Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Doubling up

As well as a professional and personal blog, I have a professional and personal youtube channel!

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

England in the United States.

One reason I maintain this blog is that it allows me to exercise my imagination. As such, I wanted to look at a union between the "anglo" nations. In particular, the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

To begin, I want to look at some of these nations, one by one. England is where I'd like to start.

Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland could all easily join a "States" into this new country; which would be an enlarged USA in many ways. One problem is what to do with England. Adding a single new state with over 54 million people which would have 2 senators; compared to the entire rest of the USA, which has 6 times as many people, and 50 times as many Senators. There is simply no way the English would ever accept this.

England may then simply suggest getting rid of equal numbers of Senators per state. The problem is that the US would never accept this change to the constitution.

So what do you do?

You cheat.

There is no reason why one state, voluntarily, by it's free consent, can't simply hand over all of it's money, and power, to another state, or, another organization.

As such, each of the regions of England becomes it's own state. Each of these region. They each elect a lower house, using the same constituencies as is current, with updates for population adjustments as needed, and each chooses members for a house of lords. At the start of every session, the state legislature meets, and votes to, willingly, hand over all powers of government, to an organization known as the "Parliament of England"

The "Parliament of England" is simply a pool of all state legislators. As such it would operate much like the existing Parliament does. Additionally, there is no need for a state to hand over ALL powers, as such, Wales may decide to keep it's current powers, and even Scotland and/or Northern Ireland may decide to join in to this in a limited way.

For all intents and purposes, this means England acts as though it was a single state, except, rather than electing 2 senators, they elect 18.

So why am I using the existing regions, which have all sorts of problems? The answer to that is shockingly simple:

Any other division of regions would be equally unpopular. There really is no better way to divide up England, just other equally bad ways.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Bonus: A Big Country

Welcome to my first "bonus" post. A "bonus" post is a post where I already have another unrelated blogpost somewhere on that day.

This is a fantasy merger of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and Jamaica. I've simply taken the vote from each country and plugged it into a proportional representation calculator. I've presumed 723 seats. Why 723? Well I've used it before. Why did I use it before? Because I used it before that. Why did I use it the first time? I sort of forget; but I did do some math showing that it's divisible by this and added that with another thing, and so forth. In short, I had a good reason for picking 723, I just forget what that reason was, and I've been using 723 for a "big legislature" for so long, that I don't really see a good reason to change it.

Anyway, here are the results:

As you can see on the left, things are a bit of a mess. On the right, however, we can divide things into groupings. you may be wondering about some of these, like why Labour from Jamaica is in with the Conservatives, but I can assure you that these groupings do make ideological sense.

The only grouping that makes sense for a majority is a combination of the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Regardless, I thought it might be interesting to compare popular support of parties between different countries.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Accounting for nonexistent UK Liberals

Welcome to my personal blog where I don't have to justify why I'm making a post.

I am going to calculate what the electoral results in the UK would have been like if the Liberals had run a full slate of candidates during the period they did not.

The math I'm using is thus:
First I am presuming each riding is the same size. I'm doing this for two reasons. First it's my personal blog so if I want to write "riding" instead of "constituency" I can, and secondly, while being incorrect, this assumption saves a hell of a lot of time with the calculation.
Second, I will divide the Liberal results by the number of ridings they ran in to find the per-riding vote, then I will presume that 2/3rds of that is their 'base' nation-wide vote, and add that figure to the remaining ridings they did not run in; before adding it back up to get a total. I will then adjust Labour and Conservative popular vote figures to account for these new Liberal votes.

44.4% Con
45.1% Lab
9.8% Lib

45.8% Con
42.7% Lab
10.2% Lib

46.0% Con
40.9% Lab
12.4% Lib

41.1% Con
41.8% Lab
15.7% Lib

39.5% Con
45.3% Lab
13.5% Lib

44.4% Con
41.2% Lab
11.4% Lib

1974 Feb
36.8% Con
36.1% Lab
21.5% Lib

1974 Oct*
39.2% Con
35.8% Lab
18.3% Lib

* In this election the Liberals ran 619 candidates, compared to Labour's 623, and the Tories 622. As such no math was done and the real and actual results are presented.

Compare this to Thatcher's victory in 1979 on 42.9%
Foot's 1983 loss on 27.6%, vs the Alliance on 25.4%
Blair's 1997 victory at 43.2%, vs the Tory loss on 30.7%

As well as the most recent elections

32.4% Con
35.2% Lab
22.0% L-D

36.1% Con
29.0% Lab
23.0% L-D

36.9% Con
30.4% Lab
7.9% L-D

This helps put recent highs/lows into proper perspective, as the modern L-Ds try to run full slates, while the old party did not, and as such, popular vote statistics can get skewed so that some parties appear to be doing worse than they actually are.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Why I post provinces in the order I do.

I tend to post provinces in a certain order. Newfoundland, PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick... Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC... Quebec and Ontario.

You may wonder why. I have a simple answer.

It's a compromise.

There are three common ways to list the provinces. One of them is alphabetical. I dislike this strongly, so, I ignore it. The other two are geographically, either east to west or west to east, and by order of population.

Geographic would see the following:


Population would see the following:


What you may notice is that there are a few swaps. PE and NL. NB and NS. SK and MB. In each case the province to the east (in each pair) has a few more people. You also have a pair of pairs. NL, PE, NS, NB, are the 4 smallest provinces, and the 4 eastmost provinces. BC, AB, MB, SK are the 4 'middle' population provinces, and the 4 western provinces. QC and ON are the 2 'middle' provinces geographically, the the 2 largest provinces demographically.

As such I developed a "compromise" list.

You start geographically in Newfoundland. After reaching New Brunswick, you hop over the two largest provinces, landing in Manitoba, and continue heading west.

What this does is allow me to present a list in both geographic and demographic order.

Remember too that I frequently post maps. One map has all 4 atlantic provinces (32 ridings) and another has MB and SK, as well as the Territories (31 ridings) meaning that I can do 6 provinces, 2 maps, and 63 ridings first. I follow this with Alberta (34) and BC (42). before going to Quebec (78) and Ontario (121)

As such this allows me to 'ramp up the excitement' as I 'ramp up' the workload on myself.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

The newfie joke that newfies will like

A newfie calls the RNC, the Police. "Hello is the the RNC?? I'm calling about my neighbor George Smith. He is hiding marijuana in his firewood!"

The next day the RNC descends on George's house and search the shed where the firewood is kept. They bust open every piece of firewood, but find no marijuana. They apologize to George and leave. The phone rings at Georges's..

Hey George
Yea! Hey, did the RNC come to your house?
Did they say you had Marijuana?
Did they look for it in your back yard?
Did they look in your firewood.
Yes, yes they did.
Did they chop it all up?
Yes... How do you know this Mike?

Friday, September 9, 2016

Is Stargate real?


Hope that answers that; but just for fun, lets pretend it is. Now if we happened to find the stargate on October 28th, 1994, the day the movie premiered, that'd be weird, as, how could we make a "cover" for something that's not happened yet.

Just the theory going forward is that Stargate, the movie and TV shows, are a "cover", much as 'wormhole extreme' was within the show. As such, the stargate would need to have been found before 1994, and likely, before 1993 also.

The movie was likely created when someone in the know approached Dean Devlin and asked him to craft a cover story, and that he involved Emerich, and any "backstory" to this was concocted. Given the role the air force plays (something that no other sci-fi show does, usually referring to space travel folks as some sort of navy) it's likely the air force has the actual stargate in our little fictional examination.

It'd be most likely that only the basics were handed over. "We have a stargate that we found in ancient Egypt that allows us to travel to other planets. We are not sure who built it, but we've met aliens, and not all of them are friendly. There are humans living on other planets." As such, it is my guess that ideas like the goa'uld are fiction. It is my guess that certain real events did make it into the show, but that a good 90% of the episodes and plots are pure fiction, and that even the real events that made it into the show were twisted to fit the show itself.

Some plot points / ideas that came from this fictional reality we are looking at, are as follows:

Atlantis was not across the ocean, it was through the stargate.
The government tried to shut down the stargate, but this was stopped when earth was nearly invaded.
There are a race of beings who are willing to help us.
Arriving on a planet sparked off a war on that planet.
Someone stepped through the gate prior to it's official "activation" (torment of tantalus)

Looking at a possible government shut down, the time that makes the most sense is 1989. John Tower was nominated by the new President Bush (sr) as the Defence Secretary.

Right at about this same time, the USSR was making steps to end the cold war (accepting the rulings of the world court) and the USA was carrying out nuclear tests. In the month prior, 6 rockets launched into space, and on the 13th, the space shuttle did as well. This happened just hours after a massive "solar flare" knocked out power for Quebec, and showered north america with 'solar particles' which cause auroras as far south as florida and texas.

Importantly, as the day approached, Tower, a former Senator (and therefore called "Senator Tower") was rejected by the Senate. Was this because Tower was the Kinsey of reality? Tower wanted to shut down the program? Tower was killed in an airplane crash a few years later.

Donald Ratsch even recorded space shuttle communication, saying an alien spacecraft was under observation. Of course he later claimed this was a "hoax", perhaps under great pressure?

One question may be where is the stargate. My answer to that is Area 51, which I note, is an air force installation. My guess is the decision to put it in Colorado was that of the writers and producers, and not something instructed by the Military. If anything, the Military may have told them outright to not put it in Area 51.

So that covers the where, but when? As eluded to earlier, finding it in 1993 makes little sense; so when was it found and activated?

I believe, in this fiction, that it was found among the relics of "ancient egypt" by the British, and that the British managed to activate it, briefly, and someone went through it. It's possible this happened when it was first found, and hence, why it was never publicly disclosed. The British, though, were unable to figure out exactly what it is, does, or how to work it, but did know that it would be a bad thing for Hitler to get. As such, I suspect it was sent to America, with the deal that the UK would be kept in the loop.

I believe that the Stargate was first activated in 1968. Possibly a year earlier or later, but right around this time, possibly a few years earlier even. Consider that the Internet was officially invented in 1969, and that right after this period an explosion in transistor technology allowed for what became modern computers.

Johnson was not popular with the 'establishment' of the government, and so, likely, was not told, as the new President would take office soon. This means Nixon was the first President to be aware of the stargate. In the UK Harold Wilson was Prime Minister, but there were suspicions of him being a soviet stooge, and so he was not told. I also suspect that Heath was not told, as, at the time, his governor was tenuous, and Wilson could return. When wilson finally resigned in 1976, they finally told his successor, James Callaghan, who is known for being a bridge builder with the US.

When the Soviets found out is open for debate. If the gate was first activated a bit earlier, it's possible that things like the 1967 outer space treaty was a result of the stargate; with the Soviets wanting to limit what the US could do. However, I am certain that Brezhnev knew sometime before his death in 1982.

I don't believe that further worldwide information came out until 1975-1984 or about that time. Leaders like Helmut Kohl, Francois Mitterrand, and Brian Mulroney were likely informed. It's also logical that the leaders of Japan, China, and Italy were also informed. In fact the G7 may have simply been a front for the leaders of the countries aware of the stargate (except the two communist countries mentioned) to meet. Consider that Canada did not join the G7 (which was the G6 in 1975) until 1976. There were suspicions among some that Pierre Trudeau was some kind of Communist, and so, holding off on telling him may have been the result of this delay. Consider as well that Italy was also seen as a lesser partner within the G7, and as a country that switched leaders often, this could well be the reason.

Today, I fictionally believe the governments of the G20 all officially know about this stargate program. I'd say that most other EU countries also officially know, such as Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium, as well as countries too small for the G20 like Ireland, New Zealand, and Switzerland. Outside the G20/EU/NATO, there is another group of countries that potentially know, and that is former Soviet republics. Outside of that, there is just Israel.

I do, however, think that some countries "unofficially" know; that is, they are aware of the stargate, but the US will not confirm it's existence to them. Iran is a clear member of this group, while Pakistan is a very likely member; having stolen that information from India.

So what is the gate used for? Mostly science I'd say. I doubt it causes nearly as much problems as it does in TV Land, and is likely far more dangerous to use. IE folks on our side die after going through the gate, but the threat to the planet is very low.

The idea that we bring back some kind of alien computer and within a week can advance our computer information by decades is insane. What happens is that they find some kind of alien computer, look it over, and figure out that somehow, using only transistors, they've managed to cram an entire processor into this puny little area. So; they get that information out to science, and let them figure out exactly how that's achieved. IE the main benefit is that science is pointed in the right direction. They are basically told "here is something that will work; find out how" and that is why some developments happen so fast.

I'm also fairly certain the Stargate was moved out of Area 51 in or around 1995. Where to, however, I can't say for sure. However, ironically, Cheyenne mountain saw substantial "upgrades" at around this time, but given that people have pestered around (so much so that they had to put up a fake sign saying stargate command on a mop closet) it's likely that if it was moved here, it was again moved. A good location for this would have been Kyrgyzstan as a bone thrown to the Russians, but after the events in Ukraine, it is very likely it has again been moved.

And thus, the stargate is revealed. Or at least, if we pretend it has been, we can finally end this post which is starting to get rambly and has gone one for too long.

What North America might have looked like

Still a work in progress; but this is what North America might have possibly looked like had the natives established their own Empires that existed to today.

The Iroquois and Cherokee would have a relationship similar to that which France and Germany has, or France and England. They'd be similar countries that are traditional rivals that now find themselves on the same side due to the way the modern world works. The Aztecs would be the strongest power on the continent,

I'm happy with the way some of the nations turned out, but not others. As such I consider this a work in progress; but this is a great 'first map' in that work showing a baseline of what is realistically possible given the position of the native tribes at the time of european contact.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

twitter for normal folk

Not quite sure what to make of this.

Interesting that the left is leaning towards Facebook, while the right leans towards traditional media.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Nobility Republics

Quick thought experiment, what if republics - in particular the idea we elect our rulers - had evolved straight from monarchies, rather than, as in reality, often as a result of a violent rejection of said monarchy.

I propose we'd see the following titles

Presidents would be called Kings (or Queens) but would be elected, just as the President of the United States is elected.

Governors of States would be Dukes

Leaders of Counties would be, of course, Counts

And Mayors would be Barons

There are also intermediate ranks, as many places include another level of government between county and municipality, and the title of Viscount would fit in here.

Between King and Duke is Archduke. Between Duke and Count is Marquis.

I'd presume that all elected officials would be Esquire, and that such a title would be regulated so that you could not simply claim to be one.

Thursday, September 1, 2016


No I'm not sick, nor am I depressed; but I did just watch 'adam ruins everything' and his episode about death. As such I wanted to note some stuff.

1 - Pull the plug.
I don't want to be a vegetable. If I'm not getting better fast enough, pull the plug. If I've been "out" of it for 6 weeks, it's time to let me decide by pulling the plug and seeing what happens. Do not be selfish. I know that you may want me to live forever, but I do not want to live like that. 6 weeks.

2 - It's not about you.
While I don't like the idea of a funeral, I understand if my family wants to hold one. However: IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU. Funerals are your way to respect me. If the person standing next to you at my funeral is standing there nude, masterbating on the pew, THAT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I've had family go through not just one but TWO funerals where someone was upset about what someone else did. IF THAT IS HOW YOU ARE GOING TO APPROACH THIS - YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COME TO MY FUNERAL. My funeral is your chance, YOU, your chance to pay your final respects to me. What anyone else decides to do is none of your business, and you are not to use anything that does or does not happen at my funeral as a weapon to attack anyone else.

3 - Teddy.
My "Teddy" teddy bear is to be with me in the casket, visible if I have an open casket, perhaps beside my head, or in my hands. Teddy. Teddy is also to be with me on my final journey.

4 - Burn it.
I am to be cremated. I'm still undecided as to what exactly happens with my ashes. If someone in the family really wants them, they can take them, and if needed, split them. Important: Teddy is to be cremated with me. This part is non-negotiable. If no one wants my ashes that badly, I'd like to be spread... somewhere. Again, I'm not yet decided as to where. That island in a lake in an island in a lake seems neat, it's in Manitoulin Island on the northern border of Georgian Bay. Another idea I really like is to be shot into space, but given how hard it is to get anything to go anywhere in space, that's not bloody likely right now.

5 - Keep this.
I know there may be emotions attached to the idea of me being dead, but this is an important discussion, and these things are important to me. Keep this somewhere. Bookmark it, or print it out and keep the page safe somewhere.