Conspiracies--what are the chances of them being true?

I am inherently skeptical of conspiracies. Not that I doubt there are people out there trying to manipulate governments, societies, nature, and many other things for personal gain. There undoubtedly are. For the rest of this post I will provide evidence as to why nearly all conspiracy theories are bunk.
In order for a conspiracy to exist, there first of all must be a motive or reason for whatever the alleged conspirators are trying to do. For example, there is a certain group of conspiracy theorists who say that folks way back when wanted it to look like Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of prophecy, so they conspired to make it look like after he died, that he rose again. After all, his body was never found. Those who promote this theory state that either followers of Christ hid the body after he was placed in the cave tomb, or he wasn't really dead when they took him down from the cross, and either went on living somewhere else, or died sometime after he appeared to people. That's the commonly called "Swoon Theory". What would be the motive in such a case? To make it appear that Jesus was resurrected in order to control people?
Later, in this case, Jesus' former disciples died because they promoted the idea that he had risen again. People will die for what they believe is the truth, but not very many people are willing to die for what they know to be a lie. The best possible solution to this dilemma is that those writing about Jesus' death and resurrection, and those who gave their lives for it, actually believed it had happened.
Another thing to consider when examining conspiracy theories is how many people would need to be in on it to pull it off. For example, if there had been a conspiracy within the U.S. government to cause the attacks on 9/11 to happen, there would have needed to be many people involved in pulling it off. Whenever it is necessary to involve large numbers of people in a secret plot, it's wise to consider how many people in the past have kept secrets well. Obviously the larger the number of people involved in such a plot, the more likely it is that at least one will "spill the beans".
There are people out there with motives, money, and time to plan things. However, the human element of being willing to talk for a price comes into it. I was a first hand witness of this many years ago when my friend's vehicle got broken into and things stolen. Later than night, I just happened to walk into a 7-11 where the clerk in the store was talking to another kid who had just walked in about a vehicle that the other kid had broken into. Loose lips sink ships, as they say and those fervently in favor of doing something about a cause are often anxious to brag about it. Conspiracies, therefore, are often revealed, even in the cases where very few people are required to pull them off.

RepresentUs...a Review

There's a short video starring Jennifer Lawrence going around that seems to be suggesting a minor revolt in controlling corrupt government. While there's a lot to like about the short advertisement for the movement, excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical of the motives of the people involved. I think a little skepticism is healthy and we should be watchdogs, not only on our government, but on those who claim to be trying to change it. So, I'm taking it with a grain of salt, and in the process of investigating the folks apparently involved.

I would like to suggest that Ms Lawrence and her co-promoters of represent.us get a few facts straight in their video. First of all, we have never been a democracy, but instead a democratic republic. There is a vast difference in that the former is ruled by majority, and the latter, by representative government, who have been elected by a majority of votes.
Secondly, as such, laws governing the United States are not subject to a vote of the majority. The Founders designed it as such so that laws would be difficult to be passed. Our system of checks and balances assures that laws cannot be passed as part of a whim or passing emotional rage or euphoria rolling across the country. Frankly, Congress passes far too many laws already.
If laws were  decided by the majority of U.S. voters, just like ridding ourselves of the Electoral College, folks on both east and west coasts would have all the say, as that is where the highest populations occur. Most laws should be decided by states anyway, so complaining that the majority of Americans don't get their wishes is essentially moot.
Yes, we should get rid of gerrymandering and how much money potential lawmakers need to earn in order to even run. Term limits should be in place for Congress, just as they are for the Presidency. An entire cornucopia of things can and should change. I'm all about that. But just which laws do Ms Lawrence and the others think should have passed because the "majority" were in favor of them? That's one question I'd like answered before I start slinging my support behind this organization. If the objective is to streamline laws that may or may not be good ones, well, my skepticism remains. I think we could all use a little sit back and analyze time before jumping on this bandwagon, good though some parts of it appear. Here's the link to the video: Press me

Writing, routines, and solving the problems of life

When I was younger, there were large chunks of time in which I was able (although not always willing) to write. My habits included a warming up time when I just messed around. I usually had to sit at the keyboard or typewriter for a good long time before I would be in the frame of mind to write.
But that worked then. I had those chunks of time. I had the ability to organize my thoughts prior to putting any words down. These days are different. It seems that just as I get ready to write, something comes up. Either I'm needed by my wife who as a disabled person is often bored and lonely, or I just have so much work around the house to keep up with that it seems that I can't sit down for any kind of stretch that will allow me to gather my thoughts in my customary way.
In short, I have become at best, a blurb writer. I found that out all too convincingly when I sat down the other day to write out an article on the cost of religious belief or no religious belief. Just when I had the flow going and had put out a few paragraphs, my mind clearly focused on the topic, I had to quit.
Subsequently, I've had a hard time finding the time to reread what I've written and to add to it.
I'm thinking I need to find a solution to this dilemma, because the personal issues that have caused it don't seem like they will be going away any time soon.
Either that, or I could just bag writing. At least, until I'm much older, retired, and trying to fill my time.
That's not me, however. I'm thinking one way to solve this is to print out what I've written and then read through it, making notes. That may be easier than trying to do the same on a screen. Then I can go back to the screen and do some judicious editing.
I don't have the time to "warm up" any longer, but I can probably find solutions, and if I don't, well, that just means I won't get any writing done, and I can live with that.