Day 15 - Mathematics for the Rich and Poor

   So, there is a whole mess of economic woes and travesty about the world.  Threats of the USPS shutting down, the Euro falling apart, and many nations unable to sustain their economies plague the news.  I have been thinking alot about the US however because our situation seems relativitly stupid (for lack of a better term).

   We have a lot of people with wealth in this country and we have a pretty robust system of business and enterprise and such.  However, it just appears that the situation keeps getting worse.  It is quite clear that businesses are hurting strictly because their are not enough people buying their merchandise.  This is happening because not enough people have money to buy their merchandise.

   Now, we can argue about what is fair and what is right and not right and so on, but that is useless.  The main point is that we have to have a sustainable economy.  Let's be real, if the global market collapses, and businesses shut down, all the money in the world won't matter if there isn't any value to it.  Additionally, people with more money need people with less money in order to make the world go round, it isn't rocket science so I won't go into it too much.

I have decided however, to explain it a little bit.  The mathematics are simple and hopefully will help knock some sense around.  Right now, it appears to be the common number that 1% control 99% of the wealth in the country.  I am also using relatively simple numbers to get the point across since the exact numbers are not relavent and approximations will do.

{This section has been revised below in the updated area}
So, let us say we have a country US with 100 people in it.  US makes exactly $100 in total wealth a day.  By our numbers before.  This would mean that there is 1 person that has $99.01 a day and 99 people that each have .01 per day.  Now, let's say there are 10 businesses in US.  In order to survive each business needs $1 a day.

By our current logic, it is unsustainable.  There is no reason for the 1 person to shop at all 10 stores a day, they would go to 1 store a day give them their dollar, remain rich and the store survives.  Even if the other 99 people shop at the same exact store, it would eventually be unable to sustain itself since it would only take in .99 a day.  Therefore the other 9 stores die out, the other 99 people have nowhere to shop, etc etc, economic collapse...

Let us readjust some of these numbers.  If we take 5% of that 1 person's wealth and redistribute it to the other 99 people.  These are our new numbers.  1 person has ~ $80 a day.  99 people have ~ .20 each.  Now, we can simply take all 100 people and divide it by 10 (stores), that is 10 people per store. 
1 store will have the 1 rich person and 9 "other people" and the other stores will have 10 "other people".  At 10 people spending .20 at the store per day, that is 2.00 a day.  More than enough to sustain each store, perhaps each person spends .19 a day and keep .01 in the bank for the future... Economy stable, life moves on wonderfully, businesses have extra money, they hire more people, etc etc etc.
{end of revision}

It is very simple mathematics, it doesn't matter about what is yours and this and that.  It is irrelevant, there are very very few people in this world that earned every dollar they have by blood, sweat, and tears.  In order for this entire system to work correctly, more money needs to be redistributed to the majority of people, bottom line.

UPDATE:  9/7/2011 1215

I am updating my logic because it was flawed.  The numbers I got were wrong, as I misread my source.  In any event, I have redone the math here.

So, continue on the idea that we have 100 people in the country of US.  US makes exactly $100.00 a day.  According to source A, 1 person will have $34.60, 19 people will each have $2.66, and 80 people will have $.15, per day.

According to source B, minus the housing expense at 32.9%, and 9.9% for savings,  I am attributing all others to expenditures as various business, therefore, about 57% of each person's total will go towards a business of some sort.  For the 1 person, they will spend $19.72, 19 people will spend $1.52, and 80 people will spend $.11 per day (in our case since our people get paid daily in this scenario).

Now, as in our scenario, we have 10 businesses evenly distribute throughout US and it works out that each store recieves business from the same 10% of our population.  Therefore, 1 store will recieve $21.35 (the 1 rich guy, 1 upper guy, and 8 poor people), 9 stores will receive $3.92 (2 upper guys, and 8 poor people each).  This gives 9 stores a $2.92 profit margin and 1 store a $20.35 profit margin.  It also lets the 1 rich guy save $14.88, the 19 upper guys save $1.14, and the 80 poor people save $.08.

If we redistribute the wealth from the rich guy to the poor guys by 15%, and upper to poor by 2%  we get:
1 person has $20.00, 19 people have $2.52, and 80 people get $.40.

Using our same logic from above with the stores.  We take 57% of each person's total, rich = $11.4 each, upper = $1.44, poor = $.23.

Each store gets this now: 1 store gets $14.67 , 9 stores get $4.74.  Poor people now save $.17, double what they saved before.  Rich save $8.6 (drastically less) and uppers save $1.08 (about the same).  The other 9 stores get almost a dollar more than they were before too, which boosts jobs and so forth.


SOURCES:
A: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
B: http://financialplan.about.com/od/budgetin1/f/ExpensePercent.htm

Day 14 - Globalism

It has been a few days (to say the least) since my previous post.  Sometimes the realities of life can take longer than expected.  In any case, I am writing about something that has been deep in my mind for a long time: Globalism.

Anyone that has been following along may remember a previous post regarding the idea of H.O.P.E. (from my Day - 10) blog.  You should check it out now, if you haven't read it.  Anyway, the idea was that in order for Humans to explore space "Star Trek style", we would need to make leaps of faith and people would have to work together.  This concept actually originated in a previously less mature idea, that has since been "fully" developed in my mind: Globalism.

Before I begin, I did a little search to see if the idea of Globalism has been constructed and discussed in full.  There is a wiki page for it and several items of note discussing the idea of Globalism and globalization.  At the end of the blog, I will post some reference links so you can check them out.


My definition, for purposes of this blog, of Globalism is this:  The unification of world powers and nations to create a global entity capable of enforcing basic human rights, settling conflict, making scientific progressions for Humanity, and, in the long term, being established as the representative of Earth.

We have several groups and alliances and such that were formed due to pressing issues at the time, but most of it is not focused on Humanity as a whole, instead it is for the benefit of the participating countries.  We have severe financial issues looming around the world, military conflicts, natural disasters, basic human rights violations, poverty and famine.  These issues are generally handled by a few countries that attempt to solve them, the US being a major contender in leading these efforts.  The problem is that the US is now taking on too much responsibility and our interior structure is beginning to collapse because we are stretched to thin, financially (which trickles problems down).  This effect can also be seen in equally helpful, yet smaller, Euro nations.

One major issue is resources.  We can't supply resources for every third world country in addition to our own population.  When I refer to "We" now, it is all countries that embrace these burdens, not just the US.  However, we can't simply sit back and watch fellow human beings die of starvation because of where they were born.  In order for a species to survive it must do what it can to make sure those that want to survive have a chance.  With diversity among our species our chances for long term survival increase.  The varied ways of help can be debated about, but in the end, it comes down to helping and working together.

So how is this problem solved?  Globalism. 
The problems will only get worse, the resource deficit will get larger, the poverty base will increase, and more nations will fall victim to losing their 1st world country status.  Only small nations like Switzerland will have a fighting chance, but they certainly will not be in a position to pick up the responsibilities that the US will be unable to maintain.  The only way, I can see, to solve this is to have a country only worry about itself.  However, this will completely negate our requirements as Humans to help out eachother and the less fortunate of our species.  Many of our resources are spent protecting our intellectual properties in science and defense against other nations, while they are using resources to achieve the same things we have already discovered.  This is a giant waste of time and resources.

What is the first step in the solution of Globalism?
  We need to create a body, a governmental type body that is neutral to Earth and it's citizens.  In my opinion, this should be setup in Africa.  My thought would either be central Africa at the edge of the desert line, or in the Horn of Africa.  This will be a massive city, so it will need space.  However, there are some serious benefits to this.  Many people in the area are poor and famished, and many areas are just wide open land.  The need to build this city will require hundreds of thousands of jobs which can immediately boost local economies and help immediately offset some of the local poverty issues in the areas surrounding.  The city should be as green as technologically possible and leave little, to no, carbon footprint.  This will be a feat, but it is manageable if tackled from the beginning.  The city should have science labs, administration buildings, conference centers, airport, military base, and a small local economy for the residents of the city.  It is possible that this will help push growth to outside of the city itself for citizens looking to get away for awhile and help spur the local economies even more.  In any event, this is how it should be done.  My suggestion for Africa is simply because it is the most central and underdeveloped area on the planet to most of the world's major powers and nations.   Of course, this will all need to be funded...

How is this whole thing going to get funded and managed?
  Well, it needs to be created and setup under the same idea of our current Alliances.  Countries wishing to partake will band together and use their funding and resources to create this central location.  Citizens from their nations will have the option of being citizens of this new city and, for all purposes, a sovereign nation, although unable to declare freedom from its governing nations.  For now, I will continue to refer to this new area as EA (Earth Alliance).  Of course, the original expenditures will be grand and any future nation wishing to join will need to contribute resources, in relation to it's population size, in ratio to the original founding nations resource contributions.  There will be a military and scientists and governing personnel from all allied nations.  Any nation wishing to partake must strictly follow the guidelines required by EA.  Most of these will be the removal of nuclear warheads from joining countries, the open border policy of allowing any nation part of EA access to their country, as long as that country follows strict citizen identification requirements, and such.  Each participating country would need to pay a "membership fee", more like resources and such that need to continue the operations of the EA.  The ratio percentage will be flat, for example all participating countries will contribute 10% of their resources annually, just as an example. 

So why go through all of this effort?
It needs to be done because it is a necessity.  Either now or in the future this will have to happen.  Wasting resources might be a luxury we have now (although not really), but it soon will become a forceful situation where we need to preserve everything we have.  Bickering over which country is more superior for some imaginary title of supreme ruler of Earth will need to come to an end.  With the EA, nations will be able to focus less resources into the things that are equal to Humanity: civil rights, defense, aid, scientific breakthroughs, etc.  All nations will benefit from the EA that adhere to the guidelines set by the EA, which is determined by authoritive figures designated by each nation.  In the end, each nation is trying to be first, so that they have the coveted technology and they will be the leading nation, for, in the end, more money, bigger armies and a greater sphere of influence.

The problem is that more competition is requiring more money, so the return on these investments is becoming more of a deficit than a surplus, to the point where all of our nations will put themselves in debt, by trying to outdo eachother to make more money....  Bigger armies.. another debt.  It just isn't necessary anymore.  We are not in the Imperliastic Roman times or Victorian-era.  Times are different, at the very worst, we would only need one large army of Earth to defend against some invading alien species.  Again, that is just at speculation on the only reason we'd need a large standing army.  In that case, our countries would work together anyway to defend Earth and it's citizens.  Our armies work in small units now, to take our localized extremist groups.  Nobody is worried about a red scare or the rise of the Kremlin anymore, those days are over.  Even the sphere of influence is useless.  Technology is reigning supreme.  Microsoft and Apple have a larger effect on the global population than the US or China.  This is true with hardware manufacturers for cell phones and networking equipment, car manufacturers, etc.  The business world is already embracing globalism because it makes fiscal sense.  It will do the same for our governments.

In the end, we can take the things that are important to all of Humanity and put them on the responsibility of all nations, not just a few.  This will leave the nations with time and finances to spend on local and culturally significant things individual to each nation.  Citizens in the US, China, Iraq, South Africe, the EU, etc can live in peace knowing that a global power is at work protecting the freedoms that all creatures deserve to have without having messy political battles and a country completely defunded.  Even jobs, in my opinion would sore, the EA could dish out manufacturing responsiblities to many nations for military production, food production, scientific equipment, contractors, etc.  Space exploration, at least deep space exploration, is hindered by nations competing against eachother to do the same thing.  Imagine if Russia, China, and the US worked together on a space project?  I guarantee we would be landing on Mars in less than 10 years.  It would take a great deal of work and effort, but the end result, I think, would solve a lot of our on going issues in the world today. 

Day 13 - The I.S.

To start, I.S. stands for "Ignorance Syndrome", and many people suffer from it, even myself sometimes.  However, today, I am talking about not the little mishaps of ignorance that occur on a daily basis: i.e., forgetting to put your signal on when you yelled at the guy 2 minutes earlier for doing the same thing, complaining that everyone leaves carriages in the parking lot and the next day you do the same thing.  Not those, it happens and it becomes annoying because there are so many people in there world, that X people over N days are bound to make it look like "everyone" else does it, except for you, when it simply is not the case.

Today, it is about a much larger issue.  Ignorance that is built into your brain from birth.  Mostly from your environment that you're raised in, but it can occur after the fact as well, when you get older.  In any event, most of these can be seen on a political scale, but there are other versions of this as well.  I'm going to use a really common example: taxes. 

For me, I look at taxes like this: I like having things, such as: good roads, good public education, public parks, healthcare (even just the basic Medicaid, not universal), clean air, clean water, sewer systems, public pools/beaches, etc.  I certainly do not have the time and/or the resources to make sure my family has all this stuff on my own.  So, I either a) Pay taxes and get all of this stuff, to some reasonable degree, or b) Don't pay taxes and have to provide all this crap on my own.  This isn't 1705, I can't just bust out a log cabin, raise a barn, build a little aqueduct, plow up some farmland, AND be a software developer, not gonna happen.  I admit, the IDEA of doing all that is awesome, but it's not practical with the world as it is and the things I enjoy doing.

In any event, for some reason, people bitch about taxes, yet, they still want good roads, clean water, sewer systems, public education, federal programs, neighborhood safety, blah blah blah.  You can't have both, it doesn't work that way, it's either pay taxes and accept that, over time, taxes will rise due to a number of different cost issues.  This isn't the Dark Ages.  We don't have Kings and Queens, with cut throat tax collectors taking your last gold shilling while you starve to death.  Hell, if you go homeless, we have freakin' food shelters and places to sleep, until you can get it together.

This goes even bigger than taxes, and I'm going to go for the big one here: trials.  There's been a whole slew of "chatter" about the Casey Anthony trial.  Now, I have my personal beliefs based on the facts, AS I KNOW THEM, which admittedly, is not full.  I think she's guilty and she got away with murder.  However, that doesn't make her guilty, hell she was found innocent of everything except for lieing.  Let us entertain, for one moment that she is actually innocent.  I see all of this people rallying on Twitter and Facebook, ready to have a ye olde stoning in the middle of Time Square, saying "they know she's guilty", "baby killer", etc etc etc... Yet, none of them actually know, they THINK they know, they have strong FEELINGS, but they don't know anything.  Now, if we go with our "fake scenario" that is innocent, can you imagine what it would be like?   Being a parent, who's child died somehow, and all of this extra pressure and attacks from people who don't know jack?  Again, I need to reiterate, this is not my personal belief that she is innocent. 

I use the trial to demonstrate that people are idiots.  They think they know things, or pretend to understand what they want, and they don't.  Even worse, they take to the streets (or internet) and profess their stupidity to the world.  I'm not saying to "bend over" and accept everything your told, that would be just as stupid.  I'm saying take 5min of your time and use your brain.  Do a little research, you think she's guilty?  Get all the facts, not just your Twitter feeds from the "BreakingNews" account.  You don't like taxes, why don't you explore what benefits you're getting and then, if you still don't like it, then stop using those services and move to a 3rd world country with no organized government.

The world is on a dangerous line of intelligence and stupidity.  The stupid people, feeling insecure, are rallying together and forming groups.  Even mindless zombies that can't think are detrimental in large groups.  It is perfectly valid to have a good debate about a topic, even if you didn't research it, but be open to the idea that you don't know everything and in the end you might even learn something and walk away a little smarter if you keep your mind open.  Be open minded, you don't know everything, and if you do and you're not sharing, you're still part of the problem.

Day 12 - I'm Coming Out

You've reached this blog post from me, most likely with a certain thought in mind.  Based on the title and the obscurity of the details, you're reading to confirm your thoughts.  To keep it clear, this is not a "I'm coming out because I'm homosexual" post.  Although, I am rather curious to know how many people said "I knew it!" in their head when they read the title...  However, I am coming out in a different way, and that, is in relation to religion.  I've looked at all the instances and situations at face value and I can no longer live in the "fear bubble" of religion, it is time to set the mind and body free.

Many of you reading this probably could care less because you don't understand the background.  Let me quickly sum it up.  Every Sunday, since I can remember, we woke up at 6-630am.  Dad was always up before everyone, presumably with Mom, while my brother and I lay in bed praying (ironic isn't it?) that our parents accidentally slept in.  This was important because we would never go to church after the 7am mass because that was filled with singing and music which added an additional 45 or so minutes to the mass.

Every Christmas, we'd wake up, see our gifts, open some of them, only to have to shuffle off to church first.  Of course, the whole time, we were expected to sit quiety and listen to somebody read from a book...  Amazingly, every Saturday we went to CCD (learn how to be catholic classes), even though to this day I don't know what CCD actually stands for.  I made my sacrements: Baptism, Eucharist, Reconciliation, and I am married, first and only time, although it was not performed in a church.  This whole time, the world, I thought, made sense: You do good and good stuff will happen.  Well, that last part is right, but for a whole mess of other reasons.

Anyway, this is all fine, except it was a lie.  To be clear, these events occurred, but the entire thing isn't real.  I did things for reasons that don't exist.  I believe things were happening for the wrong reasons.  Yes, I turned out okay, morally sound and such, but not under the right pretenses, and that has been weighing on me...

Let me provide a simple example of how this is a bad thing.  Let us take Santa Clause.  A harmless fellow that only wants to provide children with happiness.  Of course, SC isn't real.  Parents, however, are able to capitalize on this "magic man" for their advantage, or so it would seem.  Throughout the year, kids are threatened with the "ultimate" threat of a lump of coal (even though it never happens).  During this time, parents are sneaking around, buying jingle bells, taking bites of cookies and the like, all for that one magical moment on Christmas Day (err, after church of course!)... This all sounds good, until the day we have to break the big news to the kids, to explain to them that SC is a lie and all those threats were empty... oh and by the way, Mom and Dad paid for all those items you got, so now that you know, the budget for Xmas is going to be a little smaller... SMASH...world = officially  broken. 

Here is a better idea, we teach the children that we as parents, love our kids so much that each year they get to go a little crazy and wish for all sorts of things.  Mom and Dad (or Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad, whatever works) work extra hard, long hours, double shifts, 2, maybe 3 jobs to see your faces glow for even that short period of time.  During that whole time, the kids aren't thanking SC, they aren't praising God, they are looking at their parents and saying "I gots me some kick ass parents".  Additionally, there is no lieing.  There is also a very long list of things that are no longer an issue.

Some people will argue that if you take things away, then "magic" will disappear, and I beg to differ.  Magic isn't real, so it can't disappear.  Imaginations will never go away, we can still read books to our kids and make up fantastical stories and play games and watch movies, we just don't need to lie about what is real and what isn't.  We are no longer feeble minded creatures, living in caves, scared of what the "gods might do" if we don't sacrifice lambs and virgins.  We know that gods or God, or whatever, doesn't control the weather, doesn't dictate life and death, doesn't make the rules of the universe as it sees fit, yet, for some reason we are stuck clinging to this lie.

Alright, enough of the example, so what does this have to do with religion?  Well, it's the same thing, the exact...same...thing.  Religion was coined out of fear.  We didn't know what happened when lightning lit up the skies, when it wouldn't rain for weeks and crops would die, why innocent children got sick and died, so we did what we could, we made up a reason.  This worked well, of course, we have come a long way, and we couldn't have done it without the guidance of religion in our earliest years as a species.  However, times are different, things have changed.  The concept of religion has been perversed into a capitalistic model of wealth and power.  They have been specifically designed to target our inner most fears of death and the unknown to force us to keep coming back.

I am going to say this clearly, there MAY be a God.  I don't know if there is or isn't.  I can tell you one thing though, if it does exist, it doesn't give a damn if we give it 10% of our paycheck, sacrifice virgins, if our children are circumcised or not, pray for an hour a day, etc...  Why would a God care about any of this?  If God would be considered almighty and powerful, do our feeble materialistic donations mean a damn?  Of course not.  Additionally, in order for a God to be almighty and infinite, I have serious doubt that it contains any related Human emotions, like Love and Spite, or Jealousy.  Heck, if these so called Gods exist why do they need us to fight their battles of "good and evil", if it's so powerful why can't it just win?  This can go on and on and on forever, but the final story is anything we have now relating to some ultimate God is nonsense.  One may exists for the purpose of the Improbability factor, but we certainly no nothing about it.

So, on this day, I am completely coming out.  I was blind, but now I see, and the future has never been brighter.  I am finally free of the bonds and the fears of a non-existent deity that has plagued my mind for so many years.

Day 11 - The Great Anonymous Setup

I have had a revelation.  It involves this on going business with Anonymous, PSN and the US.  This is a theory, but I think it is a solid theory.  Let's begin with how it came to me...

I was reading through my Facebook wall, as I generally tend to after work, and noticed something.  I noticed that Sony had located a file called "Anonymous" on their server.  The immediate conclusion as this was a file left by the famed group Anonymous while hacking the PSN.  I thought this was kind of odd because why on Earth would they leave a file called "Anonymous" on the server?  It seems to me that a hacker, capable of hacking into PSN, effectively shutting down a corporations cash flow and gaming line of business for several weeks, and "stealing" a boat load of user information would not leave a file, named after the famous group that they are representing, on a server.  It's the equivalent of robbing a bank, a big bank, and leaving my driver's license on the counter.  If you're going to rob a big bank, you don't bring your driver's license.

"The fact that Sony has said that the people who hacked its servers erased log files to cover their steps makes it look extremely unlikely that they would also have left a text file linking them back to Anonymous if that were their origin." - Guardian (My links aren't working, just go to Guardian and look up this blog from 5/5/11 "anonymous-accuses-sony-hack-playstation-network") [Just as a note, this link popped up as I was writing this article, so I figured it would be a good quote to insert!]

Okay, so I moved on, fishy, but whatever.  Then, it happened, the crucial "Aha" moment.  I saw another article, claiming that gamers might "backlash" against Anonymous.

"Anonymous Fears Nerd Backlash From PlayStation Hack" -Gawker (Again my links aren't working, but go to Gawker and look up "anonymous-fears-nerd-backlash-from-playstation-hack")

That clicked it all together.  What is the best way to destroy Anonymous?  A group that has a swarm mind, one that functions in sync but without an obvious leader.  A direct attack will only increase its numbers.  If you take out 1 hacker, 5 more will spring up in their place.  If you raid every home and destroy every piece of equipment, the movement will get stronger.  The resistance will rise.  However, there is one eloquent way to dismantle the group.  Simply turn those that would join its ranks, against them.  Look, it's no secret gamers are mostly nerds, and it's a good chance that gamers know a bit about computers, or at the very least support the Anonymous movement.  That is, until their gaming is affected.  We know this based on the original attack from Anonymous, it angered the gamers, and Anonymous stopped.

These are the keys to the puzzle, Anonymous refutes the idea that it was them, a "hacker" left the Anonymous calling card on the server, "accidentally", the people who support Anonymous will turn their backs on the group because of the PSN outage and Anonymous slowly turns from Freedom Fighter to an infamous "group of assholes that took down PSN". 

So, who did the hack on PSN? Sony, with the assistance of the US gov.  It's a win-win, I bet 100-1, Sony settles out of court on the class actions, the US gov "helps them investigate", no data or info is compromised because it was Sony who did it.  It's a perfect situation for Sony and the US, they both win and Anonymous loses.  Sony will never actually take any action against Anonymous, they will only "claim" it was them.  Then, that is it, Anonymous is dissolved and discredited, Sony "makes it up to gamers", the US looks innocent and "everyone" is happy...

UPDATE 5-6-11 1419:
I no longer am leaning towards the idea that Sony is behind this, it does seem rather extreme for Sony to take this big of a slam.  I'm keeping it as a possibility, but more of a distant one.  I still believe that there is a large organization behind it, but more live a government or government endorsed group that set it up.  I will follow up with a more detailed event time line this weekend to try and connect the dots.  Also, this is the link from Guardian that seems to follow into this theory:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/06/anonymous-sony

UPDATE 5-7-11 2246:
Alright, so apparently somebody has beat me to the punch on the Sony timeline.  There is one circulating around the internet that does a fairly good break down, you can find it here: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/116/1165972p1.html

As of current, there have been no claims for fraudulent credit card activity.  This is due to the fact that the database that was stolen and being "sold" on the internet was a database holding user information related to contest entries, which had no increminating evidence.  Sony has since "taken" the site down, or had it taken down.  However, the original statement about it containing credit card info caused quite a bit of stir.

Another very key point to take into consideration is the servers that Sony was using to host PSN.  There were outdated, Apache I believe, with no firewall protection.  Now, Sony is no Microsoft.  They are not in the PC business the way MS is, so it is believable that this was the case with Sony's servers.  However, this only adds onto my point.  Sony, who is trailing in the console wars BTW, knows that the future of gaming relies on online.  Additionally, they were attempting to roll out new services (the utilization of Steam on PSN), and I believe their servers were reaching max capacity.  This could have easily played into the entire setup, it gives Sony a valid reason to tear their servers down and rebuild them to prepare for the next Gen console wars. 

The reason why the theory works is that it is low risk-high gain for the US gov and med risk-high gain for Sony.  In the aftermath of all this, Sony will have a stronger and better PSN, Anonymous will have been turned on by its own following and the US gov will have successfully, and quietly, squashed a cyber rebellion.

Oh and one more note, this blog got mentioned in The Atlantic Wire: The Atlantic Wire Article

UPDATE 5-9-2011
Just came across an article explaining that Sony's servers were actually up to date and that the original rumor that they weren't was false: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1549251&postcount=491