My Dislike of The War On Drugs 
and perpetual violent and/or punitive conflicts in general

Many people have come to realise that the war on terror cannot end. In fact the way it is coming to be structured and foisted upon the masses of the western world it is NOTHING more than a war on dissent. As we watch the list of 'terror' be expanded to include the exercise of civil rights, inalienable rights, - freedom of the press, etc etc. It is not far off (and this is Canada) where we could have mandatory minimum sentences based on secret trials for political dissent of almost any kind under this guise of 'protection'.

'Merica 

While many have come to realise that this war is perpetual (so long as we permit and laud these twisted pieces of legislation and the people who put them forward)  most people believe that this is the first experience we've had with the threat of a perpetual war, but such is not the case. The War on Terror was brought to you by the same warmongering, we''re-gonna-save-the-world-from-stuff-we-make-up,neo-nazi pricks that gave us the war on drugs. Anyone who think that smoking a joint is comparable in any way to a physical attack against another person or their property is a seriously deluded sack of meat and misfiring sparkles. 

terror tactics and sept 11.... aint that somethin'

As with dissent, people love this stuff. They like the feeling. They like to speak their minds, have opinions and yes, sometimes they even like to disagree just to be disagreeable. Its called being a person. I think drugs are just like opinions in many respects, only they are voiced on the inside. The person is saying "I like this feeling, wooooo". They are not saying "I like damaging my life and family", "I like breaking the law because i'm a bad person wishing to offend the state", "I wish to harm myself" or anything that should be of any general concern. That being said, the abuse of *any* substance is not a healthful choice. If someone is taking 20 hits per day of cheeseburger then the financial, time and physical/emotional demands and physiological reaction is going to be damaging to themselves and those around them. Now obviously peoples appetite for cheeseburgers is rarely as intense as it might be for opium or crack, but the point remains we're talking about selfwards behaviour here. When New York tried to ban large soda, people lost their minds but many people suffer horrendously and cost thousands of dollars to medicate for diabetes, obesity, related depression and disability. But a cheeseburger doesn't biochemically make you euphoric, or at least it shouldn't. Only things that alter our feelings and make us feel all tingly and good like that are illegal.

WARNING, ILLEGAL

And here we are some 4 decades into the war on drugs; how's it going ? Does society think that if these laws didn't exist that we'd all just sit at home getting high out of our minds for 40 years ?! Many people have many reasons for complete aversion to drugs. Some people are allergic, some simply do not enjoy the feeling (some do), have had bad experiences growing up, etc ... those people are induced by personal trauma NOT to take drugs and they likely never would. That being said there are also a ton of people on the other end. I'm not just talking about "drugs" here, but you show me someone with none of these traumas that has never had a beer or hit a joint at the cottage with their weird uncle and I'll show you someone totally out of touch with a normal, fun and safe human experience. 

I'm sure its nothing personal against most of the planet

Moreover, most people I know who are over 40 and 50 HAVE tried drugs in youth and are in no way criminal people who would have been helped by prosecution. They have also given up pretty much all drugs on their own BECAUSE of the criminal associations...and they're getting older, you know. They still drink beer, they are still after that feeling they enjoy on their PRIVATE time INSIDE their PRIVATE persons, but they have much to risk over a criminal conviction. As for the youth of today, I see no striking downward trend in either their consumption of alcohol or mary-jane for all the billions that have been and continue to be wasted on a 'no drug culture'.

let the good times roll, gramma !

Now, the new beast is opioids and harder more chem based drugs. This situation was ENTIRELY caused by shitty (sorry, this makes me so mad) legislation and I have PERSONALLY seen several people affected by this. The drugs were totally legal, people are getting them at the store, these drugs seem safer and also therefore more socially acceptable. You can't say to people 'hey that's heroin, you filthy junkie' after you're the guy giving it to them as a remedy.They aren't people who would be charged but their lives are equally ruined and they just get sucked into a different part of 'the system' is all. Someone still makes bank off their misery on the back end. These super addictive drugs flooded the market in the 2000s. Now in 2013 we're starting to dump tons of effort, reform,DRUGS (see NaloXone) and money into reversing this damage, but we're doing it through increased spending on the *war* on drugs. So now the drugs are not available legally so people are turning to illicit sources or synthetic chem soups that dont EVEN get them super-high anymore .... because they still like that feeling. A feeling many would not have known without the extreme doping in the first place.

Personally, I have smoked a little grass in my life, but I've never been very interested in anything hard-chemical. Even in really hard times I have refused behaviour or mood (feeling) altering drugs that were not completely natural or that could not legally be cultivated on a farm here in Ontario. I do not think my treatment choices were less effective or more costly in any way. Eating right, studying a little herbology and intentionally shifting more enjoyable activities into my life was not a 'rogue' treatment option. I consulted with the proper people, studied diligently (myself and the situation and potential remedies and risks) and was able to conquer incidents of situational depression the old fashioned way - by taking care of me and working to improve my outlook and life.

mexican poverty reduction plan, seems legit

Sure, some people aren't as savvy as me, or as motivated away from "hard" drugs naturally, but this is my whole point - some people REALLY REALLY LIKE getting high. They wont stop (if ever) until they are completely ready on their own and "coddling" them is definitely the way to go. Persecuting them helps no one. They do not recover from addiction in jail - drugs are plentiful in most prisons (google it - here again its actually likely a good thing because violence would explode without smokes and drugs in therem count on it). There's always someone who wants it and someone who wants the money. So drugs (exactly like drinking) will NEVER go away until people simply have better options and better, stronger feelings about other things - like work, family life, personal pursuits. In todays economy this is not the case. Half of people live paycheque to paycheque and the rest can do whatever they want because they can afford a good lawyer anyway. 




I would now like to tackle a few common drugs seperately and point out the problems with out efforts;


Lets start at the bottom:

Tobacco; you don't really get high off tobacco, addicted to some things in it perhaps but this is a completely legal product (to buy), a major source of government revenue (as smokers decrease the price goes up in almost exact proportion - without smokers MASSIVE revenues will be lost and people LOVE to smoke. Without the nicotine they may smoke less, but people LOVE it and cultures have smoked for hundreds if not thousands of years. The real problem is that it IS legal - it DOESN'T EVEN GET YOU HIGH.  Its FULL of inserted toxins and waste products, its a total scam. I am COMPLETELY aware of all this, but still, I just look and feel so much cooler with a cigarette. Those scary pictures on the pack are certainly distasteful (thanks gov't) but one can purchase fancy smoke tins... and eventually we all end up falling apart. I'm not sure I want to live to 120 anyway.... not if I can't see or hear and everyone else I ever knew is already dead and nothing in the world makes sense to me anyway. :/

Tak'tan-ka, you hitting this ?

Alcohol: one of the most lethal of drugs. Makes you feel good and makes you act like an idiot if too much is consumed. Completely legal, HUGE business, terrible additives and health effects.... again, been going on for hundreds of years... Even though it is HIGHLY illegal and dangerous to operate a car on alcohol manufacturers are not required to install alcohol detecting tech at the plant.... massive revenues are generated from fines, impound fees.... a persons job and home are all at risk if they have more than two beers with dinner now. Alcohol was strictly prohibited in the early 20th century which only lead to complete underground crime and the empowering of crime bosses and people with interests often outside the public good. All tax revenue was lost and eventually the whole system was viewed as a failure and repealed for the BENEFIT of the public good. Since then 99% of bootlegging has stopped, revenues have gone up, sure - sometimes shit still happens, but our whole society was taking a kick in the head during prohibition. We're not Muslim afterall. Our God is displeased with drunkenness but still loved Noah enough to save the race through him so its not completely outlawed. Still it should be respected for what it is by those who indulge. If a sentient living being is not respectful and aware of their body, or any substances they ingest, there will be problems I assure you. 

Weed: Trudeau Jr smokes it, I cannot believe Trudeau Sr. never tasted the stickey-ickey. Clinton got a taste. George Bush Jr. got high with harold and kumar in guantanimo.... ray charles, every celebrity you've ever seen, john lennon, probably half the people in your house right now have, do or would smoke some weed with Willie Nelson or Sara Silverman or someone they admire that tokes. Electric lettuce has been around for ages, I would go so far as to say that George Washington probably smoked on the regular, and in his day it was no biggie. If he caught wind of the policies and people involved with the "war on drugs" well, there woudn't be as half as many as there was a while ago (1812 song) :P. ((yes I know he wasn't at 1812))

ya, puff puff pass, gramma !

Coke: Used to be in the cola, now is highly illegal because the health effects were demonstrated to be immediately harmful to life and a severe impediment to nominal functionality.so good tho that cokeless coke is one of the largest brands on earth STILL. Some years later this former additive **somehow** started shipping itself into the USA completely circumventing the law, law agencies, borders.... tons and tons of this stuff has hit in the USA and there can be no explination except for the support of corporate/police/military or other high ranking agencies or individuals. It is promoted in movies as being deadly cool (no down side till you're too old and junked out to care really) and crack may have been formulated by covert gov't agencies to decimate certain black populations if you believe some of the literature. Either way, now that Rob Ford happened there's little grounds to say that the drug itself is the problem. He has done a fine job in the functions of mayorality. Personally, dude may have issues, but that's his own mess to sort out. As long as he's showing up to work and doing a good job. The total and massive loss of revenues to shady operators is a huge concern to me, the people piling up in prison is a shame and the continued availability of a product that is TREMENDOUSLY difficult to cultivate domestically is hard to explain if one looks at all the data points. Personally I dont have a problem with Coke. Its natural, seems to make people feel pretty good... but I dont like that people do not understand it so they can get horribly addicted. I dont like that someone who gets thusly TERRIBLY addicted is labelled a criminal instead of someone with a severe medical condition that needs and wants help to get away from the ideologies and people who have made this a part of their lives. I think social circle is very important to coke, as it is to all these drugs, but with coke it seems to get really out of hand and debautcherous. I've never even heard of someone sucking dick for a joint.... but coke....

Rob Ford Biggums. A "progressive" conservative

Opioids: Heroin (as with anything you're injecting) is pretty gross to me. I was high on morphene one time for a week after surgery, once I got out of there I was glad I never saw it again. Its like being in a dream where everything is awesome and your beard grows twice as fast :P. The problem is that ope is a legitimate pain killer. Still, the dangers were well known and the problem in Canada was completely caused by the introduction of OXYs. Big pharma made them, they pushed them HARD on the public - anything from hypertension to headaches, the doctors must have been raking it in there for a while!! But the downward effects became TOO apparent. Crime and severe addiction sky-rocketed. People who would never do "drugs" were turning into junkies after car accidents, etc... once the data was examined OXY was PINPOINTED as the cause. A new type was developed, methodone clinics sprouted up like bad grass EVERYWHERE and here we are. Inherently the drug is STILL not the problem I would say. If any drug was the problem I would say its this one (aside from the crazy stuff, meth, pcp, X, etc etc etc) though. I have always abhorred chemical drugs yet I remember when E started showing up around schools. Everyone but me was high on it at parties it seemed, but today, I cannot think of ONE person who still has any interest. Once you get past 25 I think the allure dies off quite naturally for most. For those who cannot let the party go, there are obviously other issues. Criminalization and punitive measures for the weakness of a persons spirit which causes no intentional or actual harm to others by means of force is a tyranny. Obviously because they feel good drugs can be a powerful influence, but so can a big dick, we dont make them illegal. These issues strike at our very nature and the discussion should really be re-evaluated in this modern age where we can all have a say in the forum. I don't just mean online i mean locally.

I wonder why oxys flooded the market back here .... no I don't.

So what is my position on all this ? Legalise. The government sells cars and makes roads for us to use them on. They also sell booze. They kill TONS of people this way if we follow their drug argument through. Of course they're not, its just us nasty old humans doing stupid stuff. Even with the hundreds of pieces of traffic legislation now in existence and the historically HARSH prohibition on alcohol in vehicles, cars do and will continue to kill. Still, the benefits are many, the tax money is good and the people seem to want them for lack of a better or more informed alternative. Legalise and medicalize them all. Honestly I dont see how a 7 year old can walk into a Macs and buy 8 packs of RedBull and OD on the street, but I cannot buy a beer past 3am :/ Even when I was done working midnights in a position of responsibility. The old saying is that those who give up liberty for security deserve and receive neither one. I propose that those who prohibit feelings and criminalise indulgent victimless behaviour will neither stop the feelings or the behaviour, if anything they will only increase both AND human suffering. Maybe that's the point because its happening and these people really aren't stupid, say whatever else you will. There sure is a lot of money tied up in this first perpetual ideological war the Bush's gave us... they always were good at that sort of thing. However, econnomies now that do not embrace legalization and taxation schemes demean their weakest citizenry, support the financing of illegal organizations through giving crime a monopoly on billions in capital and also step on many truly protective and civilly beneficial laws of everyone to get at a purported few that are "dangerous drug-crazed maniacs". By making this whole scene highly illegal and promoting ignorance about the truth of the topics, governments only drive the whole element further and further underground and make it more "cool" and also risky.

like, seriously. W.T.F have you guys been doing ?

I mean, you know the sorts of places that have bar fights every night and are full of drugs and idiots... the ones that play that music. Mother Teresa said it best. Anti-war rallies attract war, if you have a peace rally, invite me.

mother teresa would prolly visit but not smoke

Some Thoughts on Modern Democratic Reform in Canada

does this seem adequate to the task
of deciding the fate of a nation,
all of its policy and finances for 4 years ?
compare this with, say, your cell phone contract.

At one point I was much more active in politics but I still keep an interest and actively read on the topic. Global, national and local issues are staple reading for me through the week. Lately I've been noticing a tremendous amount of scandal. I mean, we all know that most politicians have historically fleeced their constituents for many years. In between we sometimes luck out and a good person will get in and put things in motion that provide ongoing benefits for dozens of years (the establishment of labour laws, civil rights, etc), but on the whole most of them seem to make shady deals that benefit a very few and themselves personally – even if it is after their time in office has expired. Obviously their policy decisions are influenced by this and I would argue that if people were more aware about the way these things happen it would happen less often. When evaluating two candidates for ministry of agriculture would you want a Monsanto shill with obvious conflicts of interest or would you want someone who had at least used a shovel once for something other than taking a picture with it. 

just a small sampling of the sort of conflicts of interest that very often arise in the present system. until recently, with the advent of the internet, this was a big dirty secret in washington. How long can it last now that people are becoming aware, how long will they tolerate such intentional and blatent abuses of the public trust?

While it is obviously futile to make any attempt at changing human nature, something still really bothers me about the 'representative' systems we have today. In Canada, when an election is called, the vast majority of people are already locked into a regular vote. This is usually a result of a persons views and that of their family. Personal finances seem to play a role as well. This is just to say that, my inference is, about 50% or more of the people who vote are going to vote the same as always. In the USA they have a two party system (something George Washington wanted no part of, we may recall), here in Canada we have a multi-party system. What I do not understand at all is why this exists at all. More to the point, once we have elected one of these parties to rule; they set about making pretty arbitrary appointments of their ministers to positions for which they may be largely or entirely unqualified for.

basically stick the face of the party leader on the guy in the middle there and this is how your government will looks when you're voting for it.

I would like to see us in Canada experiment with a one party system. This is no way would limit peoples ability to express their unique political climb, let me explain.

I think that an election ballot should take a few minutes. I believe that party affiliation is an archaic and outmoded method of fraternization. We should be voting on a selection of ministers. Their party affiliation is likely quite evident already regardless. Some people would straight up bitch that they dont want an election to be 'work' for them. I feel quite strongly however that a system that puts more owness on the voter would be a welcome change. In some countries now it is illegal not to register and vote. Here we have the option. I'm not sure the benefits of allowing the population to disregard their civil duty to cast a ballot once ever 4 years or so....

Anyway, so this is how what I'm proposing would work; when an election was called MP's would register to run in their local ridings, but also they would elect a cabinet position that they are interested in, say health. So when a citizen goes to vote they would have to select a candidate for their region as a standard MP, but there would also be lists of people who wanted to portfolios like health, education, etc. The biggest change you would see is that peoples ideas about issues would really get some traction. If there was an election and you had to choose a minister of health it would be very telling; do the regular voting people want a corporate shill doctor ? Do they want someone interested in natural remedy? Is there a problem in healthcare that any one person is actually more qualified to handle than the other. If line-ups are the problem someone with a business management background might be best. If the main issues center around moral dilemmas perhaps someone with a background in philosophy is more appropriate. Yes, this means that people would have to be more familiar with the candidates, but the way it is now you vote for a face and a colour and some broad platform that may or may not come to pass regardless. You know nothing about the ministers, their qualifications (if any), ideas (if any)... and you select no one other than the PM who is simply the leader of the 'party'. While party politics have been a staple of western democracies for hundreds of years as we see with the removal of the 200 year old fillibuster rule – parties themselves can be dangerous to the competent management of a nation. Especially in such polarized political times. The general populace coming to have a greater role in and appreciation of their own governance and affairs cannot be a bad thing ... not for said citizens, at least.

does it help anyone when parties are engaged in riggerous in-fighting instead of really focusing on what is best for citizens with facts and clearly articulated plans ? 

Personally I guess I'm just tired of looking at Government and feeling like none of these fucking people have any clue or qualifications to do almost anything. Many MP's in the western world have traditionally been lawyers. In China they have embraced a more practical theory where most MP's are actually engineers, doctors, people who are relevant to the issues of their region and portfolio. Here we have a pile of new Cons that are former TV personalities acting now as senators, ministers of various sorts.... well what the hell does a TV announcer have to do with being minister of the environment ? There's really no question that if you put it up for a vote to Canadians “Peter Kent or David Susuki for minister of environment” or oceans or anything basically, Kent would never see the political light of day. Conservatives have recruited all these dirtbags just so they could swing votes for their party. Its like if Tom Cruise ran for Mayor of ... well anything. His policies may be non-existant even, but the star power would draw massive votes. This isn't saying that any of these people are bad, or that they have not worked in earnest on things that were important to them or within their capacity to understand. It's just saying that if voters were informed and had the ability to influence cabinet appointments at the ballot box we'd have a much stronger country and would be leading the world again. Canadians are top notch global citizens, but we're often too simple and nice about things that should be taken more seriously.

Peter Kent was a decent enough newsman, does that legitimately qualify him -in any way- to speak to and about environmental issues in the house ? Should his views and opinions on the environment be steering Canada ? No. Do you want someone in that position that is good at handling media and spin if you plan to do a bad job in that department ? Did he score up a bunch of senior citizen votes by being a popular talking head? Yes. Is this the way we should be doing things in the 21st C ?

The First President of the Moon ~ D.M.J. March

The First President of the Moon ~ D.M.J. March

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." ~ Romans 3:20

There are already a few companies here on Earth that will sell you a slice of the

big ol' pie in the sky (some have even been talked about on MyMOON before :P),

however readers would be keen to note the legal framework of celestial ownership

seems to be coming under some review lately with the establishment of the first

protected lunar sites on behalf of the USA and its Apollo missions.

Lunar Deed for land from Lunar Embassy (SAMPLE ONLY)

While I certainly respect the sentiment of protecting these sacred sites for all time, we should be sure to address the fundamental shift in the spirit of verbiage and the dangerous potential for over-collusion between military agenda and this decidedly civilian agency that has been the forefront of American (and most human) ventures beyond Earth since its inception.

"Ike" talking with the troops near the end of WW2

When NASA was formed by Eisenhower it wasn't some lovey-dovey pre-60s peacenik orientation that convinced the old General to appoint civil agents to the lead positions in his

new aerospace agency. This agency was about to become the focal point for the entire US sphere of human influence above a few dozen feet off the ground. This visonary orientation of the agency towards peaceful exploration in the interests of all the citizens of the

Earth was nearly foisted over-top of all existing space and military infrastructure of the time. 

   The Army, Navy and Air Force all had elements of rocketry and advanced flight development

under-way (to say nothing of the Navy's predisposition for the development of simulated

and self contained environments including communications, power and life support systems

designed for long voyages in extreme-stress environments).

The Yomato, a fictional space-navy ship

It was a serious and intentional executive mandate to make NASA civil and it really went against the fledgling grain of the time. After this slight against the other generals and the prevailing winds of congress one could even argue that Eisenhower’s hold over the upper-echelons truly began to wane. Regardless, this decision paved the way for an open and civilly motivated NASA under Kennedy to really press the boundaries of human potential in a way that didn't require those people at the core to be starved or fundamentally deprived of any bountiful American or human rights. Both Nazi and Russian (the only comparison at the time) astrospace programs, at least partially, relied on extreme abuse of workers and secrecy of the works being performed.

Prisoners/Workers of the Nazi Rocket program

It is unlikely that even a militarized American space program would have resorted to, say, a militarized convict labour force (though, thankfully, there is no way to know for sure), but the lesson should not be forgotten that these starkly contrasting systems of space management have existed in our brief history of flirtation with these new technologies and ideas. It is, in fact, the cruelties of these other systems that seem to inexorably linked to the collapse of not only their patron nations, but essentially the entire ideology that supported them.

    The American example is the only space program that really survived the Cold War in-tact. While Russia is now a more than capable space partner, and was previously a leader in the field, their Buran shuttle never materialized and they are still mostly utilizing technology from 50 years ago. Moreover, all of their efforts to make lasting contact with Mars, the Moon or any other celestial body have largely fizzled out. The brilliant pace of innovation was broken for the very fact that their program failed to produce workable solutions for many related problems that space-faring entities must embrace. Social, economic, moral and military elements must all coalesce in a way that seems both requisite and unique for groups that wish to sustain an exo-planetary lifestyle. The Soviets didn't just not do it quickly enough, even today they have never sent a person to the moon as the American civil NASA did back in 1969.

Copy of the plaque placed on the Moon in 1969 "in peace for all mankind"

Surely in this day and age it is apparent that the reason cannot be technological. If the Americans truly went to the moon in '69, how could the Russians not at least match that feat in the following four(plus) decades? The reason, I believe, is largely a tendency towards militarism and a lack of cooperative effort between nations. A national military is by its definition a Xenophobic sort of entity. Modern civilized armed forces are primarily concerned with events abroad and it is an extreme measure in modern society for any military operations to be deployed against domestic citizens. 

    Even where alliances between nations exist, thus far, they are not concrete and binding above the natural duty a military has to its own people. I have made this statement in the present tense, but indeed a transition that is underway around “space laws” seems very apparent and it is a part of a wider alteration of those sorts of liberties that were won at great cost and endured after the major conflicts of the 20^th century. With the assertion of US protected lunar zones, and other individuals selling real estate, the question beckons; through what (moral) authority are these extraterrestrial enterprises being undertaken and enforced ?

A small sampling of Asian military power

It seems quite obvious that for there to be any sensibility to the new laws and proclamations protecting these regions, the threat of punitive measure is implied. Don't mess with the USA lunar sites, or else ! But again, this begs the question; or else what ?

   There seem to be two schools of thoughts on the matter. One, fiscal penalties or trade related measures directly from the USA or perhaps enacted through the WTO, etc. The second school is militaristic in orientation; an intrusion into the outlined areas would be the same as a sanctioned government occupation of, for example, American sovereign territory. This second school derives all its substance from the supposition that national boundaries (of many sorts) will continue to exist into the future and will continue to be a tremendous threat and barrier to a truly unified and coordinated Earthly space organization. While either sort of retaliation may seem justified to some, there is a larger issue here...

Magazine article about the new lunar protected zones.
Illustrates well the juvenile and bigoted attitudes lending themselves to this effort.

   In some cities around the world public gardens and displays are delicate, intricate and well respected. In other cities every public edifice is constructed with the same durability and use requirements as a prison. The difference is one of seemingly inverted societal norms and respect for government. While it may seem contrary, it is often the case that more 'free' societies treat their public areas like a prison yard while less 'democratic' nations enjoy splendid looking public transit, parks and safety by comparison. 

   The point here is only this; who exactly is threatening to disturb those sites ? Who WOULD disturb those sites? Is the threat of intentional harm done against these American achievements more pressing now than during the cold war (therefore these new laws are required in this modern age)? How is there any assumption that if China, for example, sends people to the moon there is a legitimate concern that their astronauts may maliciously walk over and start messing about with the USA's 1960's era space-craft sites? Or India, perhaps ? What nation would be so disrespectful and so desire the ire of the rest of the planet as to perpetrate such a horrendous property crime without precedent ? And so we see that these laws are in no way designed for their assumed purpose of honouring the moon-sites, in fact, those boundaries were already inscribed in the hearts of anyone who looks out into the deep of night above... only the most dastardly of individuals (scaled up to a space-faring entity, mind you) would either be capable or interested in such a wanton act of desecration.

Dr. Strangelove would probably vandalize the Apollo areas...
...but then, what nation does he represent ? 

I propose that these new laws do not validate the sanctity of these sites, but much rather they taint the very ideology that established those sites. Laws concieved and applied to space under these new bulla are built solely upon notions of projected national isolationism and protectionism, of future territorial rivalry in space, and mostly of a failure among nations to form a peaceful and lasting global government tending to the increased well being of all people.        

   Moreover as opposed to being founding in a spirit of peace for all mankind, these laws are an assertion of disunity, a threat and a warning against our own... It is a complete change in the framework, ideas and associated institutions affecting our closest celestial neighbour – and it should not be taken lightly.

*(LUNAR EMBASSY, BUY MOON LAND, ETC).

The Real Reason for The Season

A short preamble;
------------------------
A complete revolution of the planet happens every day, the moon does a cycle in a month. Although we recognize these events we dont celebrate them or revere them. Every 365 the same thing happens again, but we do... why is that ? How is a circuit around the sun any different, really ?

My answer; people are scared of the dark ;)

--
Do you know how far you've travelled through the cosmos on "Spaceship Earth" over a year (even discounting the daily 20,000+ miles for basic planetary rotation ?) This should get you started;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_orbit

------------------------
i.


Now that all of the general brew-ha-ha about the holidays is dying down I thought we might take a few minutes and really consider what that was all about. See, I believe in Santa and Jesus as much as the next guy but what I find most interesting about the whole 'festive season' is that when one researches it one finds that the custom is not inherent to any one religion but rather many around the globe celebrate this time of year and it has also traditionally demarked the 'end of the year' (ergo the beginning of the next) as well.

So what, you might wonder, is this 'reason for the season' I speak of ? It is related to the position of astrological bodies far more than anything else. The winter solstice is primary among these events. It is the shortest day of the year because of the position of the planet and this has long been understood. It has also long been exploited by peasantry and elitists for different ends as well. I wont go into too much of that here, but I just wanted to make the point about there being more to the story than just the 'myths'. I intend absolutely no offence to any religion and nothing I've said would really take away from the fact that, say, Jesus could have been born on day X or whatever. My only point here is that the celebrations and the events have been going on for a long long time before and after these individuals or situations that are celebrated on these days.

Even more to the point, New Years Day is not in any way promoted as a celestial event although it would certainly help overall understanding of our place in our own solar system if it were. Very little is said to make any sense of the holidays we experience or their relavence in the modern world. Summers off of school is a similar phenomena. It makes no sense. Originally it was harvest time so childrens parents would KEEP them home rather then send them to school, so the schools figured out it was smarter to simply shut down. But when is the last time any of us worked harvest in summer as a necessity of manpower on the family farm ? It would be ludicrous to give children time off now, if they had always been going throughout the year and someone made a motion to let people off for 3 months the outcry would be insurmountable, yet we cling to this tradition.

I have digressed a little, but I wanted to take a part of this to establish some precedence before the next section, because aside from festivus and new years this year we also paid our dues to the 'mayan apocalypse' !! Again, this was primarily a celestial event, but it became a call to buy provisions and celebrate being alive ... celebrating that nothing happened... of course we didn't really do that, but we did everything else. Millions in media dollars and emergency resources was doled out over another celestial event that most people had very very little comprehension about. Yes, we are entering the age of aquarius finally or something, but really even these zodiac things seem a little worn to me, but nevertheless there it is.

Now here's the wild bit; since we see that these times are usually a catalyst for one group to disobey all regularly imposed structure (taking off work, being silly, talking about myths as a basis for living) ... and another group does everything in its power to exploit any such sentiment (buy buy buy, its CHRISTMAS, CHRISTMAS SALE, LAST DAY BEFORE CHRISTMAS TO BUY, etc etc) and since these are so strongly based on celestial events that were presented improperly... what kind of season can we expect over the next year when several close and possibly highly visible phenomena occour ? Without proper education and information I shudder to think. Especially since by definition any celestial event which is not part of the regular happenings of the cosmos is a deviant force in the heavens, so to speak.

Will we wise up? Will we make new myths? Will we break down ? Will we be afraid ? Will we start to pay more attention to our ideas and our real position in space and time ? Phil Plaits work, seems to speak to some of this and I must laud him on his efforts to educate people on the dangers of asteroids and our ability to potentially overcome them (to say nothing of Paul Allen and Planetary Resources who actually would like to snare one of the buggers!!).  It is a worthy area of consideration that can only lead us forward in my opinion. But I think we are all missing the mark by neglecting to better consider the societal impact of, even,  a strongly visible near miss. Even if there is no real danger it is an exciting opportunity to exploit the situation for a great increase in peoples awareness of solar mechanics in general if it is done correctly. Without such efforts I do worry home some people might react in their ignorance.

 If news people can spend so much time on a mayan misinterpretation, they should also be interested in marketing a meteor fly-by to the people as well. Instead of just causing a bunch of unhelpful and unfounded worry they might actually do some good by expanding peoples awareness and getting them off the myths. We have facts and a global information system now, after all.

Again I'm not trying to take A THING away from anyones religions. Quite the contrary; I'm trying to show how these traditions take away from simple understanding of celestial events. In fact, if you simply wiki WINTER SOLSTICE you can see for yourself how many religions have observances on that day. Also if anything of Christianity or any religion exists in these celebrations - exploiting them one day a year for personal gain is probably not what the originators of such traditions had in mind. Celebrating Christmas makes one no more a Christian than standing in a garage makes one a car. At least if we can accept that we might start looking beyond the interpretations and more to the science of the matter.

Nevertheless I did enjoy my turkey dinner and spending time with family. Perhaps if these times weren't so poignant and ingraned we would do that a little more often, there is, after all the exuinox... oh wait, isn't that easter. I'm still not sure what the bunny and the chocolate nuggets is all about :P

Augmented Infinity

~[Cerebral Graffiti]~

Augmented Reality(AR~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_reality ) is closer and closer upon the horizon. Products like GoogleGlass ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Glass ), Recon Instruments ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recon_Instruments ) and others are beginning to show us what our future could look like (or at the very least how we will see it). I have joined a few groups about AR tech and applications in the past year and I am very hopeful about the proliferation of this technology in the next decade (no I am not a stock advisor) and the fantastic development rush for apps that will be unlike anything previous in hour history. These technologies and apps can be designed to specifically enhance or guide human performance in a way previously unimaginable.

The next generation of space suits also incorporates this technology ( http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-06/nasas-next-gen-spacesuit-could-have-helmet-display ) and I am hopeful of a time where these digital overlays are pretty common for nearly every vocation. What we are really talking about is the introduction of Heads Up Display technology of the purest and most integrated variety. A cybernetic hybridization of the head senses and technology coming together at last. For many years research has been done on the utilization of voice commands and eye reactions on computer interfaces ( http://empowerednews.net/blink-eye-tracking-technology-for-computer-control-from-cms-llc-inspired-by-paralyzed-father/1825143/ ). Through further natural use as time goes on, jargon and enhancements in performance based on user feedback will result in a totally intuitive and utilitarian computer interface.

Please also take a look at the series H+ on youtube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZedLgAF9aEg ). It is a show about bio-genetically integrated (trans-human) AU and the first episode is only a few minutes long after a minute or two you will see the sort of tech possible.

There is also an ad on youtube for a fictitious aerosol based playstation9  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPFoh75sbSU you might still be able to find. That says nothing of movies like total recall or the matrix that take the argument to an existential level. But mostly I am interested to hear thoughts on this new wave of high-tech instruments and what you think, if anything, they will mean for the future of space exploration. Some examples of tech I would like to see is;

-The ability to overlay data on visible terrain so that,for example areas containing hazardous terrain can be avoided. -Recon Instruments HUD technology, for example, is generally engaged and encouraged by extreme sports such as mountain skiing, diving, etc

-The ability to overlay instructions for repairs or scientific procedures

-The ability to quickly capture video and audio of a persons experience - similar to everyone having cameras on their phones now, except you could record a hike you go on or kayaking in first person view, etc

So with all that in mind, what sort of AU tech do you hope to see ?

What sort of experience with HUD do you have already ? Video games, maps, etc ?

What sort of apps do you think would be especially useful in outer space ?

Do you see any other emerging technologies that merge well with the potential for AR ?

For Reasons of Security as well as Insecurity: A Word on Technological Standardization

By the year 2100 we hope....


People will see travellers going from Earth to the Moon (and/or beyond) as regularly as we might see planes flying people overhead now from America to Asia. It will become a common sight that could also suffer because uninformed people may easily come to take it for granted and disregard its true , present costs and benefits. It seems that times change and people forget the great advances that were required socially as much as technically to allow these sorts of things to happen. Tremendous progress comes forth only from excitement about bold ideas... not only from well maintained portfolios... though they also have their place.

We must remember the important lessons of history or we'll be starting over from scratch again... if we survive.

-----------------------------------------------------------


For Reasons of Security as well as Insecurity: A Word on Technological Standardization


It is a strikingly under-appreciated and wholly modern development that humans may be about to embark on a visible, regular and sustained program of extra-terrestrial expansion to the heavens above. While this imminent development is popularly treated somewhat less poignantly than global warming, financial collapse or the latest Hollywood blockbuster, it is nevertheless a much more important development which stands to have the the most lasting positive impact. Far more noteworthy is this approaching inevitability of space-faring than the latest sports scores or the topsey-turvey tumblings of todays American politics. The entire species is about to crash into an etherial wall as seemingly insurmountable as the sound barrier was to our recent forebears [2].

The major achievements of the next few decades, however, will be less about technical advance than they will be about technical integration. Related challenges will confront our peoples on many levels; economic, spiritual and traditional notions of all sorts are coming due for an appraisal against more modern ideas and discoveries. Shades of a second renaissance flourish all around us. We technologists and engineers are resigned to accept that even the emergent technologies of today and slated for tomorrow were discovered in the early post-Apollo period for the most part. The X-15 [3] is a fine example of our early technological prowess. The designs employed to get Space Ship One & Two beyond the confines of the planet find their similarity to the 1959 rocketplane designs undeniable... to say nothing of the Dyna-Soar [4] research conducted my the Air Force before space travel was snatched from their professional and well-trained grasp by one of the wisest men to grace the American shores [5]. Reasonably we can assume the people involved in the creation and utilization of these initial technological leaps were a mean age of 25-35 even at that time. This, in turn, means they were taught by those even older and these designs originated very shortly after the popular ascension of avionics in general c.1900 [6]. Indeed, when one makes a thorough study of developments in aeronautics and rocketry one does not see a gradual rise in learning from aeroplanes to rocketry, they were both being pursued with vigour at nearly the same time and by two almost completely disparate camps.

Since that time little has really changed (except for the multi-mergering of aero and astro companies perhaps). The spacecraft designs of the near future still rely on these early general styles [4][7]. We are, however, finally seeing a return to smaller American spacecraft [8] which is a hopeful, though primarily austere, development. The idea that it should cost tens of millions of dollars to send one person just to the edge of outer space is surely something which much also face the winds of change in this time of global fiscal retraction. Strikingly, this period of economic restraint could come to be viewed as a helpful last gasp of tired old economic theories based on scarcity for, though things seem bleak looking forward, we are fortunate indeed to live in a period of unlimited credit [9] (though we tend to call it debt - your credit card has all your debts and your debit card has all your credits, go figure). If we will simply prioritize issues of exploration and humanitarianism there is no longer any limit to the amount of good that can be done because of the present modelling of our fiat global economy. Already today some would argue that the UN saves roughly a billion lives a year though it itself is economically retarded.

Companies like Virgin Galactic, Biggelow Aerospace and Planetary Resources are perhaps the greatest chance for our long term economic sustainabililty that has ever existed in known history. Virtually limitless resources await our extraction - even just in our own solar system. Our young species can barely fathom what riches of minerals and various fuels await us in the cosmos just outside of our established comfort zones. But in order to get there, as I said before, the developments that need to be made are in our minds and in the zeitgeist of our times much more than in our laboratories.

While we wrestle with our commitments to foreign banking interests and sacrifice the social fabric of our nations to satiate their unending desires for profit - somewhere in the background, far from the mainstream fantasies of self-made millionaires and the absurdity of urban living, we find a quiet and meek group of reformers with no particular political agenda other than the overall betterment and expansion of the human species. So why are they not the rockstars of today ? Why does Britney Spears have millions of followers whilst names like Paul Allen and Robert Biggelow fail to attract the same level of interest in spite of their myriad and very important achievements ? It seems that somewhere along the way, the flashy bright-lights of show-business stole the essence of our knack for real prosperity and sustainable survival. We gave up our long-term dreams for quick thrills. While I certainly appreciate the great beauty and talent of Ms. Spears, as one example, I am far more concerned with real issues in the world today. We all long for momentary reprieve from our stresses and dilemmas, but we seem to have forgotten that most of them spring forth from artificially elevating these sorts of people far beyond their usefulness to society. People used to be famous for what they did, now fame is something that people do in itself. If we are not careful we might sacrifice generations, our planet or our very species to these sorts of momentary gratifications erstwhile making very little progress on important issues. Personally I think we are far more valuable to the universe than we give ourselves credit for and we, as citizens, are treated in this ultimately degrading way simply because we do not desire anything more for ourselves. We have forgotten the value of hard work, of dedication, of propriety and decency as a whole. Sure, we all want to get wasted on Friday night, but most of us here in North America have done nothing to earn the opulence in which we live, and we take far too much of it for granted. If it were not for the tremendous sacrifices of previous generations we would not have any of this to enjoy and we very glibly discount old world wisdom that speaks exactly to this present plight [10].

With the recent passing of Neil Armstrong we must confront our failings. Based on his own very personal achievements there was no reason for him not to think that by the time he passed to the other side we would have a fledgling moon-base well established upon the soils he had once braved on our behalf. When we decided to retire that venerable workhorse, the Space Shuttle(s), he was one of the truly most prominent people to advocate on behalf of America not slowing down any more than she already had. This man remained out of the spotlight for so long that his proposals to congress should have been taken with more sincere regard. He wasn't just talking about preserving technology he was talking about preserving what little motivation remained from those many decades previous. More still, he wanted us to push farther and faster. In his own way, I believe was trying to warn us of how stagnant we'd already become. We did not have replacement vehicles prepared, we had no vision, no plans and nothing to hope for... nothing to aim for. If the Space Shuttle was to be retired so soon and there were no other plans in place then we dangled on the edge of forever losing the momentum that President Kennedy and Astronaut Armstrong had risked their very lives to inspire many moons ago. His words were scantly heeded. Now he is gone. In the years and decades since those initial triumphs, we have never sent another human being even 10% of the distance the Apollo astronauts had covered. The question that begs to assert itself is “why” ?

Now, “moon conspiracies” aside, we need to get a handle on why this happened. In looking at the capsule systems used for our early space program we have to wonder again – why ? When the US Airforce already had suitable space-planes on the drawing board and they had also already scratched the edge of outer space (Armstrong included) [3] how is it we went with an archaic 'cannonball' type of craft that cost multitudes more to build, launch and was less safe and had more huge costs and wild risks associated with 'landing' and recovery? As we have seen with the successful flights of Virgin Galactic, none of this was necessary. Early astronauts were selected from pilot corps, but they had to fight to have a window, much less any sort of manual controls (a fight which resulted in the saving of several lives, we might add) in their early spacecraft. When the Space Shuttle came to be, it was viewed as a tremendous step forward by the public because of this early misstep. A massive cargo ship that went up like a capsule but came down like a plane was not as revolutionary as it was presented to be. While this was indeed an advance from earlier capsule designs it was wholly behind the times, even in the 1980s. While some can argue indeed that the shuttle was needed to produce the space station (a dubious claim to be sure – see Chinese Space Station) I don't think anyone ever imagined that such would be its only task and once completed it would be retired without doing ANY deep space exploration to speak of. Whenever I advocate this position I often hear from people; “the shuttle was never designed for that” and blah blah, but if a tin capsule the size of a ford pinto could be outfitted for lunar travel, there is no way I will ever believe that the shuttle was simply incapable of anything more than taking stuff up to LEO. It had ample room for fuel, food and refitted quarters. Instead of even parking one at the ISS for future use, they were basically scrapped by short sighted and greedy politicians. Never was the shuttle involved with ANYTHING that happened beyond LEO except perhaps the deployment of some geo-synch satellite or something. A total waste looking back. We could have put everything up there on conventional rockets, sans-shuttle, if we wanted and developed well suited smaller and cheaper craft for personelle that needed to be a part of a mission (think Soyuz)

So again, the technology wasn't the problem. The shuttle very well COULD have been outfitted for at least one extra-planetary adventure, but it never was. Its not that the technology or funding didn't exist (the shuttle coming in WELL over its already ample budget), its simply that the desire to utilize it for such a purpose wasn't there. The leadership at NASA or in America as a whole wasn't there. In a recent survey something like 30%+ of respondents indicated they would be willing to go on a manned mission to Mars even if there as only a 50% chance of returning safely [1]. Obviously these people are perhaps zealots for the cause, but it speaks volumes to how diametrically opposed two camps are. One is not willing to ever suffer a human loss for the sake of exploration (tell that to John Cabot, Champlain, Amerigo, or Columbus and see the scoff you get) whereas the other is willing to be strapped on dynamite and blown to the moon, as long as it gets them there. We need balance. Innovation is never a foolproof 100% safe practice. Obviously we need to be cautious where we can be, but the launches of Virgins Space Ship One really rubbed it in our face how silly we'd become about this business. Every space shuttle launch was costing hundreds of millions of dollars, a seat on the Soyuz is still about 35 million, but Sir Richard and his team have set an INTRODUCTORY price of $250,000 !! That will also surely come down as the forces of supply and demand are applied. By my research, the cost per person to launch on Virgin (excluding regulatory fees and mandatory insurances) is likely about 5-10 thousand dollars over the life of one of their space-planes. That's for the average 170 pound person which means the cost per pound would be about $44. comapre that to about $27,000 per pound on the space shuttle [11] and just wonder if the problems we face are really about technology, money or something else. Why were we so idiotic about the whole thing. Surely some geek back in the 70s must have known all this... we must remember these policies were adopted by politicians, not scientists. Therein lay much of the problem. But now that we are entering an era of private space-flight the designers and builders and passengers all have input. If one place is charging $1000 per lb of cargo and another $50, there better be some damned good incentive to use the first guy in an open market.

And so we see quite plainly that the problem isn't technology or money, its will. Its planning, desire, direction and purpose. Its the fact that as much as we are interested in space, we don't really have a face or a presence anywhere advocating and leading 'the way' anymore. When Neil Armstrong walked in to the chambers to challenge the plans of the government of the day, he was only one man. There doesn't seem to be a strong national or international group devoted to study, implementation and amendments of space policy. As we see several independent private space companies emerge we must confront the fact that they too are somewhat disjointed, frivolous and without strong overarching plans. The UN has one such branch, but they never seem to do too well with concerns of the first world. Those of us who are keen already know that the “weapons in space” treaties are being eroded away to oblivion and that Nuclear ABM treaties have done international co-operation in space far more harm than they've done anyone any good.

We need a shift in paradigm. Aeroplanes were once an archaic and dangerous contraption too. The more we are encouraged to invent the more technology evolves. Real safety comes from lessons that can often only happen 'in situ', no one knew (or cared) about the advantages of seat-belts and airbags until there had been enough accidents to stimulate the actuarial accounts into action. In the 1990s Canada had one of the highest R&D budgets around, for all fields of enquiry. In that time we were routinely cited as the BEST place to live, work and expand horizons in the world. Since we have become more concerned with strict economy, than the value of humanity, even our economy has fallen to shambles. You want a good example of the sorts of things we need to change, of how far ahead we should be from where we are – especially in light of the gross expenditures we've invested in these old, inefficient ideas? Ask Jim Floyd about it. This guy was designing spacecraft before Armstrong was out of middle-school... it wasn't the money or the technology that held him back (he went on to design several components of the Apollo missions) its all about the politics. Much depends on what the masters of men thing 'the people' are ready for. Instead of sitting quietly in the background producing designs for our overlords, maybe its time that spacers like us all got together and made our own union, or party... what do WE want to see happening above the skies in the next 25, 50 or 100 years ?

We need to explore these issues as much as we need to explore other worlds. Much like science and religion, the realms of technology and politics seem hopelessly at odds. The way we are treating the internet today far exceeds any legitimate necessity. If we monitor everyone who uses the internet and strip away all their rights making them guilty before proving anything we only hurt its potential. People will become afraid to use it, they will no longer innovate or participate they will migrate away to something they find to be less intrusive on them. I fear outer space has already been legally pillaged in a similar way, and I find it quite curious that the Airforce Space Command is in charge of both cyber and outer space to the extent it has become. I honestly appreciate the need for some oversight, but The father of these such realms and considerations, Eisenhower, saw plainly what militarization in these frontiers would mean. Totalitarianism subtly rising against the very essence of everything that is bright, good, trustworthy and wonderful about all of us was the thing to watch for in the post-WW2 world. Civilian controlled was the way he wanted it and by turning 'security' of outer and cyber space over to such organizations we desecrate the legacy he intended for all free peoples... but then I guess we didn't pay much heed to the warnings about the military-industrial complex either. I recently made a post on Lockheed's sight about the F-35. It is touted as the plane that will keep us all save in the decades to come... I dont think it will be of any use beyond 2020. One does not bring an aeroplane to a satellite fight, after-all. [12] We would do just as well to maintain our moral and intellectual superiority over our superiority in armaments alone. If I'm ever out late one night working on a micro-satellite to give free wi-fi to my city and it launches by accident or something I dont want a barrage of scud missiles wreaking havoc on my pantry. Every day, the tighter and tighter we stitch this network of security around us, the more amazing opportunities and good people we lose. If we aren't careful we could inadvertently transform this whole world of possibilities into little more than a Prison Planet. It was ever thus. The real final frontier is within us, it is nothing without us. The more headway we make inside ourselves, the more naturally will our zeal for confronting boundaries spring up. Are we really willing to give it all up for security which can never truly be guaranteed ? Personally I'd rather we already had our moon-base. I'm sure most people with an eye to the sky would agree.



LINKS CITED:


[1] MARS MISSION SURVEYS, there are many more online, but here are a few examples;

http://marsonefans.com/archive/index.php/t-1.html

http://space.about.com/b/2010/10/29/would-you-go-to-mars-if-you-knew-you-could-never-come-home.htm


[2] SOUND BARRIER, it was viewed as a demonic force in the sky by early pilots in the periods 1935-45 ... how far we've come. http://esciencenews.com/sources/scientific.blogging/2009/04/29/chasing.the.demon.in.the.sky.on.autopilot


[3] X-15, one of the pilots would eventually become the first man to set foot on soils not of this Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15


[4] Dyna-Soar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar late 1950s Airforce design


[5] Starting with General Eisenhower http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/10presidents.html


[6] One of the Fathers of Rocketry, born c.1882 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard


[7] Virgin Galactic / Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Navy_Space/SpaceShipOne.jpg


[8] USAF X-37B Unmanned Craft http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-37b.jpg


[9] Global GDP growth, notable is the exponential increase since the dawn of the 20th century http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/img_lrg/global_gdp.jpg


[10] Kipling, Recessional http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessional_(poem)


[11] Costs for LEO and GTO per pound. Space Shuttle pp. 3 http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf

Yahoo Answers about cost per pound, not the most accurate numbers but useful to see the discussion and the rapid decrease in cost of late. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071023164123AA3xEv8


[12] Syriana 'End of Threat to our way of life' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG2vL-KAktA

Anti-Satellite Weapon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon