Friday, November 29, 2013

How much could we (the U.S.) cut military spending and still be safe?



This blog post originated when I asked myself a simple question after a debate.

When people debate about military spending, the debate almost always boils down to "should we cut military and risk terrorists having better access, or should we bolster military spending even more."

To this end, I wondered...

How much could we cut military spending and still be safe? It's a valid question. At what point of military spending, be it more or less than what we're currently spending, would we be safe?

I set out to find an answer. Note, this is my answer. There are likely things I have not considered, but I did the best I was inclined to.

The answer was very, very surprising.



First off, in addition to being a military might, the U.S. is an economic superpower. For that reason alone, most of the countries of the world are U.S. allies. The U.S. is also part of several major powerful alliances. As such, we'll only focus on the list of U.S. enemies.

This turns out to be a very short list:

Cuba
Iran
North Korea

There's a few that are questionable as well, depending on how future politics go. These are:

Syria
Venezuela
Burma
Egypt


These are enemies and potential enemies. That is very different from being a competitor. (A competitor competes with us, but also has multiple treaties and alliances with us. In short, we struggle with eachother over economic issues, but generally treat eachother well. Kind of like competeing sports stars, they play by the rules of the game instead of resorting to violence for their differences. For example, although both sides talk a big storm, China is actually one of our best allies, with huge economic ties between the two countries, both would falter and struggle without the other. We're just too intertwined at this point.

Now, comparing these nations, here's each country's military spending:

  • U.S. (for comparison): 1 Trillion, 753 Billion.
  • Burma ~ 2.5 Billion
  • Cuba: ~1.8 Billion
  • Egypt: 4.420 Billion
  • Iran: 6.297 Billion
  • North Korea: ~ 1.9 Billion
  • Syria: 2.236 Billion
  • Venezuela: 3.106 Billion
So, to start off with, if ALL of our enemies teamed up against us, by measuring in spending dollars alone...

Our military would have to spend....

22.259 Billion.... or 1.2% of its current size.

Yea, you heard me right.... we could literally cut out 98.6% of our military spending, and be able to take on all of our enemies at once!

However, maybe I'm being too extreme. That's assuming we're meeting on an even playing field. That's forgetting two minor details:


I mean... surely nearly half the Earth's surface is no biggie, right?

We kind of have oceans on two sides. For us to be safe, we only have to worry about a defensive war. That means THEY have to come to US.

Using an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer as a model: ~ 8000 tons each, that takes 24 barrels/hr[1] (1000 gallons of fuel an hour) with a speed of about 30 knots (~35 mph) and current prices per barrel of crude ~ $100. This means for each ton it costs about $12.5 per 35 miles per ton.

A single Abrams tank is 61.3 tons. So a tank (ignoring the ship itself, just the tank's costs... lets say they were patient and strapped an engine onto each tank and gave it life preservers instead of wasting money on a navy) it costs $21/mile to transport it (assuming that by some amazing feat of engineering, they're running off of pure crude oil).

Let's calculate the cost of a war in "per tank" values.

  • U.S. (for comparison): $0 (they're already here)
  • Burma: 8300 miles away - $174,300 per tank
  • Cuba: 300 miles away - $6,300 per tank
  • Egypt: 6,800 miles away - $142,800 per tank
  • Iran: 7,300 miles away - $153,300 per tank
  • North Korea: 6,000 miles away - $126,000 per tank
  • Syria: 7,000 miles away - $147,000 per tank
  • Venezuela: 1,600 miles away - $33,600 per tank.
 Now, a single Abrams tank costs $6 million.


Also, multi-front wars are rare. Usually it's a one-on-one.

So lets go by nation... who can land the most tanks on U.S. soil if they devoted their ENTIRE military budget to attacking us, leaving themselves open to the rest of the world, sending their ships by powered life-rafts, manned completely with fanatics who don't ask for pay and are willing to eat ramen the whole trip...

  • U.S. (for comparison): 292,166 tanks
  • Burma: 405 tanks
  • Cuba: 299 tanks
  • Egypt: 719 tanks
  • Iran: 1023 tanks
  • North Korea: 310 tanks
  • Syria: 363 tanks
  • Venezuela: 514 tanks

Running tally, at this point, we're down to only needing to spend 21.8 Billion to take on everyone at once. However, if we're only concerned about one enemy at a time, we only need 6 Billion in spending....

So, you might think that was it, right? Our military needs to spend $6 Billion to stay in good enough shape, right? Wrong.




Economically speaking, Americans are crazy. We live in one of the safest nations in the world, with the biggest military in the world. Yet we buy guns. We buy guns like children in other countries buy candy.

The US generates $5.1 Billion in taxes from gun sales in a year.[2] That's not the total gun sales along, that's just the taxes. That alone is almost enough to take on our biggest enemy if that's was what we spent on guns and not just the taxes from it. If the FBI requests for background checks based on guns alone was any indication (ignoring all the gun purchases without background checks) the American populous military spending isn't small. Calculating just using guns, ignoring used guns[3], using the average price of $1000 per gun - some are cheaper like handguns, some more expensive like rifles and semi-automatics; we cash in at a value of $15.3 Billion+. That's ignoring local and state cops and state militias, I might point out as well (which tacks on at least another  ~ $244 Billion [4]).

The final end result...

American citizens could handle our 4 top enemies combined in full-scale war (very unlikely to happen) and come out on top. You throw in the police, and we could beat them more than 10 times over. There's no need for the military for our national defense.

TL;DR In short, we could cut military spending by 100% and be fine.


[1] http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-09/fyi-what-kind-gas-mileage-can-you-get-naval-warship
[2] http://business.time.com/2012/12/18/americas-gun-economy-by-the-numbers/
[3] http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/02/on-the-relative-size-of-the-police-and-the-civilian-firearms-markets-2572408.html
[4] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/current_spending

(FYI, most statistics for this article not otherwise stated were compiled from Wikipedia, the CIA world factbook, and Google instant facts)

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Bisexual Female Acceptance and Awareness

Apparently I'm not the only person in the world who can intelligently rant.

The following is by my wife, posted on her behalf (as she doesn't want to create and maintain her own blog.)

This is in response to this article: http://www.gayguys.com/2013/10/bisexuals-pushed-lgbt-rights-issues/






This article talks a lot about bisexual men. I understand there is a difference between bisexual men and bisexual women as far as acceptance goes.

As for the male side, this article does a pretty good job of summing it up. I know it is very difficult
for bi men to feel accepted by both straight men and gay men. Lots either go one way or the other and have one night stands on the side to fill the need for the other gender (hence the bad rapport of they are all slutty and sleep around too much).

As for the female side of things...It seems to me we are accepted by straight men, but it is not usually an acceptance that comes with respect. The acceptance we get is "OH your bi...So you can make out with other chicks and I get to watch and maybe play?! Eh?!" This leads to a lot of women being more straight but being "bi curious." They get boyfriends lead the "straight" life and when they are drunk or no one is looking they make out and have sex with girls on the side. It is all hush hush no one need know type of life. I have seen it time and time again. This makes it hard for a female to find a committed relationship with another girl once she has a guy. Few of the "bi curious" type will mever admit to being fully bi. "I don't want a relationship with another girl," or "I don't really like girls I just have a few friends I like to play with," or "I am not bi I just make out with anything while I am drunk," are all things I have heard. For the few I have heard that admit they are bi it is "well my family would not like it if I was bi or gay so I will just have to keep you a secret."

Lesbians, not all of them but a good number, do not like men. Not just they don't want to sleep them, but they have issues with non gay/transgendered men. Try telling one of them that you are bi and they just don't understand. They are usually fine with it, but it they just can not understand it. They would want nothing to do with a bi female who would also want a male as far as a relationship goes.

I personally think there are more bisexual people out there then society realizes. We just hide or lie to ourselves. It is easier to lie to yourself and play strait until drunk or curtains are closed to let out who you truly are. Hell, I lied to myself for years. I knew back when I was in grade school that I liked girls, but I was a girl I was supposed to like boys. I liked some so that counts. I must be strait. I am not to like all boys and I don't like all girls so...I am just strait and admiring these women. I must want to look like them...that is all, right?

Also there is another issue with being bi that is not mentioned when marriage comes up. Polyamory. When a person is bisexual, and to feel completely satisfied sexually need both sets of genitalia, it is hard to have a committed three way relationship. First off, even if you find two people that fit well with you and of opposite genders, you can not marry both. It is illegal. That leaves one person out if you decide to marry one before meeting the other. Also the word Polyamorous has lots of negative connotations. Let just put the whole "I can play too and watch right?"on the side. There are some men who think it is all about them and having lots of wives to have more babies, and who cares if the women actually like each other, harems. Lots of women are scared of couples looking cause you never know when it might just be the guy posting looking for his own harem or they live in a more BDSM style home and you will be his 24/7 slave. Being a single bi female looking at couples can be dangerous. So find a guy first and then find the right chick, but then it comes full circle. There is not a girl who will risk it.

There are lots of issues with the bisexual community. I hope one day we can all learn to be who we are and be okay with who we are. I also hope for understanding of bisexuals. It is not that we want to sleep with everyone or everything. We just need both genders in our lives sexually to feel satisfied. We can want and keep committed relationships even if it has two other people instead of just one.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Wealth Equalization = Economic Health


Many have heard the debate of "The poor are all helpless kittens who need our tender loving care, and who should be treasured like a precious but fragile gem" vs "the poor are moochers who should all be shot, and those who live should be thrown into the coal mines to prove their worth as human beings at $1/hour and climb their own way up from there. If they can't survive on that, it's their own fault."

Okay, most don't sound that extreme, but you get the general idea, but they do get pretty bad. Those who call welfare "the poor stealing from the middle class" and those who tell about shellshocked vets who will never have a chance to reliably hold a job again who need our support, to the ominous sounding "welfare mom" who lives off of welfare making babies because she can to the noble people who were once stuck on food stamps, but having been able to survive due to them and later become millionaires and became gracious philanthropists.

Almost all the arguments on both sides are highly emotional, with people going on about "what's right."

The only remotely unbiased argument that I've heard (and I do mean "remotely") is those that say making the rich have money means money will trickle down and help the poor although that's been disproved over and over (note, they keep trying to push the failed "trickle down" idea over and over despite it never working, and they just change the name each time; it may be trickle down, another time it's "Job Creators," another time its "public investment in industry," etc.). 

So the question is... what makes the economy healthy?

One very obvious answer when you stop and think about it. It's called Wealth Equalization.

Most will agree, the economy is built on two things: Buying, and Selling. Which, in reality, is silly. Because if you think about that for a second, you'll realize that's not two things. It's one thing. You can't buy without a seller, and you can't sell without a buy.  In the long run, buys minus sells and sells minus buys equals 0. There's one sell for every buy, one buy for every sell.

The economy is built on only one thing: Trades.

The more trading that happens, the better. It doesn't matter if its buying or selling or for how much. One day's seller is the next day's buyer. The value of a coin changes from day to day. The economy is not built on the value of trades or who's buying and selling, it's built, almost completely on the number of trades that happen and the number of people involved in the trades. The former determines the strength of an economy, the latter determines the size of an economy.

Another key point to realize about trades, is they benefit specifically the people who trade. The trades that happen on Wall Street benefit those who are on Wall street. That's why they make the trades. The people who make trades in stores are the ones who benefit from the trades. If a trade doesn't benefit (or at least seem it benefits) both parties, they don't trade, simple as that. The vast majority of the benefit goes only to those people who did the trade.

So, for the best economy, you need the most people doing the most trades.

And that means you have to maximize the number of people trading, and the number of trades. And that means maximizing the number of people who want to buy things and have the money to buy things while making sure there are enough people with the resources to make and sell those things to meet the demand.



So, whatever scary name people call it by, "Wealth Redistribution," "Wealth Equalization," a "Robin Hood Tax," or "Stealing from job creators to give to welfare moms" doesn't change the fact it's a good idea for our economy, and in turn, for everyone. You want to have as many people as possible as close as possible to being middle class. That means people have the resources to make things, and people have the money to buy those things, and in turn, push the economy forward.


Some people may wonder if any kind of precedent for such forced wealth redistribution exists without violent overthrow or Robin-Hood tendencies. And the answer is, yes. During their most prosperous time in ancient history, the Hebrews once had a tradition that happened very 50 years called Jubilee.

During the year of Jubilee, all debts were forgiven, slaves were set free, and bought/taken/seized lands were returned to their original owners (references to it can be found in the Torah/Bible in Leviticus 25:10). Practically, this helped the Hebrew nation significantly by forcing an equalization to an economy that could get unbalanced over time. It wasn't perfect (business people began to plan ahead for jubilee to prevent it from redistributing their wealth), and eventually the practice lost prominence. (Although, interesting to note, some Jews still hold this practice to this day, and interestingly, our previous time of healthiest economy was around the time of the last Jubilee. It could be coincidence, but I believe it's something that should be researched.)

So, in all honesty, what we likely need to end the recession and get the economy back on track is a either sweeping reforms to make constant wealth equalization, some politically intense event to force wealth equalization, or a Jubilee.

And that means systematically giving to the poor.

So, I don't care if you feel giving to the poor, and medicare, and medicaid, and so many other things are the right thing to do (although I feel they are), but they are the smart thing to do.

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Rise of the "Anti-Conspiracy" nut.

My previous post ranted on conspiracy nuts for not taking the time to actually consider how valid their claims are. Now's the time to rant in the opposite direction. One that doesn't get ranted on nearly as often as it deserves (and one whose existence was hinted at in my previous article.)

We all know the stereotype of the conspiracy nut. A tin-foil hat wearing person who says Illuminati reptile aliens from an underground lair in a hollow Earth are responsible for the destruction of the World Trade center by secretly placing explosives in the building that caused the devil's laughing face to appear in the smoke as the buildings went down because the Knight Templar-based Masons told them to...

... and nobody wants to be seen as that crazy. And this aversion, ironically, is giving rise to a new type of crazy.

The "Anti-Conspiracy" nut. Or as a better way to put them, "Trust nuts"


These are people who can have all the evidence right in front of them that things are not okay, and still say, "Oh, everything's okay, there's nothing wrong, nothing would be done that would harm me."

For example, the leaked Snowden documents that talked about how the NSA was collecting and saving metadata on the entirety of the phonecalls in the U.S., and having active listening by computers to communications (especially email) to search for specific keywords[1]. When the NSA admitted that it was doing this, "but for our own good." And it's further been reported that the data has been used in cases not related to the NSA's mandate. It is further well known that your rights being violated is not uncommon for police to boost how they look in their reports if they can get away with it[3]. (This latter point is especially emphasized by the NYPD's "stop and frisk" policy.)

With both these facts as public knowledge, I still hear many saying, "Oh, the NSA's work is fine, it's just trying to stop terrorists." or "They can search my stuff all I want, I have nothing to hide" or something similar."

This tendency is even creeping into the community of skeptics. I've lost track of how many skeptics I've seen that think people shouldn't even bother labeling if foods are GMO, when the main reason for labeling GMOs is to know which crops have been modified to handle roundup ready genes, which make them capable of taking on significant amount of pesticides (or, alternatively, produce their own pesticides) when those pesticides have been proven to harm people[4], harm the environment [5], and most of all, have not been properly tested[6] in the context of the impact of the change and the resulting change in how its handled in the agricultural process in regards to human health. These "skeptics," (unlike actual skeptics) aren't being skeptical at all, but just accepting things at face value without judgement or research, assuming the most benign answer is the true one, even when all evidence flies in the face of that assumption.

Other examples of "nut trustiness" in action, is assuming that items were stress tested for items beyond their purposes (Examples phrases being, "Oh, its common enough that they test these kind of things to prevent accidents." when plugging in a toaster near a bathtub due to a desire to have breakfast while soaking. or "They expect you to red-line your car all the time, it won't hurt it. Otherwise they wouldn't make it able to go that fast in the first place," etc.)



The first three rules of avoiding becoming a trust nut apply also to avoiding becoming conspiracy nut:
1. Research the idea. Look it up, is there any reason to (dis)believe from an accredited scientific source? How much research is there on it? Pay attention to what scientific articles say (if one article says, "Causes diabetes", and another says, "It doesn't cause cancer", that doesn't mean its safe).

2. Could I be wrong?
If your answer is "no" to question 2, congratulations, you're a nut. With anyone who's skeptical or open minded, they know there's always a chance they could be wrong. So if you're that certain you're probably too passionate about it, and need to back off.

3. If you're not sure sure about number 2, or think your answer is yes, ask yourself this, "What would it take to convince me otherwise." Compare what you're asking to similar questions. If you expect more proof that the system you live in could do something to harm you than a conspiracy nut needs as proof for a lunar landing... you're probably still a trust nut.


4. Is your reasoning, "God will protect you," "Governments always look out for their citizen's best interests," or something similar? If so, you're a trust nut.

5. Ask, "Is there any way that this idea that could harm me would benefit anyone else in anyway whatsoever?" If the answer is yes, there's probably then a reason you should look into it a little bit more.

Remember, the reason we evolved a complex brain for analytical purposes was specifically for survival (as are most adaptations we have).  If you're using yours to explain away actual dangers, you're on a one-way ticket to winning the Darwin awards.





[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/nsa-domestic-email/2784141/
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
[4] http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797%2801%2900298-8/abstract
[5] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5620200725/abstract;jsessionid=D1EDED96CF142B3C0BC988C9DA962D13.f01t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
[6] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1013814108502

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

On Conspiracy Theories


On Conspiracy Theories

Okay, spending a day in politics online, you're going to come across a LOT of conspiracy theories. They seem to get bigger and wilder each day. And believing all the conspiracy theories is likely to make you a crazy nut if you aren't one already. However, believing that no on in a position of power in the entire world got that position of power because they want power, and that they wouldn't go through lengths to get more power without telling their ideas to the whole world is absurdly naive.

So, comes the question, what to believe? Should I believe in aliens, or should I believe that every member of the Nazi party in Germany that became employed by the U.S. after WWII all of a sudden believes that everyone should be loved and cherished regardless of race or creed?

Honestly, both are equally hard. So in this guide, I'm going to try and give a good guideline of which conspiracy theories to consider, and which ones to ignore, and which ones to look at and say, "Yea, that's probably going on."

First off, I'm going to separate conspiracy theories into two groups. This is based on that there is the hype of conspiracy theories, and there's what the word actually means. Conspiracy simply means a group of people working in secret. If you've every made a private club with your friends back in elementary school and decided to do something as a group, congratulations, you were in a conspiracy. That's seriously all a conspiracy is. And a theory actually has two meanings. In common use, theory means an idea. In science, it means a fact. Since conspiracy theories are ideas about social actions and most are merely ideas that aren't proved, we're going to assume the common use, not the scientific one. So a conspiracy theory is merely an idea that people are doing something as a group in secret.

Now, that's what conspiracy theory means. The hype often involves aliens, people in tinfoil hats, the world being hollow, etc. Basically something so fundamentally different than the world as we know it that if it were true, we'd all be idiots for missing something so big. These come across as more tall tales like the old stories of Paul Bunyan or over-the-top religious stories.

As such, for the meaning of conspiracy theories, specifically in reference to secretive groups of people doing stuff that they don't want the masses to know, I"m going to call those "subterfuge groups". For the alien-abducting hype types, I'm going to call those "conspiracy tales".

So, how to separate subterfuge groups from conspiracy tales? A big part of how it should be approached is to understand the fundamental nature of a subterfuge group.

A subterfuge group (a serious one, anyway) has one key feature, with a lot of information that stems from that.
  • A subterfuge group's power increases from acting in the shadows 
This is obvious, because otherwise there wouldn't be an advantage to hiding.  It's practically a truism, "To get advantage from hiding, there must be an advantage to hiding."

This leads us to our first sub point, which is little more than an inverse of the first point.
  • A subterfuge group's power increases from acting in the shadows.
    • A subterfuge group's power would be less with their actions being known.
So, that kills a LOT of conspiracy tales right there. How you may ask? If aliens had the power to control our minds at will, why would they have to fear if we knew about them? If there were more countries on the inside of a hollow earth, lack of invasion options due to easily guarded entrances when compared to potential gain from trading opportunities screams that a lot of "hollow earth" ideas (especially of why it would be kept secret) just don't hold water.

So, expanding our list...
  • A subterfuge group's power increases from acting in the shadows.
    • A subterfuge group's power would be less with their actions being known.
      • There is something more powerful than the subterfuge group.
      • The subterfuge group has courses of action that it fears.
      • The subterfuge group likely doesn't like risking oversite.
      • Public reaction to what the subterfuge group does would not help the group's goals.
      • There is a purpose.
So, any conspiracy tale about someone controlling the world's strongest government(s) is outright hokey, because such an organization would answer to noone, would have the control, and have nothing to fear, and could care less what the public thinked.

However, control is a very different thing than manipulation. 

 As such, a subterfuge group is much less likely to be pulling the strings, but to be abusing loopholes or shirking responsible action to get its power. In short, subterfuge groups don't make systems, they abuse systems.

Further, a subterfuge group can't be too big. Because the bigger something is, the harder it is to hide. The power it manipulates into doing what it wants should involve as few key players as possible. (Key note: the power it manipulates, the power is usually not its own if the power is significant, but an existing power manipulated to the purpose of the subterfuge group.)

Further, any inherently risky behavior must have some kind of payout for those actively involved in the subterfuge group. Usually power or money, although other goals often would exist (keeping loved one's safe from some perceived threat or gaining money and power for the loved ones, getting some ideological goal reached such as more influence for their religion, etc.) And usually, any risky action must have at least a comparable, if not significantly higher, payout. 

Further, the groups are weaker than something in our world, otherwise they wouldn't bother with the secrecy. This means they don't have some super power, they don't have abilities that transcend reality, they are stuck in the same world we are, they're just trying to bend it to their own ends.

So, when considering if something is a subterfuge group or a conspiracy tale, keep in mind the following features...

  1. Does this conspiracy have more power than the whole world? If so, it's probably a conspiracy tale. (Sorry super-aliens, Cthullu, and most major religions, you don't hold up.)
  2. Does this conspiracy fear nothing? If it fears nothing, it's probably a conspiracy tale.
  3. Does this conspiracy have anything to gain that's worth more than what its actions cost it? If not, it's probably a conspiracy tale.
  4. Does this conspiracy bend the laws of physics in any way, or require that reality is significantly different than how we understand it? If so, it's probably a conspiracy tale.
  5. Is this organization require "perfect" or "infallible" actions to work regularly? If so, chances are its a conspiracy tale, as this risks are too high.
  6. Does this conspiracy involve a few key positions of power, a small group of people, lots of power to be made by a small investment, make use of existing systems to be bent to its own means, and is it something you could reasonably see yourself doing if you were in that same position of power if you had similar goals, that seems to have some events that would be very unlikely to be merely coincidences pointing to its existence? In that case, you may have hit on a decent idea for a subterfuge group. Now it's time to start researching to see if there's anything to back it up.




These are a few Conspiracy theories vs Subterfuge ideas that I've consider, and my own gut-instinct take on them from minimal to moderate research...

Bombs were planted in the World Trade Towers before they fell.
My gut instinct on this one at first says "true". Both towers had constant bomb threats. Both towers each literally had their own bomb squads in addition to normal security because bomb threats were just that common. So were their bombs in the World Trade Towers before they fell? I'd be surprised if there wasn't. However, the so-called (and only) evidence of the way the towers fell "all at once" and beams looking cut? That evidence just doesn't cut it. Why? Because if the towers fell the way the public story matched, it'd still end up the same way. The whole building would fall at once because the stuff up higher isn't going to float while the stuff down below takes its time to fall first, but the stuff at the top can't fall while there's stuff under it holding it up. So everything falls when there's someplace to fall through (and gravity always pushes down on everything, meaning that something on top pushes on the stuff below it). So yes, the entire thing falls at once. Sorry 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

As for the shear cuts in the towers beams, most people don't realize this, but steel beams are a crystalline structure. Sure we may be able to bend them and dent them, but they can also experience what's known as a shear fracture. Which means they shatter along the weakest molecular point, which is often a smooth straight cut through the entire beam.

... however, people hyped up the previous one so much (when it was probably false) that it actually stole believability from the next one...

The World Trade Center attacks were pre-planned

With this one, there are just too many coincidences to look the other way.
  1. Motive: Bush's VP had significant stock with military manufacturers.
  2. Motive:  Saddam Hussein had attempted to assassinate Bush Sr., there was family vendetta there to motivate for a war in Iraq.
  3. "Coincidence": The planes that hit the towers appear to be unmarked in ANY media video despite the fact they were claimed to be commercial planes (don't take my word for it, check it yourself.)
  4. "Coincidence": Bin Laden was not killed during the entire Bush administration, despite the fact he admitted to it. Obama later instructed the military to kill him and a single sniper in a stealth helicopter would be able to do it. As such, it's likely not that Bush couldn't kill Bin Laden, but that he had no desire to do so.
  5. "Coincidence":  There is established history between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family.
  6.  Rate of Gains: Several heads of Jewish run companies were in the twin towers. Bin Laden was muslim. The planes hit exactly on those floors, most strongly ensuring their deaths, and putting Islam in a much stronger position compared to Islam. He took out the Jews power source, and the cost was a few subordinates.
  7. Rate of Gains: Companies that competed with the companies of Cheney were in the twin towers. None of his were. The event also spurred a war that would put his businesses in MUCH higher demand. He made a mint, and the cost was the lives of his competitors.
  8. Rate of Gains: Bush got unlimited backing to attack whatever and wherever he wanted for a short time, and he used it to take out the guy who threatened his dad, establish family control over many more oil fields, while also getting act like a war hero (despite having dodged the draft earlier in life). This is at the "cost" of the twin towers going down, which contained many more liberal organizations than conservative ones. And if there's one thing Bush isn't going to be accused of, it's being friendly to liberals.
  9. Opportunity to conspire: Bush, Cheney, and Bin Laden had all been in the same place at the same time in private meetings before the attacks, and they're public record. 
Pre-planned world trade center attacks seem such a possible conspiracy that one's almost tempted to call it fact. However, it should be still pointed out that although there's motives, "odd coincidences", and a definite opportunity to conspire, there is no solid proof... yet. But there's definitely enough evidence to justify suspicion.

No Moon Landing
There's no real reason to fake this, and the rocks brought back are different enough from normal earth rocks that it makes sense for them to be real. Sure actually going into space is more expensive than making a fake rock (maybe not moreso than making a fake rock to the quality that would fool many teams of geologists with PhDs, however, I wouldn't know.) But the benefits aren't worth it. (Especially since people have independently reflected things off the surface of the moon using lasers to confirm there's something man-made there, means we still had to put something on the moon.) So fake moon landing is a conspiracy tale.

 Hollow Earth
This doesn't hold up. Literally.  Gravity doesn't worth that way. Dirt and rock aren't adhesive or strong enough to hold up the crust in a micro-dyson sphere. The crust would have to be so ridiculously well balanced and if the core of the Earth ever flipped (which we know it does on occasion from magnetic records in rocks) it would mean it's unstable enough to where the core should have crashed into the crust long long ago if the world were hollow. There's just too many things that have to be perfect to have a whole other world living inside the world's crust, and way too easy to upset. (It wouldn't have lasted the impact that wiped out the dinosaurs). Now, a more realizstic version of this would be that the crust, due to pressures and heavier elements sinking, may form a geode like caves that can in turn be warmed by magma vents meaning there's potential for subterranean life. THAT is more reasonable. Some may actually get quite large (google crystal caves for some examples), but nowhere near the size of buried continents or nonsense like that. Small towns connected by tunnels? Possible (Bon Terre mines proved people can live that way). But a fully hollow Earth? Think again.

There's an Area 51 secret facility


This one is true. I'm not saying "this is a potential thing to consider", no, I'm saying this one is true. You can travel to Roswell and see the military warning signs yourself, and if you're lucky, stick around long enough to hear of some idiot trying to sneak in and getting themselves shot by armed guards in the process. Area 51 is an established fact that it exists. That said, however....



There's aliens at Area 51
This one has one surprisingly good reason to be believe it. The military officials at Area 51 said that they have a crashed UFO. Yes, they actually said that. It was part of an official press release. You can go back through newspapers of the time period and see it yourself. Now comes the second part people miss...

The next day, the same group issued a press-release retraction saying, "Nope, it's only a weather balloon". And shortly after that, the space race between Russia and the U.S. started. So, obviously, somewhere along the line someone lied about something for some reason. Was it a weather balloon? Was it aliens? I'm actually inclined to believe a third option...

When wiki leaks released their blackwater and cablegate releases to the public, making them searchable by the public, if you searched for Area 51, there were a few communications between Area 51 and those government-hired agencies. In these, Area 51's purpose was made fairly clear. Area 51 is for peacetime what the Pentagon is for war time. At this point, it should be noted the Pentagon isn't for making war (that's President's and Congress's job) but to win war. Area 51 isn't for making peace, but winning peace. And that's a lot more insidious than it sounds. It means, making sure U.S. goals (as determined by the same people who determine our goals during wartime) are achieved during peacetime. Ousting certain leaders, toppling different governments, ensuring public support, planning strategic strikes, etc. And for peace-time, a lot of the actions are fairly war-like. It was born out of the same era and mentality where the CIA invented LSD as an attempt to create a mind-control drug.

A much more likely scenario for Area 51 is that the government wanted public support for a space race, and also was testing how to manipulate people using the media at the same time.

That's my hypothesis anyway, still, no smoking gun.

Intelligent Reptiles control humanity and can command our brains
 No. Just... no. If they can control our brains, no reason for secrecy, because if we didn't act how they wanted, they'd just make us act differently.

Banks want more money, and are willing to be underhanded to do it.
This one falls into the "confirmed" category. Lawsuits are under way for subprime mortgage issues that prove banks are willing to take illegal actions to gain more money. And obviously someone who goes into banking for a living has at least some interest in money. They've also managed to get the government to bail them out when they caused the problem, and are on record as having put significant money into the hands of politicians. They also have closed-door meeting groups at the federal reserve with the heads of the banking industry, with the Bilderberg group, and more. They've shown desire, that they have done illegal action, have had opportunity, and way too much "coincidence" that is on record as not being coincidence.

Hear any other conspiracy theories and want to tell how they hold up? Post 'em down below!

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

"Asassinating" Corporations



So, more than anything else, corporations are destroying our country. In ancient times, if you had a corrupt and evil monarch, the peasants could rise up with pitchforks and force an "early retirement". However, that's a lot harder with a faceless and soulless corporation. You remove the CEO, and another brutal one is hired. Despite the fact government claims they're "people" now, they have not easy-to-target vital organs.


They bribe our politicians, manipulate the FDA to allow unhealthy foods, try to increase taxes to in turn increase subsidies that go towards them, and more. Some threaten to fire people based on sexual orientation (such as Hobby Lobby & Chick-Fila in Kansas) or trying to disrupt work people do for free for others (Microsoft's earlier attitude towards open source software) or just plain trying to make people suffer for profit (private corporate owned prisons trying to force new pointless laws and then find culprits to them just to bad their inmate count for higher payouts).

So, the question is... what can we do about it? Boycott their product? What if we don't buy their product in the first place? (Companies that encourage wars and sell arms to the military or the private prisons?) Or that we don't think we could get enough people to counter easily? How can we actually attack their pocketbook instead of just not contributing to it? Well, that's where we start exploring ideas...

I hope for this to be a recurring theme on this blog as more ideas are explored. If you have ideas, feel free to post them in the comments below.

1. Lawsuits
Corporate media has done a fairly strong-armed job of portraying "a lawsuit problem" in our country, portraying people as lawsuit happy. The thing is, those who bring the most lawsuits to court aren't individuals... it's corporations and businesses. They're the source of the glut. So with the corporate-caused guilt out of the way, lawsuits are a viable route.
Going to a small claims court will set you back ~ $70. The form is a simple two pages, and the payout is usually inbetween $1000 and $3000. Further, lawyers are NOT allowed in small claims courts in many places. That means it's just you vs some company manager IF they send someone out. Which only happens 50% of the time. Often, they don't even bother with that, because the manager's time is better spent elsewhere.

However, a judge will throw out the case if you're being frivolous. You NEED a legitimate complaint. So only target the corporations that deserve it, that are truly doing something wrong, and make sure you can point out how it's affected you personally and give a dollar amount and resources to back it up. Although there's the $70 upfront cost, the 50% no-fight payout can make this pay for itself fast. Just don't do it twice with the same corrupt company, because eventually they'll get  sick of you and send someone trained but not a lawyer to handle your courtcases. So keep them to less than once a year with the same company.

2. Phonecalls
Call them up. Ask questions, ask about their products, refuse to talk to a machine (when you have number keys to press, always choose operator or an extension where you'll hit random numbers, when it tries to do voice recognition, talk in gibberish). They have to pay people in those people positions, so each minute you spend talking to them is a minute they're paying for. Talk long winded, talk on tangents easily, never buy anything.

3. Hire their staff
If you have your own small business, and you're looking to bring on some more employees, steal some of the workforce of a corrupt corporation. Let's say you run a small dry cleaner that does home delivery, and you're wanting to corporate assassination on on a certain small-business-destroying mega-mart chain. As you know from going through that process, that process isn't cheap. And if you're paying more than minimum wage, just stroll right into the local 'mart, and say the first person they're you ask for help, ask them how much they're getting paid. If you're willing to pay even slightly more, tell them that. Sure, you still have to deal with the hiring costs, but you're not alone, you're also making sure whatever mega-mart it is will ALSO have to go through more hiring. To top it off, if you're running your own business, you're not paying for a manager's time if you interview them at a restaurant you like after store hours. The mega-mart will have to pay their manager that time. It's win-win for you and the employee, lose for the corporation.

4. Make it yourself, with others... then sell it, make a party of it.
 Let's say there's a corporation you buy from. A lot of GMO-loving corporations that don't safety test their GMO products are good targets, so they're a good example for this.... a lot will include harmful toxins as preservatives, etc. So... here's what you do...
Find a local farmer that grows their own stuff (if you have difficulty finding some, just do a search for your local farmers markets). Ask if there's a way you can buy some ingrediants in a larger bulk. Find out how much you can get. Make a party via your social media (facebook for example) and put up an RSVP, with a cover charge. Buy an appropriate amount of food from that farmer, and throw a party. If you don't have a room, switch the house party up for a hoedown at the farmer's farm, and split the profits with the farmer. Or rent a venue and have a bigger party. Because the more people you invite to your party and who eat at your party, the more people who AREN'T buying corporate food that day. And to top it off, if the local farmer comes along, and people love his food, they may get permanent customers, which is forever funnelling money away from the corporate food and towards the locals. And you made a little profit on the side. Not bad.

5. Are you ex-military or an engineer? If the former, you meet the majority of requirements to be a military contractor. If the latter, you have the majority of the skill to be a military contractor. There are plenty of young engineers who like to make things explode and ex-military floating around. To be fair, military contracts are often sold on "boom value". The flashier the sale, the more likely it is to happen. But instead of focusing on offensive weaponry, focus on defensive stuff (hint: for hiring, you'll be looking for more mechanical engineers, physicists, chemists, and materials engineers). Show off how much explosion armor can take and sell that, instead of selling weapons. You get the budget more defensive, and politicians listen (way too much) to military lobbyists. Use some of your extra funds to lobby for less warfare and military spending (tip: Lobbying firms charge $5K to $25K a month for lobbying). That'll turn some heads. And if you can't afford all the science, help organize a group at the local college to do it (there's plenty of ex-military in college) and have them for a portion of profits. They may have some clever ideas.

6. Organize co-ops.
The example I'll use here is housing. Housing corporations in your area a pain in the arse and draconian? Hop on craigslist, and find several other people looking for housing. Spend a few hundred to get a non-profit license between all of you, register as a co-op, and have the organization (instead of as individuals) and take out a loan to buy a house or a few adjacent houses. Link 'em together, and share resources. Put up solar panels, windmills, etc. and you can get it almost to the point to where your housing pays for itself. You may need to room with someone, but if you're already in a roommate situation, there's no loss.



Anyway, that's a few ideas to get the ball rolling. It's nowhere near an exhaustive list. Feel free to share more ideas in the comments below.

Job Creation via minimum wage.

This is a simple diagram I made that shows why raising the minimum wage will INCREASE the number of jobs, instead of decrease them. You can click the image to view it in higher detail.




It glosses over a few of the nitty-gritty details (I doubt my readers want to see a wall of text to explain what should be some obvious points. If you feel any need explanation, feel free to use the comment section below to ask.)

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Food Labeling

On Food Labeling....

I read this article earlier today, which got me thinking on the GMO labeling movement.

The GMO label was supposedly just supposed to be an additional line on the nutritional information that says, "This product contains Genetically Modified Organisms" which if the initial grower includes on their product (they should know), would require no significant change other than updating your labels with the same information when you find out that the labels on things you're buying have it. So it'd be relatively cheap. (The companies in California raised a huge stink, and claimed that "it'd cost consumers an extra $400 a year in groceries." What they didn't tell consumers was that $400 was assuming noone changed their purchasing habits at all, and was due to companies switching away from GMOs because they wouldn't want to get stuck with that label, and raising their prices as a result.)

However, to be fair, labels can be expensive if they require significant research. For example, listing the percentage of dietary intake of sugar for a pre-cooked apple pie. Sure, some is taken up by the sugar you add, that number can be found with a simple 3x3 spreadsheet, but then you have to include the sugar from the apple, and its exact amounts are more obscure (a granny smith might have a different amount than a red delicious, and if you've got a cross-breed or a good/bad year, oh my!), and requires more research.

Now, the linked article doesn't say HOW the supplements were asked to be labeled. If it was simply, "This is an alternative medicine supplement, and has not been tested by the FDA", that's completely fine, I'm cool with that. If it's a label that requires significant testing by the FDA to fill out its contents (like a full nutrition label), then like normal nutrition labels, requirements should be scaled to the size of company.

Now, that said, I'm a proponent of labeling requiring the ingrediant list to mention source of ingrediants, I'm also the type who ignores the font of a container and heads straight for the ingredient list. And organic pre-made pizza will include, "Organic cheese, organic wheat, organic tomatoes..." as part of its label. Similarly, *I* think foods with gmo foods should be labeled as such, "Patent 3255623 GMO Wheat, Patent 5290983 GMO Tomatos, ..." so that way I can look up the patent office online and see what they actually DID to the food.

So, say something like golden rice or purple tomatoes that are altered to have more nutrients? I'm cool with that, load me up, GMO my food all day! But if that corn has been engineered to be able to survive enough poison to kill a blue whale... I don't think I'm going to choose to trust the pesticides that have been sprayed on it. Call me paranoid, but I'd like that tomato to die from poison overdose before I would.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Our future via space elevators

Our future lives thanks to Space Elevators...


To properly talk about the effect of Space Elevators, you need to start with the Lunar Elevator. This is, because, despite what you may think, Actually, the Lunar Space Elevator is simpler to build than the Earth Space Elevator. Although the cable has to be longer, it doesn't need to be of as strong material. (Materials strong enough for the Lunar Elevator cable already exist.) At the moment, it's VERY hard to land something on the moon, despite being so close. This is because the gravity of approaching, as gravity has a tendency to do, means we constantly accelerate towards it after a certain point. So, it takes a LOT of fuel to slow down via retrorockets to land on the surface. And all that fuel has to be sent up out of the atmosphere. And all the materials to build a lunar space elevator can go up in a single rocket.

For comparison, Mars, energy wise, is easier to land on than the moon, despite being so far away. This is because it has an atmosphere we can use to slow ourselves down. The problem, of course, is the time it takes to get there, which means a LOT Of life support.



A lunar elevator, however, changes to moon from being a hard target, to only slightly harder than getting any old communications satellite into orbit. That may not seem like a big deal (I mean, after all, not many people afford satallites), but it comes with a bonus. He3, Helium 3, is constantly put out by our sun. Our atmosphere destroys it on contact, but the moon acts like a giant sponge for the stuff. He3 is the BEST fuel source that we currently know of, second only to antimatter. As far as cleanliness and energy output goes, it's only byproduct is regular helium which at the moment is expensive for us to mine, and is used in almost every major form of industry. Having it as an easily accessible energy byproduct would do wonders for cleaning up the carbon footprint of energy. (It's not just a zero pollution energy source, it's a negative pollution energy source!)

Further, He3 constantly comes off the sun. It's solar energy free for the grabbing that's more potent than the typical solar panels that rely on catching photons (which, by comparison, have much less potential energy).

Now, to make matters more interesting, He3 is used for fusion reactions. (Not to be confused with the fission reactions of current nuclear power plants). Despite the fact that it's literally 10 times as powerful as energy potent as our current nuclear power, it's a non-self sustaining reaction, meaning no risk of meltdown. There's not radiation. Again, the ONLY byproduct is regular helium, and LOTS of clean renewable energy. Further, He3 runs at thousands of dollars a litre at present market price, and that price is only expected to go up as we start shipping it, because that's the price before we have enough He3 to start building lots of clean fusion reactors. So far, the only fusion reactor is the ITAR reactor, and it's only an experimental demo. So with a ready supply of He3, supply may go up, but demand will go up much faster. In short, it's a great investment.

Now, access to any energy source, once established, comes in high demand. That means that space development will kick up to a new level. Materials research for the Earth Space elevator will kick up to a heavy level. (The same was that train tracks get built if a new coal mine is discovered.) Not only will the company our country that is running the Lunar Elevator have significant interest in making easy access to such a cash cow, but people will be beginning to travel back and forth (think new mining town mentality.) And people will be moving to live there permanently. (Pro tip: Expect a ticket price to get from Earth to the Moon, once both elevators are running, to cost about $10K, start saving if you don't want to take out a loan, but at $1K a litre for He3, expect to make all that money back in the first week!)

Now we are almost at the point where we can build an Earth Space Elevator. The main thing that's left to research is the cable material, and it looks like we have that set for the near future. Originally, Carbon Nanotubes were hoped to fill that role, but as many businesses found out, they're just too hard to produce. However, since then, two more technologies have appeared that have the strength that's needed... and they're much more easy to produce. Those are boron-carbon nanotubes, and graphene. (The CEO of LiftPort , Michael Laine, and myself - I'm the CITO of LiftPort - debate between the two of us which will be doable first. It's just a friendly rivalry between us on that one. I'm betting on the graphene.)

So, basically, the Lunar Space Elevator paves the road for the Earth Space Elevator, which means whoever gets the Lunar Elevator first, will control the Earth Space Elevator, and from there, the direction of space development afterwards, and by extension of that, directly guide the future of humanity as a whole.



... which means whoever gets the Lunar Elevator first, will ... directly guide the future of humanity as a whole.



You may ask why just the Lunar Elevator is so important? I'll tell you right here.

When the Lunar Elevator is built, that group will have the foothold into space. Although an Earth elevator can be built anywhere near enough to the equator, the Moon doesn't rotate enough for the centripetal force to keep an elevator up like the Earth would. You need to use the balance point between the Earth an the Moon... the L1 Lagrange point. And there's only one of these. Trying to build a lunar elevator anywhere else would be significantly more difficult and complex.

And the space station and elevator built at the L1 will be THE refueling depot and large-scale ship-building facility for Earth Orbit. This is because it will be cheaper to bring Lunar materials into space than Earth materials. And the Moon is providing the He3. Thus, the Lunar station will be THE gateway between Earth and the rest of space. This means whoever has it gets such a ridiculous lead on space development over any other group that it's not even funny.

And cheap space travel opens ups another opportunity. He3 makes energy a non-issue. Asteroid mining with both space elevators available makes mineral resources a non-issue. With the space elevators, getting anywhere in the solar system becomes ridiculously cheap. And asteroids in the asteroid belt can literally be city sized rocks of a single element.

Think about that... what mining company wouldn't fight tooth and nail to get their hands on an entire city-sized "pre-mined" hunk of rock for them to open up onto the market? Think about the fact that digging takes absurd amounts of permits, regulations, controls, equipment, and time. Not to mention there's environmental impacts to be concerned about. Cheap space-travel and asteroids says, "a few explosives, and your'e done". No environment to hurt, no regulations, no neighbors to annoy with blasting. Just batta-bing, batta-boom, massive profit and cheap resources for all of humanity.


Just batta-bing, batta-boom, massive profit and cheap resources for all of humanity.


At this point, with amazing resources, and amazing energy, we can begin to seriously start considering colonizing not only other planets in our system, but start creating ships to travel to other systems. The non-profit Alcor already has the research for long-term cryogenic freezing that would be necessary for a multi-year journey to the next star system perfected.

Now, you may be thinking this sounds like science fiction, but the Lunar Space Elevators area already being planned. Three major organizations have already declared the goal of building a lunar space elevator with two more looking like they may declare such a goal in the near future. The three already declared are the LiftPort group of the US, Russia (which started awhile ago), and Obayashi Corp of Japan. The two organizations that may be considering are the EU (which just dumped a LOT of research into the primary component, Graphene) and China (which similarly dumped a lot into its space program), these latter two, although they have not formally declared space elevator interests, are expected to once they do the math and realize how vital they would be to their ambitions.

The latest any of these are expecting to put an Earth space elevator up by is 2050. The earliest is Earth elevator is expected 2030. Expect asteroid mining within five years after that. My personal opinion is that I expect five years after that before someone says, "Hey, cryogenic freezing? Space travel? Let's start looking for investors."

And that kind of travel means free open space for humanity. First world families settling on new worlds (expect families of fifteen kids again, like back in old-west settling days!) And new cultural renaissance. Expect a vibrant exploring space program. Races for new space technology to be developed. (I know I've already heard plans with sound physics... but no testing yet...for a functional warp that could use as little as 10 tons of He3 to power it.)

In short, expect to see the future we all dreamed of in Star Trek in about 30ish years.




In short, expect to see the future we all dreamed of in Star Trek in about 30ish years.