The Fight Against Cancer and American "Concerns"

Money is everything. Yet, why does it seem to be spent on the wrong things?

As many of you know, the United States still has troops stationed in the Middle East. The supposed reason some people think we're in the Middle East is to stop "World Terrorism". A more realistic reason could be to enforce a more Democratic government rather than the Unitarian or Theocratic governments they have there.   A more "conspiratorial"  reason they could be there is because of the large quantities of oil/petroleum found in the Middle East.

Regardless of the reason, many people don't support their interference because of the immense cost of it all.

Yikes

As seen on CostOfWar.com, the United States has collectively spent about 1.3 trillion dollars into the war effort, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you want a better perspective of this, click here.

Without sounding unprofessional, holy cow! That's a lot of money!

Now, compare that to the annual budget for Cancer research (go to point 4.). It's about 5 billion dollars. If you're to multiply that by 11 (1.3 trillion dollars comes from 11 years of war), then you get 55 billion dollars. (just an estimation).

"55 Billion Dollars - Now That's Gangsta, Yo!"

Well? 55 billion dollars is a lot of money. No one who's probably reading this will ever even consider imagining the magnitude of that (and why this website is helpful).

However, if you compare that to the war effort, the cancer research/treatment budget is about 4%.

This is also another reason why people don't support the Middle Eastern war.

Some people a little bit more than others...

Many will say that the American government is pretty much run by a house of howler monkeys, but if we're to look at this in a more economical light, we can see why this is.


Let me ask you: What do you need to fight a war?

Weaponry. Forces. Armies. Technology.

Let me also ask you: How does the United States get a hold of these "goods"?

Through work and employment.


Guns aren't a natural resource. They do not come from the ground, they do not grow like wheat, they need to be manufactured. To manufacture guns, you need to first get the minerals necessary. Where do they get these minerals? Why, from Primary industries such as mining and oil (plastic, grease, etc.). The mining industry alone employs somewhere around 710,000 people. There is an additional 2.3 million workers indirectly involved.

These minerals and goods are purified so it could be made into something useful. The 3 million mining workers not only include the people directly mining, but these people as well.

Then, the refined ores and plastic is sent to gun making factories, which directly employ about 13,000 people (not sure where this number is, but a blog suggested this article). However, if we were to include salesmen, distributors and/or testers, then that number will probably double.

In total, about 750,000 people are probably employed to create these guns. This doesn't include vehicles, bombs, and airplanes, but since the 710,000 employed in mining distribute their resources to all forms of production, that number is probably the same.

Not only that, but there are also 560,000 soldiers who are supported by this war effort. Added together, there is about 1.31 million US citizens who directly benefit from this engagement.

Or about the same population as Estonia

Now, how many benefit directly from Cancer research? This number has been very elusive, but let's take a look at this from a different perspective:

There are about 661,000 doctors in the United States. These people's jobs rely on people becoming sick, as cruel as that sounds. Now, what would happen if they lose about 560,000 of their patients? Many doctors would lose their jobs, and wouldn't be able to get another in their same field, since the second highest cause of non-age related deaths has been eliminated.

Sure, the research district of this business would grow, but once they've found that cure, they'll be out of a job as well. There will be a possibility of getting a job through another research team, but there will still be a few researchers out of a job.

The only industry that will benefit is whatever makes the substance that cures Cancer, which will more likely, be the Pharmaceutical industry. However, this will lead to many other problems, since once people learn of the cure, many people will attempt to create cheaper and more efficient pills, which could hurt the people they were trying to cure.

So, instead of spending their money on something that will throw many people out of a job, the United States will spend their money on something that will improve their employment rate.

And I think we all know about unemployment problems

Now, obviously, this is just looking at it through an economic view. Even though it will ruin many people's jobs, it will improve the livelihood of everyone. There will be another 560,000 people living on this planet, and we'd be that one step closer to eliminating all disease. But is having an extra 560,000 people really that beneficial?

The world has reached it's 7 billion point. There are 7 billion people who need to eat, poop, sleep, and live on this world. Natural resources are diminishing. Fresh Water is increasingly becoming scarce. Food prices will increase ever more so. Fossil Fuels are predicted to disappear in about 90 years. Pollution levels are growing. All of these problems are directly linked to the amount of people who live on this planet.

Would it really be such a bad thing if our population had a little bit of a trimming, not only from Cancer deaths, but from The War?

Sure, I might not be saying this when Canada gets bombed and I get Cancer, but despite my insensitive statements, you know it to be true. We only have a few options remaining, and time is running out.


As usual, have a pleasant day.

Cracked Dot Com

I love Cracked. That website is amazing. (Nearly) Everything they write there is  pure gold (nearly), and they update everyday (definitely). 


Ever since last year, I've been reading it religiously, and I've not had a day gone by without reading an article or two. 


I've always considered trying to write for Cracked, but I think I might need some more experience writing (thus my blog and Newsclip). If I can become successful through these forms of media, then maybe I can try to write for them. 


So, I thought I might introduce any of you readers to it with this article, 7 Basic Things You Won't Believe You're All Doing Wrong. It's one of the most popular posts from the last year, and rightfully so: You actually won't believe what you're doing wrong!


One thing that I haven't figured about Cracked is how legitimate the source is. Is it like The Onion where it's entirely satirical, or if it is just mind-blowing facts that are particularly interesting.


Maybe I'm just too naive.


Thanks for reading!

MP3 Players - Which One Sounds the Best?

How could such a simple activity as listening to music be so complicated?

When buying an MP3 player, what aspects do you look for? Memory, features, gaming, labels, adaptability? How about Not Buying Apple?

That choice is nearly impossible. Apple pretty much controls the entire handheld audio player market in the same way as Nintendo controls the entire handheld game player market. Sure, you could buy a PSP, but really, stop kidding yourself: Reaching all the buttons on those things is impossible.

Seriously, try playing "Star Wars Battlefront: Rogue Squadron" without your left thumb cramp up

Apple products advertise themselves as the "Cool Product", or the "Thing That'll Change the World". One can easily see this with the entire line of pretentious commercials and statements about  "Changing Everything". All that malarkey, however, has brainwashed you into believing that they have the best: I mean, isn't it obvious? The sleek design with the shiny chrome finish... now THAT spells "Top Notch"!

Strangely, you can't spell "iPad" with any letters of "Top Notch"

So, why not choose one of the much, MUCH cheaper MP3 players you could choose from, like the 8GB Coby movie and music player? Currently, it's $50 (normally $70), which when compared to iPod Touch's, is  at least $130 cheaper.

However, according to many other customer reviews, the COBY mp3 players are very poorly made and break within a few weeks. At least I had my iPod touch for a few years before breaking...

Now, there are obviously the iPod Nano's, which start around $130. These are smaller and have fewer features than the iPod Touch, but it is a little bit cheaper. 

However, smaller is kind of an understatement.

Maybe they're trying to be more literal when they say "Nano"

It is pretty much 6x smaller, and it is much easier to lose. Also, unlike it's previous generations, it's not really selling as well. No wonder...

However, I see these Sony MP3's that are not only half the price (ranging around $100), but have had good reviews and are made by a legitimate company rather than some knock-off company like COBY (clearly a copy of Sony). 

They don't play games, but they're half the price. Is that enough of a trade-off?

That's your choice: will you continue to go with Apple or tread new ground? 

Choose Wisely. 

Stevie's Picks - Music You Might Enjoy!

Hello again, people reading this. I hope you're having as pleasant of a day as I am!

So, what I wanted to do is make a list of songs I've been listening to recently. None of these songs are "Brand-New", so you probably have listened to these songs before anyway.

The reason I'm making this is because I've just recently replaced my iPod and headphones. My iPod's headphone jack was not working 100%, and the headphones were just... awful (I got it free, and the cord was too long). First World Problems, eh?

I've also started replaying John Madden NFL 2004 on the Computer. I used to love playing this when it was new, but I was never really that good. That hasn't really changed, but my taste in music certainly did, for I would've remembered all the great music attached to it.

If any of you haven't thrown out the 2004 edition (for PC specifically), then you can find a few of the songs on this list.

Enjoy!

1. Chocolate - by Snow Patrol

I first discovered this by looking through a "Top 100 songs EVAR!" list somewhere, and found this to be number 7. I liked "Chasing Cars", but I found it a little too depressing. Also, my friend used to call me "Gay" for liking it. I told him he's adopted and was born to Gypsies. It was a bigger insult than you think it could be.
The music video really makes the song. Listen to it alone and it is pretty good, but somehow, when you throw in the emotional and oddly happy video, it could only bring tears to my eyes. Dunno why.

2. Chapter Four - Avenged Sevenfold

One of the Madden 2004 songs, this one is more an epic than a song. Although I'm going to get some fodder for my next statement, I've never heard of Avenged Sevenfold, and I don't think I'll like any of their other work.


3. Paradise - Coldplay

Ok, ok I lied. I guess this is pretty new. 

I purchased this CD because, well, Coldplay is by far my favourite band. If I were stuck listening to one band forever, I'd choose Coldplay. Sure, they have a lot of mediocre stuff (like most of Mylo Xyloto), but the few accents are really good. In the new CD, Paradise is one of them, and the other...

4. Princess of China - Coldplay

... is this one. The back-beat (the "China" part of it?) is excellent. The base makes for a marching-kind of beat, which makes it awesome to listen to. Anytime Coldplay gets into the minor scales, they make some of my favourite songs. Talk, Violet Hill and Twisted Logic are just a few. Another, although it's not very minor...

5. Amsterdam - Coldplay

... would be Amsterdam. The first few minutes of just piano is ok... but then, you get to the finale. And boy, what a finale.
I wouldn't have liked this song if it weren't for it. Unlike Kingdom Come, my least favourite Coldplay song, they changed from their acoustic instrument into their usual guitar and drums stuff. It makes for a good contrast, instead of the same thing.


6. Apocalypse - Hitman: Blood Money Soundtrack

I know, right? Music from a video game? What's so good about this?

Well, obviously you've never played Hitman before. This game is probably the only non-porn based game series that truly requires the Mature rating. It's not violent, it's not gruesome or sexual (although there are some extremely kinky parts), it's freakin' awesome.
This is by far, my favourite piece from the entire series.
The creeping chorus, the ominous drums... everything makes this simply amazing.
Best enjoyed while strutting in public.


7. Sweetness - Jimmy Eat World

Discovered when I was looking through old "Best Hits" CD's, this song is quite good. It's busy, and... I guess I really describe it. It was a product of the early 21st century punk, but I think it's some of the best that came from it.

8. Day by Day - Serafin

To summarize, it sounded a lot like the alternative rock around 2004 that all sounded like Jet or Franz Ferdinand. This was another song on Madden 2004, and tt's slight darkness and bass lines are pretty cool. 

9. Nothing Could Come Between Us - Theory of a Deadman

Another "Big Shiny Tunes" song, this one can best be described as "One of the good Nickelback songs". It may be a different band, but we all know who's the inspiration.

10. Rolling in the Deep - Adele

Another recent song, Rolling in the Deep, like Princess of China, has a nice march-style beat. I used to hate Adele for making "Chasing Pavements", but I'll let it slide as long as Adele makes more songs like this. 

11. Mr. Blue Sky - Electric Light Orchestra

Weird, huh? An old song? No, I'm no Classic Rock snob, but this song is probably the happiest song in the world. It can brighten any day, no matter how dreary.

12. Brother Down - Sam Roberts

A little hippieish, this song is simply pleasant. The bongos, the acoustic guitar, the kind of breezy vocals, all these elements make for a chilled song.

13. The Cave - Mumford and Sons

I totally started caring for Mumford and Sons a year too late. Regardless, I've found The Cave to be my favourite, mostly because of the awesome finale (like Amsterdam). The whole song is pretty nice, and I can easily see why many people love them.

14. Du Hast - Rammstein

I guess this is a little schizophrenic, but you have to love Rockband for introducing us to all this stuff. Make fun of me all you want, but I've only listened to one Rammstein song, and I plan on not changing that. I think I'd like to call it "Dropkick Murphy's syndrome".

15. Dani California - Red Hot Chili Peppers

The closest thing to Classic Rock now, the RHCP's have always been one of my favourite bands. This is just the most recent addition to my playlist. I'd like to give honourable mention to "Snow" for being my favourite song of theirs, but you can decide for yourself as well.

16. Surface 1 - Goldeneye Soundtrack

Ahh. Nostalgia. Nothing says "Great Shooter Music in Siberia" other than blowing winds, marching drums and eerie bells. It's unfortunate that no other FPS game has been able to have as nice music as one of the pioneers (Doom, Quake, Half-Life and Counterstrike also count as pioneers)


So, that's my current playlist. Hopefully, you'll download a few of them.

Thanks for reading/listening. Enjoy yourself!

Headphones - The Next "Cancer-Causer"

You go to MacDonalds, you order your Big Mac, and you probably begin to eat. But then, some paranoid health-nut comes up to you and says,
"Didn't you know? Big Macs contain some sort of oogly-boogly thingy that can kill you!"
You, now guilted by the "facts", throw your burger out and go to Subway, only to figure that their cold-cuts are made of meat, which, according to HealthNutsStupidPants Magazine, can cause cancer.


See, this whole paranoia of dying from everyday goods and foods has become the "next big thing". Because of modern science, we can figure out all of the effects and negative side-effects of using thes products.
That is all fine, but it soon becomes annoying when it seems like everything can kill you.


See, only recently have people discovered that wearing headphones can triple your chance of getting injured while walking.

Nothing says "cool" like a $449 hearing device sponsored by some rapper

The study tells that people are less aware when walking with headphones on because they can't hear outside cues like sirens or car horns. That makes sense: You probably block your ears up when you're being scolded by your mother

"La la la la you're a stupidhead la la la la I'll play video games for the rest of my life"

Regardless, the problem shouldn't be the headphones, but the people wearing them. I myself wear headphones when I'm walking downtown, and I make sure I'm paying attentin to my surroundings and making sure I'm not in anybodies way. As long as people look both ways and watch for oncoming traffic, then there shouldn't be any problems.
Should there now be a penelty for anyone wearing headphones? Should there be laws against listening to music? If you agree, then you're just enforcing the wimpifying of our society. All the "Child-Safety" and "Zero Tolerance" policies make people overly protective and weaker. You can't say anything without making sure you're not insulting anyone within the tri-county area.


We as a society have to learn to use common sense and stop relying on other people or laws to dictate what we can and cannot do.


So when someone tells you Big Mac's are unhealthy, you look them square in the eye, take a large bite, and then sigh in indulgence from the delectable delight that you will enjoy without guilt.


Thanks for reading, as usual. Have a nice day.

"I Run From Iran" - Maybe we all have to Chile

... and I'll just enjoy some Turkey, but only if it doesn't have a lot of Greece and isn't as hard as Iraq.


Haha! Just kidding. As a kid, I used to say things like that all the time. 


But the true problem isn't my terrible puns, or my creeping obsession with Polly Pocket... wait, scratch that last one off... The true problem is this little interview with Stephen Harper.

I understand that you are very busy (HA! Right...) so I'll just abridge the main point of the interview.


Stephen Harper stated that he believes Iran is frightening him considering his research into their nuclear weapons program. “There is absolutely no doubt they are lying,” he says, explaining the secretive nature of the program.


So, what does this mean? To start, this could actually mean the end of the world as we know it, making the 2012 prediction not too far off. 


"wait wait wait WAIT THERE, Stevie! That's absurd! Iran would never do that: The whole world would bar down on their front door, break the glass, and pin that Mamaboulatobasfoasj or whatever his name was' agains the wall!", which is actually true: I'm not afraid of Iran per se.


The problem here is that Harper is, or so he says. If any of you remember, Harper won the majority government, meaning he has more power over the country. Obviously, if he decides to go in and do whatever, he'd be met by opposition from both his side and his opponents side. However, he still can make a choice, and that choice could be to attack Iran before it's too late.


The comments for the original article (please click here) also shed a little bit of light to the matter. Most of them disapprove of Harper's comments and believe that issues like this shouldn't be considered when there are all kinds of awful issues to consider fixing... such as Poverty... and World Hunger.


Obviously, this has made Harper out to be more of a villain to any non-supporters, such as nearly all of these commenters. Soon enough, he'll begin to name Canada "The Empire" and he'll assign a personal pupil to fulfill his dark desire. The Canadian army will be clad in white and will have inexcusably poor aim.

"The Liberals... will die, as will the NDP. Take your weapon and strike me down! Your path to the Right Side will be complete!"

Oh boy, aren't I on fire! ;P


In all truth, I am a supporter of Harper, but interviews like this begin to break a little bit of my faith in the Home-Grown Cowboy. At first, with the whole situation about selling Canada's natural resources got me a little perturbed, but now... I don't think he'll be getting re-voted in for a while.


However, let's consider Harper's point: As non-professional as it is, wouldn't you be a little afraid of a country who's president makes statements like this?

"Hey you! You want a ton of Uranium up Uranus? Then you better watch what you say!" 

- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, actual quote (not really)

Not only that, but there could possibly be some nuclear weaponry there, which, if you remember, near-completely destroyed Hiroshima during World War 2... and that was 67 years ago. Who knows how much more impressive the weapons are now?


However, back on the "Harper's evil" side, this story seems similar to what Former President George Bush said, before attacking Iraq and all those other wonderfully delicious countries full of that black, sweet liquid we call oil. 
Weapons of Mass Destruction? Check.
Right-Wing Politician? Check.
"Theatening" Country Rich with Oil/Petroleum? Check (The third largest source, according to Wikipedia)


Although it isn't exactly identical to Bush's outcry, it is remarkably close.




So, what's your opinion? What do you have to say? Comment if you would like to share your opinion.


Thanks for reading! Have a nice day!




PS. Do note that I know Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the only leader of Iran. I also know that the country is a Unitary Country and an Islamic Republic.

Real Clear Politics Poll - Confusing To Me!

"It's simple! You check the man you want, put the paper in the box, and complain about that person later!"

When I'm posting actual news articles, I tend to write my own dealio, and link the page where the news can be found. 

However, today, the best thing I could find is some crazy captain kind of got bored. Yeah, cool story bro. That's what I call news!

So, I usually check CBC news (You may have noticed if you clicked the link... jerk :P), but today, I felt like being courageous:

I CHECKED FOX NEWS.

I know, you must've lost so much respect for me (more than you already have?), but don't fret, I found nothing news-worthy... Except for this:

"Just put some numbers, and a few decimals, and a percent sign, and voila! Super simple!"

Well, here's a few unclear things to me:

1. What's RCP?

2. Why don't any of the percentages add up to 100%?

3. Isn't Obama a part of the "Congress"?

4. You're talking about the USA Congress, right?

Now, this could make sense: Congress seems to be run by a pack of howler-monkeys because of stuff like this. Not only that, but if we're talking about an online poll, chances are that 84.8% of those people are affected by this stupid law.

See, I can make up fake stats!

However, It just seems like another of those "FOX-worthy" news pieces just to fire people up. For all I know, Obama could really have a 90% approval rating (Though I'd be surprised).

What is the moral of the story? Politics isn't easy: It never is. It can't be condensed without questions or confusion. Just saying it's "clear" or "simple" doesn't make it. That's just life.

The only way for it to become simple is if one man controlled EVERYTHING. Even then, people will still need some abridging.

Thanks for reading! Have a nice day!