Category Archives: Uncategorized

Stopping Climate Change: Transportation

Without a doubt, to have a sustainable world, we have to get rid of cars.  Yes, even electric cars.  People will hate that, we have a car addicted society, I know.  Humans lived without cars before though, we can survive just fine without them.  Cars are popular I think because they give people mobility, the ability to travel, the ability to move around.  People who oppose public transportation projects do so primarily if the project involves taking away road space for cars.  It restricts their freedom to move.  Sadly, urban and regional planners never embrace the war on cars attitude, calling public transportation an alternative to cars.  To successfully fight climate change via eliminating as much if not all emissions from transportation, we have to create a world without cars and to do so there needs to be fast reliable public transportation everywhere.

If people can get anywhere using public transit, then there is no need for cars.  In today’s world, only major corridors in highly populated density areas of cities have quality public transit.  That leaves people living in non-major corridor areas needing cars to get around.  It’s why Portland, Oregon has horrible traffic even with its nationally praised light rail system.  It’s why the Bay Area struggles with traffic even with the BART.  People don’t need cars, roads or freeways.  People need ways of getting around.  To provide that need in a sustainable way, there needs to be public transit everywhere.  Even small cities like Wenatchee, Washington or Roseburg, Oregon need to have transit systems so their people can move freely without cars.

Public transit needs to be a war on cars.  All major cities need to have light rail, monorail or Gold Standard Bus Rapid Transit along their major corridors.  Gold Standard BRT is the BRT you see in Latin American cities like Bogota, Colombia and Curitaba, Brazil to name a couple.  Along non-major city corridors, there should be Bronze and Silver Standard BRT, as BRT is cheaper than light rail and monorail.  You get roughly four to five times as much BRT as light rail for every $1 billion.  The major corridor Gold Standard BRT routes should be served by bi-articulated, double decker bi-articulated or even tri-articulated buses, while the non-major corridors be served by articulated buses.  In my view, major corridors are highways, freeways, or roads with six or more lanes.  Non-major corridors would be two lane roads wide enough for parking on both sides, three lane roads, four lane roads and five lane roads.  Where there is BRT, the roads just get turned into busways, also called bus highways.  Since there’d be no vehicle lanes anymore, the extra space not used by BRT or light rail would be used for bike paths, growing plants and trees.

This makes communities look prettier by having less pavement and more nature.  Although buses and trains would come every few minutes at longest, communities would have much less noise pollution compared to having cars flying by every second.  In addition, there’d be no car accidents, and it’d be much safer for people to cross two bus lanes or train tracks compared to crossing four to six lanes of car traffic.  Two lane roads without parking and residential streets would simply be bike paths.  Two way bike paths only take up one car lane of space, so those roads would have one lane removed and used for plant growth.  The bike paths would be wide enough for emergency vehicles like firetrucks and ambulances to get to houses on those roads.  Bus highways would be used by emergency vehicles as well.

The other thing I have heard about cars is that they breed sociopathism.  They isolate the individual from the community.  Public transit brings people together.  So, for within the city, not only is going carless what the planet needs, it actually creates a lot of human benefits.  It reduces air pollution, reduces noise pollution, brings people together, makes communities safer, frees up space for other uses such as nature rehabilitation, biking, gardening and other stuff.

For traveling between cities in the same metropolitan area, there needs to be electrified high speed commuter trains.  Think of The Sounder, which connects Tacoma, Seattle and Everett in the South Salish Sea metropolitan area.  Another example of commuter trains is the Cal Train in the Bay Area.  For the most part, commuter trains would use current freeway corridors, as freeways are what connect cities currently.  While the Seattle area has just one commuter train route, many larger metropolitan areas would need extensive large commuter rail systems.  Another important idea is Express buses.  Express buses are a component of BRT that just takes you from Point A to Point B, with no stops in between.  This would complement commuter rail.  Freeways would be turned into busways for BRT, Express Bus and Coach Bus, which I’ll explain shortly.

For regional and national travel, there’d be high speed rail, maglev trains and coach bus.  High speed rail are those bullet trains in Europe, Japan and now China.  They go 150-180mph.  Maglev trains can go 500km, which is just over 300mph.  Coach bus is what Greyhound and Bolt Bus are.  However, there are photos online of imaginary tri-articulated double decker coach buses.  It’s basically a bus that can fit eight times as many people as a normal coach bus.  I would use those as my coach buses for regional and national bus travel.  Maglev is super expensive, so it’d be for certain corridors with lots of people, like the U.S northeast or San Antonio to Dallas, Texas, or Dallas to Houston or L.A to San Diego.  High speed rail would follow the freeway corridors, even non heavily populated corridors.  The coach buses would also use freeway corridors as well as U.S State routes like Route 66.  Being that bus highways are just two lanes, one side of a freeway can be removed as all freeways are four lanes or more wide, even in the middle of nowhere like eastern Montana.

Only for long range cross country and trans-continental travel would there be airplane travel.  With high speed rail replacing short distance flights, the shortest flights would be 1,000 miles.  Basically, airplane travel would only be for traveling distances that would take more than six hours by high speed rail.  This reduces greatly the number of airplanes in service, reducing air pollution and jet fuel consumption.  It also clears up the skies, making the job of airport controllers easier.  It means airports are less packed, and thus they can shrink, close terminals and remove runways.  Some airports which only serve short distance flights, like Eugene’s, could close and be used for other purposes, like wildlife restoration.  Wildlife restoration is another topic I’ll get to in another segment on stopping climate change.

Anyways, with all of this, on a global scale all around the world, it’d be possible to connect everyone to everyone and everywhere to everywhere using public transportation so that everyone can still enjoy their human right to move and travel freely, just without the earth killing sociopathic car.  You could get to anywhere in any city, and from any city to any city, using public transportation.

Truly being Pro-Life

I am pro-life

Pro-life in that no baby deserves to be born into poverty

Pro-life in that nobody’s daughter or son should go to prison for smoking pot

No newborn child should have absent parents because companies don’t provide months of paid maternity leave

No daughter or son should be shot by police for being black

No daughter or son should be paid poverty wages for their work

No daughter or son should go into debt to get a college education

No baby deserves to live next to an oil refinery

No baby deserves to have their food and water poisoned

No baby deserves their house be bulldozed simply for being Palestinian

No baby deserves to be accidently droned to death at their wedding party

No baby whale deserves to be in captivity

No baby shark deserves to have its fin cut off

No baby lion deserves to be killed for sport

Every baby deserves affordable healthcare until they die of old age

No baby deserves to be sent to war to protect corporate profits

No baby deserves to be spied on

No baby deserves to die in a train crash because of a lack of safety regulations

No baby deserves to die in a plane crash because taking short cuts on maintenance saves the airlines money

No baby penguin deserves to die because humans were too greedy and selfish to stop climate change

No baby deserves to go into slavery because of capitalism

No baby deserves to be taught to value money over human relationships

Every baby deserves a universal guaranteed basic income

Every baby deserves easy access to contraception

Every baby deserves full social security benefits

Every baby deserves voting rights with no restrictions

Every baby deserves to join a union or worker owned co-op

Every baby deserves to marry the love of their life

Many conservatives may truly be pro-life

But no Republican is

Republicans are only pro-life while the baby is in the mother’s womb

Once the baby comes out

Republicans are anti-life

As a man

I have no choice but to be pro-choice

Because no man

Republican, Democrat or myself

Has the right to control women’s bodies

Nobody has the right to control another person’s body

If you are quote on quote “pro-life”

Have your baby when you are pregnant

But don’t force others into having theirs

Nobody enjoys having an abortion

They already know the pros and cons

They’ve thought it through

Don’t make it any harder for them

To be pro-life should be to make life better for those who are born

So that they can have a life

Because many who are born never have a life

If everyone’s lives are improved

If newborns are guaranteed a long healthy happy life

Abortions will go down naturally

If women have free access to contraception

Abortions will go down naturally

If women are paid equal living wages to men

Abortions will go down naturally

If women are given months of paid maternity leave

Abortions will go down naturally

If college is debt free

Abortions will go down naturally

If you care for human life

Abortion is not the issue

Abortion is merely a symptom of our culture of death

If you are truly pro-life

Not just human life

But pro-all life

Which 99% of people are I think

Stop fighting abortion

And start fighting the causes of it

Don’t vote for Republicans

They are anti-life

Support organizations that provide healthcare services to women

Yes that includes Planned Parenthood

Support free contraception

Support raising the minimum wage to a living wage

Support unions and worker owned co-ops

Support strong safety regulations

Support GMO labeling

Support stronger environmental protection laws

Support oppressed people around the world

Support other animals

Support life

Make it better

Love life

Be pro-life

My Campaign Strategy

In today’s political climate, it is impossible to become president as a third party candidate, so my fellow idiot friend Devon Manber aka God says I’d have to run as a Democrat or Republican. As far left as I am, a million miles to the left of Bernie Sanders, but still a leftist, so my best chance would be running in the Democratic Party. Obviously, I need to win the primaries first to get the party nomination. With how radical some of my platforms are, my chance of winning would literally be zero. With that in mind, Devon aka God, Alex Miles aka Grandpa, and my twin brother Alex aka The Legend have helped me put together a campaign strategy that is as crazy and idiotic as our own personalities.

No wealthy donors would support my platforms, except perhaps Al Gore and Tom Steyer who might support my climate change platform. So for raising money, I’d have to go entirely grassroots like Bernie Sanders and Kshama Sawant. However, I wouldn’t lack for media attention because Devon would have me use Donald Trump’s strategy of keeping the media attention on me. Instead of saying racist misogynist things though, I would just do crazy fun idiotic stuff. Basically, the stuff I already do with my boys. These things I’d do would get me media attention without hurting my campaign.

Since you’re all interested in what kind of things I’d do to attract and keep media attention, let me tell you! I would go scuba diving with sharks. I would go skydiving with supporters while raising money. I’d climb a mountain. I’d go surfing and wingsuit flying. I’d do a 720 on a snowboard pipe. I would do the Party Boy dance in a speedo in public. I would go streaking. Hell, if I’m married and my wife agrees to it, I might even make a sex tape. That’d get everyone talking! I’d go from a barely known candidate to a candidate everyone knows. Young people would love how fun I am.

For fundraising, most of it would probably come in small online donations, but I’d also have fundraising events that allow for lots of people to participate while getting media attention for the unconventional settings. Every Tuesday, whichever city I’m campaigning in, I would have a fundraising basketball tournament, where my supporters get to form teams and compete against each other and try to beat my campaign staff team led by myself. Every Thursday, wherever I’m campaigning, I would have bowling tournament fundraisers. I would also have fundraisers at bars, waterparks, ski resorts and other such cool fun places. The best place I would have fundraisers at would be strip clubs. Those would be my expensive fundraisers because those who come get to see presidential candidate Adam Kendall get up on the pole, as well as give personal sexy dances. Who would pass up that chance? I would actually have a legit reason for having fundraisers at strip clubs, because most if not all strippers and exotic dancers only do those jobs because it’s a source of money to make ends meet in a society that doesn’t give women the same job opportunities, and I’d be a radical candidate outside the accepted political arena trying to raise the money I need in any way possible so I can win. Long story short, I’d be in solidarity with strippers and exotic dancers. So yea, basically all my fundraisers would be super fun and they’d all get media attention. I’d have the most fun exciting campaign ever.

I would use twitter and facebook every day to connect with supporters. I would do frequent AMA’s on reddit. I’d post cool fun pictures on Instagram. I’d also create a youtube channel where I would make weekly videos, as well as to serve as a media outlet televising the basketball and bowling tournaments.

Since no wealthy donors, party establishment people or politicians are going to support most of my platforms, I would try to get endorsements from lots of well known pro sports players in the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB and other leagues. Athletes always have more popularity than politicians, so if I can get them, I come off as the really cool candidate. I would also try to get endorsements from famous actors that could realistically support some of my platforms, like Matt Damon, Robert Redford, Robert Downey Jr and Angelina Jolie, to name a few. Director James Cameron could support my climate change platform and thus endorse me. I’d also go for singers everyone loves, like Taylor Swift, Macklemore, Demi Lovato, Eminem and bands like Death Cab For Cutie and One Republic.

Before speaking in each city, I would look up the important local issues that matter there so I can talk a little about them in my speech. So in Bellingham, I’d talk about supporting their community bill of rights and stopping the Cherry Point coal terminal. In Spokane, I’d talk about stopping the coal trains, giving personhood rights to the Spokane River and supporting their community bill of rights. In the Tri-Cities, I’d talk about cleaning up Hanford, getting rid of nukes and expanding wind power. In New York, I’d talk about ending fracking. Basically, I would bring together local issues with national issues.

Running for president is usually about a year and a half process, but I would make it a two year process so that I can have the first few months all to myself. Once you declare, the maximum donation is $2500 per person. You can give unlimited amounts to a SuperPAC, but to the candidate it’s $2500 once they officially declare. Before announcing, I would meet with Al Gore and Tom Steyer to see if they each could give a few million dollars to get me going with my climate change platform. The first candidates usually start declaring January-March following the mid-term election, but I would declare late July before the mid-term election. I would announce in my hometown of Seattle down at Greenlake, as the three baseball fields and basketball court can fit the thousands that would come to see their hometown guy declare. I would have the appeal of being the first local to run for president and being a U of O grad, so that itself would give me big rallies in Oregon and Washington.

The Democratic Party has Super Delegates that make up 19% of the total delegates, or 38% of what you need to win the nomination. The Super Delegates are the party establishment. Without a single Super Delegate, you would need to win 62% of the normal delegates in order to have 51% of all the delegates to win the nomination. If my main opponent has every Super Delegate, they only need 39% of the normal delegates to win the nomination. I’m not getting any Super Delegates with my platforms, so I need to win at least 62% of the normal delegates. In other words, I need to win an average of 62% of the vote in each state caucus/primary. That means not just winning states, but whooping serious ass and dominating the primaries in a way never before seen. I have to win in massive landslides. I can’t leave anything to chance. Here is my strategy for doing just that.

Once I declare in Seattle in late July, I would spend all of August locking up my home state of Washington. I would go all around the state, even the red parts. I would have a rally at Bellevue High School’s football stadium to win over Bellevue. I’d have a rally at the Tacoma Dome, Western Washington’s football stadium in Bellingham, Olympia, Everett’s hockey arena, Sun Dome in Yakima, Spokane Arena, Martin Stadium in Pullman for southeast Washington, Fort Vancouver, Ellensburg, Moses Lake, Renton, Puyallup Fairgrounds, Kelso, Ocean Shores, Anacortes, Bremerton, Port Angeles, Wenatchee and others. I would finish August with a massive rally at CenturyLink Field. I would lock Washington down. I would reach out to the 35% of eligible Washington voters who don’t vote and get them registered so that I have such huge support that come primary time, I get every single freaking delegate in my home state.

Then that September, I use my appeal as a U of O grad to go all around Oregon and lock that shit down. I’d have rallies in Portland, Eugene, Salem, Astoria, Coos Bay, Medford, Roseburg, Bend, The Dalles, Corvallis, Forest Grove and other towns and cities in Oregon. In Oregon and Washington, I’m not leaving anything to chance. I’m a Cascadian, I’m taking all our delegates. All of them. 100% of them. Heck, Oregon has a lot less people than Washington, so if I can cover Oregon in three weeks, I can spend the last week of September going around Idaho and locking down their primary votes and delegates, as Idaho is part of the Cascadia bioregion.

I would take a campaign break in October and probably take a vacation, as October is when the mid-term election kicks into high gear. Since I’m the only candidate running at this point, I don’t need to utilize the crazy media stunts, so taking a break in October is better than wasting energy competing with mid-term races for attention.

Once it’s a week past mid-term election day and the media attention from it starts to fade, I would hit California and spend two months just trying to lock it down. Rallies in LA, San Diego, San Fran, Oakland, San Jose, Sacramento, Stockton, Fresno, Redding, Bakersfield, Visalia, Santa Barbara, Anaheim, Palm Springs, San Bernardino and others. Everywhere I can possibly go. Rallies all up and down the state for two straight months. California is mine mine mine. The whole west coast is mine.

When I’m done with the two months in California, it’d be around mid-January. This is the earliest that candidates announce they are running, so I would go to the union heavy mid-west Great Lake states and spend two weeks in each of them. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. That’s four months, taking me to late May. Spending two weeks in each of them allows me to hit all their key cities for rallies while also trying to get a lot of big union endorsements. Also, my aunts, uncles and cousins who are from Michigan could lock it down for me. They know what to do. I know how to use my big family connections.

After that, beginning in June, I would do a 50 days 50 states campaign tour with a rally in each state. When that finishes, it’d be mid to late July and I’d be exhausted so I’d take a vacation the remainder of July. If the debates start early August like they normally do, I’d spend a week in the state of the debate. Then I would spend the time between the 1st and 2nd debate doing an overseas tour with huge rallies in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America. If the debates don’t start until October like they do this year, I’d spend all of August doing the overseas tour.

Once college football season starts on Labor Day weekend, I would spend a week in different states. College football is 14 or 15 weeks long, depending on the year, so during debate season, I’d spend a week in 14 or 15 states. The week of the Army-Navy game, I’d just campaign at the Academy schools and the biggest bases. That would take me to mid-December. Then I would take a one week vacation before finishing the year with seven big rallies in seven days.

The Iowa caucus is the start of February with New Hampshire’s primary a week later, so I’d spend the first week of January in Iowa, then the next week in New Hampshire, and the last two weeks of January back in Iowa. After the Iowa caucus, I’d spend the next week just in New Hampshire. I would hit every state right before their caucus or primary. If a state has a week all to itself, I will spend that whole week having rallies there and reaching out to voters myself. Again, I need to not just win states, but win them in massive landslides because every extra delegate I can get matters.

No general election in at least 30 years has had 60% voter turnout, no election in at least 80 years has had 70% voter turnout and no election in like 90-100 years has had 80% voter turnout, so I would put lots of energy into convincing those voters to come out and help me. The huge percentage of people who don’t vote are most likely far leftists like myself who never have anyone that represents their ideas so they stay out of voting. That’s what Kshama Sawant things, and I’d like to believe it. I am one of them, so I would go get them. They’d give me the landslide wins I need.

The final primary is usually early June, and the national convention is late July, so about eight weeks apart. I would spend a week in Oregon and Washington, then relax at home in Seattle for a month (four weeks), then take a two week vacation before spending the week before the convention having big rallies in the biggest Republican states.

The general election isn’t until early November, so I would have three months, or 12 weeks. I’d spend the first two weeks in the swing states, then the next two weeks in the blue states making sure they are locked down. Then I would spend all of September going around the four biggest Republican states, spending a week in each one having rallies all over. This would be to try to steal them, as my friends and I are complete idiots, but more importantly, it’d be to at the very least create the appearance of vulnerability to the Republican candidate and their SuperPAC’s, thus forcing them to spend key campaign money, resources and time on securing them, taking away important resources and time from the swing states during the final month. Basically, I’d be trying to distract them. Once October hits, I’d spend a week on the west coast before spending the last three weeks in the swing states having rallies everywhere. I would spend election day in Seattle with my victory speech at CenturyLink Field, no matter if it’s raining or not.

Following election day, I would take a vacation the rest of November to get away from everything before returning to Seattle for all of December and just enjoying pretty much my last month at home. Once January starts, I would start putting together my staff and then inauguration day comes and I’m sworn in as president and I get to work right away, starting with a pardon for the great hero Chelsea Manning!

So yea, this would be my campaign strategy! I came up with the schedule on my own. God, Grandpa and The Legend helped come up with the fundraising ideas and media stunts. For a super radical platform, I need a super radical campaign, so yea! I’m not actually ever going to run for president, I wouldn’t want to, but Devon says I should because he’d be my campaign manager and we would totally make all this happen and actually win. I’d rather run as Green if I did, but I wouldn’t be able to win so yea. Anyways, all these thoughts of mine are only because as much as I want to like Bernie Sanders, there’s a lot I don’t like about him, such as his support for the Israeli massacres of Gaza.

Anyways….. vote for me? Does anybody want to endorse Adam Kendall for president 2028?

My Campaign Platforms

So Bernie Sanders came to Seattle and Portland this weekend. Progressives love him. I’d like to see him beat Hillary Clinton too, because he supports worker owned co-ops and supports climate activists doing direct action blockades to stop fossil fuel projects and is against free trade deals like the TPP and the one with Europe whatever it is called. Since third parties aren’t strong enough to compete in and win an election, Bernie Sanders as president would be the best thing for the U.S and the world at this moment in time. As progressive as he is on economic issues, social justice and climate change issues, he is by no means a “radical leftist”. It will be hard for him to pass some of his legislation through congress, even if the Democrats regain the House and Senate. There are too many corporate Democrats who take their orders from Wall Street, like Oregon’s Ron Wyden. I will refrain from calling them fascists, although that is what corporatism is. Corporatism and fascism are two words who mean the same thing. Saying the word corporatism is just today’s acceptable way of saying fascism. Anyways, I’m only 23 years old, so even if I wanted to be president, I’m 13 years away from being able to do so, so writing this was basically pointless, stupid, and a waste of time. None the less, I’m far to the left of Bernie Sanders, if there is such a thing as left and right. May I entertain you with what I would do as president of the U.S if I were president starting in 2017. Since Bernie’s main platform is tackling income inequality, I’ll start with my economic policy.


Sanders wants a national $15 minimum wage and a $1 trillion infrastructure spending bill. Both great ideas and much needed. By the time he would be sworn in though, $15 an hour won’t be high enough for the minimum wage. With the republicans and corporate democrats joining forces, the progressives in congress probably don’t have enough votes to pass that anyways. Same with the infrastructure bill. Hard to pass. That said, there is a way to get stuff done, but it’d be very anti-capitalist, anti-free market and at first you’d get a lot of heat for it but what the hell.

I would nationalize a lot of big industries and use their profits to raise wages and create other jobs. With millions of workers now government workers, I would raise their minimum wage to $24 an hour, which is where it’d be right now if it kept up with inflation and levels of worker productivity. Non minimum wage workers would have their wages raised too, staying on par also with inflation and worker productivity levels. Since all nationalized companies would have those raised wages, workers of market companies would want to leave and come work for nationalized companies, thus creating pressure on market companies to raise their wages if they want to keep their workers. Here are a few industries I would nationalize…

All fast food chains and retail stores like McDonalds, Burger King, Subway, Walmart, Costco, Target, JC Penny, Five Guys and the others would be nationalized. Their profits used specifically to raise their wages. Once the wages are raised, I would push the employees of each company to organize unions and save a little bit of each paycheck so that once they have the money to match their company’s value, I can sell it back to them as a worker owned co-op. The fast food chains would connect to form a fast food network of co-ops, and the retail stores would connect to form a retail network of co-ops. This way, even if the president after me returns to a free market agenda, the fast food and retail industry workers are safe because they are all worker owned co-ops serving the needs of their communities and making living wages rather than serving as puppets for corporate profits.

I would nationalize the fossil fuel industry and use their annual profits of $100 billion to build a national high speed rail network. Eight years of nationalization means $800 billion to build HSR. California’s system is costing $88 billion to build, so $800 should provide quite a bit of HSR for the country. Hopefully enough. This would create hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions. I’d be able to win a re-election campaign just by talking about all the jobs I’ve created. HSR would take a shit ton of cars off the road and eliminate a lot of short plane flights, helping to fight climate change and bring down airline costs at the same time. The HSR network would be a worker owned co-op once it is up and running. If completed by the time I leave office, HSR would greatly reduce U.S oil consumption, so if the next president takes office shortly after HSR starts running, he/she could denationalize the fossil fuel industry right as its market share collapses, killing the fracking, coal, tar sands, deep offshore drilling and arctic drilling and other types of expensive extraction projects. With HSR taking cars off the road and planes from the air, oil prices would never rebound. Also, nationalizing the fossil fuel industry means for eight years, there is no funding of climate change denial, and also no fossil fuel money for politicians, thus eliminating their primary reason for denying climate change.

I would also nationalize the automobile industry and have them build buses, light rail, streetcars, gondalas for hilly cities and other forms of public transit. Eight years of no car commercials would make car sales plummet. It would be plenty of time to build up a culture of taking public transit. After eight years, everyone would be so used to taking public transit and riding bikes that cars would be shamed upon. The next president could denationalize the auto industry and they start making cars again, but cars wouldn’t seem appealing to people anymore. Car culture would be close to dead and impossible to revive because cities would see the benefits of not having cars such as safer streets to cross, fewer bike accidents, less noise pollution. Freeways would be torn out to reconnect neighborhoods, thus making cities healthier and reducing crime. Although, if the auto workers wanted to keep making public transit after I leave office and saved up enough money to buy their companies back as worker owned co-ops, I would happily sell them back.

I would nationalize the pharmaceutical industry in order to bring down medical and drug costs. Nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry also eliminates their opposition to single payer healthcare, thus clearing the way for that to be adopted. Single payer is something Bernie campaigns for that I support.

I would nationalize the big banks and the Federal Reserve, and then break them up. I would nationalize the major media companies and then get all the newspaper and news agencies in every city to organize so that I can sell their media back as worker co-ops. By doing that, I break up the control that the mainstream media has on all the local news agencies nationwide. This allows more voices and ideas to be heard even when the next president likely denationalizes everything.

As for paid leave for every nationalized company, I would give everyone two weeks paid sick leave and one month paid vacation. For maternity leave, I’d give both the mom and dad one year paid maternity leave for the child’s first year. Six months paid maternity leave the child’s second year and three months paid leave the child’s third year. I would do this because the first three years of a child’s life are its most important for development, so both mom and dad should be there. It also creates upward pressure on non-nationalized companies to give more maternity leave time to their employees, otherwise they’d come flocking to work for a nationalized company.


In the long run over eight years, I would push black and non-white communities to develop alternatives to police for keeping their communities safe. In the short term, I would require every officer to wear a body camera that can’t be turned off. Every officer would have to have a college degree and an I.Q above 100. Every police force would have a citizen watch group in its station that reviews all body cam and citizen filmed footage in order to hold police accountable and to make sure they are truly serving and protecting the community. Each month, police forces would hold a town hall meeting in their community to let citizens come out to meet the officers that serve them, as well as provide feedback to the police on how they are doing and what they can do to improve. This way, the police are more a part of the community that they serve.

I would legalize all the drugs and tax them. Even heroine and meth and the other really bad drugs. What you do with your own body shouldn’t be a crime. Like Ron Paul once said, everyone wouldn’t start using heroine just because it’s legal. Legalizing all drugs means that police can focus on real crimes. It’d also greatly reduce the influence of the black market. Most importantly, it means the black community doesn’t unjustly lose its young people to jail and prisons for drug use. Nobody would ever have to get their lives ruined for drug use. Prisons and jails would be cleared out. Some would shut down. The taxes from legalizing all drugs would be used to build recovery centers. The money saved by not building prisons would be used to build more schools. I would also eliminate minimum sentences.

I would nationalize the gun industry and use their profits to build mental health facilities. By nationalizing the gun industry, I can enact strong gun control and background check measures. I would also prohibit the building and selling of military like guns.


As a bioregionalist, a Cascadian, and more importantly a human being, this goes without saying, but I would open the borders. Literally. I would tear down every foot of border fences. I would get rid of border customs and just have signs that say “Welcome to the USA”. There is no such thing as an illegal human being. If anything is illegal, it is the border of every nation state in this world. Nation states and their borders are artificial creations designed to separate humans and restrict their freedom of movement. Also, having border fences infringes upon the migration paths of many species and is a violation of their right to be free from human interference. On top of that, borders in general violate the right of indigenous people’s to move about freely on their own land.


The very first thing I would do as president would be to get all the world’s nuclear countries together, even North Korea, and get a nuclear disarmament deal that gets rid of every last nuclear weapon in the world while I am president. This would make the world a much safer place, eliminates the threat of nuclear war for good and prevents a Skynet like Judgement Day from ever happening if machines took over. As long as there are nuclear weapons, the world won’t have peace.

During my first four years, I would close down half of all overseas U.S military bases. My 2nd four years, I would shut down another half, thus overall 75% of all overseas U.S bases would be closed. Every base in a European country not bordering Russia would be closed as England, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece and other countries are more than capable of protecting themselves. Countries that oppress their own people would lose U.S military support, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Turkey, many African countries and some Southeast Asian countries.

As president, I would put the I back into FBI. The FBI stands for Federal Bureau of Investigation. Lately, it hasn’t been doing much investigating. In fact, the FBI has plotted more terrorist attacks than any other organization in the world. Thankfully, we always have the FBI to stop its own attacks. The FBI calls them sting operations, but journalist Glenn Greenwald calls them out on their bullshit. What the FBI does is find young vulnerable Muslims exposed to radical extremist sites and rather than using its resources to steer these young Muslims toward better lifestyles, the FBI comes up with a great terrorist attack idea and then has its agents pretend to be Muslim terrorists in order to persuade these young vulnerable Muslims into wanting to carry out an attack that they would otherwise never think of or consider on their own. Since these young Muslims don’t have any resources to do anything, the FBI agents actually provide all the resources to carry out the attack. The FBI agents plan the whole terrorist plot, even the day to carry it out, because that’s when the whole squad suddenly shows up and arrests the Muslim. Then the FBI releases a press statement saying they stopped a terrorist attack. These Muslims then spend most of the rest of their lives in prison all because the FBI loves to ruin lives of people who have never committed a crime or ever had the idea of committing a crime. As president, I would make the FBI stop doing this. Instead of entrapping young vulnerable Muslims, I would have the FBI provide housing, educational, health and job support to them so that they feel part of their communities and thus steered away from the appeal of extremist sites. I would also make the FBI stop infiltrating and spying on protest movements and activist groups. By putting the I back into FBI, I would make the FBI investigate and arrest the bankers responsible for the recession. I’d make them investigate human and sex trafficking. They’d investigate corruption. Most importantly though, the FBI would investigate and bring down paedosadists, also known as death eaters. It would bring down very powerful people, including some in the FBI, and very powerful industries, but I would make the FBI bring down every single death eater.

Also, the NSA is supposed to stand for National Security Agency, but right now it is the National Spying Agency. I would end mass surveillance and require the NSA to get a warrant every time. By fighting strong encryption standards and creating backdoor channels to spy on people and corporations, the NSA is actually weakens our security by leaving us vulnerable to getting our personal information hacked. I would put the Security back into National Security by making every company and every phone and every computer have the strongest encryption standards with no backdoor channels so that companies and people don’t get hacked.

I would make the CIA and the State Department stop overthrowing governments around the world that don’t bow to U.S corporate interests. The CIA’s only mission would be to gather intelligence, nothing more and nothing less. Central INTELLIGENCE Agency, get it? The State Department would have to establish true and honest diplomatic relations with every government and when issues of disagreement come up, meet them at half-way, rather than threaten the use of military power to subdue them to corporate interests. At the start of my presidency, every country has a clean fresh slate with my administration, so every country is a friend and ally until if and when they lose my trust.

This is related to economic policy but I saved it until here because it is primarily a military spending thing, but I would nationalize the arms/weapons industry and use that money to build a peaceful economy. Instead of bombs and fighter jets, companies like Boeing would build solar panels, schools and other things. I’d also use their money to pay the victims of our nuclear bomb testing a few decades back.


I wouldn’t sign or even negotiate free trade deals. If other countries were interested, I’d be more than happy to discuss putting together fair trade deals. However, I would wean the U.S off of globalization and steer us towards localization. I would openly support and encourage freedom movements such as Kurdistan, Scotland, Catalonia, the Zapatistas and others. I would officially recognize that all of the U.S is stolen indigenous land and give back as much of it as I legally can. I would recognize all indigenous rights and push for recognition of indigenous rights and their land rights all around the world. I would provide asylum for all whistleblowers and pardon the one’s the Obama administration has locked up, such as Chelsea Manning, Barrett Brown, Jeremy Hammond, Jeffrey Sterling, Julian Assange over in London, the Pay Pal guys, the NATO guys.. all of them would be pardoned. I wouldn’t go to war unless an attack is carried out or about to be carried out on the 50 states. I would end all of our current wars and end all the drone strikes. No country has attacked the U.S since Japan in World War II, so we have no reason to be fighting so many stupid wars overseas. I wouldn’t give foreign aid to countries that oppress their own people.


I wouldn’t really set a goal of how much I plan to cut emissions by in my eight years, but I know we have to get our emissions down by 80% by 2030 and 100% by 2050 to avoid the worst of climate change, so my climate policies would be everything I know that can get us to those marks. I’m sure my culture of public transit and lots of HSR make a large dent in emissions. However, transportation isn’t the biggest source of greenhouse gases. That would be the animal agriculture industry, which is responsible for 51% of global greenhouse gases.

I would nationalize the animal agriculture industry and use their money to quickly speed up the growth of the three sustainable ways to grow food; agroforestry, aquaponics and permaculture. These methods of farming produce more food on less land using less water than conventional farming, and all produce healthy organic food. All three methods can be used to make cities self-sustaining if front yards, rooftops and parking lots are transformed into food growing areas. Only 3% of the U.S population are farmers, but if just 3% of each city became city farmers, it’d be enough farmers to grow all the food a city needs. In Seattle, 3% would mean we would have 18,000 farmers. I think that does the job. Every neighborhood would have its farmers that grow food in parking lots, flat rooftops and front yards. I would make it so that my first year, every city has to grow 1% of its own food. Year two, it’s 2%. Then 4% and then at the end of my first term, every city is growing 8% of its own food. My 2nd term, it goes up to 16%, then 32%, then 64% and by the time I leave office, every city is growing all of its own food, thus cutting U.S emissions in half by completely killing the animal agriculture industry.

Since all the farmland would be empty, I would give it all back to the indigenous so they can restore the natural ecosystems like oak savannahs, forests, grasslands, wetlands and what not. This would sequester a shit ton of carbon. It also lets the indigenous return to their traditional lifestyles and live with the land again. I would recognize their nations and their lands so that they are independent and no longer under U.S jurisdiction. They’d be free on their land. Ideally I would give back the entire U.S to the indigenous but as president you can’t do that because patriotism or treason or some other stupid shit they’d say. Anyways, lots of native species and endangered species would return to these lands and yea.

I would also give every household four free trees. Trees provide shade, which helps keep your house warm during the winter and warm during the summer, thus reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions. Giving four free trees to every household is actually a program Seattle did a few years ago but hardly anybody knew about it so it never caught on.

Block style apartments and buildings taller than three stories would have vegetation such as vine growing on their outside walls. This reduces a buildings heating and cooling energy consumption by 90%. It also sucks in carbon, so it greatly reduces and eliminates the urban heat island effect in cities, especially downtown areas. It also creates oxygen, which makes it easier to breathe. Cities notoriously have low levels of oxygen because of the lack of plants due to all the concrete.

Lastly, I would make every house have rainwater collection systems, so that aquifers, resevoirs, lakes and rivers aren’t sucked dry. If you collect and reuse your rainwater, you can actually be self-sustaining with the amount of rain that LA receives on average each year. Water wars would never become a thing, even with droughts. Dams would then be removed so rivers can move freely and allow fish to get upstream.

I would recognize that all living organisms have inalienable rights, thus all animals, trees, wetlands, rivers, lakes, grasslands and other such ecosystems and habitats would have personhood rights that include legal rights.


Even if the whole world cut its emissions to zero right now, the planet would keep warming up a little bit because of all our past emissions, unless somehow of course the U.S, Canada, Brazil, all of Europe and Southeast Asia regrew their forests, and we turned the Sahara and Arabian Deserts into forests. That would suck so much carbon out that it’d stop global warming dead in its tracks, if not cool the planet down slightly. That won’t happen though, so even with my drastic emissions reductions, even if I get the U.S to zero, we’d need to adapt a little. Obviously, the four trees for every house keeps everyone cooler during the hot summer months.

I would spend $10 billion to build 100 large dope-ass waterparks around the country at $100 million each. You can build a good waterpark for like $25 million, so basically a $100 million waterpark is huge and kick-ass and yea. 100 of those, an average of two for each state. This way, everyone gets to be outside and still remain cool. Also provides tens of thousands maybe a few hundred thousand summer time jobs for college kids. I’d also spend $10 billion building 10 indoor ski-resorts at $1 billion each. Washington, Oregon, California, Utah and Colorado would each get two indoor ski resorts since they will be losing their ski resorts to warmer winters. This way, skiing and snowboarding doesn’t die because of global warming.


I don’t neeeeed to do this, but since I seriously do not think arm wrestling or guys lifting weights at the CrossFit Games should be on ESPN even during the slow summer months for sports, I would create an NFL like rugby league so people can have a real sport to enjoy. I would also create a national dodgeball association that has its final tournament each year in Las Vegas televised on ESPN 8 The Ocho. I’d also create or push for more TV exposure for pro lacross and softball leagues. Maybe I’d also try to create a national pro kickball league. Anything would be better than having arm wrestling on ESPN.


During my first term, I’d get the media companies to open up the presidential debates to 3rd and 4th parties if they are on enough state ballots. I’d also push the media companies to sign like 20 year contracts for televising the primary debates of key third parties. If FOX does the republicans and MSNBC does the democrats, surely CNN can do the green party while CBS or NBC does the libertarian party or whatever other alternative parties are doing well. This way, even when I leave office, the elections continue to be democratic and money doesn’t have the power it does and the two party system stays away for a while. I would get the Supreme Court to overturn Citizens United and all other court decisions in U.S history that have recognized corporations as people. I would ban corporations from political spending, create a 50 mile no lobbyist zone around every state capital and mandate a four year no lobbying period following leaving office to reduce the influence and power of fascists in government. I would make everyone automatically registered to vote once they turn 18.


So yea, by the time I leave office, millions of people would be out of poverty with all the jobs I’ve created. The middle class would be stronger and bigger than ever with worker owned co-ops everywhere. Pollution would be way down, habitats restored. Cities are healthier. Animal agriculture is dead. Fossil fuel industry would be close to dead. The world would be safer. The media is back in the hands of the local communities. Everybody would have healthcare. No matter what the next president does, the country would be better off than it has ever been. To try to reverse what I did or go back to a corporate market economy with cars and borders and wars would be political suicide for a candidate.

Anyways, I’m only 23, so writing this was just a waste of time because even if I actually wanted to be president, I’d have 13 years to wait. I would never get elected though because this is all like a million miles to the left of Bernie Sanders’s platform, and he’s sometimes considered a radical leftist, even though he isn’t, so I’d have no chance of getting elected with my ideas. They would all work though, my ideas. The only way I could even have a chance would be running as a Democrat and run a Bernie Sanders like grassroots campaign, because no rich donor would ever support my ideas. I’d prefer to run as a Green, but I’d just be playing spoiler. I would be the target of a shit ton of negative political ads for my “radical” ideas, so unlike Bernie, I would throw dirt back. This will all never happen though, so I should just stop dreaming even though I know how to fix the world.

I’ll keep paying attention to Bernie Sanders though, because he’s the least bad candidate that has a realistic chance to become president. Sorry Jill Stein, but I’ll vote for you if Hillary beats Bernie. I’m not going to invest any emotional energy into supporting Bernie Sanders, but I’ll cross my fingers and hope he beats Hillary and then the republican.

Anyways, since nothing I say matters in the world, spending a day making notes for this, and spending three full days writing this and two days typing it was just a useless waste of time. Oh well. Maybe by writing a lot this summer, even if it’s just stupid dreams of mine, will help throughout the rest of college by building me confidence in my own writing, since I’ll probably have a shit ton of writing to do when I finally reach U of O.

Soooooooooooo…. Yeeeeeea… what should I write about next? My guy friends want me to write about all the crazy funny idiotic ways we would run my campaign to actually make people want to vote for me, but it’d just be more writing about something that’ll never happen so yea.. I could write about our other crazy fantasy of coaching the Kansas Jayhawks football team. Or I could write about love, but I’d prefer not to because that scares me. I have like two months left of summer, so give me ideas.. what should I write about? Writing kinda helps distract me from my voices when I’m by myself.

How to impove College Football


While college football has never been better or more popular as it is today, there are still many ways in which the game could be improved. In recent years, attendance at games has been declining while TV ratings climb. More games start at 7pm or later, no matter what time zone/conference you are in. Games are longer, not because of up tempo teams like Oregon and Baylor, but because of all the commercial breaks. The games themselves are actually shorter, there are fewer plays and less action because of rule changes after the 2005 season to shorten games to accommodate ESPN broadcasts. Teams that run 80 plays a game today would be running 90-95 plays a game prior to 2006. Bowl games have low attendances. This year, the new college football playoff struggled to sell out the Rose Bowl semi-final game and as of yesterday, the Natty still had 4,300 tickets left. Nobody is even buying face value tickets on Stubhub, so my mom sold ours for slightly less just so we don’t lose thousands of dollars. How is the Natty not sold out?! College football is awesome, but it is selling its soul and uniqueness to the rich corporatists, or shall I say fascists, at ESPN. Corporatist and fascist are two words meaning the same thing, if you know your history. Yes, FOX does college football, CBS does an SEC game each week, and NBC does Notre Dame home games, but let us not kid ourselves… ESPN owns college football. By selling its soul to ESPN, college football is alienating what makes it what it is, the fans at the games. With talk already of an eight team playoff because of the money and ratings it would draw, the real fans are being further alienated.

I have ways to make college football better for the fans like me that go to the games, while still being able to grow its popularity on TV. I’m going to discuss ways of making CFB better using the current four team playoff model, the proposed eight team playoff model, and my own idea of an eight team playoff model, as radical and unlikely of ever happening as it may be.

Current Four Team CFB Playoff Model

Obviously, we leave the playoff system alone. The playoff committee still picks the teams, as well as the other New Years Six bowl games. The playoff has had trouble selling tickets though. There’s no reason why a Rose Bowl semi-final or ‘Natty should have tickets selling for under face value. There’s clearly trouble here. It’s easy to see why. Prices are too high, fan travel fatigue, hotel and plane tickets. I have nine ideas/solutions that will fix a number of things, including attendance at regular season games. Most of these nine ideas apply to all three playoff models, as these ideas are meant to improve college football as a whole.

Idea number One

Reduce the price of playoff tickets. During the BCS era, a normal face value ticket for the ‘Natty was $375. Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl or Orange Bowl, didn’t matter, the ‘Natty was $375. Now that we have a real college football playoff, suddenly tickets are $450. Really? So suddenly, by having a real playoff, and considering fans have to travel to the semi-final games first, you’re going to make the ‘Natty worth $75 more? No wonder the ‘Natty is struggling to sell out this year. $375 is still expensive, but it’s more affordable than $450. So, my solution is, bring the ‘Natty prices back down to $375. It allows more fans to go. For the semi-finals, make the tickets sold through the schools discounted. Bring it down from $160 to $100. It encourages fans to buy through the school, and allows an opportunity for more fans to be able to go.

Idea number Two

Play the conference championship games at the home stadium of the better team, just like the Pac 12 used to do before it made the stupid decision to play at Santa Clara’s Levi Stadium. Yes, do this for all conferences. I know SEC, you have a great thing going in Atlanta, and ACC I see you doing much better in Charlotte than you did in Jacksonville. I see you B1G in Indianapolis. That doesn’t change the fact that those trips are not cheap for the fans of those schools. If conference title games were played at home stadiums, it would reduce traveling expenses for fans of both schools, allowing more fans to be able to go to their bowl games/playoff games. Sure, it’d be home field advantage for one side, but to make it more fun, allow the visiting school to get 20% of the tickets. It allows the fans who really want to go to be able to go, and creates somewhat of a bowl game like environment. Whatever they don’t sell by 5pm Monday of game week goes back to the home school to sell. Imagine 11,000 USC fans in Autzen, or 20,000 Gator fans at Alabama, or 16,000 Georgia Tech fans at Florida State. It’d be crazy intense! Who wouldn’t love that? You’re the home team, 1/5 of your stadium is visiting fans, conference title on the line, oh yea, and you’re a little extra juiced up because you want to defend your house, win the conference title at home. Nobody wants to lose the conference title at home. If you win, your fans get to rush the field. If you’re on the road, you and your fans want to conquer their stadium. Win the conference on their turf and rub it in their faces. It’s like when Oregon plays at UW, I love winning at Husky Stadium. We own Husky Stadium. So yea, conference title games at better teams stadium, with 20% for visiting fans.

Idea number Three

Eliminate all regular season neutral site games except for certain rivalries like Army-Navy, Florida-Georgia and Colorado-Colorado State. The first word of college football is college! All games should be played on campus, duh! That’s what makes college football so special, the on campus experience. Neutral site games lack the college atmosphere, and are the same as bowl games in that fans have to travel to them, book hotels and all that. Neutral site games are expensive for fans. If you take them away, it means more exciting games on campus, which increases attendance, and allows more fans to travel to bowl games because they’ll have the money. Imagine Oregon-LSU at Tiger Stadium, or Alabama-Michigan at The Big House. Those games would be sold out, electric atmosphere, student sections would be full. ESPN would still be there to broadcast it, the high ratings would still be there, the money would still come in.

Idea number Four

Eliminate all games against FCS opponents except for those played against fellow in state schools. Games against FCS schools are a waste of money for fans that pay hundreds of dollars for season tickets. They barely sell out if they do, student sections are empty, nobody watches them. If the argument is that FCS schools need these paycheck games to sustain their programs, then play against your in state FCS schools so that you’re actually helping out a neighbor. Fans would understand that. I could live with my money to U of O being given to Portland State to sustain their program. I don’t give a damn about Southwestern Missouri Institute of Technology though. I don’t think that’s a real school, but you get my point.

Idea number Five

Make non-conference schedules two years in advance, not five. You don’t know where you or your opponent will be in five years, which is why a lot of matchups that look great don’t turn out to be great, causing fan interest to decrease, resulting in poor attendance. While Oregon-Ohio State looks great, its ten years away, and Urban Meyer won’t be there by then, and Oregon may not be as great as it is today by then. If you schedule every two years, teams can schedule opponents that are actually on their level of competition. Ohio State could play Baylor, instead of Cincinnati. Oregon could play Clemson, rather than Virginia. Florida State could play LSU, rather than Oklahoma State. Alabama could play Boise State, instead of UAB. Schedule immediate matchups against teams at your level. It’ll make for awesome games and great attendance, no matter who you are or what level you are at. At its current level, a team like Cal should play a top level MAC school instead of a big boy school where it’d get crushed.

Idea number Six

Go back to the pre 2006 rule where the clock stops when a player goes out of bounds. Right now, after you go out, the clock starts again once the ball is ready for play. It used to be stopped until it was snapped again. If you go back to this, teams that go up tempo no huddle can run even more plays per game, thus tiring out defenses even further and using that to their advantage. Instead of 80 plays, these teams could run between 90 and 100 plays per game. Yes, it’d make games longer, but there’d be more action, and also I plan to address how to make games shorter in my next paragraph. However, this would also allow for other schools to slow down their pace, knowing they’d still be able to get in 80 plays. Other schools would have more room to adopt bleed the clock offenses, such as three yards and a cloud of dust or going the old school route and adopting wishbone, wing t or single wing offenses. This slight rule change, or going back to an old rule, would allow for more offensive diversity. This would also be a way of taking back control of the game from ESPN, who forced the shorter game rule to fit games into a three hour broadcast window. Honestly, it’s not like ESPN would stop broadcasting games just because they go longer.

Idea number Seven

Since number six makes the games even longer than they already are today, how are we supposed to shorten games? Well, that’s easy… What do fans like me who go to games hate the most? Too many commercial breaks. My idea is to do what the NHL does. Have a TV commercial break every five minutes. The first break in the game following the 10:00 mark and the 5:00 mark of each quarter, plus commercial breaks between quarters. This would mean there’d be five TV breaks each half, which is less than half of what there currently is. This change would cut a lot of minutes off of game times, keep games flowing, and most importantly, keep the fans at the games from getting bored from sitting through so many timeouts. Take number six and number seven together, and you get more action with shorter games. That’ll make for even more exciting games, and help attendance for sure. It’s a win-win for everybody! But without all the TV breaks, what about all the ad money? Well, with less ad space, the ad space that is left would be worth even more, so it basically cancels out. So, it shouldn’t matter much. Plus, soccer has no TV breaks except for halftime, and they do just fine.

Idea number Eight

Break up ESPN’s control over the sport. Every conference right now has a huge TV deal with ESPN, meaning ESPN televises most of their games, and thus has control over the start times of games. Because every conference is with ESPN, it means most of the games are all on one network. ESPN puts games on ABC, ESPN and ESPN2. Since there’s only one network, not everyone can play at the same time. This results in a lot of Pac 12 games starting at 7pm or 730pm. Fans don’t get home till midnight or later. This is also the reason for Thursday night games, because you get an exclusive broadcast window that you wouldn’t get on a crammed Saturday. A lot of fans can’t go to weekday games or late starts because of work, baby sitting, homework and other more important things than football. In November, it gets really cold at night. These factors have been playing a big part in decreasing attendance all across college football. Even a 5pm pacific start time for a game on the east coast is an 8pm start for them and a 7pm central start time for games in the central time zones. Just like us out here on the west coast, that’s a late start for them too. Yet, 5pm pacific/8pm eastern is ESPN’s primetime slot. The biggest games get late starts. This is why CBS has their SEC game of the week start at 1230 pacific/330 eastern time zone, so that fans can actually go. It’s a late afternoon start, sun is still up. Heck, FOX had the Oregon-Michigan State game this year start at 330pm pacific time. That’s a perfect primetime hour. Breaking up ESPN’s control over the sport would mean better start times for games, as there are other companies that would love to have greater coverage of college football. FOX, along with FS1 and FX could do Pac 12 football. With six games each week at most, each channel could do a 1230 game and a 430 game. That’d eliminate late starts out here and increase attendance, as well as eliminating weekday games. The B1G (Big Ten) could work with NBC, along with NBCSN and CNBC. Yes, CNBC does Stanley Cup playoff games, because they are an affiliate of NBC, so they could do college football. The SEC could work with CBS and its affiliates TNT, TBS and TruTV. That would leave ESPN with the ACC and Big 12. All of the channels would fill in their extra time slots with mid-major games. The MAC loves their midweek games, as do all of us because who doesn’t love #MACtion? The Mountain West would be our late night snack, and the other mid majors would get the morning games. They wouldn’t be stuck on ESPNU anymore. Spreading college football out over all the sports channels is a win for everyone except ESPN, who loses its power grip. Although they can keep the broadcast rights to the playoffs, no matter what model we use, I don’t care.

Idea number Nine

Improve the bowl system by changing the location of some of the games. While many bowl games struggle with attendance, they still draw good TV ratings. It’s not that some bowl games don’t draw well or have bad matchups, it’s just that they are played in stadiums too big. Not every bowl game can sell out a 60,000 seat stadium, and that’s okay actually. There’s nothing wrong with moving them to smaller stadiums. A sold out 30,000 seat bowl game is more fun to watch on TV than a half empty 60,000 seat bowl game. Here are the games I would move and where I’d move them to.

The New Orleans Bowl from the Superdome to the new Tulane stadium

The Poinsettia Bowl from Qualcom Stadium in San Diego to the LA Galaxy’s Stubhub Stadium

The Miami Beach Bowl from the Marlins stadium to Florida International’s stadium

Idaho Potato Bowl from Boise to Geldwen Field in Portland, Oregon. 23,000 average sells out Portland, where as in Boise it leaves 10,000 empty seats.

Heart of Dallas Bowl from the Cotton Bowl Stadium to the Houston Cougars stadium

The Texas Bowl at the Houston Texans stadium actually draws really well, so I’d move it to the Cotton Bowl Stadium in Dallas so it can be played in a true college stadium.

St. Petersberg Bowl from Tampa Bay Rays stadium to the UCF stadium in Orlando.

Foster Farms Bowl from Levi Stadium in Santa Clara to Stanford Stadium

Armed Forces Bowl from TCU’s stadium to Army’s stadium in New York. It’s a better capacity fit, and Armed Forces Bowl, just like the Military Bowl, should be played at one of the academy schools.

Quick Lane Bowl from Detroit Lions stadium to Fenway Park in Boston. Just like the Pinstripe Bowl in Yankee Stadium, it wouldn’t matter who’s playing in the Fenway Park bowl game, it’d sell out every time just because who wouldn’t go see a bowl game played at Fenway?

Also, the four mid-major conference champions not in the New Years Six would play each other in the Hawaii and Bahamas Bowl. These bowls would be played on January 2nd. This way, those schools are rewarded for winning their conference by getting to go play somewhere nice, and play another conference champion in a January bowl. Best mid majors against each other, making January bowls mean something again. This would draw good attendance to those games, as the fan bases would be excited from winning their conference.

In the model of the current four team college football playoff, these nine improvements would help the game to become even more popular, but would make fan attendance go back up, both at regular season games and bowl games. The games would be even more exciting, and college football would be as close to perfect as you can get. Anyways, on to the next model now!

Proposed eight team playoff model

The proposed eight team playoff everyone talks about, the one that would likely be implemented if one were to be. Judging by all the sports analyst talk, it’ll be here within 10 years, because the ratings from the semi-finals this year say an eight team playoff will have too much money for the conferences to pass up. Anyways, the model would be the five power conference champions, the top ranked group of five (mid major) conference champion, and two at large teams, in other words, the top two highest ranked teams remaining after the first six are chosen. A playoff committee like the one now would seed the teams one through eight.

For the eight team playoff to work, the quarterfinals have to be played at the higher seeds home stadium. There’s just no other choice. You can’t ask the fans of the two schools who end up in the ‘Natty to travel to three straight neutral site games. Not even Nebraska’s fans could pull that off. The semi-finals would be played at neutral site bowl venues. However, even then, there’d only be a week and a half between quarter finals and semi finals, and same for semi finals to ‘Natty. It’s harder to make travel plans on that time scale compared to the three and a half weeks that fans of teams in January bowl games get today. So for it to work for the fans, you have to implement ideas one, two and three I showed earlier. Conference title games at home stadiums, eliminate regular season neutral site games, and lower the playoff ticket prices. Throw in number nine as well, so that the other bowl games can still do well. No matter what though, the eight team playoff gets rid of two bowl games. At that point, you might as well get rid of a few more by making the bowl requirement seven wins rather than six. This gets rid of all the 6-6 teams in bowl games, gives added meaning to the remaining bowl games, and provides for more exciting matchups. While ideas one through three are all that’s really needed to make the eight team playoff succeed in terms of fan attendance, you’d still want ideas four through eight to make the regular season better, so that college football can maintain its awesome regular season as well as having an eight team playoff.

Now, like I said, I have my own model for an eight team playoff. This is because even with ideas one through three, there are flaws with the current proposal everyone talks about. The five power conference champions get in no matter what, that is the flaw. Yes, it’d be fixed if we just went with the eight highest ranked teams, but that model will never happen because there will be years where power conference champions aren’t ranked in the top eight. In those years, a power conference champion gets left out. The power conferences would never let that happen, so the best eight model will never happen. That model also leaves out a guaranteed spot for the best mid major conference champion, as they’d have to go unbeaten and finished ranked in the top eight, so they would never approve of this model too. So the 5+1+2 model is what they’ll go with.

About the power five conferences. There will be years where a conference produces a champion that has no business being in a playoff to determine college football’s national champion. What?! In the last 12 years, the Big 12, B1G and ACC have combined to produce five conference champions that entered their BCS bowl games with three or more losses. The Pac 12 and SEC have zero combined three loss or more champions in the past 12 years. If we went with the eight best teams, those five teams would’ve been left out. Like I said, the power conferences will never let that happen. So it’ll be 5+1+2, with its flaws.

This is why I have my own eight team model. It’s crazy, it’s radical, it takes a page out of soccer’s promotion/relegation system, it requires more conference realignment, it’ll never happen, but I promise, it’s the best idea out there if our plan is to have an eight team college football playoff.

My eight team playoff model

My model would have eight super conferences of 16 teams. Four power conferences, and four mid major conferences. The conference title games of the power conferences would be the quarterfinals. Four champions meet in the semifinals, and those winners play in the Natty. What about the mid majors though? They would each have a promotion/relegation contract with the power conferences. The last place finishers in each division of the power conferences would play each other in a relegation game. The loser gets relegated to the mid major conference that the power conference has a contract with. The winners of each of the mid major conferences get promoted to the power conference and replace the relegated school. After their conference title games, the four mid major champions play each other, once again, in Hawaii and the Bahamas in January. They don’t need their own playoff, their reward is promotion. By getting promoted, they now have a chance to compete to be in the playoffs.

This will take me a while to explain how it’d work, so let me. All non conference games will happen on the same weeks. The promoted schools simply switch conference schedules with the relegated school they replace. The relegated school has to split its conference contract money with the promoted school. If the promoted school avoids relegation for three years, its contract money goes up 10% each year it remains in the power conference. To balance it out, if the relegated power school fails to get promoted back up within three years, its contract money will decline 10% each year it doesn’t rejoin its power conference via promotion.

Now that I’ve explained promotion/relegation, let me go over how the regular season would change in this model because of the 16 team super conferences. CFB always starts on Labor Day weekend, but sometimes that’s the 35th week of the year, sometimes it’s the 36th week. Whenever it’s the 35th week, everyone has had two bye weeks, like this year. When it’s been the 36th week, like next season, everyone only gets one bye week. With my model, the season will always start on the weekend of the 35th week, so everyone will play 13 games over 15 weeks, resulting in two bye weeks. 11 conference games, two non conference games. Seven games against your division, four against the other division in your conference. After every two years, the four teams in the other division you play switches to the other four teams. That means every four year player gets to play every team in the conference home and away. It’d be good for recruiting. Everybody plays their two non conference games the first two weeks of the season, and then hit conference play. Nobody would have a bye week until after their first conference game. This way, everybody gets their two bye weeks mid season and late season, when they actually need them. Seven wins, in other words, a winning record gets you into a bowl game. After week 15 of the season, all the schools with seven or more wins not in their conference title games get put into their bowl games.

Week 16 is the week that schools on the quarter system have their finals, so the conference title games/quarterfinals/relegation games would be played Saturday of week 17. Week 16 is award ceremony week, but in my model, the awards ceremonies would happen after the ‘Natty, including the Heisman.

The relegation games… the worst teams in each division of the power conferences would play each other at the better teams home stadium. The loser gets relegated.

The playoffs: The four power conferences would be the Pac 12+4, B1G (Big Ten + 6), Big 12 +4 and the SEC. Since the four conferences get four spots in the semi-finals, it doesn’t matter the seeding or rankings. Pac 12 and B1G champions meet in the Rose Bowl semi-final every year, while Big 12 and SEC champions meet in the Sugar Bowl semi-final every year. Both would be on New Years Day. The quarterfinals/power conference title games would be week 17, played at the better teams home stadium, 20-25% visiting fans. Week 17 of college football is always the 51st week of the year. That Saturday is always a week and a half or so before New Years. The quarterfinal losers would play each other in bowl games on the morning of New Years, before the semi-final games. The promotion game winners play each other the day after New Years. The promotion game losers play each other in bowl games on New Years Eve.

All of the other bowl games would take place between Christmas Eve and New Years Eve. There will only be seven games in January. The two semi-final games, the two quarterfinal consolation games, the two promotional winner games, and the ‘Natty. Playing in a January bowl game will mean something again in college football.

As for the regular season, more conference games means better attendance, especially with ideas four through eight. Ideas one through nine will all apply to my eight team playoff model. Also, winning your conference will have more meaning than it does today, because of semi-final berth and getting promoted. As for the players, whether with my model or the proposed model, teams that play in the ‘Natty will be playing 16 games, so it doesn’t make a difference. With my model, you play 13 games in 15 weeks, getting two bye weeks. If you’re in the conference title games or in a relegation game, you get another bye week before your next game. Then, you get a part bye week before the semi-finals/New Years bowl games, and then another part bye week before the ‘Natty. On top of that, it doesn’t cut any further into winter term for school. For those not in conference title games, you get 13 games in 15 weeks with two bye weeks, and then roughly three weeks until your bowl game.

Taking this year for example, week 15 would be Saturday, December 6th. Same day the conference title games were played this year. Those teams were playing in their 13th game, having had two bye weeks. Then, the quarterfinal/conference title/relegation games would be week 17, which would be Saturday December 20th. After that, the semi-finals/New Years bowls from New Years Eve through January 2nd. The ‘Natty would still be on Monday January 12th like it is this year.

Speaking of week 17, who wouldn’t love that?! TV ratings would be insane, twitter would explode. Stadiums would be packed. You’d have 12 games that Saturday. Quarterfinals, promotion games and relegation games all in one day.

The main thing is, no matter what playoff model we go with, we should adopt my main nine ideas. It’ll enhance the regular season no matter what model is chosen, and make it better and easier for fans like me to go games. The TV money will keep growing, as will the ratings, no matter what type of playoff we have. So focus on what’s best for your loyal fans and the players too. I’m a bit biased, but if eight teams is the way of the future, I want my model. It makes the regular season better, and creates the greatest sports day ever with quarterfinals, promotion and relegation all in one day on Saturday of week 17. Big boys get their playoffs, and the little guys get to compete with them if they earn it. Players get more bye weeks. What’s not to love about it?


Republican debates

Election season, yay!

Soooooooooooo…… my mind is pretty much active 24/7 and I overthink about everything and I just get all these ideas on how to fix everything from college football to climate change to presidential elections to getting rid of nuclear weapons and so on and so on. I don’t write about like 99 percent of what I think about because I worry about people thinking I’m weird or crazy or something.

Anyways, the other day I saw that the Republican debates will only feature 10 candidates. Obviously the 10 candidates polling the highest. I don’t like the Republicans, they are all sociopaths and death eaters and fascists and stuff but that has nothing to do with why I’m writing this. In a democracy, which the U.S claims to be but really isn’t, it’s not fair that only 10 of the 17 or 18 Republicans get to debate. It’s even less fair that those who get to debate are chosen by polls rather than actual voting. To poll high enough to get into the debates, you have to raise lots of money. I don’t think who gets to debate should be decided by polls and money, so I’ve come up with a democratic way in which all 17 or 18 Republicans get to debate.

Starting five months before the Iowa primary, so like a month from now, there’d be six weeks of debates broken into two rounds of three debates. The first round, all 17 or 18 candidates are separated into three groups of six based off of polling numbers. Each candidate is given a seed number 1-6. Right now, I think Donald Trump, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker would be the three one seeds. The three highest polled candidates are the one seeds, candidates polling 4-6 are the two seeds, 7-9 are the three seeds and so on up to 18. Each debate group has a candidate at each ranking 1-6. All three groups debate each week at the same venues. One group goes on Mondays. Another group goes on Tuesdays and the third group goes on Wednesdays. All the debates would be on FOX of course.

After each debate, everyone goes online to FOX to vote for who they think won the debate and who they think was 2nd best. You get 24 hours to vote after each debate. The person with the most 1st place votes gets 12 debate points. 2nd most 1st place votes gets 10 points, 3rd is 8 points, then 6 points, 4 points and 2 points. The person with the most 2nd place votes gets 6 debate points. 2nd most 2nd place votes gets 5 points, 3rd is 4 points, then 3, 2 and 1 point for 4th, 5th and 6th place respectively. The candidate with the most debate points wins the debate and gets 6 primary points. 2nd place is 5 points, then 4, 3, 2 and 1 point respectively for 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th place. After three debates from each group of six, the four candidates in each group with the most primary points advance to the 2nd round of debates. The two candidates in each group with the least primary points are eliminated from the Republican primary.

The 2nd round of debates would then be three groups of four. Mondays – Wednesdays again, with the online voting after each debate. The primary points are wiped clean for the 2nd round, so the remaining candidates start fresh. Most 1st place votes gets 8 debate points, then 6, 4 and 2 points. 2nd place votes goes 4 for the most, then 3, 2 and 1 point. Winner of each debate gets 4 primary points. 2nd place is 3 points, then 2 and 1 point for 3rd and 4th place. After three 2nd round debates, the two candidates in each group with the most primary points advance to the final field of six, which then forms your Republican primary field for Iowa and the rest of the primary process of determining the party’s nomination for President.

By trimming down the Republican field this way, you truly give all 17 or 18 candidates a chance. With every candidate getting on TV for at minimum three debates, and voters determining who advances by voting on the debate winners, it reduces the need for campaigns to raise outlandish sums of money early on. Instead of polls and the corporate owners at FOX deciding who gets a real chance, the voters determine which six candidates make the final primary field. While the Republicans would surely make a mess of it, at least it’d be democracy in action, kind of. While FOX loses control of who succeeds, since the debates are heavily watched, they’d make lots of money so they should be alright with this idea. So yea, if Republicans want to give all their candidates a fair chance, they should do this. Of course they won’t, because hardly anyone will ever see this since I’m just one person in college who doesn’t have millions of dollars to get on TV to share this idea. And that’s why I don’t like writing out my thoughts because they are just dreams that have no chance of ever becoming reality.

Resource Wars/WW3

Israel/Palestine: Genocide of Palestinians. Land and gas.
Ukraine/Russia: Gas
South Sudan: Genocide.
Sudan: Darfur Genocide.
Central African Republic: Genocide.
Nigeria: Oil.
Niger: Uranium.
Libya: Civil War
West Papua: Genocide. Clearcutting forests/palm oil plantations.
Sri Lanka: Genocide.
Bahrain: Oppression.
Syria: Civil War.
Iraq: Civil War. Oil.
China/Japan/Philippines: Oil & Gas.
Cascadia (U.S & Canada’s Pacific Northwest): Coal, Gas & Tar Sands Oil export.
Burma (Myanmar): Ethnic Cleansing/Genocide. Rahkine resources.
Congo: Minerals.
Chad: Minerals.
Kenya: Past/Still ongoing genocide? Minerals.
Australia: Coal.
Indonesia: Clearcutting forests/palm oil plantations.
Egypt: Oppression.
Brazil: Clearcutting forests/palm oil plantations.
Ecuador: Oil in the Amazon.
Bolivia: Minerals in its salt flats.
Colombia: Drugs.
U.S & Canada: Coal, Gas & Oil.
Nicaragua: Canal and cutting forests.
Madagascar: Clearcutting forests/palm oil plantations.

NSA leaks not all that

Hey Heather, this is pretty much just for you so yea.

I kind of agree that the NSA leaks aren’t really like OMG ITS THE END OF THE WORLD type news, especially when you have children in Gaza, Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Burma, Sri Lanka and all the other places I’ve seen you talk about. What I’ve been thinking for a while though, on top of what’s more important between human lives and spying, is that all the NSA stuff, even if it weren’t for the leaks, is that we could still find out quite a bit of what we’ve seen in the leaks. After all, the only way to hide information is to control it, meaning you have to control everyone who’s ever seen it in order to keep it secret. As an example, the Manning video, although not NSA stuff, was kept secret, but we didn’t entirely need Manning to leak the video to know about it. Like a crime investigation, you interview all the witnesses. There were probably people in or near the area of the helicopter shooting that saw it happen first hand or at least heard it happen. Speaking to those witnesses would have lifted the veil of secrecy of the incident without having to leak anything. Similar to the shooting down of the plane over Ukraine. The U.S government is already trying to keep everything a secret and will try to classify investigative findings as top secret in the name of national security, but that doesn’t change the fact that there were likely people on the ground who witnessed it. I don’t know if I’m making much sense, but the main point I’m trying to get across is that despite all the secrets, you can’t actually hide history, you can’t make something disappear as if it didn’t happen. There are always witnesses or people who know/hear things. Not one person may have all the info like a whistleblower like Snowden did, but there is always info out there just waiting for someone to connect the dots to other bits of info to create the big picture. Plus, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if a company like Microsoft makes computers, and the government obviously needs computers to function, that there are going to be backdoors. If a company of any kind does business with government agencies, it’s safe to assume there are shady things going on that violate our rights. At least, that’s my opinion. Anyways yea, I’m not the best at putting into words the thoughts that I’m trying to say, but I hope you kind of get what I’m saying, in that no information is truly ever “secret” it’s just a matter of searching for it in the right places.

Getting Rid of All The Nuclear Weapons

It is no secret that nuclear weapons are a threat to the world as long as they exist.  They serve no good for anybody.  There is no reason why there should still be nukes today.  As computers and robots become more human like.. well to be honest, once machines have the ability to think for themselves, which they will, we’re all going to be screwed.  Once they can think for themselves, as has been pointed out by others, the power they will have will be unimaginable.  They will not need us in order to survive since they don’t need oxygen, and would be able to repair themselves and so on.. Being that I doubt we’re going to smash all of our machines and go to an indigenous lifestyle connected to our land, it’s vitally important we get rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world before the machines take away our power.  Sure, this sounds like fear-mongering and drama, and yea it sounds like that Terminator movie, but the ironic thing is.. the movie is accurate.  All movies are accurate to be honest, they are telling us something, but many of us watch movies for the entertainment value, not to dig out the message the movie is telling us.  We can not risk letting nuclear weapons fall into the control of computers and machines.  There are other things we must get rid of too that can’t fall into the control of machines, but for this post, I am focusing on nuclear weapons.

Our global leaders, especially the U.S and Russia, have failed recently to come up with an agreement to further reduce their nuclear stockpile.  North Korea is building nukes, China is a rising military power, Japan wants to get in the game, and Pakistan sees it’s nuclear stockpile as a source of national pride.  How did we come to live in a world where a bomb that can kill millions instantly is something to be proud of having?  U.S republicans, well probably democrats too, but republicans make the most noise about it, they do not want to reduce our nuclear stockpile because they see it as a source of “defense”…  what kind of B.S is that?!  The U.S could kill everyone in the world with its nukes.  That’s not defense.  Nobody’s going to come over here and nuke us.  Hell, the last time anybody came over here was Japan, and if you know your history, we provoked them.  Okay yea, there’s 9/11, but we provoked them too, as we’ve been messing around the middle east since World War II trying to get oil.  Anyways, enough of me going on and on and on.  Our leaders don’t want to get rid of nukes.. well I do, and I know how to make world leaders want to do so also..  Here’s my ideas..

The Market value of a nuclear weapon is roughly $1 billion.  Sooooooo…

For every country that has a nuclear weapon, they would get $1 billion from the World Bank and/or IMF for every nuke that they take apart.  This way, everyone has an economic incentive to get rid of their nukes, and the World Bank/IMF can actually do something good for the first time.

To help push nuclear countries to dismantle as many nukes as fast as they can, I would make it into a competition..  an economic competition per say.  Whichever country dismantles the most nukes each year would get double pay.  So for example, say in year one, the U.S dismantles the most, say 500 warheads.  So that’s $500 billion, $1 billion per nuke, plus since they dismantled the most, they get double that amount.  So the U.S gets another $500 billion.  Who wouldn’t want an extra $500 billion added to the economy??  That’s what I thought.

Since not all nuclear countries have the same amount of nuclear stockpile, it means some countries wouldn’t be able to win that double pay.  For example, Israel, estimated to have anywhere between 80-200 nukes, could get rid of all of theirs in a year, while the U.S or Russia could get rid of 500 and still have thousands.  So to provide an additional incentive to those with smaller stockpiles, each year, whichever country reduces their nuclear stockpile by the greatest percentage would get $1 billion for each percentage point.  So France, estimated to have 300 nukes, could get rid of 150 of them in a year.  That’s 50 percent of their stockpile.  If no other country dismantled 50 percent or more of their stockpile, then France would get $50 billion for 50 percent, on top of the $150 billion for the 150 nukes.  So that’d be $200 billion for their economy.  If Russia and the U.S are too lazy and France’s 150 is also the most any country got rid of, they would also get the double pay, so another $150 billion, meaning their total just for one year would be $350 billion.  Talk about boosting your economy while making the world a safer place.

Since the goal is to get rid of all nuclear weapons in the world, whichever country crosses the finish line first by getting rid of all their nuclear weapons gets double pay.  So um, just for fun, lets say North Korea, which is thought of as having 10 nukes at the most, gets rid of all of theirs first since they have so few.  They win the double pay, so they get $20 billion.  And boy oh boy, that type of money sure would help feed their people.

Whichever country crosses the finish line second gets 50% of their total.  So if the U.K is second, they get $225 billion for their estimated 225 nukes, plus another $122.5 billion (half of 225).  So that’s a total of $347.5 billion for them.

3rd across the finish line gets an extra 25% of their total and fourth place gets an extra 10%.  There’s nine nuclear countries, so having bonuses at the end for only four of them would hopefully make it a race between all the countries to see who gets rid of all their nukes the fastest.  Obviously, the U.S and Russia would have to be in a full on sprint because of how much they need to get rid of.

I don’t know how long it usually takes to dismantle a nuclear weapon, but I’m going to guess that getting rid of 1% of your stockpile each year shouldn’t be too hard.  Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S has reportedly reduced their stockpile by 84% which would average out to at least 2% a year since it hasn’t been more than like 40 years.  So basically, if a country fails to reduce their stockpile by 1% in a given year, a U.N peacekeeping force would be sent to that country to supervise the work to make sure nothing sneaky is going on.

Whichever country happens to be left with the last nuclear weapon would have the option of either dismantling it, or dropping it on the Alberta Tar Sands as a demonstration broadcasted around the world to show everyone why we had to get rid of every last nuke for the safety and well being of our planet and our own species.  I say the Alberta Tar Sands because although it’d be poisoned with nuclear radiation, flattening all that land at once would allow the land to start it’s rehabilitation process quickly, where as restoring it from it’s current state would take decades and would involve fighting big oil and going onto that land, which trust me, you don’t want to go there, it is one of the if not the nastiest place on earth.  Canada, clean that shit up.. like today, not tomorrow or in 50 years, now.

Whichever country dismantles or drops the last nuke would get $10 billion as a reward for ridding the world of nuclear weapons once and for all.

Once all nukes are gone, all the nuclear countries get $100 billion as a thank you for getting rid of them.

Also once all the nukes are gone, all the non-nuclear countries in the world get to split $17.2 trillion evenly.  There is about 17,200 nukes in the world, so $1 billion per nuke is $17.2 trillion.  The non-nuclear countries get to split that amount as a gift for not building any nukes, but also as a “your welcome” message from the nuclear countries for them giving you a nuclear free world.  There are 187 non-nuclear countries in the world, so $17.2 trillion equals about $92 billion for each country.  I’m pretty sure every country would pretty happily take that.

Now, the money that every country gets, both the nuclear and non-nuclear countries, it all has to be spent the same way.  Nobody gets to dish out their money to big oil or to military spending or big ag or all that other stuff.  For the nuclear countries, here’s how their money gets spent.. every $1 billion gets divided up like such..

10% goes to victims of nuclear testing and for restoration of test sites

15% goes to clean up of weapon production sites (example being Hanford, Washington in the U.S)

50% goes to public transportation (Bus Rapid, Streetcar, Light Rail, Monorail, High Speed Rail, bike paths)  – no subway because digging tunnels eats up so much money it’s just a waste.  This would greatly reduce the need for cars, and would make cities cleaner and better places to live while still allowing everyone to move around.  Also helps to fight climate change and reduce energy consumption.

5% goes to urban farming.  This includes permaculture, aquaponics, food forests and other forms of sustainable food growing.  All organic. 

5% goes to renewable energy.  This doesn’t include nuclear energy, as it requires storing spent fuel rods.  This will help all countries get away from oil, which would greatly reduce the need for anybody to go to war with anybody else and would greatly help the fight against climate change.

10% goes to victims of uranium mining and restoration of mining areas, such as Arlit, Niger.  Other areas include Namibia, DRC, Gabon, Canada, Australia, Paraguay and many other countries.

5% goes to public health services.

For non-nuclear countries, 50% goes to public transportation & sustainable housing, 5% goes to urban farms, 5% goes to renewable energy, 5% goes to public health services and the remaining 35% can be spent on such things as education, re-wilding nature, sports, recreational activities and so on, anything that is healthy for people and the planet.

So all in all, this is my idea for getting rid of all the nuclear weapons in this world before it is too late.  We deserve to live in a safe world without the fear of nuclear weapons.