Issue 353 Can Cyborgs Vote?! June 9, 2014

OK, here is part two of the articles based on the show Futurescape with James Woods.  Here we look at if cyborgs can still vote as people during an election.  You are asking why aren't you?  We looked at last week to try to figure out if they are still human, but that is not the end of the solution with the factor of being an eligible voter. So I’ll go down the list of concerns.

Licensing:  Some people with implants, prosthetics or people who are cyberized may not own the parts that are hooked up to them.  Instead, a prosthetic limb, an implant for a disabled person may be still owned by the original distributor/manufacture of the company.  In short, the mechanical components are being rented.  So can these individuals be considered eligible if they do not even own the mechanical parts that have replaced or augmented their original bodies?  Also, can't these people have their votes corrupted by the companies that own these parts do to threats of reclaiming them, or sticking their families with a hefty bills after they pass on for the parts themselves.

Hacking:  What’s more is that these parts are mechanical and most likely will be run by computers.  As such they can be hacked.  So a clever hacker can make the individual, by force, vote a specific way.  It gets even creepier with those who have brain implants or partial brain replacement as a hacker can hack into the persons brain itself to control them to vote a certain way.  Lest we also not forget that hackers can in this instance threaten people to make them commit suicide (really murder) by controlling them or even a loved one with a cyber-implant/mechanical parts.  This is a very disturbing reality.

Total brain replacement:  Just like with the last article, can a person who no longer has their original brain still vote, for it goes to question if they are merely acting on a pre-programmed impulse.  So, in the same way we can question if this person is human, we can question why they are voting in the manner they are.

Conclusion:  For licensing, the laws can be amended where a person has a right to any and all parts of their body, whether they be a replacement or augmentation.  As such any form of threat of coercion will also be dealt with by the law in the same manner as any blackmail or similar case.  So in the Licensing scenario, they as people should be allowed to vote.  In scenario two with respect to hacking, the individual is not responsible for the crimes of others.  So a hacker taking control of cyberized person, or threatening another is not grounds for the exclusion for a person to vote.  Instead the hacker must and always be punished in this case.  Finally, scenario three with its total brain replacement.  Here it still comes down to if the individual can be proven to still have independent thought and personality over just becoming a pre-programmed machine.  Until that is answered, I don't think anyone can be sure if these people are human, let alone vote.  Yes there may be other scenarios where we can question if these individuals who we can classify as cyborgs are eligible to vote.  But, I will leave that to you my dear readers to ponder.  Enjoy racking and wrapping your brains over this very likely future issue of the United States and other countries around the world.

Issue 352 Are cyborgs still human? June 6, 2014

This is the first of two articles based on the show Futurescape hosted by James Woods.  Here we will look at if cyborgs can still be considered human.  So let's discuss.

Why ask?  Well it is important as people throughout history have redefined the meaning of human.  So there are instances where people are left out of that category and are thus sometimes subjected to some of the harshest and most awful forms of treatment imaginable.  And thus these people who we can classify as cyborgs must not be excluded.

What constitutes a cyborg:  It is a person who has had parts of their body replaced by that of a machine.  In some definitions this means a certain percentage of their body is replaced by mechanical parts.  So people with prosthetic limbs and even some implants can be considered a cyborg.  But the cyborg we are talking about are people who are more Machine than man.  They must have over 50% or greater of their body replaced by a mechanical device.  

So let's question:  So is a person with over 70% of their body replaced by machinery still human?  What if their brain is replaced (or partly replaced) by mechanical components?  Do we still classify these people as human?  For me, so long as the brain is there, then you are still human.  In other terms, you can have your brain in a glass jar which is controlling a robot like in the Star Wars movies and I will still consider you a human being (even if you may be disturbing to look at).  But those who have their brains partly replaced or completely replaced are another matter.  I can see if you have brain damage and you replace the parts of it that control motor functions and involuntary functions as still human.  But what about memory and personality.  Can these people who have those components of the brain be replaced be considered still human?  Or are they merely acting out the part?  I personally hope that these people are still human, but technology is not there yet where we can know for sure if people, who I believe in the future will try to obtain immortality via this method, can still be considered human.  The reason I believe this is because a soul is not something that can be copied onto a hard drive?  Right?

Conclusion:  So long as the memory and thought functions remain independent from the machine and the person is able to think for themselves, they are still human no matter how many mechanical parts they have.  But I fear once we go beyond and do full brain replacements as some scientist hope to one day accomplish, will it spell the end of humanity?  More answers, can and will lead to more questions.  So I leave you to ponder how far we can become a machine before we stop being human.

Issue 351 Privatize the V.A. June 5, 2014

With the recent events of the Veterans Administration scandal of the two lists which hid the fact that the V.A. was covering up veterans dying while waiting to be treated, a solution must be had.  Even before this, the V.A. could be considered to have lackluster care in certain areas of health care.  As such, just like with the U.S.O. toward the end in the late 40's after World War II, I believe the V.A. should be privatized.

Why privatized:  Reason being is that just like most bureaucratic bodies in government, organizations are either top heavy or duplicative.  As such money is wasted, patronage appoints the least skilled, and most of all it affects quality of the services that are meant to be delivered.  So like the U.S.O. which is one of the prime examples that we can provide for our troops without government aid, we hence can use the same model to care for our soldiers in uniform, whether they are still active or not.  Other private organizations like the Fisher House Foundation and Hospitals work off of donations to provide care on par or equal to those of other and possibly better funded organizations. People like Bill O'reilly of Fox News, Glenn Beck of the Blaze, and many actors and others in various industries aid in the cause to help people like our Veterans, and more each and every day whether that be by acting as spokesmen/women or starting and running foundations themselves as non-for profits.  The U.S.O works off of private donations and volunteers to provide troops with entertainment and other services around the world, so what makes health care any different?

Generosity:  Some may be skeptical about the privatization of the V.A.  Maybe because health care is typically more expensive than most things in existence for various reasons, with issues stemming from war possibly becoming more expensive.  However, I present to you a list of the top 50 non-for profit medical institutions in the United States via this web address: 

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/50-top-grossing-nonprofit-hospitals-2013.html  

The reason these hospitals can function is due to them having so many generous people seeking to help.  Also, there are other hospitals that are non-profit that specifically treat one of the most expensive diseases known to man, cancer.  So hospitals like the Shriners Hospital for children fight for the lives of children with support from people like you and me.  So why can't the Veterans Administration do the same?  Why do they have to be different and for them to screw up so royally like this?

Conclusion:  We can take care of our Veterans without the V.A. or a newer privatized version.  This is because we as Americans see it as a privileged to be able to give back to those who risk their lives to protect us, who sacrifice so much for our wellbeing and freedom.  So I say privatize the V.A.  and let those who see Veterans as more than numbers on an account sheet take care of them.

Issue 350 Parental rights: when revoked June 4, 2014

We talked yesterday about to overarching rights that parents have over their kids (education and health).  However, at what point do we take children away from their parents to get them out of harm?  This is the question we ask and will discuss in today's issue.

Limits to physical abuse:  There is always a fine line on when government or some other intervening body should step in on anything.  So we have to come up with that point and time upon which a line is crossed where a child must be taken from the parent.  With children being snatched from parents do to small things like a spanking to discipline them, our current standards are too loose.  So when it comes to corporal punishment, it is not a defining line.  Instead, it must be proven that the physical force being used on the child is both constant and unwarranted.  In short, it must occur on a regular basis, and that the punishment is actually abuse and not to correct a problem behavior(s).  In addition, the amount of force used must be factored in to this.  As such, if a parent simply slaps the child on the rear, or the face then it is fine.  But, if the parent proceeds to brake the child's arm "purposefully" then there is obviously a problem.  As such the limits that are set for physical abuse must be clearly structured with a small amount of flexibility depending on the type of physical force being applied.

Limits to psychological abuse:  This set of criteria is very different.  Here the parent or guardian performs the same kind of abuse that would occur in a torture room.  The parent verbally abuses and threatens the child, but does not do any physical harm (though this is not always the case).  Instead, once the verbal abuse is done, the parent shows small amounts of love to keep the child latched to them, as if they must do everything to please their parent (their "master").  Simply yelling at a child is not verbal abuse.  It must occur on a regular basis, and show long term effects that would undermine the child's wellbeing.  So we must not jump to conclusions at any time or risk undermining the parent(s).

Malnourished:  In this case, determining if a child is malnourished due to poverty or neglect is very important.  If it is due to poverty, then in general, the parent is still a good parent.  But, if that parent chooses to ignore the health of their children and buy and clothe themselves over the needs of their children, then it is abuse.

Addicts:  Drug addicts do also constitute a situation where the children may have to be taken away.  Abusers of alcohol, and both illegal and prescription drugs can be a very detrimental problem that leads to the aforementioned.  So if the parent is purposefully getting their child high or drunk, then there is a problem (obviously).  But if they do it recreationally, or are a recovering addict, then there may not be a need to take the child away.  In fact, a parent who keeps the drugs and addictions secret and keeps their child away from their weakness may in fact (I believe) keep their children.  If discovered, then they should be given help to overcome their addiction without breaking the family up.  This is hard however, as the law in general lacks flexibility.

Child's Voice:  One of my biggest gripes as an outsider looking in is that they ignore the child's wishes with respect to the children of possible child abusers.  Police are told to ignore the children and their screams as they are dragged off away from the parents they love.  While this may be right in the case of a mentally abused child, it may not be right in other situations where there may be mitigating circumstances.  For instance, a child was pulled from the school bus on the way to school by police.  That child was part of a bad break up between an abusive father and a non-abusive mother.  The child, due to the custody hearings called for that child to be put in the care of the father (where the mothers’ testimony did not produce enough evidence of the fathers’ abusive nature).  So as the child was being taken off the bus, the child screamed and cried to not be given to his father.  When he was placed in the custody of his father, the dad whisked him to south of the boarder of Mexico.  Eventually the father was brought in on kidnapping charges, but this would not have happened if the police and the courts had listened to this child (who I believe at the time was 10 or 12 years of age).  Thus, we should and must listen to the children too.

Conclusion:  This issue is not cut and dry.  Every scenario has major exceptions, but because there is little flexibility children are separated from parents who may in fact be good parents in the first place.  On top of this the Federal/State governments have no incentive to listen or change the laws because the federal government gives money to States for each child put into a foster home.  Sick is it not?  Hope you enjoyed the read, and remember, there is more to a story than what you think.

Issue 349 Parental rights: responsible for what? June 3, 2014

Our parents do a lot for us.  They feed us, clothe us, and raise us.  However, this means they have very specific responsibilities in two key areas of our life before we are old enough to move out on our own.  Let's discuss them.

Education:  Parents are the sole providers of education.  This includes basic reading, writing and arithmetic (math), cultural/societal training, and religious education.  Parents have sole responsibility over these areas.  If they cannot do it alone then they enlist help from schools and institutions to insure that we do get this education. But, even if they give some of that responsibility away, they are still responsible for insuring that the education their child receives stays true to the family values the parents want to impart.  If said education fails to provide all of what is needed, then the parents supplant it in whatever ways they see fit to ensure the total core of what they believe is required for their child to know is imparted.  If the educators they hire do not teach the values that parents want, then parents by obligation must either shift their child out of that education system to protect them, or find a way to counter the unproductive narrative of the education their child is receiving.  First and foremost, parents should always have the opt in clause given to them by any education institution, whether that be to use their services or to attend specific lessons and classes.  A parent has sole right to this field and it should not be infringed.

 Health:  Just like education, a child's health, until the child is of age, is under the sole authority of the parents.  They make any decision on who treats their children, to how the treatments are to be carried out.  Parents can adjust how their children are treated by healthcare professionals based upon fear of harm, alternative solutions that parents believe are better, and even meeting certain religious ethics.  In this, parents rights again should not be infringed as the parents are just that the parents.  Their child is theirs and theirs alone, and no one has a say on how to raise another person’s children.

Conclusion:  First and foremost, this is not a lecture to parents.  They in general know their responsibilities.  This issue is geared toward young people like me who have yet to have children.  It is a reminder that raising a child is about more than playing catch and the main rights and responsibilities a parent has outside of giving birth and letting the child live in your home.  Also, there are some parents who are content just letting others do their job for them as well.  They looked for an out from their responsibilities for parenting by giving all responsibilities to the public education system, and to doctors who your child has no affection, or feelings for.  Thus, a relationship like that is cold and unfeeling which I believe results in a child that is distant and cannot connect with the parents on the most basic of levels (love).  So this is for them.  Those who have yet to raise a child, and to let parents look and evaluate themselves to see if they feel they are doing enough.  God Bless all the parents and future parents in the world, for they hold the future in their hands.

Issue 348 Racial Comments: Donald Sterling June 2, 2014

You are all familiar with the Clippers owner Donald Sterling and his racially charged comments that happened a little over a month ago.  Now that everyone has settled down a little and we know his fate, I feel safe in reacting to how he is to be punished. So let us discuss his punishments and how his punishments should have really been carried out.

Fined:  He was fined $2.5 Million over his racist comments.  This is the max allowed by the NBA as per their guidelines.  However, I disagree from a freedom standpoint with this part of his punishment.  You are punishing speech, "free speech" whether you agree with it or not.  Yes you are responsible for what you say and must suffer societal consequences (will discuss the alternative later), but punishing speech with a monetary fine (especially one that is a drop in the bucket for this multi-millionaire) if foolish and sets a bad precedent.  Why a bad precedent you ask?  Well, any speech can be offensive, and as such nearly any form of speech can thus be fined.  The result is people not talking out of fear of being fined for what society (or segment thereof deems negative).  Thus fining speech is not the answer.

Banned:  Sterling is also banned from all NBA related facilities.  This means he cannot even see his own team play.  However, this makes very little sense. If he owns the team (the Clippers) then would he not own the home stadium in which they play and practice?  Can we actually ban someone from walking on their own property?  The only way this could work is if the NBA owned the stadiums, in which case this would be perfectly legal.  If it is the case where team owners own the stadiums however, then it should be left up to each individual team and their owners to decide if they will allow Sterling on their property.  As such, the teams themselves can ban Sterling if the NBA has no ownership over facilities they do not own.

Forced to sell:  Ok, being forced to sell your own property (the franchise known as the Clippers) is very disturbing.  It is your property, you own it and then someone comes along and says you must sell it.  No, that does not fly with me.  Sure, he is a racist jerk, but that is not an excuse to be tyrannical and forcefully make him sell his team. As such, the individual teams should be able to decide if they are willing to play against his team or not.  And if they refuse to play, the NBA can ignore it so that the team that refuses does not have it counted against them as a loss.  Simple right?  Of course this rests on if the team is actually owned by Sterling and is not owned by the NBA itself.  In this case Sterling is a shareholder charged with certain responsibilities.  So if that is the case then they can force Sterling to sell without question.  However, I believe it is the former and thus Sterling should keep his team.

My punishment:  All the aforementioned punishments violate freedom in one way or another.  But my solutions and critics I mention above and what I am about to tell do not violate anyone's freedom of conscience.  So we have each team deciding if they will play the Clippers or not and if they will have any other dealings with him and his team (as mentioned above).  Now as to the rest of the solution, we as members of the population of the United States can ostracize him.  Essentially refuse to go to games in which the Clippers play, not to buy Clippers merchandise or any merchandise put out by Sterling's other business dealings, and even refuse to sell or associate with him.  Essentially a form of boycott that does not harm the team directly, but Sterling's income from our boycott.  Team members can also refuse to play for him so long as he owns the Clippers, thus allowing them to be free agents with the NBA protecting them from breaches in contract.  These are some very simple solutions that do not violate freedoms and yet embrace the freedom of association we all hold dear through the freedom of speech and peaceable assembly clause in our Constitution.  Yes, in this case we can punish Sterling for holding his backwards and hateful views through our God given rights.

Conclusion:  No form of speech is without consequence.  Also, any form of speech and expression will be offensive to someone in some way, shape, or form (including this issue of Jormungand).  So punishing people via institutions can become haphazard and result in tyranny in the long run.  Aiding by my suggestions, at the very least does not allow for a future institutions abuse via precedent, but does still keep the risk of mob rule (the weakness of all forms of Democracies).  So I embrace the freedom of association to punish, not the NBA trying to look tough on a foolish old man.

Issue 347 Electronic tyranny May 30, 2014

Electronics dominate our world.  But they have become intrusive in respect that anyone can track you down on a moment’s notice.  Well, to better explain let's review.

Knowing where you are:  Right now, our cell phones have GPS technology in them.  As such, a phone company can tell exactly where you are and when you were there in the first place.  But now that technology is expanding into your car and other systems you move about with or take with you.  So a company like Ford with its new black box technology will be able to know where your car is at any time due to it being hooked up to the internet.  But to top it all off, they will know also, where you live, how you drive, the rout you take and such even if you leave your cell phone behind.  Even worse, even if you do not take any electronic equipment with tracking software with you, cameras located on public and private buildings hooked to the internet can easily find you.   This is because, newer more capable facial recognition software is slowly coming online.

What you buy:  Well your credit and debit card information is also not secure.  They can tell what you have bought with these payment methods to find out what you are interested in and what you buy on a regular basis.  Those membership cards also do this in a similar manner, but remove the actual payment from the transaction.  This allows businesses to gather large sums of data on their customers to push coupons on them that they may use to buy other items.

What you like:  Did you look at the advertisements on the last internet site you visited?  All the ads are based upon your past visits and searches on the web.  It is because they are trying to get you to go to buy something from the website because it thinks you’re interested in it.  Likewise television is no better.  The satellite and cabal companies know exactly what channel you are watching, at what time and for how long.  So much so that they know what television shows you watch? It is only a matter of time before the ads on your TV mimic how they are applied to websites on the internet.

In your home:  More recent technology is the smart home concept, which combines security systems and the ability to control any and all appliances in your home.  So now they know what your preferred thermostat temperature is, when you do the dishes and other house hold chores and even when you flush the toilet.  This even lets them know what location you are in the house and when.  Very intrusive is it not?

Conclusion:  Technology can benefit everyone, but it came at the cost of privacy.  We have none in our own homes anymore and this trend seems like it is going to continue.  They know if you have children, are dating and more just by looking at all this data that they can collect on us and even sell to each other in packages. Soon they may even be able to control the very homes we live in as well "for our own good".  It is all creepy and that is what I am trying to convey to you. It is all disturbing to be watched and raising awareness is the only thing I as a writer can do to try and stave off or find a solution to what looks like a potentially dangerous problem.