MK Ultra

I did choose this conspiracy theory to begin, as it shows how something that sounds unbelievable actually happens. As always, the information I am giving is based on mild research and is correct as of the date I'm reciting it. There may, and most likely will, be memory holes that prevent information from being found.

MK Ultra was a code name by the United States of America's Central Intelligence Agency. The purpose of the experiment was to determine if certain procedures or drugs would be helpful in interrogations. Some of the drugs included LSD and other psychoactive drugs and chemicals. As for abuse, mental, physical, and sexual abuse were used, so it'd be safe to say nothing was off the table.

If that wasn't shocking enough, the US and Canadian citizens that were being experimented on were not volunteers. They had no idea they were part of an experiment.

Now, I did say no opinions, but MK Ultra is not a conspiracy theory anymore, it's a proven fact. If you had described what was happening and asked people around the world, most would likely point to one of history's more universally evil regimes. But, most would excuse this as an outlandish conspiracy theory if it pointed to their own country. And, they'd be wrong.

I've had the opportunity to interact with many people through my lifetimes. One thing has been universal, the vast majority of people have good intention and simply want to lead their lives. However, all societies and cultures have what would be considered their evil population. Whether it be a doctor that experiments on unwitting patients, a scientist that creates pathogens to see how they affect their people, or a politician that introduces policies that cripple and impoverish their subjects or citizens.

Government by Who

Who really runs your government? This is an open question for anywhere, but I’ll dive into the United States a little more. But, some of the questions are applicable around the world. If you’re allowed to ask those questions, anyway.

Is it the President? Congress? Supreme Court? The constitution says no. You need all three. But, that is a boring topic. And quickly answered.

Some people would now say the President. While it’s true the President is getting more attention and power lately, that really shouldn’t be the case. The President should really be a figure-head, someone that represents the will of the nation they represent. The President should have the final say for all matters, and sway the Congress and Supreme Court to fit the will of the people.

Which is correct? Is there a real answer? Of course, if you read the Constitution, there is an answer provided by the Founding Fathers. Same for Congress and the Supreme Court. It’s all laid out in short sentences. But, again, that’s a boring topic.

Just to take a little side journey, read the Constitution. Notice how the language changes over time and length of the amendments. Notice anything?

But, back to why I’m boring you with government. You may be getting a clue by where this is being held in the menu system, but this really isn’t about any of these branches in particular. It’s all of them, and a couple more than the other.

We’ll start with a nice number. Eighteen hundred. One thousand, eight hundred. That’s how big the staff for the President is. Their vetting? Themselves, mostly. I’m sure the Presidents select some primary positions, but the majority would be a flow-down from there. Just like a business of the same size. The top guy doesn’t hire the bottom guy directly. There are layers.

Congressmen? They start with around ten and go up from there. For each. The numbers I’m able to quickly find put an average of twenty staff per each in the House of Representatives and over one hundred for each senator.

Supreme Court Justice? Four. And they hire them directly. We’ll leave these guys alone.

But, there are about sixteen thousand staffers running Congress and the White House. Does this number surprise you? Should it?

It would be easy to say that it isn’t entirely surprising. There are many things to keep track of in a government that large, right down to what’s for dinner. When was the last time you heard about the number of staffers in the government? If I hadn’t searched for the numbers, I would have guessed maybe ten percent of what I saw. Naïve? Maybe. Practical? Yes.

Congressmen do need assistants, but the question is more about what kind of role should they play. And what kind of role do they play. This is where the section title comes in. Who really runs the government? Who writes and reads the bills? Thousands of pages of text in a bill, and I can assure you no one knows everything that’s in that bill. What one person can read that much and still remember what’s on page ten after hitting page two thousand? There are some, but not that many. Do you see this as a problem? That’s the important question.

Another is to ask how much power is really given to these out-of-sight people? They’re the ones writing the bills, and reading them. How easy would it be to have one add a little extra wording for their buddy somewhere? Maybe help a friend’s aunt’s business win that lucrative contract. Do a little insider trading. That appears to be okay for the families of Congressmen, so I’m sure it’d be okay for the staffers that actually brief the Congressmen. Do you think the Congressmen read the bills, or just rely on a summary written for them by their staff?

It’s safe to say every elected official is different. Some may be more rigorous in their approach and actually do write and read bills. How common is this type? And how common is the type that hasn’t read a word of any bill, whether it was sponsored or created by that Congressman or is up for debate or a vote?

As you may have guessed by reading other entries, I’m not going to pretend to answer these questions. I have my own opinions, but it’s important to ask. Even if you don’t have an interest in politics.

Are you really getting what you’re voting for? Enjoy the freedom to ask the question while you still can. Many people on the planet don’t enjoy either of those luxuries.

Of Efficiency and Cars

Miles per gallon. It gets pushed as a measure of car efficiency. Except, it isn’t a good metric. It’s actually rather horrible. So, the question will be to ask why it’s been pushed. Is it the only thing you can understand? I have my doubts about that, but some may not.

What is the real purpose of pushing miles per gallon? It’s been pushed as a way to stop pollution that’s is purported to create a warming atmosphere. If this were the case, why isn’t the efficiency of the burn talked about? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to talk about how efficiently fuel is burned and the so-called bad gases eliminated? How do you really compare engines of different sizes?

Here are some examples. Ones that I have data for as well. One is a car that weighs about three thousand five hundred pounds with a driver and a tank of gas. It gets twenty five miles per gallon. Another is a car that weigh a couple hundred pounds more and gets the same gas mileage. We’ll use these two, real-world, cars. They are the same model, but the heavier one uses an engine that’s about twenty cubic inches smaller.

First question is, which is cleaner? I know the answer. If you know cars, you can probably guess, as well. But, I will tell you the lighter car would certainly kill you if it was running in a closed garage with you in the driver’s seat. The heavier one may, but it’d take a lot longer. Did I mention these cars are separated by over thirty years?

Gas mileage didn’t tell you which is cleaner. I did. You really couldn’t tell by the gas mileage itself. For efficiency, the larger engine will consume just over thirteen gallons of gas per each cubic inch over the course of one hundred thousand miles. Thirteen point three to be more exact. The smaller? Fourteen point seven. It’s less efficient. By that metric. In fact, by most metrics, the smaller engine is less efficient. It does make more power per cubic inch.

How about the amount of gas used per horsepower in a hundred thousand miles? Thirty year older engine is thirteen and a third gallons. Newer engine is fourteen point six. More gas to make a very similar number of horsepower.

I’ll be the first to admit that the newer engine is more refined and maybe even more reliable. It certainly is easier to live with in the vast temperature swings I live in. How about an even newer engine? Let’s go another twenty years past the newer of those first two examples. Admittedly, this is a different type of vehicle, so our apples may look more like oranges.

Smaller engine yet, but more power than either of the others. But, it also has to contend with another twenty-five hundred pounds, resulting in a bit less miles per gallon at twenty one. For displacement (gallons per cubic inch per a hundred thousand miles), it scores twenty-two point four. Add weight, and it’s about the same as the older engine. Per horsepower per hundred thousand miles? Twelve point seven. Better than the others.

Which of these three is least likely to pollute? The newest one of course. If we were to take this powertrain and install it in the older chassis, I’m sure it would do a lot better. Go to the Money Talk page and maybe I could make this happen. After the tractor, of course.

But, we aren’t getting anywhere here. We’re using miles per gallon and we haven’t found a number that tells you how clean any of these engines or vehicles are. We do know which will keep us warm when running in an enclosed space and which will keep us cold. Quickly in one case.

To be fair, the amount of bad gases is regulated, but those numbers aren’t what you see on the window sticker. The big number is miles per gallon. You see a basic one to ten scale for fuel economy & greenhouse rating as well as smog rating. And a generic carbon dioxide per mile number. In small print. Only one of the pollutants. Where are the others?

I will admit that having a standardized way to test for fuel economy is nice to have for determining the cost of ownership. But, it’s too bad that doesn’t exist. I’ve been fairly lucky with my cars getting at least the mileage on the sticker, but I have a lot of country roads at moderate speeds I navigate daily. Most put the vehicle in a very efficient mode. Even the fifty year old cars. I know from the internet, I’m an exception to the number. Of course, I’m also an exception that I don’t trust the computer to tell me how much gas I use in a car. It’s all in a book in the car, which is then translated onto a spreadsheet. At least for fourteen of the thirty-one cars I’ve owned. That latter number is pathetically small. Go check out the Money Talk page.

How is that big number calculated? On a computer. I’m sure there are some real-world tests, but the big number is a computer-based algorithm. Happy? You shouldn’t be. There are better ways, of course. But, weather is certainly an issue as well.

But, let’s get back to the topic at hand. How dangerous is your car to the atmosphere? Or, how theoretically dangerous is your car to the theoretical atmosphere? The latter is more answerable than the former. You could certainly test the air entering a car and measure what comes out of the tailpipe. Does that tell you anything? Yes, buy an electric car. Is that the right thing to be told? Depends.

That tailpipe number is a small part of the emissions of a car. What about the factory it came from? Where the factory gets its power? How about the materials? Batteries are horribly dirty to make. Is that data displayed anywhere? Taken into account? Why not? Shouldn’t the total “environmental impact” of the production of a car be taken into account? How much of its life should be part of that number? A hundred thousand miles? Two hundred? Is it a declining graph or does it have a big jump for a fifty thousand mile refresh? That last one applies to some combustion engines as well as the electrics.

If you really cared about the environmental impact of cars, wouldn’t you want all those answers?

I would. It may not sway my purchase decisions, but information is good to have even if you aren’t technically savvy.

They are trying to kill you

You’re too old to save, you may as well die. That’s something you won’t hear a doctor say. Or will you?

If you watched the right news program, you did hear a doctor say something similar in regards to a medical treatment. To paraphrase, someone that’s living in their nineties doesn’t need a treatment as they’ve lived a full life. Taken a little farther, and you get the opening sentence.

With age, most gain a certain perspective that they have lived a full life and have less fear of death. Again, we can spin this another way. Why should we fear death? It is that fear that can prevent people from living a full life. You really don’t need to look very far into the past to see this condition. But, I’ll save that for later.

In my world, there really was more of an acceptance of death. At any age. Warriors would welcome death on a battle field. It was preferred to aging to frailty. You’ll read about this in my memories, but I don’t want to spoil the who and when quite yet. Of course, we also had magic to help ward off death and illness. We may have had cancer and some of these other diseases, but they were unknowns. A good healer could get you into the frail years quite easily. Most refused.

But, the first sentence is more about what this thought is directed. A conspiracy theory. There are nations on Earth that are coming to terms with an aging population. One that is more populous than the generations that follow. This aging population no longer pays a lot of money to the governments in forms of taxes, and many are really taking money out as benefits. Social Security in the United States of America, is an example alongside Medicare.

Rightfully, Social Security should have been self-funded, but we all know the competence of politicians when it comes to money that belongs to other people. I’ll waft through those thoughts elsewhere.

I’ve already mentioned how some people believe that their own government is benevolent and is only interested in helping its people. The key word for that sentence is people. Not individual. MK Ultra is example of this. The government was fine with sacrificing a few people in order to provide information that it believed could help the masses. Wars are another example, in general. Sacrifice a few hundred thousand soldiers to create peace for the millions of other citizens. Did you ever think of it from that perspective?

What could a government do to shorten life of its aging population without being obvious? Disease is one easy method, as would a life-saving vaccine. With either of these, there would be collateral damage. Which, most non-benevolent governments would consider a non-issue.

First off, I’m putting this in the Conspiracy Theory section for a reason. And, I’m not going to let my opinion flood the words too much. Just information to allow you to form your own opinion.

I’m not mentioning war along with the aging population as it really isn’t related. Or is it? What happens during wartime? Inflation, food shortages, energy shortages, and shortages on what’s needed for day to day life. While these are an inconvenience for some, they can be deadly for those that are more frail (grammar police says to frailer, I think that sounds bad so I’m leaving it as more frail). And, unfortunately, the very young are caught in that category. Collateral damage for children that are deprived of the proper nutrition to grow their minds and bodies?

Disease is an easy topic. Scientists are always studying natural disease. As they should. The only way to conquer disease is to understand how it works. Aushlin has a different approach, of course, which is mentioned in his intro. I’ll be talking more about him at a later time, after you get a good image of what my first life was like.

Back to disease. Does Earth have the technology to engineer a disease that would attack the older population, leaving the younger generation mostly unharmed? Mostly, collateral damage is always okay for some minds. I will give my opinion here. I spent my first life avoiding collateral damage. Several times I would let the bad guy leave to hunt him down another day so that innocent people could be saved. Some said it was my weakness.

History shows that many diseases will be more harmful to those in the frail category. The common flu is one of these. It’s generally very dangerous for the older and younger populations, while being an inconvenience for the average adult. Naturally, since the youngest have energetic immune systems, their death rate is much lower even when they are hospitalized with severe flu symptoms. The vast majority of flu deaths are in those that are beyond the commonly accepted retirement age. If you were to engineer a disease to lower the numbers of aged people in your population, this is where you’d start.

The mention of vaccines may have raised an eyebrow, and it should. Can you die from the flu vaccine, or any vaccine? Yes. Although some may say it was due to some other cause, it is very possible for a vaccine to kill. This is true for any medical procedure. They all have risks, no matter how unlikely. Vaccines are made for the masses, not the individual. Of course, this is no reason to fear vaccines. They are certainly a beneficial part of an advancing civilization, although I hear they have no part in truly advanced societies. But maybe the definition will change in the next few centuries as Earth advances and a vaccine will include genetic modifications performed to create genetic resistance to viruses and other related maladies. If you’re curious, the body that’s hosting me already has this genetic resistance to viruses. So, it’s quite possible Earth will get a natural cure in time. At least, I’m assuming Aushlin hasn’t made adjustments.

The one in a million or so chance a vaccine will kill certainly isn’t enough to lower the average age of a population. For the USA, that would be a few hundred people. Not noticeable when compared to the three million that die each year. Not that any single death isn’t a loss that would be better not felt. Back to Aushlin, since his people could essentially live forever, his society’s penalty for causing the death of another was quite severe, and probably worse than death itself. I’ll save that for another day, however.

Just as you could easily modify the flu virus to more effectively target the older, frail generation, you could modify its vaccine in the same way. Although the latter would be more difficult to hide. And, I’m assuming Earth has that technology. I’m not sure it does. But, even if it doesn’t, an accident has created many things in the past, many being beneficial and ground-breaking for society as a whole.

Is this something that could happen? Has it happened? Time will provide that answer. Just keep your mind sharp and ask questions. There may not always be an answer, but be willing to listen to any answer.

Now, I will give a bit of my own opinion here. One problem I see on Earth is a level of fear. People fearing possible outcomes, sacrificing quality of life in fear of a bad thing happening. Don’t. Live your life. Some would say to live each day like it’s your last, but that puts you in a bad economic situation. Quickly. Instead, be thankful for each day. Be thankful for the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat. Even if the air is spoiled by pollution (it’s really getting better), the water is bland (a teaspoon of sugar is only sixteen calories), and the food is insufficient (nutritionally or financially out of reach). You have only this one life, enjoy your life with your family and friends and don’t worry about what’s around the corner. This may be your corner, or it may be a century away. Neither is worth an effort that affects today.

You may not have tomorrow, but you will always have today.

Blame Your Cell Phone

Are you hot? Turn off your cell phone. Okay, maybe not quite that simple, but this covers a hypothesis that cell phones cause atmospheric warming. Just for kicks, we'll expand a little. All wireless communication causes atmospheric warming.

Where did this come from? Well, as the section suggests, somebody somewhere calculated that radio wave energy would be enough to increase the warming of the atmosphere, and therefore the planet. If you'd like coincidence, cell phones started taking off in the nineties. There has been radio and television as wireless communication for much longer, but those really didn't become more ubiquitous until later in the last century. About the time the Earth supposedly started getting much warmer. In spots.

But, why not just talk about other technologies that can also introduce an energy imbalance? Let's see how far we get without getting boring. Actually, that was a couple paragraphs back. Get ready for some maths.

The central theme for the cell phone hypothesis is that each phone emits a certain amount of energy that must be conserved. This energy is dissipated in the atmosphere between the cell phone and its tower. That tower will then transmit to the next tower through a tight beam radio wave. I know there are some towers that use wires, but I expect most are more likely to use more radio waves.

To be fair, a single cell phone is very powerless, with most topping out at three watts. And, as long as you're not at the range limit of a tower, it will be less. So, let's use two watts to keep our maths simple. Now, let's introduce the giant white star responsible for lighting up the Earth. Did you think the sun was yellow? Sorry, it's white. More on that later, if I don't forget. That big ball of energy hits Earth with about thirteen hundred watts per square meter. The overall average for any point on Earth is around three hundred, which accounts for dark and when the sun is not directly above.

Let's say you have your phone and you're alone in your square meter. Both are pretty reasonable. You're adding your two watts to that three hundred number. Where you go, your phone goes. But, there isn't a person every square meter, so your average is less. But, we're playing hypotheticals. The area of the land area of the United States is about ten trillion square meters (less than that, but we're using round numbers) for its three hundred fifty million people. Of which, there are about three hundred million with cell phones. So, that's about six hundred million watts added to ten trillion square meters. The sun, using that three hundred number, is adding three quadrillion watts already, so those phones are adding zero point zero zero zero zero two percent more energy. You can write those numbers out if you'd like, but that essentially a zero, but we'll carry those decimals.

Next? We haven't counted all the radar towers, cell towers, radio towers, television towers, etc. What would they add? Well, the best numbers I can see have cell towers adding maybe three million watts to our number, which was six hundred million. Radio is known to be about a hundred thousand watts per tower, and similar for television, for those that remain. Technology will bring that number down, but we'll use that number simply due to its roundness.

As a note, I haven't calculated any of this before hand. I'm making the calculations as I type. Then, we'll see why this was worthless.

So, there are just over thirty thousand radio and television towers and repeaters. We'll using thirty thousand and the hundred thousand watts to get three billion watts. Assuming non-stop transmission at that level. Now, this number lets us take one of those zeros away from that prior number as it's ten times the power of all of the collective cell phones. You may find that the commercial levels are always much higher than the consumer levels for any item that government wants to regulate the consumer with. Think about that for a minute, then let's keep going. We're at zero point zero zero zero two two percent of the sun's energy so far.

The next one, I'm going to let you do the math, but I'll get you started in the thought process. Why not finish? I may, but not now. This isn't one that can be calculated as I type. Air conditioning.

The concept is simple. Remove the heat from one area and exhaust it to another. Heat pump. In the winter, you want to remove the heat from outside and inject it into your house to warm it. Just remember, heat in this case is energy and not temperature. Even the coldest locations on Earth still have heat in the air that can be extracted. It just gets a bit less efficient. But, we're only going to talk about the warm days, when we're pumping warm air from inside our buildings into the outside world. And this is why it becomes a much more difficult calculation.

Let's start with a ten thousand square foot property your house may be sitting on. You live in an apartment? Similar premise, but different numbers. Of course, we need a volume of air, so let go up a thousand feet to get a ten million cubic foot chunk of atmosphere. Your house, and only your house, is in this space. A house typically would be about two thousand square feet of livable space. But, this isn't the total square feet if you count everything, so let's move that to twenty five hundred square feet. And, throw in eight foot ceilings (round numbers) to get a house volume of twenty thousand cubic feet. To start, we're going to ignore walls and other inconsiderate variables and just say this is a twenty thousand cubic foot piece of atmosphere in our ten million cubic foot atmosphere. These are now going to be call little chunk and big chunk. Maybe just comfy and hot.

Our entire chunk of atmosphere is going to be an even hundred degrees, but we want our house to be comfy at seventy degrees. A nice thirty degree delta. We can't change the energy in our system, so any heat we remove will be added to the remainder. Hocus pocus, and we would raise the rest of the hot outside by zero point zero six degrees in this perfect example, give or take a little stumble in mental gymnastics. That stumble would not be enough to make that zero point six. Sorry. Now, aggregate that over a city. Add in some air conditioner inefficiency. Add in that radio stuff.

Still think the sun is yellow? Think about it this way. When you use a prism to separate the colors of sunlight, what do you see? A rainbow. What is one of the colors in the rainbow?

Want to think another way? How about an experiment in a dark room. Get a good yellow light and a good white light. Shine them in a prism and see what comes out. I'm waiting.

Here's a link to a nice picture, that'll I'll duplicate below, just in case it disappears: https://www.science20.com/files/Sun%20Planet%20Corel%20Montage%20smaller.jpg

I did not create nor do I claim ownership of this image. See the link above for my source. I receive no credit of any kind for clicking the link or showing the picture.

Terrorism

Why is this a conspiracy? We'll get there. But, first, a definition. The normal dictionaries state this is using terror as a form of coercion. Terror then? It's a state of intense or overwhelming fear. Another definition states it uses violence, but we'll settle with the first. After all, mental abuse is just as terrifying, if not more, as physical abuse. One heals, the other doesn't.

This also is an over-used term. But, that is mostly a first-world issue, as they've been called. Someone expressing an opinion contrary to your life's view isn't terrorizing, and you really don't need a safe space to retreat to. But, this isn't why I'm putting this in the Conspiracy section.

There are two parts to this thought. The first on who is a terrorist that you may not have thought of and the other is who are being called terrorists that may not be. If the word perspective popped into your head, you've read a few of my thoughts.

Who is a terrorist? Obviously, it's someone that causes terror. Brain-washing level terror. Instilling fear in the masses, making them do things they normally wouldn't do? Does this sound familiar?

First, what is the best way to instill terror? Some would think it'd be detonating a bomb on a building. Or flying a plane into a building. Maybe it's someone shooting up a school and killing many kids. The first couple are pretty obvious, and fit many people's definitions. But are they? That's the second part of this thought. For the first, is it the school shooter? Probably not, most of these guys are lone gunmen. And crazy. They aren't part of a fight against the larger nation, just people with personal issues that don't have a way to express them otherwise, or have felt ignored in their pleas for help. The latter is likely most common. We'll leave these alone for now. And this paragraph doesn't answer its question.

The answer is the media. No matter the country, news articles that are read or watched are by far the best way to spread terror. And misinformation. Someone from a country at war with yours may blow up a building in your country, but if the media doesn't cover it, it pretty much didn't happen to the majority of people in your country. Same goes for a shooting, the police killing a suspect, a rape, a kidnapping, a missing person, or just about any other crime. Most crimes don't get their fifteen seconds of fame.

And what drives the media? Money, primarily. Politics, secondarily. The latter falls into the propaganda bucket. But, even propaganda will change if the money is right. Since you're on the internet anyway, you've likely seen the click-bait headlines. Which are pretty much all headlines today. And how many websites that define themselves as news outlets require you to watch their ads? Most of them with either bug you with a pop-up that asks you to stop blocking ads, or disallow you altogether if you don't allow them to show ads. Just going to the front pages of a few common news sites, I see an average of forty tracking bugs each. Some were in the sixties, some only around twenty. Are they really there to sell you the news? Or is the real intent to sell your browsing history for ad revenue? The click-bait title is enough.

Opinion websites seem to be different. To be fair, I used a basic search to find a few from each leaning. And, in general, they all offered about twenty percent of the trackers that the news sites use. How many trackers do I use? One. And that's the cookie consent thing that pops up. I only added that just in case the shopping cart gave you a cookie. Personally, I don't track anything.

It should be no surprise the media basically follows money in the United States. Other countries have laws that control the media. Freedom? Start your own website and see if anyone stumbles across it.

This also would work with the brainwashing section. Just scroll to the first thought. Washing someone's brain through fear is most effective, and fear is just another name for terror. What has been thrown around as fear lately? Weather. Viruses. Shootings. Police killings. What hasn't? Riots that burned many city centers and led to the take-over of city districts by rioters. They were mostly peaceful after all. And why were they rioting? Because a criminal was killed by the police? No, that happens pretty much every day. It's a bit deeper than that.

Yes, the media put out a story about a certain criminal that was killed by a certain policeman. Why? Was there anything special? Not really. It was definitely a policeman being overly aggressive. Again, this is common. It shouldn't be, but it doesn't get a lot of attention normally. Just once in a while. When a distraction is needed or a path needs to be set. But, this was a symptom.

What happened before then? Lockdowns. If you're reading this, it's highly likely you've been brainwashed to fear a virus. Should you fear viruses? No. Can they kill you? Yes. You may ask why you shouldn't fear something that can kill you. Do you fear your car? The airplane flying overhead? The small asteroid zooming over your head? Your kitchen knives? That butterscotch candy? All these things can kill you, and you likely don't fear them. You may offer them some respect, but most are likely never a passing thought. As are most viruses and bacteria you encounter. Before the latest virus, you may not have given any of them a passing thought. Unless it was flu season and you were seeing ads to get a flu shot. Would you get the flu if you hadn't seen the ads? Maybe, maybe not. Would it have killed you? Only if you were in the category that really does need to worry about such things. The very old and the very young, along with the very out of shape and generally unhealthy.

Why do you care about this latest virus craze? Think back. You likely started to fear it in the first quarter of twenty twenty. It'd been around much longer than that. If you cared to look. I cared. But not enough to save any data. Why did I care? I already knew the most dangerous thing to a new born was the flu. Viruses, especially those that affect the respiratory system. It was worth my effort to understand these viruses, and how to reduce that risk. I found the latest viral craze long before my daughter was born, almost six month before you started your train of fear.

Why was the fear for this one and not the prior three? That's a question for another day, but it does show the power of terrorism, and how seemingly innocent websites and outlets can changes mostly intelligent people into terrified masses. Look at my page about viruses. Do you think humans can stop their creation? No. That was evident by a quickly-hidden, and ignored story.

I wish I had copied that story. It isn't something that you could find now. But, essentially, a person infected with that virus was taken to a bio containment facility in Nebraska. This facility was specifically built to contain unknown pathogens using the best technology available. At a cost no commercial building could be expected to reasonably install or use. Never mind the ability to install one into your house. But, while the staff was cleaning, they noted the virus had spread to pretty much everywhere on that floor of the hospital. It wasn't contained at all. You think that silly mask on your face is as good as a dedicated bio containment facility? What about your precious HEPA filter? Have you been brain washed?

So, who was the number one terrorist for this virus? It likely wasn't the person that stated that millions of people will die. No, it was the face-man that went onto every media site he could, changing his mind depending on his stock positions. I can only presume the latter. But, following the money is always a good lead.

Now, let's get into the second part. It may be hard to find a perspective that Fauci isn't a terrorist when all the information is known, but I'll let history settle that. But, at least people stopped hording toilet paper after they were told a face-diaper would save them. Classic brain washing.

What is easy, are some of the more common terroristic acts. The exploding buildings. These are mostly by bomb, but they can be by plane, although that part is rare. There have been exploding building that have been called terrorism that I don't believe really are. Such as Oklahoma City. It was labeled domestic terrorism, but there wasn't a group that could stand to benefit or could be seen as at war with the victim state. For this, I'll just go two the twin towers. You can expand from there.

This was, as has been told and can only be found to be told, an attack by an Islamic faction against the United States. This faction considered themselves to be at war against the United States. But, they also realized a frontal military assault would be futile, so they had to settle for guerrilla tactics. As they would call it. The larger state will always call this terrorism.

Go back to past wars when a tiny state was at conflict with a larger state. This would be where the tiny state had no real military option to attack, or really defend, against the larger state. The smaller state would see themselves at war, but the larger state may simply call it a conflict. Or skirmish. Nothing really to worry about. Unless the media saw advertising money or were swayed by a wealthy politician who saw an opening.

If this smaller state really wanted the larger state to leave it alone, it would have to resort to propaganda and guerilla warfare. But, not in that order. If the smaller state could find a way to show the citizens of the larger state that they could be endangered by the minor skirmish, they could find a way to tell their leaders to get away from that skirmish. Bring the troops home. Save us from these terrorists.

But, to the smaller state, those were terrorists. They were heroes for getting that larger state to leave them alone. And those heroes may even get a city named after them.

One question you may have is if I experienced, or knew of, terrorism in my first world. Absolutely. With the right perspective, I was a terrorist. With my perspective, I was trying to protect all states from what was to come. Although I saw myself as the good guy, that wasn't a universal view.

There are no good guys and bad guys. Just perspective. Unless you're talking about Fauci. He's just a terrorist with no good side.

Bag It

I'm still searching for the article I read that starts this all, but it appears to have been memory-holed. But, my memory is functioning highly, so the details are far away. And, you'll likely see a similar article with similar wording. I will say this is from a local news station when the plastic bag tax began. Or, fee, rather. That's what they're calling it to get around the law. The law that doesn't allow new taxes unless voted upon by the state's citizens. There are many new fees in this state, even a rain tax. No, I won't call it a fee.

So, the premise here is that each single-use plastic bag results in a charge of ten cents, four of which is for the retailer and the remainder goes into the state's coffers. One hundred and fifty percent tax on the sale of an item with a state mandated price. I'm sure you won't hear too many retailers complain about a four hundred percent markup on an item. I'm guessing here, but I'm able to procure those bags for three cents each. And, I'm sure large stores have a much better buying position.

On the surface, banning these bags seems like a good idea overall. Until you start looking at details. Paper bags will still be available, at least here, at a state-mandated price point with a hundred and fifty percent tax rate. I know at one time many people did reuse their paper bags. They worked well as covers for school books for one. Small trash bag for another. But, plastic bags work better for the latter. For the former, you could still get a bag of groceries in paper. Just don't toss in your wet vegetables or not-quite-sealed meat product. Of course, more well off families can simply buy a book cover, but that percentage of families that can afford to do so isn't as large as you may assume.

I may as well get into the details of the news article I read. And by news in the modern era, I mean propaganda article. You could also call it an advertisement, or click-bait. Which really is the root of the problems that you see on news channels and media. They use the stories to generate advertising revenue. The internet exacerbates the issue. How else do you make money with a website? The primary way is easy to see, especially if you use ad blockers, which I recommend. Many sites won't allow you access unless they can show ads. And they really hope you accidently click on one of those ads. That gives them money. If you're curious, I don't do that. No ads. There are analytics that track you, but that is the host and other ad-sellers getting into your business.

So, since each media site wants to make money for clicks, you'll see more controversial stories and more click-bait titles. Just so you visit and pad their stats and ad clicks. You can really thank yahoo for that, if they're still around.

As for the article, and the reason it was likely memory-holed, it stated the real reason for the ban in not-so-clear letters. Of course, litter is a problem, and they linked seeing flying bags in the air and all over as a big part of the reason. Sure, there are many litter bugs still around, but the current society wouldn't stand for a crying Indian in a commercial anymore. Yes, I'm using an old term, but the image is the same since the guy made famous by that commercial was neither from Asia or any tribe that lost a war to the Europeans that came to North America. It just so happened he was of the darker-skinned Europeans that came to North America. Sicily or Italy if memory serves.

So, isn't a good thing to get rid of that source of litter? It would be if it could work. And you went to the real source. I'll start with the obvious problem. People really do reuse those single-use bags they get from the stores. Trash can liners, pet excrement picker-upper, vegetable and fruit trimmings, or any wet cleanup you may have a need for a water-proof solution. Okay, so now you can get those free, thin plastic bags. Now, you go buy more trash bag liners and other specialty bags to take their place. If you see a more complete ban on retail bags, invest in the trash bag companies. They stand to make a hefty profit. You should be glad for the pun. And, that's all I know for brands without a search.

Now, let's talk about the real source of those flying bags and more into what this article had in it. The article specifically mentions land fills and recycling equipment. The former has an issue with the light material of the bags being taken away by the winds. The latter gets plugged up by the light bags. Oh, did I mention the plastic bags for produce and bulk items aren't being banned? They'll still be going to land fills because the waste companies don't want to make an effort to update their recycling machines, which wouldn't work anyway on this material, along with the other eighty percent of recyclable plastics. If you want to know why, tie your plastic bag in a sunny spot outside and see how well it lasts. And, of course, you still have an abundance of choice on plastic bags to use. Although I would prefer a nice resealable container for my sandwich over a plastic sandwich bag, it has little to do with conservation of the environment. It's more about the conservation of my sandwich's fluffiness. It would still likely be in a plastic container that can take the dishwasher, or at the very least, the lid would be plastic. And, both would wind up in a land fill someday.

Will plastic bags really go away? No. But they will still continue to be broken down by the sun's energy.