goodbye cars.

How much less food would we collectively need to grow if we could manufacture an artificial form of chloroplast into our skin cells? We’d generate energy through photosynthesis, just like a plant. Surely, it wouldn’t feed us entirely, but what if you could skip an entire meal each day just by being exposed to the sun while you worked each day? End of starvation in the third world (or at least a large reduction in it).

Get in an auto or industrial accident and get a severe cut on your body? Why not have a fleet of tiny nanobots patrolling your body who can start healing your injury as it happens? They could eliminate cancer cells before they form large tumors, clear blood clots or cholesterol from your circulatory system, and be a second-line of defense behind your immune system for invading microorganisms.

On some level, this may sound like eliminating humanity and replacing it with something more akin to Star-Trek's Cyborg race. Some transhumanists stop there, but most, including myself, envision the eventual transplantation of a human consciousness (itself nothing more than chemical states, neural connections, and electrical conductivity - all easily re-creatable) into a fully mechanical system. Indeed, some theorists in the field have even said that technology of this type will offer individuals their first real taste of immortality.

While some find this cyborg future nightmarish, I say, “bring it on.”

Well, it’s already been brought’n. In a move guaranteed to give the sci-fi geek in all of us a little thrill (what? you don't have a little sci-fi geek in you? how weird. And just for you, I'll skip the off-colour joke where I ask if you'd like one), scientists at the University of Texas have developed artificial muscles. These muscles are more than 100 times as powerful as standard human muscles, and are run on a fuel of alcohol and hydrogen (fuels which would be easy to work into the human body).

The scientists suggest (in an article from “Science”) that these new muscles will be able to be used in prosthetic limbs. One forward-thinking scientist even suggested using them in exoskeletons for individuals in jobs where strength could be an asset, like firefighters, astronauts, or soldiers. While new technology is almost always reserved for people in specialized careers, that new technology eventually becomes available to all. I don't know about you, but I'd be first in line to sign up for a mechanical exoskeleton just for fun.

Awesome. Awesome. Awesome.

Advice?

Well, I went on my first ‘date’ with the girl who I suppose I should stop calling Stalker-chick. That still leaves up in the air how I should refer to her, but at the moment, I’m not sure even what to think about her.

She came over to my flat and we talked. Time flew past, and before I knew it, four and a half hours had passed and it was time to say goodbye. I found myself conversing easily with her, and we never seemed to run out of things to talk about. I was comfortable enough to tell interesting stories with clever and witty endings. At one point during our conversation she was laughing, and I found myself about to blurt out that she had one of the most beautiful, musical laughs I’d ever heard. And she wants to see me again.

With any guy other than me, those would all be good signs, I would imagine. Unfortunately, I’m not guys other than me.

On the one hand, isn’t this just what I want? She’s modestly pretty, can talk to me, has insights into issues that I think about, and most importantly, seems to find me entertaining and wants to spend time with me. Aren’t those qualities enough for me?

But on the other hand, I spent four and a half hours talking to her without feeling anything for her. And even the fact that I spent four and a half hours talking to her indicates that I’m acknowledging that it’s not going to work. I mean, with available women to whom I’m attracted, I clam up. My mind goes blank, and I can’t think of conversational topics. I usually sit there in awkward silence, getting more and more nervous and judging myself more and more harshly for the silence, until someone else comes along to save the conversation. With people to whom I’m not attracted, or with people to whom I am attracted but who are unavailable, I can deal with them as people instead of as individuals who are scrutinizing me for the tiniest flaws and missteps.

I’ve never ‘grown’ to be attracted to someone in my memory. An old girlfriend once told me that was a flaw in my personality that reflected my inability to grow up, but I prefer to think of it as a simple understanding of my tastes. I don’t need to try most dishes in a restaurant to know which ones I will like. I’ll know within minutes of seeing them, and no amount of eating food I find unappetizing will somehow make it appetizing (I may grow to tolerate it, but do I want to merely tolerate someone in a relationship?).

And the simple point is that, as of now, I don’t feel that special spark that I’ve felt with all of the varied Miss Perfects out there in my current life and history.

So the question becomes, do I continue on with her hoping something grows or do I recognize this as a seed tossed onto the path where there is no fertile soil? Are my standards too high in my desire to be a companion to a woman about whom I can't stop thinking?

Hypocrisy

I am willing to tolerate any number of views I find to be implausible or outlandish. Lord knows I hold enough of them myself to view others with weird ideas as closer to kin than outcasts. I'll listen politely to racists spouting hate-speech, bible-thumping creationists denying the only organizing theme of modern biology, modern anti-semites seriously discussing whether the Holocaust occurred, or even those who simply have an ideological axe to grind contrary to my own.

In some ways, people with widely divergent understandings of the world are part of what makes life entertaining and enlightening.

What I despise, though, are people who seem unable - or unwilling - to create a worldview and stick to it. Hypocrisy really chaps my hide. Don't abandon your position simply because it suits you. Have a principled reason for what you say and do, and I'll respect you, even if I disagree.

Case in point: Senator Russ Feingold (one of only a few politicians I approve of) is preparing to introduce a resolution in the Senate censuring President Bush for his recent wiretapping escapade. His argument seems to be a good one on its face. Basically, he is asserting that the President undertook actions he was not authorized to take by the current state of the law, even if we might have people agree later that such actions were prudent. To 'invent' law is a violation of the President's oath, and is a usurpation of the legislative power. If the President wanted that power, he should have asked Congress to give it to him (and they, of course, would have).

Seems like a good argument to me. There was no pressing urgent need for these wiretaps. Alright, maybe for the first one, but after that (when he knew that we would want to do it again), he could have gone to Congress to get them to grant him that power. He didn't, and that entails that he clawed some legislative functions away from the Congress in the process.

Senate Republicans are outraged at this. Bill Frist answered back to this charge with the comment that "attacking our commander in chief... doesn't make sense." Frist continues on to suggest that censuring our President would send the wrong message to the world (i.e., read: it would let the terrorists win).

So let me see if I have this straight, Mr. Frist... When a judge applies the common law in a way that interprets a statute differently from how you thought it should be interpreted, that's judicial activism. Those damned judges are "making law from the bench" and should be stripped of their authority. Wasn't it you who attended that conference on judicial activism and applauded when the speaker came perilously close to calling for the assassination of judges who went 'too far?' But if the President (who agrees with you on issues) creates law whole-cloth from thin air, in direct contravention of the 4th Amendment jurisprudence, it is wrong to criticize. Your "Federalist Society" peers who normally worship you as some kind of prophet should (but won't) be disenchanted with your wholesale lack of condemnation for "Presidential Activism." What possible principled line can we draw here?

Is it acceptable for one non-legislative branch of government to seize legislative power from the Congress or isn't it? If it is wrong, then we should condemn both the judges and the President. If it is not wrong, then you should apologize to the judiciary and keep up the unrelenting praise of a President who has presided over, and is the direct cause of, the greatest threat to Constitutional Democracy that America has ever seen.

Right. I despair of seeing a day when politics is run by people with principles instead of the Bill Frist's of the world who see it as a game to win or lose, and who make up the rules as they go along.