8/28/2022
I don’t remember what prompted me to pursue this outlet but I decided to write a short article about morality and existence and send it to an atheist group. A few days later I revised the article and sent it to two other atheist groups. The first one I sent was an unorganized version of the second one which was better ordered. The first a was submission to feature in an atheist online magazine. I haven’t heard back from any of them and it has only been a few days, but I thought I’d share the pitch and article I attached. I’m sharing the pitch because I believe it compliments the article named Why God is Irrelevant.
–
All the happenings on the planet are a product of the decision of the creatures on this planet and naturally observable processes. The core problem with deity worship is it creates perspectives rooted in the belief that magic is responsible for the results on our planet. This creates an obstruction to communication and impedes the addressment of issues necessary to increase the quality of human life. There are of course other issues that include conditioning people to authority and factional biases, and the adoption of moral codes that encourage people to commit harmful acts and condemn and prevent acts that are not harmful.
Atheism promotion is not actually a high priority to me. Which isn’t to say that I am not anti-deity and that I don’t experience negative feelings due to the constant exposure to the greatest evidence of willful human ignorance which is religion. It means that human beings have a lot of problems that would still not be solved if suddenly the majority of the world who participate in deity worship suddenly stopped. To reduce those problems to a statement I see all human problems stemming from self deception and inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money.
My priorities are political, economic, and human behavior based. Deity worship is one symptom of self deception and also plays a role in people’s disposition towards circumstantially trapped people. Some of those who believe that their deity controls the happenings on the planet believe that people’s circumstances are a product of their benevolent tyrants’ will. Often people who are economically disadvantaged if given advice from religious people are encouraged to increase their obedience to the deity in order to increase their blessings.
Years ago I had questions about why I was as I was and why the world is as it is. This took me on an objective path of study answering those questions and then creating solutions. Having been a Christian and a Muslim, studied both religions, and finding them to be deficient I went through a period where I sought out a true, objective, and applicable moral code rooted in a universal interest. I went through the creation and application of many before finding what I was looking for.
What I term as objective morality which is rooted in liberty is based on the human constant: all beings at all times want to do what they want to do. The simple explanation is acts that do not impose on the liberty of others are right and those that do impose are wrong. Imposition isn’t only direct and a matter of physical harm and restrictions, or imposing on property, it’s also indirect in imposition on time, deception, threats, and circumstances. In a short book I wrote all the underlying mechanisms that demonstrate complete consistency and ideal are in that book. In the book Liberty: The Definitive Moral Truth, liberty is also applied to the dogma of major world religions.
This is one of 8 short books (9 including a screenplay that is more of a plot with dialogue) I’ve written, the others pertaining to political concepts, legislative outlines, human behavior, legal processes and personal experiences that pertain to the aforementioned subjects.
If we look at the universe, the universe is the motion of objects within space time. The motion of all objects at a distance are created by the natural forces within the universe, gravity, electromagnetism, and strong and weak nuclear forces. If you zoomed in on the earth you would find creatures who are in motion that is not directly produced by natural forces. What causes them to move is determined by the feelings a particular action is anticipated to produce. I won’t go into all the factors of value creation, some of which are biological and there are genetic predispositions to like some things and not like others.
What people do, or the motion they create is also determined by their morality, what they understand as being good or bad. There may be an action that will produce positive feelings but they will not carry that action forward because they believe the action is wrong. Committing wrong acts cause them to perceive themselves as being wrong and decreases self worth. The anticipation of the negative feeling typically prevents the creation of immoral objectives. However, the subconscious is ultimately trying to produce the greatest possible feeling, so a person’s morality can be challenged by a high valued opportunity. Essentially the net value, the anticipated feelings produced through the immoral objective, versus the anticipated negative feelings resulting from the loss of self worth.
Prior to an immoral act they will experience negative feelings in an effort to preserve their self worth, and if they proceed with the action at some point they will experience a loss of self worth that produces negative feelings. Those negative feelings may be recurring until the individual either creates a justification for what they believe is an immoral act, or until they’ve righted the wrong or atoned for the immoral act, or until enough time passes where they disassociate their present self with their past self that committed the act. Morality prevents an intelligent creature from motion they believe is wrong.
Morality also motivates action. A person will be moved to an action that does not produce good feelings because the idea of righting a wrong increases self worth and produces positive feelings. For example, a person sees someone steal something and inform the store associate. There’s no real motivation from the act outside of the feelings they experience for righting the wrong. Even if motivated by jealousy, the jealousy stems from the perception that they have to pay and the other person does not, which is recognition of circumstantial imposition, more commonly understood as fairness.
The point is, in any space with intelligent beings capable of understanding morality who experience moral feelings, morality will determine the range of motion that such beings will produce. Morality is a determinant of motion for conscious intelligent creatures.
I’ve attached an article that is a few pages that describes why it doesn’t matter if god exists or does not exist because his existence is irrelevant based on motion and morality. The explanations are provided in the article, but since morality is either objectively rooted in liberty, or subjectively rooted in tyranny, any good god does not impose or help in this life, does not arbitrarily place people in good or bad spaces if consciousness survives death, and no being with a beginning can ever know if they’re in the presence of the supreme creator or something in between.
Why am I writing to this organization? I previously stated that self deception is the root of all human problems. I stated all problems are caused by self deception and inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money, but even the existence of these circumstances can be considered a product of self deception as a barrier to communication and acceptance of information related to those circumstances. Self deception is created through subconscious mechanisms to protect values and self worth, observable on an individual basis by the feelings experienced when one is exposed to challenging information. The short explanation is a person experiences a negative feeling when exposed to challenging information because the changing of a belief has consequences to their perspective that changes how they will feel about the things they do. For example, if a person discovers their deity isn’t real, going to church, feeling good about their obedience, singing their praises, protesting acts in his name, as well as other relationships that exist through that belief will no longer produce positive feelings. In essence, truth takes people’s joy away, even if it opens up doors for new joy to enter. People avoid and reject information that challenges their beliefs and they consume information that reinforces their beliefs. Consumption of reinforcing information produces positive feelings through an increase in self worth, the strengthening of their perspective and identity, and also through doubt or fear reduction by reducing uncertainty. Uncertainty is one of the basis for fear.
While my efforts are largely focused on improving circumstances through political and market oriented solutions I have been hopelessly isolated due to people’s self deception induced biases. In casual social interaction I do very well, often having unique insights and finding humor in a lot of whatever is going on. But as far as my material is concerned people are interested in information that furthers their biases. They are not interested in the causes they claim to be for or the subjects they claim to be interested in. They are concerned with reinforcing their biases, and when something challenges their biases they reject and avoid it. I experienced a lot of this years ago when I was much less developed and more actively involved in political discussion and activist groups. I’ve also experienced this in electronic correspondence to academia and other groups.
The article below does move into the speculative in some existential philosophy based on morality and motion. First, to me it’s the most probable explanation of existence based on what I understand about morality, the universe, and the conscious experience. Second, it’s necessary to consider the possibility of the survival of consciousness after death since 1: most people believe in it, and 2: it’s a logical probability. This speculation doesn’t change that liberty as the basis of morality is ideal for human beings on earth since all human beings want to do what they want to do at all times. I put this disclaimer of sorts here because this article shouldn’t be considered as something I’ve proposed and been rejected or avoided because of, as I stated in the previous paragraph. My other work is concretely rooted in fact, evidence, and consistent reasoning. Whether someone believes consciousness survives death or in my theory of existence is irrelevant to my purposes and irrelevant to liberty as the basis for objective morality.
I’m currently working in construction where I am saving money and intend to settle somewhere within 3 to 6 months to begin promoting my material and pursue ambitions for congress on what will be a very sound, but unconventional campaign. I’m a person with a colorful past and a diverse range of experiences. While I don’t have much time outside of work that I travel across the country to perform, I do have time to write and I’m desperately trying to draw attention to my material. Since I have material that is supportive of an anti-deity cause, I thought I would send this introduction and short article to some atheist organizations to see if people in those circles would be interested in my work. My website is LibertyAndTruth.org It’s actually orioncs.net but I purchased the domain name libertyandtruth.org and forwarded the site to the orioncs.net homepage.
Note: The article is withheld. Upon returning to the article it wasn’t well ordered and concisely articulated. Part of it was due to an effort at the time to reduce word count and simplify elements that became less understandable in reduction. The essence of it was explaining the functioning of morality, the duality of morality, how morality determines the range of motion for conscious beings, speculating on the morality of the creator based on what is observed through the creation, and the purpose of the universe based on how it functions. With these explanations the following conclusions are reached.
That worship, praise, and obedience serves no purpose because
1: There’s no evidence of supernatural forces producing any result on this planet, therefore the creator doesn’t help in life. The creator is irrelevant because he doesn’t help in the physical.
2: If consciousness survives death seperate spaces exist to accomodate different modes of moral operation since objective morality seeks to maintain the absence of imposition and subjective morality seeks to impose. Seperate spaces are required to prevent eternal conflict where the tendency of the objectively moral to prevent and neutralize imposition is in conflict with the subjectively moral to impose. This means moral understanding and application determine what space is appropriate and a creator doesn’t choose who goes where based on worship, obedience, and praise. The creator is irrelevant because it doesn’t help if consciousness survives death.
3: The creator is irrelevant because nothing with a begining can never know if they are ever in the presence of the supreme, or first cause of all existence, or something in between. If you die and regain consciousness in another space any being you encounter will have superior knowledge of that space and can appear to be god, and you have no way of knowing if it is, or if it something in between.
9/1/2022
The following is unpopular commentary concerning the shooting of Donovan Lewis. The information referenced concerning the facts of the event is available through this link: https://youtu.be/x0t5sesAF2M
It’s lawful but awful. Graham v. Connor establishes that officers are held to an objective standard of reasonableness based on the circumstances, and where there is no underlying indication of malicious intent on the part of the officers. The circumstances are as follows: The officer was serving an arrest warrant for a person charged with a firearm related charge. The door was opened and two occupants were detained. A K9 officer’s dog was sent into the apartment and alerted to the presence of someone in the bedroom. The door to the bedroom was closed. When the door was opened the suspect swung his arm around and an officer fired a shot.
Deadly force is lawful when a suspect is an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm. Mr. Lewis did not possess a weapon so he was not an imminent threat of any sort. However, would a reasonable officer in that split second believe he was?
In Graham v. Connor the supreme court decision states “The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” It also states “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”
Serving an arrest warrant to apprehend a suspect who is known to have possessed a firearm, who is not cooperating by virtue of not surrendering when the officers enter his residence, and who makes a sudden movement as the officer open the door with his dominant hand, to me, if I were an officer, is reasonable to believe he is about to point a weapon. If the officer waits to see if there is a weapon he endangers the safety of himself and other officers.
This is “a split second judgment” in a “tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving” situation. Whether the use of force is lawful hinges completely on whether or not a non-cooperative suspect with a firearms charge appeared at any point to be positioning himself to point a weapon at the officers. Whether or not the suspect possesses a weapon is completely irrelevant.
It is awful that the man lost his life and did not intend to harm anyone. It is also awful that a 30 year veteran police officer has to live with having killed an unarmed man, but what could the officer or officers have done to prevent this situation from happening? Nothing.
What could the suspect have done? He could have answered the door and allowed himself to be arrested in accordance with the arrest warrant. He could have announced his presence to the police after they made entry and came out with his hands up. He could have stood in the room with his hands up after the dog alerted to his presence. There’s a number of different things he could have done other than swinging his presumably dominant arm around as if he had a weapon. This isn’t blaming the victim, this is looking at the situation objectively, and considering who could have done what to avoid the negative outcome. The officer cannot wait to make a positive identification of the weapon because if he does his partner, his dog, or he can be shot.
The worst part about this situation other than the loss of life is the media isn’t going to have any one on to explain to the public Graham v. Connor. The politicians are not going to explain it. No one is going to ask the public if you were this officer in this situation, serving an arrest warrant on a suspect wanted for a firearms charge and the first thing you saw when you opened the door was him swinging his arm around like he did, could you think that he was about to point a gun?
The media will capitalize on creating controversy to attract attention to the story and interview a bunch of ignorant people who are happy to have a few minutes on TV and promote their uninformed biases about police and race. Politicians will make statements in accordance with what they feel will best position themselves to look good to the voters. Then the ignorant people on the other side will imply the suspect deserved to be shot because he’s a gun toting woman beater who refused to surrender. When based on what we know he didn’t deserve to be shot, but it was reasonable to assume he was a threat to life in the moment that the officer shot him. Nobody wants to know what’s true, everybody wants to reinforce their biases.
9/5/2022
There are many reasons why I would really like to quit this job. The main reason being I have a very solid plan to begin the promotion of my material and have a good degree of confidence that I have enough money saved to begin making money through that plan. There are however a few reasons why a month or two would be better. Like in the documentary Pumping Iron when Arnold says to Lou what are doing here. A month or two would have been great for you. But who knows I’d be bigger too. LOL.
There are a few reasons another month or two could be beneficial. The first reason is having more money. The more money I have the more I can spend before I become concerned about money. Although there could be a scenario where I am better with less where the less I have the more aggressive I am. Yet that aggression could be counterproductive because it will be motivated by desperation.
The issue I have is timing itself. I’m not running for office but the plan does have to do with influencing politicians. For this reason, it’s a bad time to get started two months before the midterms in November.
Another reason why it doesn’t make sense to immediately quit and begin putting this plan into motion is because it requires the organization of some material, the creation of some material, a website (made by someone who knows what they’re doing), and it requires some incorporation. I originally planned on a non-profit but every non-profit will prevent me from doing things that are essential to the purpose of incorporation. This means I’ll probably start the organization as an LLC. These are things I can do while I’m still working.
I plan on talking to Mark either tomorrow night or when I return from Chicago on Sunday. My only problem with the job is that Mark has kept a very low production guy on the roster, and I don’t want to keep working 6 or 7 days a week. I need two days consecutively to prepare for what I’m doing. If I work 8 hours 6 days per week and sometimes 4 hours on a Sunday, it’s about the same as working 10 hours 5 days a week. If there’s a lot that needs to be done I can give him 12 on Fridays when site access is available. Given my productivity and my general ambition in life I think he should be alright with this for me.
I don’t think he understands that he could find a quality permanent installer. If he listed the position in jobs we could try people and would eventually find someone who is better than what he has. He mentions we’re ahead overall but we’re behind. Jay is a big part of that who I believe finally finished the shower surrounds.
When I came back to Del Rio after being gone for 10 days I was surprised to see how little was done. I was also surprised the shower surrounds were not done since 5 days after I left Mark told me Jay cut all the back panels which wasn’t true when I returned after 10 days. As I understood it he had a day that it rained during those 10 days and there was also a Sunday during those 10 so we can count that as 8 days. Even if there were more than one rain day then you would expect more to be done on the inside. The only thing that was done after I returned after 10 days was vanity mirrors installed in the La Quintas, and the nightstands were installed on the headboards, which I perceived as Jay trying to make the headboard install harder. When you ask about the shit he’s doing he lies and says he isn’t doing it.
Jay can cut 20 back panels in 4 hours. He can cut and install about 50 side panels in 36 hours. His assignment when we left was to cut the panels and distribute them to 52 rooms. Instead of cutting all the panels and distributing them he installed some of the panels to be insubordinate for the inherent satisfaction he derives from not doing what someone tells him, and to provide an excuse as to why he didn’t finish what he was supposed to finish.
He had 8 days out of 10, then in the next week he had 2 half days to work on it, and then he had 2 full days yesterday and today where he finished. During the 8 days he also had two temps so it didn’t cost only his 64 hours of time, but also two other people at 64 hours each for a total of 192 hours. The three other days he had at least one temp with him which is 24 more hours for him and 24 more hours for temps. It took 250 hours to cut and install roughly 50 shower surrounds. That has to amount to somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 dollars an hour averaging Jay and temp labor wages which is about $10,000 in labor to install half the shower surrounds. This doesn’t include the cost of the materials to install the shower surrounds including power grab and silicone, wood for templates, saw blades, respirators, presses, and 14 days worth of housing. We’re somewhere in the neighborhood of $12,500 to install half the shower surrounds, not including caulking them, and not including installing the shower doors which was part of the deal to do the shower surrounds.
He was capable of cutting all the panels with the help he had in probably 4 days if he wanted to. Installation can take place while other things are being installed. Not only did his ass dragging cost Mark a lot of money, but it also caused him some headache since the head superintendent of the site kept asking him when the shower surrounds were going to be done.
If we move past this, what else has Jay done on the job? He’s directed temps to distribute items and during that process I’m unloading the box. The lull has a box that items are loaded into and then lifted up to the window. I unload the box into the hallway, the temps put the items on carts, Jay tells them where to put the items.
After that, he hasn’t really completed anything else within an efficient time frame. Temps are largely responsible for putting most of the desks together but not all of them are together.
He did flip headboards when it was discovered that certain king side panels needed to be in certain rooms they were not in. That was also helpful.
He took the better part of the day to install sinks to counter tops and finished 2 and a half floors. Given how he was set up, having the brackets and the sink placed next to the countertops he should have finished out the building in about 4 hours. He took the better part of the day to do about 2 and a half floors, and then he took the better part of another day to finish out essentially one floor since he had half of floor 2 done, and 1st floor is only half a floor. When he finished he told Mark I finished installing all the sinks, which seemed to imply that that day he spent finishing that task out. Installing a sink is applying adhesive and attaching brackets that are tightened through 1 screw each.
The other day we were bringing in all the furniture from the conexes inside. He failed to complete that job before the end of the day.
Overall, throughout the last few months I’ve worked with him, unless it was a group effort he hasn’t done anything that is impressive, or in most cases even worthwhile in terms of his production. I don’t know, maybe he does more than I realize but I can’t help but walk into rooms knowing what I’ve done and what temps have done, and wondering what he’s spent the last month doing?
The way I have to look at it is if Mark likes losing money or waiting for payments on things that should be finished, that’s his business. The other side of it is it impacts me in two ways by him dragging this dude’s weight on the job. In the first sense, it means I have more to do since he takes inordinate amounts of time in what he does. Second, we have an incentive to finish jobs quickly. When we were in Auburn, AL last year we finished the job under the labor budget and we received a bonus for the amount we came in under. This Del Rio job held promise as a job with a large labor budget where we had an opportunity at a bonus if we finished quickly. We’re probably well beyond the labor budget at this point and hopefully Mark and Kerri will still make a decent amount of money on the job, but had we had someone else or not had him at all we would have done better.
It is what it is. I notice, but I don’t really care anymore. I work my hours, get my shit done, and if Mark likes throwing away money that’s his prerogative.
I was going to work on my prison reform plan today, which isn’t really prison reform, that’s just what I listed it as as something to work on. It’s really a recidivism prevention plan that begins with a state plan to be implemented in prisons and potentially jails. I also finished another plan to prevent social media giants from censoring user content and banning people from the platforms without good cause. I’m not sure I want to share it here or save it until I’m ready to start rolling. Before I began my recidivism prevention plan I responded in comment to a youtube poll which took a good part of my productive time. I also reviewed another police use of force incident that I saw on a news clip. I shared my comments on those topics below.
There was a poll asking people what the biggest global threat is. The answers were climate change, debt, Russia, Covid-19 returning, and unsure.
Climate change will lead to the destruction of human beings, something that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I see climate change as a moral evolutionary check on intelligent life in the universe. Morality is either rooted in liberty or it is rooted in tyranny. Human beings are a tyrant species, evident by their deity worship which requires self deception to maintain, and is an authority based existential perspective. What people do not understand is that morality is a determinant of motion. Morality motivates acts to right wrongs and prohibits acts a person believes are wrong. What we do on this planet is determined by likes, morality, and understanding of objects in this world to facilitate our objectives.
Recently, Biden passed a bill that promises to reduce emissions by 40% by 2030. Of course this is actually just subsidies for clean energy, the funneling of public funds into the creation of money making private property. The reason climate change cannot be addressed is because industry decides public policy and it is in the interest of industry not to make the required rapid transition. The electric grid is owned by utilities. If the public decided to build all the transmission, storage, and updates for the grid the power companies would lose their monopoly on supplying power. At least as they perceive it. I have a different plan for the public to create renewable infrastructure and sell the power to the utilities to sell to their customers since those companies are the most knowledgeable in the maintenance and efficient distribution of power.
It isn’t just this. It’s more so the wide spread legitimization of the political theater that’s presented to the public. A public that knows very little and chooses the opinions of others as fact about subjects they know nothing about. And this is the root of human problems: self deception. Everyone wants to reinforce their beliefs and they don’t want to know anything that challenges their beliefs. Political beliefs, systemic beliefs, religious beliefs, existential beliefs, racial beliefs, or any belief that serves as an idea that they can derive joy from. Self deception doesn’t only impose on the individual, it imposes on the collective because it obstructs and prevents the communication required to address our problems.
Russia could be included as a climate change answer. I mean we’re on pace without factoring in permafrost melt to be at about 750ppm by the end of the century. This corresponds to about 3 degrees warming, and if we reach 3 degrees we’ll reach 4 degrees not too long after. Not to mention we could be over 1000 depending on how much co2 and methane are released from the permafrost. I think we should reach 4 degrees by the first quarter of the next century. 4 degrees isn’t only a loss of islands and coasts, 4 degrees is a world where most of the middle of the earth is uninhabitable due to desertification and natural disasters. When this begins to happen, nations in these areas will begin looking for habitable land to relocate their populations. In a scenario where the loss of a war means the end of your people, there’s no reason not to use nuclear weapons. That is how I believe the human species will end through nuclear war caused by the changing of habitable areas on the planet.
I think this is a moral evolutionary check on intelligent life. Every intelligent species evolves from more primitive species. This means fossil fuels will exist on the planet and every intelligent species will discover how to use them to improve their lives. The burning of fossil fuels will lead to emissions which will begin warming the planet. Whether a species transitions in time or is able to peacefully redistribute is based on the morality of the species. The purpose of this check has some existential roots.
Covid-19 returning is funny, although thankfully only 4% of the poll. A virus that only kills the weakest segments of the population, those in the last years of their life, cannot be the biggest global threat because the outcome of infection for over 99% of the population is sickness and recovery. Maybe the irrational response justifies the possibility of an existential threat.
19% said debt, but the equivalent response is they have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government finances itself. The US benefits from being the world reserve currency and the most popular world trade currency. As countries increase their reserves and capacity to import the amount of dollars they need grows, presuming the world economy grows. This means there is an ever increasing demand for dollars globally and many countries and individuals purchase treasury bonds. This allows the US to finance portions of its budget perpetually. If ever the demand for bonds outstrips the amount that needs to be sold there are ways of selling bonds and making payments. Debt reduction will only come through increasing the income of the bottom 50% of income earners. I have a lot of plans for that.
8% said Unsure. Honest answer, and most people are unsure about a lot of things. People don’t want to be sure about things because in doing so, it takes away things they’re uncertain about but like.
I saw the following video in my recommended videos and watched it and provided the following analysis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN-BXkBMVkc
Not very difficult or controversial. Based on the presence of the empty alcohol containers and the presence of the three men the officer had reasonable suspicion that a crime had occurred. Specifically, the consumption of alcohol in public. The 3 suspects were being detained while the officer investigated the basis for her reasonable suspicion. One of the suspect admitted that they drink at that location implying that they were drinking prior to her arrival. While detained the suspect stood up and was instructed to sit down. He sat down momentarily while the ID’s of the other two suspects were collected. He stood up again. He was told multiple times to sit down and refused to comply with a lawful order. Bear in mind, he had his wallet in his hand while he was standing and refusing to sit. Since the suspect refused to comply the officer is justified in using force to gain his compliance in order to continue the investigation. Striking a non compliant suspect with a closed fist to gain his compliance is not excessive. Anytime an officer has to go hands on with a suspect it is a particularly dangerous situation that needs to be resolved as expeditiously as possible since a suspect could grab the officer’s weapon, which is more of a danger when there are multiple officers involved in a physical altercation with a suspect. We have less than 30 seconds of footage from one shaky angle in order to understand all the circumstances associated with the incident. This is because this channel’s viewers prefer stories that have anti-police bias.
The news presents stories through a lens that will attract the most viewers since the news is a business that makes money through viewership and advertising. Then they present this piece of trash so called expert who has probably gained his credentials by reading and reviewing police policy manuals and whores himself out to attorneys who are suing cities for police brutality, because people are stupid and accept opinion as fact based on credentials and likability. How did his clip provide insight? He says he has case right now that is almost exactly like it but the guy died. This is bull, because I don’t believe anyone has ever died from being punched in the nose. But the purpose of the clip is to make this officers actions seem more dangerous since what this guy claims is the exact same thing killed someone. The implication being that this officer could have killed him, which isn’t true in any worthwhile degree of probability. The charges were dropped because the officer didn’t do anything wrong in using a reasonable amount of force to gain the compliance of a non-compliant suspect who was being detained during a lawful investigation.
9/7/2022
Social media giants like FB, Instagram, and Youtube are communication platforms with billions of users worldwide, and hundreds of millions of users in the US, representing roughly 2/3rds of the population. These companies rely on users sharing information with one another to attract attention to their ads in order to make money. These companies are a person who owns and operates property that exists for the transmission of communication which means they are a utility.
Utility means a person who owns or operates for public use any plant, equipment, property, franchise, or license for the transmission of communications or the production, storage, transmission, sale, delivery, or furnishing of electricity, water, steam, or gas.
Traditionally, I presume the transmission of communications is thought of as the infrastructure through which information is communicated, but the application isn’t as much of a stretch as it seems. The purpose of defining a utility is to have a legal standard of practices for the public to access necessary services.
The first direction this can go is recognizing that social media sites are the wire that connects an individual to a random audience and a random audience to an individual, which means they own equipment (servers, programs, etc) used for the transmission of communications, and therefore they are a utility. A utility cannot deny services without good cause, which means social media sites cannot censor content. Good cause represents something that is vital to the business or public interest, like payment, or something involving safety.
The direction begins with understanding a community is not a private community if it consists of a majority of the population. This isn’t the same as a brick and mortar club only on the internet, where like minded people get together to talk about their lives and give their opinions on happenings. It’s a public space facilitated through private property. Courts have already recognized it as such in part; where something stated on social media is treated the same as something stated in a public space. Freedom of speech applies to public spaces, and therefore, a private company that facilitates a public space, where the content is shared by the public and for the public cannot subjectively decide what the public shares.
It creates a threat to public safety since a company choosing what information people are allowed to share, empowers that company to deny people the right to share information that harms the company’s interests or promotes a worldview or perspective they do not agree with. They have the ability to steer the collective perspective and opinion through the content they allow people to share with one another. The average person in North America spends 2 hours and 6 minutes per day on social media. These impressions that social media giants allow them to be exposed to create a significant role in shaping their perspectives and defining the limits of controversy. The fewer things that are allowed to be discussed and the way in which people are allowed to discuss them implies more things have been decided(1), and make things that are less controversial more controversial. We’ve seen how this censorship has been used to persuade public opinion through the Israeli siege, occupation, and development in the Palestinian Territories.
1: The statement “implies more things have been decided” means that when something cannot be discussed this implies that there is already an incontrovertible conclusion on the subject.
While I was writing this I did a search and discovered that I wasn’t the first person to think of social media companies as utilities. I have been a long time proponent of free speech, but I’ve only recently become concerned with the imposition on free speech by social media. I discovered there is material dating back more than a decade recognizing social media as a utility. I mention this because on the wiki page there is also a section containing counter arguments for the idea that I can address.
““Opponents of this theory say that social media websites should not be treated as public utilities because these platforms are changing every year, and because they are not essential services for survival as common public utilities are, such as water, natural gas, and electricity.[10] Furthermore, opponents fear that imposing “utility” status on a social network site, and forcing regulation might lock such a site in as a real monopoly, which consequently, will stop innovation, and counteract competition. Opponents point out that because social media are constantly evolving, innovation and competition are necessary for its growth.”
The two main arguments are that social media sites are not essential services for survival. The same argument could be made about telephone companies. A person being able to talk to someone is not essential for survival, except that sometimes it is, and even if it isn’t, it is still considered a utility. The Arab Spring, where people in multiple Arab nations protested for the redress of grievance and regime change was facilitated through social media. Although there were negative outcomes like in Libya and Syria, much of which can be attributed to outside interference from the United States and other western countries, social media has allowed people to make changes to public policy and the organization of government that are not possible without it. It does this by creating a public space for individuals to connect with a random audience, and it is the only way to reach a random audience of that scale. It can be essential for survival depending on a person’s behavior and their government’s disposition to that behavior.
It is also essential in the disadvantage that is created for those who do not have access to it due to violations of community standards. If a social media site does not like what you say or how you say it they can prevent you from communicating with a random audience that represents over half the US population.
The second argument, that competition is required and competition would be stifled if social media giants were considered utilities is only true if the assignment were made without any forethought. A social media giant is a utility not because it is social media and facilitates a public space, it is a utility because it facilitates a public space that includes over half of the population. New social media sites will not be considered utilities until they reach a certain number of users. The same as a caterpillar is not a butterfly even if they are the same organism, a new social media site is not a utility until it becomes giant relative to the number of people in a given area. Holding social media giants to the standard of utility, where the company must serve the public good, and cannot deny users access without good cause won’t stifle competition or create long standing monopolies any more than they are as a typical publicly traded company.
The same as Facebook made a better Myspace, another company can make a better Facebook. When Instagram invaded Facebook’s market share, Facebook bought Instagram. If Facebook was a utility such an acquisition especially if Instagram was also considered a utility at the time of the purchase would be subject to greater review of whether or not the acquisition was in the public’s interest. Not only is recognizing social media giants as utilities not a recipe for creating monopolies, it is protection against them.
9/10/2022
Yesterday my daughter wanted to go to the Lincoln Park Zoo. I was leaving the zoo and noticed there were workers in the cash lane and appeared to be working on the cash kiosk. I did have cash to pay but I also suspected that the machine may be out of service and I may not have to pay the $35 for parking. The worker asked if all we had to pay with was cash and I said that’s all we have. We were directed to go to the lane over and hit the help button and tell them they said to let us through because all we had is cash. Instead the worker walked over hit the button and told the gate to let us through.
If we look at this incident isolated from the circumstances that precipitated it the casual applicator of morality would conclude that I imposed on the property (didn’t pay for service creating a loss of income) of the city of Chicago.
I also have enough money in the bank where I wasn’t going to go without or be limited in what I would be able to do because of that $35. However, there are circumstances that produced that outcome rooted in a disadvantage associated with credit and the actions of the city of Chicago.
I was denied a rental car reservation because when using a debit card Dollar rental in addition to a $500 deposit requires a credit check and I couldn’t pass the credit check. Instead of being able to rent a car for $235, I had to rent on the spot from Enterprise for about $400. It cost me about $150 because I have poor credit, much of it the result of having unpaid medical bills due to not having health insurance.
I also needed nicotine. I typically vape salt nic in 35mg. Chicago has a ban against selling salt nic vape juice. The pretext is to protect children who already could not purchase it. The purpose is to the assign false causation for kids vaping and then propose a solution that isn’t a solution for the appearance of concern and taking action. I had to buy a zero flavor vape juice and then 5 packs of nicotine to get the juice in the neighborhood of 20mg. This cost $50 instead of the typical price of $20, and would have cost $60 for me to get the juice to 35 which is my usual dosage.
I’m already in a position where I’m going to spend a lot of money because I haven’t seen my daughter in awhile, although we do text, talk on the phone and I send her and her mom money. Spending money is difficult for me because of what it represents to me. I see working as doing time. It’s a countdown to being free. I’m working to save enough money to get my organizations off the ground and position myself to be doing what I want to be doing while maintaining a reasonable amount of comfort in doing it. When I’m spending money I think about what I had to do to get it, and what I have to do to get it back. In an event like this trip where all expenses are a cumulative sum the stress involved with the cost causes me to place a high value on places where I can save. But it isn’t going to be at the expense of my experience with my daughter.
Truth over everything and liberty is truth. What is the justification for the use of deception to impose on property? I wrote an article based on a real life situation where an act was contemplated but no action was taken called balance in morality. I took it down because of how I thought people would try to use it for imposing purposes. Deception is justified when the truth will cause a person to be imposed on and the deception doesn’t meaningfully impose on the individual being deceived.
In this situation we have the deception imposing on the perspective of the worker. It isn’t meaningful because the consequence for him believing this doesn’t impact his ability to do, or his motivation outside of the outcome of facilitating the theft of parking services. Which he bears no responsibility for because it wasn’t his intent. Second we have the consequence which is the theft of service imposition on $35 worth of revenue for the city or the zoo if there is a distinction. Without the addition of the $150 additional cost of the rental rooted in my inability to afford or procure health insurance because of my lack of any physical residence, coupled with the extra expense imposed by the city to procure nicotine, I’m probably seeing the cash lane blocked and going through card payment, if for nothing else to save time.
For 1 the cause of the action was produced by the circumstances of these extra expenses, one of which was the decision of the city in their prohibition of my product, and the prohibition of it does not prevent imposition because it doesn’t address the issue it purports to resolve. Any law that doesn’t prevent more than it imposes is morally wrong. The value of what they imposed on me directly is roughly equal to what I directly imposed on them, without using general circumstances imposed by the general population as a justification.
2nd, we consider the relative value. What $35 means to the city of Chicago versus what $25 means to me. As a proportion of our overall assets, and when that money could become relevant to our liberty. Of course $25 means much more to me than $35 to the city. The extent of the imposition without any justification is insignificant.
I’ll add to this later, have things I want to add about how other Chicago, Cook county, and IL policies impose on the income of their citizens and drive other problems.
9/12/2022
The following is an extension of the 9/10/2022 entry. Many of the points made do not require reading the 9/10 article to understand but this entry begins after a point made about how Chicago prohibits the sale of flavor salt nic vape juices. This forces people to pay about twice the price for nicotine to purchase flavor and nicotine separately. The entry itself is a moral analysis of one of my actions.
Chicago has the crime that it has because of the inequality it has and how that inequality is exacerbated by the policies of the city that feed on the poor for revenue. Is increasing the cost of vaping an issue for the poor? For some, who like me, quit smoking cigarettes because it is less detrimental on your health and cheaper, I’m sure it has. They have one of the highest taxes on tobacco in the nation. Vice taxes are essentially taxes on the poor since people who use them regularly typically do so to cope with their situation in life. Those stupid Truth non smoking advertisements demonstrated that in showing that something in the neighborhood of 70% of people who smoke are either in poverty, or under the median.
The ad is stupid because they use the statistic to claim that tobacco companies, who mind you, cannot put ads on television for their product, are targeting these people and convincing them to smoke. The truth is, nicotine isn’t just a drug that is addictive, it is a drug that can create calming sensations and increase focus, and people who are circumstantially trapped enjoy those sensations. Poor people smoke, and tobacco recognizes that is their market income demographic and targets their marketing towards that demographic. If you could target a group and use marketing to get that group to use your product you wouldn’t target the poor, you’d target the rich, who have more money to buy your product. Today tobacco marketing isn’t really about targeting new customers, it’s about reminding people of your brand so they buy your brand over their competitors.
I went to CVS to purchase water because it was right next to the place I was picking up a pizza from. I went to self check out, I saw two items and the price was almost double. I asked the clerk if he could remove the item. He told me it only rang up once, the second item is the cook county water bottle tax. It isn’t even a deposit charge to bring in the bottles, it is a tax of 5 cents per bottle. When I looked it up I also saw they added a liquor tax. When you vote for candidates based on their race, gender, sexulaity, and rhetoric, these are the kind of tax the poor in the name of justice policies that you get.
Now in that same vein, do I feel for the struggles of the people in Chicago? Fuck no. I say that not because I’m not concerned with their liberty, since I am concerned with liberty always, I say it because it’s hard for me to give a fuck if nobody else there does. If the people of Chicago, or the people of most places in this country gave a fuck, they would understand the problems and understand the solutions. Instead they’re obsessed with maintaining and promoting their biases so their pursuit of information and what they accept as being true leads them to those ends. It’s in part motivated by moral feelings based on false ideas they refuse to expose to challenge, and partially image promotion, where the qualities they pretend to embody are valued by a group. The exhibition of those qualities feels good because it increases their self worth. Their self worth is increased because they perceive others as having a higher opinion of them.
I had a few happenings today that relate to something I wrote above. I said I am always concerned with liberty. This is going to lead into something different but let me provide an example from my day. I’m usually courteous in traffic although this depends where I drive as different areas have different collective habits that forces you to drive differently to get where you have to go. You have to be less courteous in some places if you want to change lanes or not be excessively pushed back in traffic. Today I’m on my way to lunch and there is a woman trying to exit a parking lot and there are a lot of cars behind me on the street. She’s going to be there awhile. I left nearly enough space for her to get out if there was anywhere for her to go. The light turns green and the car in front of me proceeds. I wait and signal to her that she can go. I dely the cars behind me for about 5 seconds and she pulls out.
The deed isn’t relevant. I do it because if I was in that situation I’d like for someone to let me out, and the idea of my appreciation towards such a person if I were in that situation produces the positive feeling, subconsciously but with signatures that make the process consciously known. What is relevant is as I proceeded behind her to my destination, I thought about the time she would have to wait compared to the time I caused people to wait. If there were 20 cars behind me who were delayed 5 seconds and it would have taken her a minute to get out, the 100 seconds overall is greater than the 60 seconds. Yet I still feel it is morally appropriate because the 60 seconds means more to her liberty than 5 seconds does to ours. That’s just to say one person loses more ability to do in losing a minute, than 20 people do in 5 seconds. The simple explanation is a person can do something in a minute whereas most people cannot do anything in 5 seconds, other than turn out of a parking lot. This is an example of how much I’m thinking about liberty.
Another example I’ll provide occured at a New Mexico Walmart that I recorded in the camp journal. I basked in the pride of my embodiment of that principle and the execution of my explanation thoroughly after it occurred. It’s some good feeling shit. The gentleman was after me in line but only had a box of kitty litter whereas I had a lot of items in my cart. I offered to let him go ahead and he initially resisted. I told him I’d rather wait a short time than for him to have to wait a long time. This isn’t to say I’m perfect in execution or will always make a liberty based decision, but usually if I do not, it comes to mind and even if it isn’t relevant it comes to mind. And I do not justify, I seek to understand why it happened and try to prevent it from happening again because it reduces my self-worth and feels bad.
This ties into something else. I’ll start it with what precipitated the thought. To give credit, a man named Tony who works at the building I’m working at was bringing up conspiracies and fringe talk radio points rooted in Christianity that I was initially not responding seriously to because it doesn’t create a solid foundation to have discussion, and much of it requires more research than I care to partake in since the only application of the research is to dispute conspiracy theory and often these theories are rooted in the acceptance of things that are false that the individual will not allow to be challenged. He did make a valid point in saying he read a book a while back where the author stated that if borders were open across the world, there wouldn’t be enough jobs in the places that have jobs. The places that have jobs would develop unemployment problems and we can speculate the issues we would have there. To which I agreed, and took the discussion to a place that’s relevant to me. I stated that the laws we have, and the enforcers of those laws in CBP and ICE do a good job of maintaining a population of illegal immigrants from the southern border in this country to a level that doesn’t interfere with the opportunities of Americans. I mistakenly said they’ve kept the population below 10 million but I meant to say 12 million.
He mentioned an ICE head talking to congress and all the congressmen listening. I speculated that he was probably testifying about local police departments and cities being non-cooperative in their investigations. He neither confirmed nor denied that he testified about that, but it’s plausible. Otherwise it’s possibly something he said was taken out of context to reinforce a conspiracy theory or a rightwing agenda. Which is the other relevant point that immigration has been made to seem like a problem for a long time to elect people to implement a solution for a problem that isn’t a problem. It isn’t just the left who does it, the right does it too. He mentioned that it was bad at border towns, and shared my experience in Del Rio, where there’s nothing illegal immigration related that seems to have much of an impact on people’s day to day life in that city.
We moved from this topic into globalist conspiracy theory. I gave my general rebuttal which is that the powers that be, those who benefit from this organization of people benefit from this organization. They don’t want a one world government because they already have power through what exists. Then he brought it to Christianity, and told me I would have to stand before his god. Before I conclude the event, that’s what I’m giving him credit for, bringing this up and stoking distinctions between god, creator, and deity. It’s an important lesson for me.
I explained to him after numerous interruptions that his god is a hypocrite. The second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as you love yourself. This deity claims to have created you to either be his servant for eternity or to be tormented for eternity, which are purposes the deity would not like to come into existence for. This means he doesn’t love you as he loves himself, which means he’s telling you to do something that he doesn’t do. More importantly it means your deity is evil. I didn’t go further into it because we were parting ways and he was pretty worked up by that interaction. He said I called god a hypocrite. I didn’t call god a hypocrite and I didn’t even call his deity a hypocrite. I just explained that his deity commands things he doesn’t do which is the definition of the word.
A person’s god is their highest value. Some people’s gods are heroin, some their children, and many have other gods. Your god can be known by what you do, and how things compare to it. That is your god.
Your deity is the entity, real or imagined, whose approval you seek, and you seek this approval by doing the things that you believe the deity likes. This is why most people’s deities are also their source of morality. Some of it is image promotion between the individual and their deity. It’s positive feelings that come from their perception that the deity is pleased with what they’ve done and is consequently pleased with them. It improves their self worth and feels good.
The creator is unknowable as a being that can be interacted with but his qualities can be known through his creation. Unknowable in the sense that no one can ever know if they’re in the presence of the creator or in the presence of something in between. Qualities known through the conscious experience within his creation. I won’t go into all the details as I’ve done on other occasions but the absence of the creator magically intervening in his creation is suggestive that the morality of the creator is liberty. And through that likelihood we can understand what the creator will and will not do and why something exists rather than nothing. More important than speculating about the qualities of a creator it is more important to know the creator is irrelevant. Irrelevant in that the creator does not help you in this life, and does not help you if consciousness survives death because morality is a determinant of motion and a being or a soul’s space will be determined by their understanding and application of morality.
My god is liberty, my deity is myself, and the creator is the creator. My deity is myself because that is the entity whose approval I seek to maintain and increase. At times, although my deity follows my god, my deity is more than morality, and at times I have to subordinate the will of my deity, or take a hit on self approval to advance the interests of my god. In some cases, to please my deity in the short term will harm my deity in the long term because much of my self approval is drawn from the advancement of liberty based goals, and actions that are morally correct. Probably easier to understand through people who are religious who find themselves doing things that are not consistent with their deities.
Lastly, what this means about me, is I could hate every person on this planet, and I would still be doing the same thing, because it isn’t about you, it’s about my god, and my deity. Or to put it another way, it’s about the inherent feelings derived from knowing and doing right, and gaining the approval of myself in doing those things. I don’t hate everybody. There is a part of me that would probably hate most people if I knew enough about them to make an informed judgment, but generally, in the limited interactions I have with most people I like most people based on what they do in those interactions. I like Tony. He’s good at his job, respectful, helpful, and generally is pleasant to be around. I don’t have a problem with him because of the crazy shit he believes because I don’t see it as negatively impacting how he interacts with other people. I also don’t say he or any other person following any other false religion is going to hell, or a space of tyranny, because if whatever false beliefs you have lead you to an application of morality where you do not impose on others, even though the doctrine itself is generally harmful, if it doesn’t cause you to behave tyrannically, then your appropriate space is a space of liberty. Of course such people are probably indirectly imposing through their willed ignorance.
9/15/2022
I’ve taken the first steps towards the formation of OPL (The Organization for Popular Legislation) in obtaining an address in a state to register the organization and in filing for a DBA and an EIN in that state. I didn’t choose the state for any particular reason other than it was one of the states that allows DBAs instead of LLCs which is a little more of a process, a little more costly, and when you have next to nothing financially (I have some money I’ve been saving) there isn’t much concern in limiting my liability, or protecting my private assets from company liability.
So what is it I’m trying to do here? The vehicle is to create legislative outlines and create a list (like a petition) of people who will vote for or against a candidate based on their position towards OPL’s legislative agenda, or specific pieces of legislation that OPL is proposing. Those pledges will be forwarded to a candidate in an election and congress people. The goal is to obtain enough pledged votes to swing elections to one candidate or another. In this, these legislative initiatives will determine which candidate is elected. We think of it as the creation of a switch. Where those who recognize the quality of life improvements that will be obtained through OPL legislation will decide who is elected. In districts where neither candidate will support OPL legislation then candidates can eventually be enter the race who do. The organization will fund its operations through donations.
This does not create democracy within our plutocracy. Industry is still going to control most of public policy and most of the public will still tune into the soap opera narratives. What it does is allows the public the opportunity through their collected voting power to pass legislation that serves the public’s interest, while industry is determining the rest of public policy. Most legislative outlines are aimed at improving the income of the bottom 50% of income earners. Some of this is in the interest of industry, and other aspects do not harm the interests of industry. Legislation that does not harm the interests of industry but improves income advances the interests of industry as more people have more money to spend. This is not an us versus them situation in any way, only in that the interests of the bottom 50% of income earners are prioritized, which benefits not only the bottom 50%, but the top 50% as well in economic function, the public budget on every level of government, and general quality of life improvements. Although the organization does prioritize below median income earners in its legislative initiatives, holding that most human problems are a product of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money, the legislative proposals are rooted in the morality of liberty.
The human constant is that all people want to do what they want to do. It’s ideal for people to be free from imposition because it allows all people to do what they want to do. Circumstantial trapping is a condition where a person’s income opportunities are roughly equal with their expenses and where most of a person’s time is spent earning that income. With very little money and time, and the prospect of unmeetable financial obligations a person has a very small chance of improving their income and freeing themselves from those circumstances.
Circumstances are determined by systems and systems exist through collective consent and participation. Consent is typically determined by an individual’s benefit from the system or sometimes religious, nationalist, and other positive spin ideas on struggling. The greatest consent is from those who have had success. Participation is either a product of the previous, benefit and perspective, or the necessity to survive. Since people’s participation in these systems produce trapping circumstances for individuals, this is collective imposition on those individuals. This isn’t to say that anyone in the top 50% is answerable to anyone in the bottom 50% for that individual’s circumstances, or that individuals in the bottom 50% are justified in imposing on individuals in the top 50%. This is because no individual’s participation is directly responsible for that individual’s disadvantages. It’s a collective effort that needs to be addressed through collective efforts and processes.
While I say systems, I don’t believe systems politically and economically are a problem. When we’re talking about political and economic systems we’re talking about capitalism and socialism. The distinction is simple, how do we decide how we’re going to produce in terms of the goods and services we require and want? In socialism, the government decides and quality of life will be determined by how well that government represents their constituents, how well they can execute the will of those constituents, and how similar the preferences of the public are. Even in the purest form of socialism where people democratically would decide all things, there are people who would be forced to purchase the products made available to them, work jobs they do not want to work, and overall, have a limited amount of options based on what the majority decided.
In capitalism, people with money decide what is produced since through money you can obtain all capital. Capital being anything possessed that can generate revenue. We have a different mode of deciding what is produced, but people still have limited options. Those without capital must rely on those with capital for income opportunities. Instead of the decision of what will be produced being determined by a majority it is still determined by much less than everyone. Although we have the same effect where some are forced to work jobs they do not want to work, capitalism is still superior since the free market allows them more choices for employment, allows them to enter the market if they discover or acquire some capital, and excludes the possibility that a person will be assigned a job.
True happiness is built on one of two foundations. 1: A person makes enough money and has enough time to do what they want to do. 2: A person earns a comfortable living for something they enjoy doing. Both are rooted in liberty. A person’s ability to do, is based on their possession of time, money, and know-how. Know-how can typically be obtained through time and money. I think about this when I think about student debt forgiveness. Even the piece meal used to buy votes of $10,000 and $20000 forgiveness I think is misprioritization of interests. A person who has an education not only typically has better opportunities for income, but they’ve also had an opportunity to obtain the know-how to earn a living doing something they want to do.
Often overlooked in the few examples relative to people within their socio-economic who rise to great heights, is not only the lack of social mobility within he bottom 40%, but how much of this is rooted in an individual’s development who grows up in a financially stressed household. People born into low income households are less likely to develop productive habits and interests. The problem with capitalism is not capitalism itself, but by birth disadvantages that prevent people from participating in decisions of production, having the means in terms of time and money to bring a product or service to the market, or being able to participate in a production through the career of their choosing. This lack of opportunity and social constraints that accompanies it, is also responsible for a lot of issues that impact everyone. It limits economic growth, produces criminals, creates drug dependent people, sometimes mass shooters, dependency on government, an increased cost in law enforcement, criminal justice, security, incarceration, health care, food share programs, publicly funded health care, as well as other spending required to maintain order, through the enforcement of law, and contenting the poor with the basic staples required for survival. People who are not desperate rarely become criminals and have the means to pay for their own food, shelter, utilities, healthcare, and so on an so forth. Don’t misconstrue these statements as OPL being against benefit programs, we are not, only that we seek to reduce the number of people reliant on these programs by promoting legislation that provides people the means to provide for themselves.
Of course I think about if what OPL is doing can be replicated or if different groups could form around other legislative agendas. We have switches on top of switches. The issue is OPL’s motivation is pure, and the legislative ideas it proposes are founded on an accurate understanding of functions and improving individual liberty. Sure, other organizations can form that do what OPL does using different legislative proposals, but these organizations will not have the unifying power that OPL does based on its intent, understanding, and more specifically understanding how each proposal impacts different interests in regard to class and industry. And nearly all political motivation is rooted in the reinforcement of bias or the promotion of an interest that benefits over the public. Other organizations will fail to maintain wide spread support even if it is achieved temporarily.
OPL will bring the public’s interest to the negotiating table. Where a certain industry may prefer a candidate who will prioritize their interests and will direct certain candidates they support to welcome OPL legislation, as well as candidates themselves who will position themselves with industry that supports OPL legislation and who will support OPL legislation because the consequence of them not supporting OPL legislation will be the loss of an election. We’re not democrats, republicans, conservative, liberal, or radical, but we have the capability of working with all groups and dispositions to accomplish specific liberty enhancing goals.
9/17/2022
There was a woman in Jacksonville, TX I saw on two occasions when I was here in Dallas previously. I was thinking about calling her to see if she wanted to meet up tonight because I feel like I need some of that relief socially and sexually. It’s more sexual with her than it is social which is cool, but at the same time it’s a great investment of time and a decent investment of money. $80 on hotel room, $40 in gas, $30 in alcohol, probably $30 in food, and not only 4 hours of driving round trip and probably 15 hours spent from the time I leave to the time I get back, but also probably a day of recovery involved on my only day off to be productive.
Yesterday I looked at a few locations of tightly contested congressional districts of 2020. I was recently in Chicago visiting my daughter and I thought about how shitty it would be to live there. Vice taxes, high gas prices, horrible traffic, tolls to get anywhere, high rent prices, and so on and so forth. Yet there are 3 congressional districts in and around Chicago that are highly contested. It’s also a densely populated metropolitan area that makes it easier to reach large numbers of people for voting pledges. It’s close to my daughter. And it’s relatively close to other metropolitan areas with closely contested congressional districts, in Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri. While there are many reasons why I would not want to begin in Chicago, based on my objectives, it’s difficult for any other location to compete with Chicago.
One drawback is the time when I’ll be finishing up the work we have and when I’ll be ready to begin OPL operations. It will be in November after the midterm elections. It is also possible we finish these jobs before then without starting another. The point being we will be entering winter. Being from Milwaukee I’m no stranger to midwest winter weather but that doesn’t mean I enjoy it. This may be a positive since people during the colder months may be more inclined to hear someone talk about new ideas and new ways of accomplishing those ideas with outside activities being more limited and uncomfortable. That is one of my strategies. To call groups and ask if I can present OPL to them.
There is a job Mark mentioned that may begin in November in Cheyenne, WY that would be a remodel. This would consist of about a week on two weeks off situation that I may participate in. In this scenario I would use those two weeks off to begin in Denver. There are no close races (less than 30,000 votes) in districts in Denver, but it would essentially be practice.
I’m going to have to make use of the telephone in this endeavor. I do not like talking on the phone.
I have a few random thoughts and realizations I wrote on my list to discuss. They don’t seem as relevant as they did at the time but I’ll express them anyway. This past Ferguson paper I didn’t finish reading which was the first of his election papers I didn’t finish. I wrote briefly about what I did read from it and I was disappointed by the mainstream left bias that seemed pervasive throughout the paper. However, it wasn’t this content that prevented me from finishing the paper. What prevented me from finishing the paper was it being an analysis of what caused Trump to lose the election and my mind is fairly made up about the difference between the two elections. Maybe I shouldn’t say my mind is made up, obviously if information came to my attention that challenged my theory and put forward a better theory I would accept it based on its merits. Most people are going to vote with the party they vote with and the country is somewhat evenly divided along partisan lines. What swung the election in 2016 and what swung the election the other way in 2020 was the voting tendencies of Bernie Sanders’s supporters. In 2016 12% of his supporters who voted in the primary voted for Trump, and another 12% didn’t vote for Hillary in the general election. In 2020, Sanders endorsed Biden and many of his followers did not vote for Trump. To me anything else that happened between 2016 and 2020 that may have persuaded independent voters, or party voters to vote for Biden over trump pales in comparison to the number of Sanders supporters who voted democrat in 2020, who either voted for Trump in 2016 or did not vote for Hillary in 2016. That was the difference to me.
A lot of politics and people’s understanding of it is vague problems and vague solutions. Illegal immigration is a problem and we’re going to secure our borders. Criminal justice is a problem and we’re going to fix the criminal justice system. Climate change is a problem and we’re going to reduce our emissions. Taxes are a problem and we’re going to cut taxes and create jobs. Then there is rhetoric related to the topics about what has to stop, what has to start, and eventually you get bipartisan support on legislation that claims to do things that funnels public funds into private hands. People don’t know and only care as much as something stated reinforces their biases.
In an article I recently wrote and submitted to some atheist organizations I had a gaff of sorts. What was meant by the statement was that all happenings in the universe have causes through natural physical laws, but stated it as the four physical forces which is but isn’t what I meant since motion is created through causes not directly attributable to those forces. I understand some physics conceptually, but not specifically and I shouldn’t have stretched into the general specific without a solid foundation of how those forces actually work. The point was that all motion is explainable and to introduce consciousness as a force that produces motion. Beginning with an individual’s circumstances, understanding, likes, and morality.
I can X off those 3 things from my list. I have some other things on that list I need to begin working on but may begin tomorrow. I think I’m going to make an L&T shirt and maybe an OPL shirt. Need to hit that gym tomorrow.
9/28/2022
I’ve been working very hard at work as I enter into these last 6 weeks or so of employment. Outside of work, the work towards my broader ambition outside of these 6 weeks of construction has been slow and at times frustrating. My DBA The Organization for Popular Legislation is now valid and I have an EIN number that I can use to open a bank account in the organization’s name. Haven’t had the time to open a bank account for the Organization but it doesn’t seem like a priority at least until I have the website up. I’m currently having problems with this website. I cannot access the theme editor. I created a new header, something simple that moves away from the generic header that’s there now.
With the new website and ambition I can separate some of the political from this site. This site has been under a very old domain orioncs.net that I don’t want to get rid of because it’s a collection of a lot of different pages and versions of pages which are not public but still accessible by me through the admin screen. I also own LibertyAndTruth.org that I forward to this site. I should create a new website using that domain. Right now I don’t have the time for that. It would be pretty simple in that I would take my active pages and products and put the site on some other hosting. It’s something I could probably do on my own. I also own OPLNOW.com which may be The Organization for Popular Legislation website. I’ve created an outline for what will be on the website but this is something I need to hire someone to build. The difficulty is hiring someone to build it while still understanding how to update it. I say Oplnow.com may be the website for OPL because OPL might be TOPL. I have purchased TOPL.app but the problem with TOPL.app is people are unfamiliar with that extension, and the extension itself implies that the destination is to an app and not a website.
I have to decide on an acronym. I like TOPL because the idea of the organization in a sense is to do just that: to topple politicians who will not support popular legislation. Installing switches through the establishment of voter blocs who can give an election to a candidate or take an election away from a candidate. It’s unique in that it proposes legislation that will significantly change the lives of people in this country. It’s built on an accurate depiction of problems and political functioning. Much of the country is going to vote according to democrat or republican, progressivism or conservatism, or even some other bullshit even more insignificant than that. In many districts across this country elections are decided by 10s of thousands of votes. If there are blocs in different districts of 10, 20, or 30 thousand votes, incumbents who have won previously by smaller margins are going to be very inclined to support the OPL/TOPL agenda. I am leaning towards TOPL but on the other hand it may be unduly aggressive.
I do plan to hire someone. The first reason is because I don’t like to talk on the phone and there are going to be a lot of phone calls to make. Some of those calls will be contacting groups to arrange meetings and events where I can appear before groups, explain TOPL/OPL and the pledges and see if I can gain pledges and interest. Other calls will be appointments for other calls. Setting up calls with potential donors who I can discuss my plans with and try to gain their support. I know I need someone to schedule promotional appearances, bypass gate keepers, and create opportunities for me to get in touch with people I am interested in getting in touch with. Before they can do this they will need to understand enough about the organization and some of the ideas to perform the marketing tasks successfully. Another task will be will be opinion based, like TOPL or OPL.
I’ve created 2 pledge summaries, the second one is probably the most difficult of the 10 I plan to begin with. I should have the other 8 finished in about a week. I need to create a TOPL video introduction outline. That’s my priority. Everything else on my list is complete other than the petitions and the video outline.
I started this entry to share the first draft of the Balance Stimulus Pledge Summary which I condensed from the final draft. The first draft was very choppy in how it was written and I took it places it probably didn’t need to go. I’m not going to share it until I have a chance to edit it. Then I’ll share that draft here. Below is the OPL logo, a TOPL logo shirt (the logo will just be the letters), and the heading banner for the site that I cannot upload. It’s not a great improvement but it is some improvement. My graphic design abilities and concepts leave a lot to be desired. I’m also leaning towards TOPL because the logo looks better. The OPL logo I have now looks like Obama is running for a third term. LOL.
10/28/2022
Yesterday I was finally able to establish a bank account for TOPL. This was an important step for me. After weeks of working 6 or 7 days every week and often having little motivation after work I have 4 days off. I’ve finished creating the outline and content for the website. Unfortunately I don’t feel good because I’ve been squandering so much time and there are things I can be doing.
It has been difficult for me to focus. Part of this has been my inability to obtain marijuana. It’s been about 4 weeks since I’ve had any. Prior to this I may smoke a bowl at night 3 to 5 times per week. An 8th of an ounce or 3.5 grams usually lasts about a month. For me marijuana eliminates distractive stress and uneasiness and allows me to focus on objectives and stimulates thought towards those ends. Through what I think and what I accomplish while under the influence improves my mood. Without it I’m overwhelmed by the depression facilitated through my circumstances, and this depression causes me to escape it through unproductive activities like playing poker, other games, and watching youtube videos. This in turn produces more depression because upon the cessation of that stimulation I’m painfully aware of the time I’ve wasted. Eventually I sink low enough to do something and feel mildly better through whatever it is I did that feels somewhat productive. Then the cycle will repeat.
I have a great lack of social opportunities, relationships, and interaction generally which is detrimental to my well being including cognitively. Enhancement of my mood can lead to the creation of opportunities but at the same time my perspective, values, and interests generally prevent the establishment of meaningful social relationships or quality interaction as I perceive it. I’m not lonely or saddened by the acknowledgement of my loner status, only concerned about the negative impact it may have. I also feel that this will correct itself once I’m actively advancing the goals of TOPL. There are also negative cognitive effects from the work I do which is very repetitive.
My awareness of these things creates stress subconsciously that has a negative impact on my mood and also has the potential to create cognitive decline. I feel the weight and I don’t feel as sharp as I did even a few months ago. Although reengagement into content or the focus of my attention can reverse that. The issue is it’s difficult to know in the moment how much stress is diminishing my abilities. There have been periods in my life where stress was significantly limiting but I didn’t realize it until I revisited material from that period. All stress isn’t the same. There is stress that improves the mind when it’s front and center and you’re conscious of it. There is other stress from circumstances that is worn like a vest in the sense that you’re not really aware of it but it’s there, it weighs you down, and it dulls you without you being aware of it.
I’m not a person who is given to a great deal of worry contrary to what the previous paragraphs may suggest. I’m reminded of those things periodically and I move on. Otherwise, I’m accepting of all outcomes while trying to control the things I can control to obtain the desired outcomes. Worry is a product of the subconscious creating objectives to reduce or eliminate uncertainty or to arrive at a place where a foreseeable unacceptable outcome is acceptable or made acceptable through preparation of how one will proceed should the undesired outcome occur. The positive feeling that motivates worry is the elimination of the negative feeling through the reduction of uncertainty or the ability to accept an undesired outcome, both of which are the basis for fear. While I live with the absence of fear or at least relatively in the absence of fear compared to most people, fear can be a positive in the sense that fear can fuel a person’s drive. My drive is fueled through self worth and justice. This is why I feel like shit when I’m unproductive. I also recognize that I may accomplish more if I was motivated more by fear, but at the same time, having been motivated by fear during a time when I was more stressed (the period when I was going to court in Florida) my execution also suffers when fear is a motivator. I would also accomplish more if I had access to marijuana.
I’ve established the bank account for the organization. Next I need to have the website built. I have a 30 page outline that includes all the content and functions of the website. Now I need to hire someone to create it. I was looking at resumes on craigslist about a week ago. I plan on hiring an assistant essentially to open doors, schedule presentations, make phone calls, and do other things that I don’t want to do. I found a web developer and contacted him. At the time I didn’t have the TOPL bank account established but I thought I might try him out at redesigning this site for a few hundred dollars, and if he performed well I would retain him to design the TOPL site.
I sent an inquiry asking about his rate and he told me he charged $35 per hour. I told him that I wanted a flat rate since I would have no way of knowing how long it actually takes him to complete the job. This is a wordpress site which should be pretty straightforward. I have a PHP issue that has to be corrected but from what I’ve seen online someone who knows what they’re doing should be able to correct that issue in less than an hour. From there the old theme is uninstalled, a different theme is installed, and then there’s some customization of the theme. I would expect a price that reflects 5 to 8 hours of work. He sent me a reply that it would take him 34 hours, or about $1200 to do this. I may be willing to spend somewhere around this amount to create the TOPL website although I think I can probably get it done cheaper, but there’s no way I’m willing to spend that amount to redesign a wordpress website. If he’s trying to charge for 34 hours on a wordpress website what would he try to charge me to create the TOPL website? After I sent him an email explaining that having this site redesigned wasn’t worth $1200 he sent an email asking about what my budget was. The problem is he already tried to gouge me so I don’t want to work with him. It’s like if you needed an oil change and they told you it was going to be $300. If you refused and they asked what your budget was for the oil change you’d already be inclined to go elsewhere since they began with such an unfair price.
This site looks atrocious. I may need to spend a few hours fixing the PHP issue so I can change the appearance myself which won’t be great but it will be better. I need to find someone to create the TOPL website because what I need it to do and how I need it to appear far exceeds my design abilities. Unfortunately, I cannot really do anything until I have the TOPL website up.
Once I have the TOPL website up I’ll begin promotion wherever I’m at which may be Winslow, AZ. This will primarily be practice since whatever district Winslow is in, or Flagstaff since I think it’s 50 to 70 miles from Winslow, probably isn’t contested. The strategy of collecting voter pledges for legislation becomes viable when the margin of victory for a congressional candidate is less than 50,000 votes, which in 2020 represented about 135 seats.
I plan on finishing the job in Del Rio and the job here in Dallas which should take about 3 and a half weeks. After this I believe we have a few weeks until the job in Winslow will begin. Whether I go to Winslow to begin the job may depend on what I’m able to accomplish in those few weeks. If I’m ready, I may be able to get rolling at that time. I see myself presenting TOPL and the legislative outlines and attracting interest, pledges, membership, and donations. With a little bit of that I should be able to meet with politicians and get some of them on board with most of TOPL’s legislative agenda. With their support this may rapidly bring that agenda to the broader public and bring it into the popular political narrative and accomplish changes that will improve the quality of American life.
11/6/2022
It was time for me to leave Premier. I appreciate the opportunity Mark gave me to save some money and try to get myself off the ground. I did leave a little earlier than I might have liked but I’m at where I’m at.
I went to Chicago to get started. Well not really. I thought the hotel was about 20 miles outside the city, northwest suburbs area, but I’m actually about 40 miles out. Good in the sense that when I don’t need to go to the city I don’t have to deal with traffic and the Cook County bullshit, but bad because it means I’m about an hour and a half away. I came here largely because there were multiple closely contested congressional races in 2020, but with the midterms only days away it could change making Chicago a less optimal place to be, especially in the winter.
When the nature of your business relies on the idea that a marginal number of people can determine the outcome of elections, you have to begin your campaign in districts where the margin of victories are relatively small. It’s a matter of can we get 50,000 pledges to pass specific pieces of legislation in an area with 750,000 people in it. That’s 1 person out of 14, that seems doable. Of course when the margin of victory is smaller you need fewer pledges to meaningfully encourage a candidate. 20 thousand pledges to a candidate who won their district by 10,000 votes is serious, especially if the pledges come from people who didn’t vote in the previous election. At the same time, if a candidate’s margin of victory is typically a few hundred thousand votes based on a common bias in the district, there’s no way you would ever get enough pledges to change the outcome. If the objectives are important enough maybe over time, but beginning it’s better to be in areas where the voters are most evenly divided. The path of least resistance. The margin of victories will probably be similar to 2020 or at least reasonably well contested. Districts don’t usually go from being decided by 29,000 votes, to a 100,000 votes. You have near equal divergent bias among the voters so the outcome will always be relatively close. Democrats vote for democrats, republicans vote for republicans, and some small percentage of the voting population changes their votes according to something that’s made to seem important to them in the political narrative.
There’s two things OPL is doing. The first is letting a candidate know that their chances of winning their election may hinge on whether or not they want to publicly support the legislation demanded by the pledges. The second may be a bargain with industry, since although most industry is represented to different degrees by both political parties, there are some industries that have much more influence among one candidate or one party. The difference between a democrat or republican in office determines which industries interests are prioritized. Once OPL establishes its presence, the candidates who support OPL will do so with the blessing of their donors, and industry will concede the demands of the organization and the supporting public to have their candidate elected to improve their influence over other policies.
I’ve just had two ideas for promoting and making money. The most difficult part of this is finding an in to talk to people. Main methods are to start a group or attend groups that are civically engaged. Now I have something where I’m not completely reliant on those two mediums to reach an audience. I’m not going to write them here though. Proprietors secret.
11/11/2022
I’m waiting for my website to be finished. I sent a message to the designer asking him when it would be complete and he responded in a week or so. He put together the mock up consisting of the home page and the petition directory in less than a day. There are 7 petition pages which are essentially just one design with the content, and a form containing a few basic fields and an area to sign. Then the submission emails me the form and signature. Beyond that there is a contributions page containing 3 ways to contribute: either contact us and we have things you can do, a one time donor option, or a membership option. He has to set that up and make it function through my stripe account, but that is just about all he has to do. It doesn’t make sense to me that it would take a week or so. Not to mention I asked for a date not an estimate. I figured one of two things. Either A: he doesn’t want to get it back to me in a day because he’s worried I’m going to call the price in question because of how fast he got it done. I’m not, I just want my product. Or B: he puts his time into creating these mock ups and gets deal after deal and he’s behind on other people’s projects.
I seriously considered going to my bank and doing a chargeback because I was under the impression that it would be done by the weekend. It’s now Thursday, he had the mockup done on Monday and I paid him Tuesday morning. Were we talking about a week from Tuesday, a week from today which is Thursday, or were we talking about a week or so which maybe 10 days away? I notified him that I was considering doing a charge back and going with another company. I told him I’d decide by the end of the day.
He emailed me back and said he just had a lot of stuff going on and that he’d finish it by tomorrow or Monday at the latest. I was satisfied with this so long as I get it on Monday. I apologized to him. I could have approached the situation better but I’m thinking about what it could be and the fact that he told me it would be a week or less and he started on Friday I think. Had he told me it would be two weeks to complete I wouldn’t have hired him. Now we’re essentially looking at a week, but when you have most or at least half of it done in a day, you don’t expect it to take more than 2 days to complete.
I’m not really concerned about rehearsing any presentations since I’m beginning with RUGO front and center and have a plan for who I will present it to on a daily basis. There’s no need for that. I should run my books through another editing phase since members will receive free books. Also be good to brush up on content maybe update some data to the most current.
I have been spending a little too much time on youtube. I’ve had some lively debates on a few videos. Mainly an officer charged with excessive force for deployment of a taser on a non-compliant suspect, and the other a poll about voting. I shouldn’t say lively debates because the people who reply to my comments have nothing of substance to contribute. The first few comments are substantive and after that it’s them saying things about me or taking the non-sequitur route. I can unravel it in each comment but it often leaves me wondering if they know they’re wrong and just continue to reply to get a response, or if they’re really that stupid. By that I mean having no rational basis for their position, but still trying to maintain it despite having to know they are wrong.
This Matt Mconhay with a perm looking dude kept on saying nothing. At one point I told him that his whole comment consisted of opinions not rooted in fact and went on to respond to it. Then he responded saying that my comment was purely opinion. I had to make a choice because he probably didn’t even read my response and just copied what I said. Do I leave it alone or do I itemize how my comment was not opinion? I decided to respond and thought I’d put it on the website.
In the other exchange there were a few times when I was significantly irritated. When people show they cannot comprehend and produce a thought pertaining to what is said yet want to keep making statements that don’t apply to the comment or the general subject that’s stupidity at its finest. My frustration isn’t just in what’s going on, it extends into the implications of what is going on, how people think, and how people retard themselves through self deception in efforts to maintain their perspective. Maintaining their perspective is crucial to protecting their value of objects, or ensuring the things that make them feel good can continue to make them feel good. I’ll provide additional commentary to the exchanges.
In the past, most notably in the book Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History 2019-2020 I’ve recorded youtube exchanges because they provide an untainted sample of what and how people think, including commitments to biases that produce denial. So while this could be interpreted as me chronicling winning debates against stupid people, that isn’t the purpose. The purpose is more showing how people have strong opinions founded on nothing but their preference for those opinions. People assign truth to ideas not based on fact founded calculations, but purely based on wanting the thing to be true based on what it means to maintain their perspective and how that perspective maintains their ability to like things and feel good.
The video comes from Rebel HQ titled Chicago Cop Gets Felony Charges or Excessive Force. https://youtu.be/k_Rp2rFHxCQ
Since I describe the circumstances and sequence of events within my comments and go over them a few times during the course of different exchanges I won’t summarize the video and make this more repetitive than it already is. I will say that the video is a news cast and it is intentionally misleading. This a tactic of news editing to attract more attention to the story by making the officer seem malicious. This is why we should have the Media Disclaimer Mandate on the screen.
The video begins by showing just the final clip of the event. The moment where it appears the suspect is going towards the ground and then he is tased seemingly before he has a chance to. This is done to create a first impression where the officer’s actions look wrong. There’s an emotional connection made that will bias the viewer later when the full context of the event is revealed. The second two inaccuracies are statements that are inconsistent with facts. The reporter calls the suspect an innocent man. The man is not innocent because upon making contact with the officer, the officer attempts to put him in restraints which is lawful while detaining a suspect to conduct an investigation based on reasonable suspicion. He broke the law on camera when he pulled away and ran from the officer, resisting and obstructing his investigation. He’s not an innocent man. The media also said he was compliant which he was not. First he pulled away from the officer when the officer tried to handcuff him, second he ran, and third which is the most crucial aspect of this use of force is the suspect went to the ground with his hands on the ground and then got back up. Then slowly went to the ground and may have been ready to spring back up again. He was not being compliant and given his behavior there’s no reason to believe he wouldn’t have got back and maybe tried to run again as he did previously. The suspect is also behaving strangely, possibly under the influence of drugs, doesn’t have identification, and the officer knows nothing about who he is, why he ran, and why he’s being non-compliant.
Interaction with the suspect is based on the suspect walking through a yard and the officer responding to a call about someone pulling on gates and moving suspiciously around people’s property.
Orion Simerl
The officer should be acquitted of the charges. He’s conducting an investigation based on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is prowling. The officer has the right to detain the suspect while conducting his investigation. While attempting to put the suspect in restraints, the suspect fled. In addition to reasonable suspicion for prowling the officer has probable cause for obstruction,hindering, or resisting since he pulled away and ran while he was being lawfully restrained. The suspect stopped running and began negotiating with the officer to put his taser down. The officer issued multiple commands for the suspect to get on the ground. The suspect initially ignored the commands. Then the suspect began to get on the ground but got back up. Given the observed indecision of the suspect, the fact that he has already resisted restraints and ran, it’s reasonable to believe that he would have ran again. The officer is sworn to enforce the law which includes an obligation to arrest people who break the law. When a suspect is non compliant an officer may use force to gain the compliance of the suspect. Using the taser to ensure a non compliant suspect who has already ran and is refusing commands to get on the ground is not excessive force. Had the suspect not resisted being put in restraints initially, the officer would have finished his investigation which would have probably consisted of verifying the suspects identity, and seeing if the caller could identify the suspect as the person who was prowling. If the suspect would have got on the ground and not got back up, the officer would have detained him, verified his identity, found out if he was prowling and why if he was, and then made a decision as to whether or not he wanted to charge him with obstruction for pulling away and refusing restraints. The officer didn’t do anything wrong, this is the product of politically motivated DA, and the media exploiting anti police sentiment to attract attention to their broadcast.
McDamaged
There is zero reason to detain him though. Cop pulls up, questions him, checks his pockets then threatens to arrest him for lying with zero evidence of that. Guy is in front of his own house getting harassed by a cop. If the guy really wanted to flee, the super out of shape cop wasn’t stopping him…. But you’re right, cops should be able to do whatever they want to you just because & you better listen, after all they passed high school.
Orion Simerl @McDamaged
The suspect can be detained because there is reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime based on the totality of the circumstances (Terry v. Ohio). The circumstances are as follows, LE was called because they received a complaint that someone was prowling. The officer observes the suspect in the area walking through a yard. The officer makes contact to investigate on the basis of reasonable suspicion. In such an investigation an officer has to identify the suspect. The suspect doesn’t have an ID. Even if he did have ID during the course of his investigation, at any time he can detain the suspect while he conducts his investigation. Go read Terry v. Ohio so you can understand reasonable suspicion and what an officer can and cannot do during an investigation.
McDamaged @Orion Simerl
Everything I find on terry v Ohio pertains to searching a suspect. He allowed the officer to search him & the officer found nothing. It doesn’t say you can arrest him over nothing. He threatened to arrest him for lying with zero evidence to back up that claim or that he had/was committing a crime he also found nothing on him. The yard he seen him in was his own yard which he informed the officer. Terry vs Ohio was a cop who witnessed 2 men checking windows and when he searched them he found a gun on both of them.
Orion Simerl @McDamaged
I understand that you don’t want to read more than a paragraph google search or use even the most minimal amount of common sense when the conclusion damages your subjective interpretation of justice. If you read the case law Terry v. Ohio establishes that an officer may investigate based on reasonable suspicion which may include a search depending on the nature of that suspicion. A person has the right to remain silent but they must identify themselves and they can be physically detained while the officer conducts his investigation. The suspect is already detained before the officer attempts to cuff him. An officer has reasonable suspicion to investigate if it is reasonable to believe a crime has occurred, is occurring, or could occur based on the totality of the circumstances. Again we have the call that prowling is occurring and the officer observing the suspect engaging in behavior consistent with the reported crime. A person being investigated must identify themselves to the investigating officer. The suspect was being detained for his investigation into the prowling report and to establish his identity. The stop and the officer’s attempt to place him in restraints is 100% lawful.
Andre for eoc Usbeusivn @Orion Simerl
Even if the detention is valid the use of force with the taser was not, which apparently the cop who did it even knows, considering he claims it was “accidental” lol but sure keep boot licking im sure the cops are all your friends man you love government agents we get it.
Orion Simerl @Andre for eoc Usbeusivn
The suspect was not compliant. He began going down after being told multiple times, but he didn’t go to the ground and began coming back up each time he was going to the ground. That is not compliance. Considering the suspect ran once and now is wavering between getting on the ground or not getting on the ground it’s reasonable to believe he may run again. What options does the officer have in this situation where he is obligated to detain and possibly arrest the suspect for obstruction or hindering his investigation, and resisting detainment? He can go hands on which is extremely dangerous since he is by himself or he can wait and hope the suspect doesn’t run again. It’s very easy to miss with a taser. If the suspect makes a sudden movement and begins running from what is a running stance he doesn’t know who he just let escape.
It’s unfortunate if what you’re saying is accurate that the officer said it was an accident. Something he probably said based on encouragement from the department to avoid repercussions from the publicity surrounding the incident. Had he not, Graham v. Conner brings us objective reasonableness. Which states that the use of force must be judged based on circumstances at the time and whether in the moment a reasonable prudent officer would make the decision. At the moment we have a suspect being investigated on reasonable suspicion for prowling. The suspect did not have identification, and did not have a key for the house he claimed he resided in. The suspect resisted restraints and ran from the officer. The suspect refused lawful commands to get on the ground. The suspect began to go to the ground but then got back up. In the moment the officer doesn’t know who he is, and what he may have done to cause him to pull away from the officer and run from him. In the moment the officer is justified to use force to ensure the suspect doesn’t run away since he is refusing commands and being non-compliant. If he said it was accidental then he blew his defense.
As for the boot licker comment, what does that mean to you? Does that mean a person who understands the law and how it is applied to actions and events who doesn’t believe a law enforcement officer should face charges when in his service to the public he acts lawfully? It’s funny because I see right through you pieces of s**. I call you a piece of s** because if you were concerned about abuse of police authority you would study the law and the statistics. You would know that there are 55 million police contacts in the United States each year.(1) Then you would know that a handful of controversial uses of force which in most cases are lawful, does not constitute a systemic problem with policing. But you’re not concerned with that. You’re concerned with advancing your bias because of the positive feelings you derive from a fake moral position and the opportunities the position creates for you socially. Second, as I stated, you would learn the law. Terry v Ohio, Graham v. Conner, Tennessee v. Gardner, Pennsylvania v. Mimms etc, so when you see something you can know if it is legal or not. If you were really concerned with criminal justice and policing, you’d be concerned with changing the circumstances that produce criminals, which is rooted in the household income a person is born into, and the income opportunities people have.
1: I added the notes for this post. I cannot include them in youtube exchanges because youtube will reject comments that contain URLs. Elizabeth Davis, Anthony Whyde, BJS Statisticians, Lynn Langton Ph.D., former BJS Statistician, 10/11/2018 “Contact Between the Police and Public, 2015”. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6406
New Exchange
Nota Person
Lick boots pussy
Orion Simerl @Nota Person
I’ve provided a summary of the circumstances that form the legal basis for the officer’s actions and you’ve failed to challenge or dispute anything within that summary. Instead you express your bias through false assertions that I have a bias towards police officers. Then you go internet tough guy and call me a pussy when I could beat the shit out of you.
How much time have you done? How many interactions have you had with police that weren’t a product of you and your half gender friends waving signs about shit you don’t understand? I’ve done 6 years in jails and prisons. Had probably 100 interactions with police, made a living from criminality for a significant portion of my life. Been treated unfairly by some police but didn’t allow those interactions to color my perception of all leo.
For a time I was biased, but that’s the nature of being a criminal. Although the laws are not all just there’s a reason for laws. All people want to do what they want to do. Which means any act that imposes is wrong and any act that does not impose is right. (Imposition has many forms and sometimes inaction is imposition but not relevant to this point). We agree to laws and the enforcement of laws that prevent imposition because we are freer with laws than we are without them. LEO are tasked with protecting the liberty of the public, which is one of the most noble professions on this planet. It would be nobler if all the laws reflected the interests of the public, prevented imposition, and we lived in a nation where all people had adequate opportunities for time and money, which is the motivator of most criminal behavior, but the essence of the job is still the same. LEO shouldn’t be punished when they act within the confines of the law when serving the public. That’s the reason for my comment. Of course when they act outside of the law they should (face consequences), and when they do I summarize the circumstances and show why the act is unlawful. As opposed to you who sees anything that can be ignorantly interpreted as wrongdoing by police as wrong doing because it advances your anti police bias that is built on feelings not reason. You’re a puppet.
Nota Person @Orion Simerl
Bro it’s okay you like the taste of boot. You don’t need to keep writing paragraphs detailing how loose your butthole is and how police cock fills it.
NOTE: I resort to playing the game with him.
Orion Simerl @Nota Person
Looks like you’re projecting, but that’s another concept you’re probably not familiar with.
Nota Person @Orion Simerl
Mans took one psych course in prison and now thinks he’s smart. Project these nuts lol
Orion Simerl @Nota Person
Man (well maybe a man you have some LGBT shit going on in that picture) cannot make a sustained point concerning the subject of controversy. so he uses adolescent insults in lieu of anything worthwhile to write.
Nota Person @Orion Simerl
bruh if you want to know something know this: these cops will be the first ones to arrest you for not wanting your kids to get hormone suppressants. These cops will be the first ones to take your guns. They don’t think they serve you or anything romantic like that. Stop being so naive. To them, it’s just a job. It’s a paycheck. I don’t actually judge them too much. They have to feed the kids and all, but they still can and will kill, maim, imprison, etc you if you make their job hard or if they are ordered to. If you want law and order this system will only give you that if you give it your soul.
Orion Simerl @Nota Person
That’s purely opinion from someone who doesn’t have experience on either side of law enforcement (criminal, legal, statistically). Sure, if a mother is trying to give her children hormones and the father tries to stop it he may be arrested according to the law and the police would be the ones to do it. In that situation I wouldn’t fault the officers for enforcing the law I would fault the law makers, and citizens for allowing parents to f*** up their children. Guns are protected by the courts, taking people’s guns is a fundraising tactic for the NRA, a call to political action from the right, and an empty solution to violence that is not a solution from the left. Not to mention as we saw during COVID many law enforcement officers, primarily Sheriff’s refused to enforce COVID mandates based on their oath to the constitution and rightly believing that COVID didn’t qualify as a threat to public safety to be used as a justification to take away the rights of citizens.
I’m also a felon who cannot legally own a gun but I do support the right of others to own guns to protect their persons and property. I know it isn’t about those specific examples, it was more about the same police who enforce laws that are inherently good, enforce laws that are against things that you think I like.
Funny, because you’ve clearly stereotyped me based on an objective analysis of law and application as a conservative, which I’m not, but they are right about some things, the same as liberals are right about some things, with both leanings being both wrong about most things. And yes, some officers approach policing like working in a warehouse, punch in, write some tickets, make some arrests and punch out. Some police are worse than that, they’re ambitious so they’re looking for crime as opposed to being reactive to it, they’re trumping up charges trying to earn promotions. But most police, even if they don’t see themselves as the defenders of liberty, have a genuine desire to help people and are not trying to make anyone’s life harder. Anytime a suspect is noncompliant they assume the risk that comes with necessitating the use of force which can result in them being seriously injured which is the nature of force. I’ve been pulled over without cause, had excessive force used against me, and had police dump excessive and exaggerated charges on me, but overall most of the negative treatment I’ve received has been because of my behavior. As I stated before or it may have been to someone else, 55 million police contacts per year, and a handful of controversial interactions that are typically lawful. Even if every controversial use of force was actually excessive force, it represents a very small fractional percentage of police and policing.
You have it backwards, where you believe most police are bad based on your selective viewing of police, because you seek out information that reinforces your bias. How many videos have you watched of police being killed? 2 officers are killed every 3 days on average. This provides context for what happens when police approach suspects lackadaisically, or when they withhold force in dangerous situations. Often these situations don’t seem dangerous to the public until the point where an officer is being shot. The reason I comment on these videos is because the general anti-police factions who want to express their opinion about what they’re seeing don’t know what they’re seeing. They have no understanding of law, why an officer is doing something or what authority he is acting on. It’s like a person who has never watched football watching the game, seeing legal hits and saying they’re penalties. Then pretending that they’re concerned about the person being tackled but it cannot be true because if they cared they would learn the rules. That’s what I hate about the anti police factions and most activists in this country: their positions are rooted in false moral feelings for taking the position, the social opportunities the position creates or maintains, and the positive feelings coming from image promotion through the position. Because when you care about a problem you learn about it and figure out solutions, and when you only care about what the problem does for you personally, you seek out information that reinforces the idea that the problem is a problem and avoid information that challenges that belief. LibertyAndTruth(dot) org
Nota Person @Orion Simerl
Everything you just said is purely opinion from someone who took a few courses in jail lol
Orion Simerl @Nota Person
You can’t, I’m rubber you’re glue me by inaccurately trying to apply a statement to my comment that I’ve accurately applied to your comment. Also never taken a course in jail or prison, other then HSED when I was 18.
1: Stating that an officer will arrest someone who tries to interfere with a mother approved medical process if it breaks the law is not opinion it is fact.
2: Stating that police will not take away guns because it is protected by the 2nd amendment is not an opinion, it is a fact. The motivation as to why citizens are concerned about the government taking away their guns being A: NRA fund raising, B: Republican’s activating their base, and C: Democrats proposing gun control as a solution that does not solve any problems to activate their base, is not an opinion, but a logical deduction based on the motivation of said groups, A: why would the NRA promote the idea that the government is coming for guns when the right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment? Because if the right to bear arms isn’t threatened, they have no reason to exist or for people to become members and fund their organization. B Why would republicans promote the idea that democrats want to take away guns when they know the courts will protect the second amendment? Because if people think their right to bear arms is under threat they’re more likely to vote.
2C: Why do democrats propose strict gun control as a solution to violence mainly mass murder, when they know they’re limited by the 2nd amendment to enact federal gun control legislation and that the measure will not reduce violence? Because it encourages their base to vote if reducing violence is important to them. C Why doesn’t gun control prevent violence? Evidence that gun control doesn’t reduce mass killings is evident by the Australian data where prior 20 years prior to the 1996 massacre where 36 people were killed where gun control did not exist, and after that event when gun control was implemented there were more mass killing events and more mass killing incidents in the 20 years after gun control.(1) More importantly, as it relates to gun violence in general, states like California who have strict gun control laws have higher rates of gun violence than many states like Arizona that have very lax gun control regulations. (2)
1: Orion Simerl “Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History 2019-2020”, pg 46. “In Australia, in the 20 years prior to the 1996 mass shooting there was a total of 95 people killed in mass murder events. In the 20 years after 1996 there were 96 people killed.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia Each incident is cited with a news citation in the wiki article.
2: https://everystat.org/#California Gun injuries 29th highest. https://everystat.org/#Arizona Gun injuries 37th highest. California has a gun control rating of A for restrictiveness and Arizona has a rating of F. While we can say that this comparison is cherry picked, and it is, the fact remains that California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and yet ranks 29 in gun injuries which means presumably 28 other states with fewer gun restrictions have lower rates of gun injuries. Which means gun control on its own does not prevent the use of guns. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state
3: Sheriffs in some counties around the country did refuse to enforce covid mandates regarding them as unconstitutional (ref available upon request).(3)
3: This really doesn’t need a citation and there plenty of articles on the subject but here is one to substantiate the point. https://time.com/5921863/police-enforce-covid-restrictions/
4: I am a felon with a substantial battery and an escape conviction, who has had other felony charges dropped. I cannot legally own a firearm.
5: You did stereotype me based on an objective analysis of this incident because I didn’t mention anything about my position on firearms or children being given hormones but you presumed I was for one and against the other as would be consistent with conservative stereotypes.
6: There were 61 million police contacts in 2018.(5) The first return on search didn’t want to go to my notes to find my source on 55 million assertions. A dozen controversial examples of policing represents a small proportion of policing which qualifies as a very minute exception and not normative policing.
5: Department of Justice “Contacts Between the Police and Public 2018”. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf 61.5 million, and I believe this is the most up to date data on the subject.
7: 2 officers are killed in the line of duty every 3 days.(5)
5: I was wrong about this. I thought I remembered seeing a number in the 200s but for 2021 it was actually 129. A little more than 1 officer every 3 days. https://www.police1.com/police-heroes/articles/129-officers-killed-in-line-of-duty-in-2021-fbi-report-says-cFWzKEn9J20qC0sH/
7: It is self-evident that people who are truly concerned about things learn about them so they can address them. Everything I stated was fact, or in the instance of different entities’ motivation for misleading the public about guns, a logical deduction to the most likely cause.
—
The following exchanges are from a youtube poll asking did you vote?
Not all the responding comments are negative and I’ve included the positive comments and neutral comments for what they add to the subject or for my response to those comments.
Orion Simerl
I don’t have a permanent residence to register to vote from, but even if I did I would not have voted. At this point, you’re voting to determine which industry’s interest will be prioritized in public policy. That is the difference between a democrat or a republican. This could change in 2024 with the creation of The Organization for Popular Legislation.
Miraa2k12
I agree with you! There’s like six parties yet we’re all divided by two? Once my vote as a libertarian matters, then I’ll vote. But now it’s “vote to get the other guy out”. How counterintuitive.
Orion Simerl @Miraa2k12
OPL creates and promotes legislation and collects voting pledges to pass that legislation. The goal is to have a number of people pledge a vote for the candidate who supports the legislative agenda that exceeds the margin of victory in the previous election. Website oplnow dot com should be up by Friday and we’re going to begin campaigning around the round up gratuity tax credit hopefully Monday. The objective is to control elections through a voting bloc to force concessions from industry where we can achieve specific legislation to achieve quality of life improvements. Until the website is finished there’s more information on LibertyAndTruth dot org
New Exchange
Carl Frye
Organization for Popular Legislation, does that have anything to do with job creation and economic development?
Orion Simerl @Carl Frye
Yes. I have people working on the website now. First legislative outline being promoted is called The Round Up Gratuity Option Tax Credit. Round up gratuity allows customers to round up their purchases from high volume transaction businesses and for that money to be distributed to the workers. High volume transaction industries are businesses like retail and fast food, walmart, target, mc donalds, gas stations etc. We’ve estimated that a full time Walmart worker would earn about $6.25 more per hour if Walmart implemented a RUGO. Other businesses like gas stations or fast food restaurants could make even more. To encourage businesses to implement a round up gratuity option we’re offering a 10% payroll tax credit. This won’t cost the taxpayers money because what’s lost in the 10% payroll tax will be made up for in additional income tax collected by people making more money in those industries. In addition to increasing the wages for workers in these industries, it will also increase the wages of other low skilled workers. Companies that hire low skilled workers will be competing for low skilled workers with high volume transaction industry low skilled workers who will make more. In other words, if a person can work at Walmart and earn 20 plus dollars per hour with round up gratuity, they’re unlikely to want to dig holes for 15 dollars an hour. Meaning companies looking to hire people to dig holes will then have to pay wages comparable to what other low skilled jobs are paying. Of course when you increase the purchasing power of the bottom 50% of income earners they have more money to purchase goods and services, leading to more profits, reinvestment, jobs, etc. This is only one of 7 legislative ideas we’re promoting. Our emphasis is on improving income opportunities recognizing that most problems are a product of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money.
(Round Up Gratuity Option and 10 percent tc was the preliminary model for Round Up Service Charge. It was unfeasible as RUGO)
New Exchange
Detonation Pyrotechnics
You don’t vote then don’t bitch. You lose that right when you don’t exercise your most important right.
Orion Simerl @Detonation Pyrotechnics
Public policy is determined by political investment where the difference between candidates has no meaningful impact on my life or the life of others of a similar socioeconomic status. To vote is to legitimize a political narrative that is false, where there is no choice since a candidate must first be selected by money before they can be voted for by the public. I have every right to complain and you have none because you voted for this, legitimized the charade, and I did not.
New Exchange
Ozark1987
Then you have zero right to complain about any policies or laws that enstatite.
Orion Simerl @Ozark1987
I already answered that meat puppet programed response. There’s no significant difference between the two parties and the policies of both parties have no impact on my quality of life. Public policy is determined by political investment, the difference between parties and candidates is which industries interests will be prioritized in public policy. To vote is to legitimize the idea that one party or the other represents my interests or the interests of the public. Why vote when whoever is elected is going to do the same thing as the other candidate? The only thing that changes is the rhetoric and how the interests of industry is packaged and sold to the public as something that benefits them. Furthermore, I have every right to complain because I didn’t vote for this shit, and you did.
Ozark1987 @Orion Simerl
You’re a fool and need to go do some research instead of just drinking the media koolaid. Dumbass
Orion Simerl @Ozark1987
Nothing I’ve said is a position that comes from mainstream media. You strike me as a fox news watcher who also listens to right wing talk radio.
Ozark1987 @Orion Simerl
I don’t watch mainstream media, but keep regurgitating their nonsense and blaming other people for watching mainstream media. Nice deflection
Orion Simerl @Ozark1987
Again you’ve failed to address anything within my comment, only claimed the origins of my comments come from MSM except that recognition that public policy is directed by political investment and both parties represent industrial interests is not a mainstream media point. However, your position that there’s a substantive difference between parties and that voting is important is a mainstream position.
Ozark1987 @Orion Simerl
it’s not a valid point period. There is literally no logic or reasoning that backs that up. Only your emotions.
Orion Simerl @Ozark1987
Really,? Thomas Ferguson papers showing the flow of political money how industries separate their donations between parties and candidates, including companies who support both parties and both candidates in presidential elections.(1) If a company donates money to one candidate because they support this candidates position on policy, why would they also support the other candidate whose policies are supposed to be different? Because it’s an investment. This is how presidential candidates rely on donations of 1000 or more for 90 percent of their itemized donations, with 2/3rds or more coming from donations of 10,000 or more.(2) You cannot be competitive without donations from industry. 90 plus (don’t have notes in front of me I’m at gym) percent of campaign contributions for Congress people come from less than 3/10th of a percent of the population, i.e wealth and industry.(3) 2004 study from Kansas showed that companies who lobbied for the American jobs creation act received 224 for every 1 they spent lobbying.(4) Sunlight foundation found that the 200 most politically active corporations receive about $1000 in subsides, tax credits, grants, and contracts for every 1 dollar they spent on lobbying.(5) Name a bill that doesn’t benefit industry. You know nothing and can’t even put forward an argument or state a fact. Saying my position isn’t valid is an opinion not supported by fact or reason.
1: I’m referencing the papers Party Competition and Industrial Structure in the 2012 Elections: Who’s Really Driving the Taxi to the Dark Side? And “Industrial Structure and Party Competition in the age of Hunger Games: Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election” Ferguson, Joregenson, and Chen. These papers track the flow of money from different companies to candidates. The 2012 analysis was interesting because it showed how in the republican primary how popular candidates could not remain competitive due to lack of funding. Both papers have a tables that categorize contributions by industry and show what percentage of firms within an industry contributed to which presidential candidate. When the percentage totals more than 100% it means some firms donated to both candidates. There was also a paper on the 2020 election I didn’t finish reading because according to the lead author they couldn’t accurately track the money and it took a more traditional political science approach. It put forth ideas about how events like Covid, labor sentiments, among other things influenced voters. My conclusion about why Trump lost in 2020 and won in 2016 was a little simpler. I believe Trump won in 2016 because he received in the neighborhood of 1.3 million votes from Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016 and did not receive these votes in 2020. This combined with the democrats coopting every left leaning grass roots movement to effectively get new voters to the polls is the reason the democrats won in 2020. This isn’t to say Trump can’t win in 2024 because he won’t have the support of Sanders voters. Presidents get credit and fault for whatever is taking place during their presidency and people will contrast their situation under Trump to their situation under Biden and he may win on the strength of that in 2024. Although Desantis would probably be preferred by the republican establishment.
2: Citing same papers from FN1: In 2016 75% of Trump’s campaign was financed by donations exceeding $10,000, and 72% of Clinton’s campaign was financed from donations of at least $10,000. In the 2012 election “almost two thirds of itemized financing” for Obama’s campaign were donations of $10,000 or more, for Romney it was more than 70%, while both candidates relied on donations of over $1000 for “about 90% of their funding”
3: Open Secrets Dollarocracy https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/dollarocracy/04.php “Donations from individuals giving $200 or less make up a fairly small wedge in the fund-raising pie: a little over 10 percent of the money collected by House members and about 15 percent for senators.” The remaining 85 to 90 percent of funds came from less than 3/10s of 1 percent of the population.
4: Raquel Alexander, Susan Scholz, and Stephen Mazza. “Measuring Rates of Return for Lobbying Expenditures: An Empirical Analysis Under the American Jobs Creation Act” University of Kansas, Lawrence. Pg 1 companies who lobbied for a tax holiday provision in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 received “in excess of $220 for every 1 dollar spent.”
5: Fixed Fortunes: Biggest Corporate Political Interests, Spend Billions, Get Trillions. Sunlight Foundation , by Bill Allison and Sarah Harkins, 11/17/14 http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-biggest-corporate-political-interestsspend-billions-get-trillions/ The Sunlight Foundation examined 200 of the most politically active corporations in the United States between 2007 and 2012 and found that during the period these corporations invested 5.8 billion dollars in political spending, and over the same period received 4.4 trillion dollars in federal business support. The report concludes “…the nation’s most politically active corporations for every dollar invested received $760 from the government,…(and some corporations) received 1000 times or more”.
New Exchange
B Weinmann
If you don’t vote you don’t really get to complain
NOTE: This the third person to post the same cliche so I entered the response a little hostile.
Orion Simerl @B Weinmann
Shut your dumb ass up, read the other responses to that meat puppet reply. 3 people with the same cliche statement is evidence of indoctrination. Voting changes what when both choices are the same thing under different rhetorical branding?
11/12/2022
A portion of the previous entry pertained to a poll asking if people voted. I did not vote and I mentioned that one of the reasons was because I didn’t have a permanent address to register to vote from. I was traveling with a company for about 5 months saving money to get myself off the ground living in hotels. Now I have some money saved waiting for the completion of OPLNOW.com website and I’ll be traveling promoting that. It was disingenuous to include that in the explanation, because even if I was operating from a permanent location I wouldn’t vote. I explained the reason I didn’t vote in that exchange. The short answer is the difference between the policy of the democrats and the policy of republicans doesn’t have any significant impact on my life and opportunities or the life and opportunities of most people in this country. Especially not those who could most benefit from a government that was concerned with empowering the underclasses for the benefit of all people.
I didn’t really think of it before this, but OPL gives people who don’t vote because politics doesn’t significantly change their lives, something to vote for. It was created as vehicle to pass legislation, and I did think about how OPL could motivate people to vote who haven’t voted before, just didn’t really think about how widespread that explanation is. Almost half the country doesn’t vote in most elections. 2020 was something of an anomaly as voter turnout is concerned where only 38% of the voting age population didn’t vote.
But what was at stake? What is at stake? Did people go to the polls because they were concerned with women’s rights? What do they think they will accomplish? A constitutional amendment? Do you think 3/4th of state legislatures are going to pass an abortion rights amendment, even if you could put a 2/3rds majority of one party in both houses of congress? It is a legal issue or it is a state issue, so no one voted for women’s rights in this election.
Who voted for action on climate change? What do the democrats do at the federal level about climate change? They give huge amounts of public money to private companies to build renewable energy infrastructure, but not enough to make a significant impact in the reduction of emissions. During the Obama Administration he spent about $300 billion on subsidies for renewable energy. The Biden bill, I think it was the inflation reduction bill or some goofy name like that, spent $300 billion on subsidies for renewable energy. During his first year, I don’t know if it passed or not there were appropriations to finance private research on renewable energy generation, storage, transmission, bio fuels, carbon scrubbing, as well as some other research pertaining to reducing emissions.
This helps reduce emissions? Not significantly enough to avoid a 3 degree C warmer world by the end of the century. The two issues I have is what is being spent and how it is being spent is enough to satisfy industry, but it is not enough to reduce emissions and I don’t believe that public funds should be used to pay for private assets. They would argue that spending $300 billion on subsides purchases more renewable energy than spending $300 billion dollars on renewable energy infrastructure.
I remember during the Obama Administration there was a solar farm being constructed for something in the neighborhood of a billion dollars. I used to use it as an example for Centers for Economic Planning, because the company put up about $400 million, the rest was covered by grants and 0 interest public loans. But as soon as construction was complete they received a rebate, I think it was an advance on a depreciating value tax credit over the life of the infrastructure that was over 400 million dollars. I don’t know if this particular project was successful, I remember hearing about problems with CA solar farms. It may have been one of them I don’t know. But that’s irrelevant to the point. The point is the public put up all the money to build the infrastructure, but NRG would gain possession of it along with the contract to sell the power to Pacific Gas and Electric. Once the infrastructure was complete, the public got a billion dollars of renewable energy infrastructure, for slightly more than a billion dollars.
This approach to incentivize the creation of renewable energy infrastructure actually retards the process. If you are or plan to be in the power generation sector when subsidies expire you’re not going to invest in renewable energy infrastructure, you’re going to wait until there’s a democrat in office who will give you public funds to create it. Renewable energy infrastructure projects are only undertaken when there’s money from the government.
Now it isn’t that I don’t have a renewable energy plan. It just isn’t as thorough as I need it to be to create a petition for it. To make it, I’ll need to retain the assistance of engineers or some other people with specialized knowledge. I’ll explain momentarily. The US government should be spending money on the construction of renewable energy infrastructure annually. Instead of subsidizing the construction, they should be building it and selling it to the utility companies. Bernie Sanders had the right idea to build it and put it under the authority of the Power Marketing Administrations.
If Obama would have spent his $300 billion on renewable energy and put the infrastructure under the authority of the PMAs, the public would have gained an asset and earned profit from the sale of energy. This profit can be reinvested to build more renewable energy infrastructure, and can also be used to subsidize the cost of power to low income people, without spending tax dollars.
Normally, I am not for the public being involved in the market as a producer of goods and services, but power generation, and the implementation of renewable energy is a public necessity. If the public is going to pay for the infrastructure for a service that is a necessity for the public, in that service and in the reduction of emissions, then the public can provide that service, at least in part.
The federal government building infrastructure for renewable energy and selling that energy at a profit to build more infrastructure would do what to the market? It would encourage the private sector to invest more into the creation of renewable energy infrastructure to get in on long term generation before the public.
The reason I need people with specialized knowledge to complete the petition is it has to be supported by a plan for the amount. Say for example we want to spend $150 billion per year on building renewable energy infrastructure to sell to the utility companies who will sell it to the public. I don’t want a petition that is an appropriation of a dollar amount designated for that purpose. I’d rather have a reference to a thorough plan showing what will be built, who will manufacture, deliver, and assemble it. How the power will be transported and stored, and what utility will be purchasing it and an estimation of the annual revenue potential. I have this idea on the back burner, as well as some other petitions I didn’t include in the initial 7. Off topic, but I have an idea similar to round up gratuity to address shortages in hospitality staff. Don’t want to stray too far here but I’ll bring it back up at another time.
Anyway, if you voted for climate change action, you voted to do little more than marginally reduce emissions and use public funds to pay for private assets. As well as slowing investment in renewable energy once the subsidy runs out.
It showed 50% of people believe the economy and job creation was the most important issue. This doesn’t really mean much, with Biden we had an infrastructure bill which doesn’t have a major impact on the economy. Providing states with money to retain private companies to repair public infrastructure. Every spending bill is the appropriation of public funds to private profits directly or indirectly. Policy differences between the democrats and the republicans typically have very little impact on the economy, which is to say for most people there isn’t going to be any more or any less opportunity based on which party has a majority in congress or occupies the white house.
Clinton presided over a period of great economic growth, but had Bob Dole, or H Bush been in office this growth would have still occurred. It was a product of advancements in telecommunications, microprocessors, and other innovation being brought to market that would have occurred no matter who was in office.
If you’re voting to improve the economy you probably suffer from 1 of 2 delusions. That democrats are going to stimulate the economy through spending, or that the republicans are going to lower taxes, and deregulate to increase private investment to create more jobs.
Maybe you voted for college loan forgiveness? I read that it is being blocked at least in a few states by the courts who are ruling that debt forgiveness must come from an act of congress, not an executive order. Most of us are unaffected by partial loan forgiveness, at least on the surface. Some could be affected since we’re essentially using public funds to help an advantaged group. If you have a college education not only do you typically have better income opportunities as far as pay is concerned, but you also have the luxury of working in a field that you chose as opposed to earning a living to survive based on local availability and your skills. I read an article that stated 73% of people polled who anticipated receiving student debt relief were going to use the money they saved to eat out more and travel. Meanwhile you have people who grow up in circumstances where they spend most of their lives within a 10 mile radius. I don’t agree with student debt relief for the same reason I don’t agree with corporate welfare, because if we as a people are going to use our collective resources to help a group it should not be an advantaged group. Either way my life and the lives of most people in this country who do not have student loan debt will be the same either way, since it’s lost revenue not an appropriation.
It could become an appropriation. I know of people who signed up for school to take out loans and would keep the money that was beyond what was required by the school. Then not go to school. I wonder if any of the people who receive loan forgiveness are among those who gamed the system for a quick hand out. If their loans are forgiven will they be able to apply for new loans to do it again? I know a few people who did that but don’t know exactly what it is they did.
If you voted for school loan forgiveness, maybe you’ll get something worthwhile.
11/14/2022
I don’t remember where I saw it, it was either in a news video or I may have read it in my news feed, but there was some interesting information about covid vaccines. There was a study that found about 6 out 100,000 people, primarily males under the age of 24 develop myocarditis after receiving a covid vaccine. Myocarditis is inflammation of the middle muscle in the heart and can cause a heart attack or stroke. When not fatal, myocarditis can lead to permanent damage to the heart.
I’m not against vaccines for people who are older than 65 and/or have a serious medical condition, but it highlights the excited stupidity of the general population that people who are that young are receiving vaccines enmasse. If you’re looking at the last years of your life a covid vaccine is a good idea because anything more than a brisk breeze can kill you, including covid. A vaccine may buy a few months or a few years worth of life. But for people who are younger than 24, you have a higher probability of getting Myocarditis from the vaccine than you have of dying of covid if you happen to become infected.
The data I’m using is from the CDC counting cases, deaths, and deaths with underlying medical conditions from the period of March 2020, to September of 2021. This is the data I gathered while working on the book The Covid -19 Media Project. It’s representative of the viruses characteristics since it is a span of over a year and half. This is also a period before vaccines.
There were 17 million cases among people who are under the age of 39. There were 12 people who died out of 17 million who did not have underlying medical conditions. Which means if you’re a healthy person under the age of 39, you have a better chance of experiencing myocarditis from the vaccine than you have of dying if infected with the virus. 5 (rounding down) out of 100,000, or 1 in 20,000, versus 12 out of 17 million, or 1 in 1.4 million healthy people under the age of 39 will die if infected with the virus. The chances of experiencing myocarditis from the vaccine is 72x greater than a healthy person under the age of 39 dying if infected with covid. The chances of dying from covid versus a young person getting myocarditis from the vaccine is even greater because there’s a good chance the person wouldn’t be infected to have the 1 in 1.4 million chance of dying from covid. There are 158 million people aged 0-39 in the United states. In a year and a half there were 17 million reported cases in the US among people aged 0-39, which means your chances of being infected were only 1 in 9.29. If you’re under 39 your chances of experiencing myocarditis from the vaccine is 668 times greater than your chances of dying from covid if you do not have serious underlying medical conditions.
The media, pharmaceutical companies, essential businesses, and other businesses who benefited from covid in other ways, as well as health officials basking in the spotlight, academics who could bring attention to their work by reinforcing the narrative, politicians who saw it as an opportunity to serve their donor interests and create support for their party, whipped up hysteria and are still riding it to the bank today.
Yesterday I addressed a few main reasons people say they vote, but there is one difference between the parties that could seriously impact people’s quality of life. That’s if there is, or appears to be a new covid variant that could lead to the masks, social distancing, vaccine mandates, among a plethora of other restrictions justified through a false threat to public safety. Of course most of that is on a state by state basis, so it doesn’t apply much to electing federal legislators.
If you were to read back in the previous collection of these entries you will probably find the following in a few entries. The following is an excerpt of the introduction from the book The Covid 19 Media Project. It’s just a table of the numbers through which risk can be assessed, and compared. Bias may not be able to be overcome, since most of the population is motivated by feelings they don’t understand, but the numbers do confirm the fact that for a person without serious underlying medical conditions under the age of 39, the vaccine is a much greater risk than the virus itself.
It also shows that only a few percent of the population could die if infected, which means it was never a threat to public safety. The supreme court ruling Jacobson v. Massachusetts which was the case that established that an infectious disease could be a threat to public safety, the disease was smallpox. Smallpox at its deadliest could kill 30% of the population whereas covid would likely only kill about 1%. This isn’t why covid didn’t qualify as a threat to public safety. It doesn’t qualify as a threat to public safety because covid could kill a few percent of the population but only 1% would die, whereas smallpox could kill 100% of the population but only 30% would die. Smallpox is a threat to public safety because it is randomly deadly and anyone infected could die of the virus, whereas covid “only kills the weakest segments of the population”, and therefore only a few percent of the population could die if infected. That has been and remains the biggest and most implied misconception of the virus, that anyone could die if infected. That’s why young people in this country have experienced myocarditis.
The table below along with analysis of data of the survival rate of the hospitalized with underlying medical conditions support the conclusion that Uros Seljak of Berkeley reached after studying the Italian data: “If you want to know what your chances of dying if infected with covid, it’s about the same as your chances of dying of natural causes in the next year”. The reason we are where we are at economically with the inflation that we have and damage to the world economy, is not because of Covid19, but because of the response to it through the hysteria created among the population. It’s very troubling when a population will not or does not know how to investigate risk for themselves. This isn’t only on the left, but also on the right where most people on the right cannot tell you anything about the data, they will only parrot something they read on dubious website or heard on talk radio. It’s also troubling because covid 19 is called covid 19 because it was discovered in 2019. The coronavirus is always changing with new variations being discovered annually or sometimes multi annually. It wouldn’t be difficult to resell a vaccine resistant covid variant to at least half the population again and induce more hysteria.
September 15th 2021
Total Covid-19 Deaths: 667,000
Age Range Total Deaths(1) Deaths, No Underlying Conditions(2)
0 to 17 Years Old 439 1 (3)
18 to 29 Years Old 3212 3
30 to 39 Years Old 9240 9
40 to 49 Years Old 23,501 94
50 to 64 Years Old(4) 110,689 1340
65 to 74 Years Old 147,568 7525
75 to 84 Years Old 176,763 26,514
85+ Years Old 187,342 54,329
1: CDC Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease Covid-19, Table 1 Data As of 9/15/2021 Accessed 9/16/2021 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
2: Statista “Percentage of People Who Died From Covid-19 in the United States from January 22nd to May 30th 2020, by Presence of Underlying Medical Conditions and age.” The sample size is 40,243 covid-19 deaths for which underlying medical conditions were known which is a large enough sample size to represent the characteristics of the virus between age demographics.
3: The rate provided in the source for the presence of underlying medical conditions is .1 which seems to be the minimum value. If 1 person died in that age range the percentage of people who died with no underlying medical conditions should be .23. It is possible no one in this age group died and the minimum value is .1. Erroring on the side of caution I have assigned 1 death with no underlying medical conditions to this age range.
4: The age groupings align from groupings 0 to 49. After 0 to 49 the provisional death count statistics change to 50 to 64, 65 to 74, 74 to 85 and 85 plus, whereas the percentage of people who died without underlying medical conditions continues in 10 year groupings. The higher the age the more people who die without the presence of underlying medical conditions. To reconcile the unlike age groupings that occur above the age of 50 I used the higher age value of deaths without underlying medical conditions and halved it. In the age group 50 to 64, deaths without presence of underlying medical conditions ages 50 to 59 represented .9% of deaths in that age range. Deaths without underlying medical conditions in people aged 60 to 69 represented 2.4% of deaths. So the value used for the age range 50 to 64 years old is represented by 1.2%. Although the number of people who died without underlying medical conditions who were aged 60 to 64 may exceed 1.2%, for people who are 50 to 59 years old none of those people died at a rate that was above .9%, so this method of reconciliation seems like a fairly accurate compromise. I preferred this estimation to a range, since 2.4% of people in the age range 60 to 69 represents more people aged 65 to 69 than it does 60 to 64, and would have the effect of grossly inflating the number of people who die without underlying medical conditions between the ages of 50 to 59, which make up the majority of the age range 50 to 64.
There were 17,008,087 cases of covid-19 among people aged 0 to 39 and there were 12 deaths among people in that age range infected without an underlying medical condition.(5) The chances of a person who is under 39 years old dying if infected with covid 19 are about 1 in 1.4 million. In the article when I say the healthy population interacting with one another when there were restrictions is a matter of sickness and recovery the numbers support that conclusion. People aged 39 and younger represent 52.2% of the population.
5: Statista Total Number of Cases of Covid-19 in the United States as of September 14th, 2021, by Age Group. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254271/us-total-number-of-covid-cases-by-age-group/
There were 4,714,501 cases of covid-19 among people aged 40 to 49, and there were 94 deaths occurring in this age group among people who did not have underlying medical conditions. A healthy person aged 40 to 49 has a 1 in 50,154 chance of dying if infected with covid-19 or .05% chance of death.
There were 6,291,163 cases of covid among people aged 50 to 64, and there were 1340 deaths among people in that age range without underlying medical conditions. A healthy person aged 50 to 64 has a 1 in 4694 chance of dying if infected with covid.
There were 2,310,603 cases of covid among people aged 65 to 74 and there were 7525 deaths of people without underlying medical conditions in that age group. A healthy person aged 65 to 74 has a 1 in 307 chance of dying if infected with covid 19. Which is to say that even for a person who is 75 years old without underlying medical conditions that chances that they will die are exceedingly slim.
There were 1,176,504 cases of covid among people aged 75 to 84 and there were 26,514 deaths. A healthy person aged 75 to 84 has a 1 in 44 chance of dying if infected with covid, or about 2.5% chance.
Finally, we have people aged over 85 who represent the bulk of people who have died of covid-19 without underlying medical conditions. There were 654,197 cases of covid among people aged over 85, and there were 54,329 deaths, roughly a 1 in 13 chance of death or 8%. People in this age range are at risk of dying of anything due to immunosenescence. As we age our bodies lose the ability to fight off viruses and other infections.
For the general healthy population people aged below 74, which represents 93.1% of the population, the chances of dying from covid-19 are so minimal as to be negligible. For the 4.9% of the population who are over 74 they have a 2% chance of dying if infected, and the 2% of the population who are over 85 years old have an 8% chance of dying if infected, but even this group has an elevated risk of dying from everything.
11/16/2022
Before I talk about a day of canvassing and the complete futility of that endeavor, I want to acknowledge the Illinois right to unionize bill since I’ve seen it in my news feed and heard it on the radio. The short explanation of what it does is to allow people to collective bargain and an amendment to the Illinois constitution to prevent right to work bills. It’s pretty stupid because it doesn’t do anything other than give the Democrats something to market as a progressive change that doesn’t change anything. LOL. I did laugh out loud after writing that because it’s funny. You already had the right to collective bargain and the amendment does nothing because if the majority reverses you can get rid of the amendment. They wouldn’t spend money on the advertising if stupid people wern’t celebrating the victory of nothingness and the progression towards nothing.
As far as unions go I won’t express my personal opinion of unions which is more from a worker’s perspective than a general perspective, from a general perspective I think it’s positive for workers to be able to unionize to grant wage, benefit, and workplace concessions from their employer since a single a employee is at the mercy of the labor market. If people with your skills are working for a certain amount of money in that area no matter how much a company makes, they’re not going to pay more than that. Unions can be effective for some workers to increase their income, benefits, and conditions.
A union cannot always achieve increases. There is a limit to what a company can afford. Where a union fails to get increases, increases can be achieved through other means. Round up gratuity is one of those means.
Today there was a woman who after I explained the beginning of it to her while I was waiting on a manager, said she declined all the round ups for donations at checkout. Had she said she thinks people wouldn’t round up I would have reminded her about the great difference between donating to charity, and providing a small tip for the person who provided you service. Come to find out she didn’t know what I was talking about because she said where does the money go? This was after I explained round up gratuity gives the customer the option to round up and the money is distributed to the workers. LOL. Tell me you didn’t understand it without telling me you didn’t understand it.
First Walmart I went to the manager said she would put it in the break room. Later I went to another Walmart and suggested it to the manager and she said she couldn’t put it in the breakroom. This was just prior to a manager at TJMax refusing to accept the handout on the grounds that she couldn’t do any soliciting. It’s insane to see people so adamantly opposed to their own interests. These were the only three negative experiences but close 12 hours later no one has signed a petition for about 6 hours worth of effort. I would have continued but thought I reached an amount of contact that would allow me to gauge the potential effectiveness of canvasing. Distributing X amount of handouts will produce X amount of pledges.
I anticipate it being a failure as an effective means to attract attention. People are uninterested.
The last handout I gave to a manager at Walgreens raised some concern. She asked if I contacted corporate? In the moment I told her weren’t looking for sponsorship until we collected some signatures. Later I wondered if she asked so she could submit the idea to corporate herself? She seemed to understand what I was saying.
That may raise the question as to why I’m not contacting companies and encouraging them to implement round up gratuity directly? If one company introduces round up gratuity it benefits the workers from 1 brand of stores. It doesn’t produce the benefit to the labor market, and only potentially raises the wages of one store brand of workers. Most importantly it may not be effective at one store, since effectiveness will increase with normalization. On the other side of it, it could create a disadvantage for that store as a potential irritant to customers that would cause some to shop with a competitor. Offering a tax credit to businesses will cause many businesses to implement a program at the same time. On the fast food side of things this isn’t really an issue since they have exclusive rights over their menus. When you want a $5 biggie bag and your total is $5.50, you’re not going to get something else because you don’t want to feel compelled to spend $6. Trying to accomplish this on a store by store basis may make it not beneficial to the company, much less beneficial to the workers, and reduced benefit to the public since one store brand will not have a significant impact on the economy through widespread increased incomes, including outside of high volume transaction industries through the impact on the labor market.
I was also exhausted after the 6 hours which doesn’t make too much sense considering what I was doing wasn’t very labor intensive. In most places other than the gas stations I asked for a manager. Once the manager arrived I introduced myself and the organization, and I explained the Round Up Gratuity Option Tax Credit Legislation. I had a funny confusing moment in the day. I was traveling down 176 and there is a road that branches off. Off of the road that branches off there is a Mc Donalds which is loosely connected with a Walgreens a few stores down. I stopped at the Walgreens and spoke with the manager and since there wasn’t too much activity at the Mc Donalds I stopped at the Mc Donalds to speak with someone there and leave a handout. I pulled out onto the road and knew where 176 was, but I went back the way I came on 176. In doing so I revisited a Walgreens I was already at. I went into the store and went to photos because thankfully there were customers in the front. I looked over the counter and it was a manager I already talked to. I was confused. LOL. I said did I just talk to you at another store? She said no you were just here. Pretty funny. I looked stupid. Didn’t feel stupid but it would have if I wouldn’t have recognized the store associate and asked her to page the manager.
I was venting a little bit after realizing how futile the effort was. Shit always feels hopeless, more or less. When you think you have something that may be able to attract some attention and then you realize it isn’t just ineffective but completely fucking useless you reevaluate what the situation actually is. I live among a population whose truth depends on how something makes them feel, not based on fact, reason, rationale, or consistency. Based on yesterday’s entry, this is a people who can’t do basic math to arrive at a reasonable conclusion about risk. Most importantly, most people don’t really care about anything outside their immediate circle of concern. You have to either reinforce or reference something they already believe or are familiar with to have their attention. The species produces the results it has produced since it began to organize itself, products of tyranny. Tyranny that grows from self deception and drowns out the essential ingredients for intelligence. One essential ingredient to intelligence is honesty, otherwise, a person isn’t thinking about the subject, they’re thinking about how the subject causes them to feel and accept or reject information based on what it means to their values.
I was called an iconoclast. I had to look the word up. I didn’t know what it meant, I don’t think I’ve ever heard it before. A person who attacks cherished beliefs or institutions. Superficially that does describe me, but it only describes me because people’s chosen beliefs including their ideas about institutions are founded on things that are not true. It’s a byproduct of loyalty to the truth in its utility to liberty, and the satisfaction in the idea of justice in the liberation it stands to produce.
11/19/2022
Just a few thoughts about a few things I’ve seen.
I saw an article that the governor of Illinois has provided a billion dollars for citizens including landlords to pay their rent. It’s a good thing if you have the resources to help your population who are unable to house themselves, to house themselves, even though he’s essentially appropriating money to property owners. If this money isn’t appropriated for that purpose, their housing industry loses a billion dollars.
What people fail to realize is it speaks to a more serious issue. The fact that there is an environment where people in Illinois are unable to earn an income that meets their most basic necessities. Pritzer as the Illinois governor has presided over this environment and has not proposed any solutions to improve income opportunities for those who cannot afford to pay their rent. Some of this is probably a product of their covid policies, but it highlights how democrats service the condition of people being poor and impoverished, without providing opportunity for the poor to improve their circumstances. As mentioned, they’re also able to serve donor interests by providing a billion dollars to the real estate investors who rent to the poor, and rental property ownership is typically highly concentrated. Huge investment and management companies who own a large percentage of apartments.
I saw another advertisement for Mayor Lightfoot’s Safer Chicago Plan. Without looking into the details of this plan I assume it must be loaded with ideas to improve income opportunities since the best predictor of criminality including violent crime is the household income a male is born into. We also know that the pre incarceration median income of incarcerated people is about 2/3rds the median income of the general population. If she is attempting to make Chicago safer from crime, this begins with improving income opportunities. Or maybe the plan reverses her increases on vice taxes. Lower income people are the greatest consumers of tobacco products, meaning increasing taxes on tobacco is increasing taxes on the poor.
In another advertisement Lightfoot takes credit for a statistical reduction in homicide and crime. Statistics for political campaigning can be cherry picked by choosing a period of time where a decrease can be observed. 2nd, a reduction in crime and homicide may reflect a national trend and is not necessarily the result of policy changes. COVID lock downs, economic downturns, among other things can have an impact on crime where when these things change there will be a reduction in crime. Most importantly, crime ebbs and flows where periods of high crime and homicide can be followed by reductions often since reported crime leads to arrests and prosecutions reducing the amount of criminals committing crimes in periods following. This is to say a reduction in crime and homicide can either be contrived through selective comparison, or unrelated to the policies of the mayor. Those who support her will watch an ad, parrot the statistics, and give her the credit.
If I was interested I would read the plan and provide a thorough criticism of it, but the investment of time doesn’t serve any positive purposes. These are casual reflections on items that came into my field of attention. Like Pritzer who shares responsibility for residents in his state being unable to afford their rent and requiring a billion dollar allocation, Lightfoot shares responsibility for the issue of safety requiring attention.
As I wrote in the previous entry about the Union Rights Amendment, most proposed solutions are nothing more than campaign promotion tools, and or a means of funneling public funds into private hands. This leads into another article I read that a ballot initiative to add an amendment to prohibit slavery to the state constitutions of Louisanna and Oregon failed to pass. It’s essentially a meaningless gesture since slavery is prohibited at the federal level through 13th amendment. It’s essentially meaningless because no one owns slaves or is trying to own slaves. The reason the amendments didn’t pass is because they could have had consequences in the context of programs for prisoners. In Oregon the amendment could have impacted reform programs for incarcerated people and also stopped state revenue generating practices that presently exist within Oregon Corrections. In Louisiana the amendment they were trying to pass could have expanded the power of the state to use forced labor from corrections.
Rehabilitation of inmates requires the changing of an inmate’s circumstances. I began putting together a petition for the state level to introduce a work program for inmates with less than 3 years remaining on their sentences. Instead I created eligibility for inmates to receive balance stimulus after their release. If an inmate is released back into the same circumstances that led them to criminality to begin with, chances are they engage in criminal behavior again. If they have an opportunity to earn money and can leave with a 5 figure nest egg they have a much better chance of becoming productive members of society. In the absence of a balance stimulus, and in the absence of a work program that offers inmates compensation, a work program especially if it is a work program that allows an inmate to acquire skills in some vocation is better than nothing at all. The inmate will develop productive habits, work ethic, and learn skills that may aid upon his or her release. The programs also help pass the time for the inmates and often include additional perks (In any kind of work capacity incarcerated) In Oregon, the token amendment would have harmed people.
People are signing these bullshit ballot initiatives that don’t do shit, so some group of people trying to reinforce their biases can claim a state constitutional amendment accomplishment. It’s difficult for most people not to sign it, as refusal without explanation implies that you’re for slavery. You’d have to explain that you’re not signing it because you don’t want to validate the dedication of time, energy, and resources to something that has no impact on people’s quality of life. That’s why I wouldn’t sign it.
11/30/2022
While reflecting on the 2022 midterm election results I wondered if people understood? In 2020 there were over 130 congressional elections decided by fewer than 50,000 votes, and probably two dozen decided by less than 15,000 votes, some within a few hundred votes, one district was won by only 6 votes. In 2022 there were over 90 districts decided by less than 40,000 votes, with many being similar to 2020, and many being decided by much less than 40,000 (hundreds, thousands, and ten thousands).
OPL doesn’t need to swing a majority of elections to pass its legislation. In 2022 5 districts swings control of the house, and 2 senate districts change control of the senate. There are 5 districts that could swing with less than 15,000 people voting in these districts for one candidate or the other. That means 75,000 people could have decided control of the house.
To pass legislation we create a voter bloc in each district capable of swinging the election from one party to the other, depending on which party supports our legislation. Eventually we expand it improving the certainty of determining control of the house. Where one election we predict 5, the next we may predict 10, the next it may be 20, and so on and so forth until OPL decides control of the house no matter how the public votes. Where those in secure districts remain secure, and there are not enough contested districts that will go one way to prevent OPL’s desired outcome.
We unite these people through popular legislative ideas aimed at improving income opportunities and other impediments to liberty. And only OPL can do that because it is born out of pure intentions.
This creates other implications. If certain industry who invest more heavily with one party over the other know their interests can be prioritized depending on how one group in this country votes, first, they’re going to support that group to ensure they get the result they want, and second, they’re going to encourage candidates they support in key districts to publicly support the legislation and fight for it’s passage. And if they renege (It’s 3 books lol) we vote for the other party in the next election and swing control of the house. This means The Organization should be able to pass at least one piece of popular legislation every term, where some may be adopted without the need to use the voting bloc on popular support and merit.
I can’t get people to support this, but people afford radio ads to save fucking orangutans. And you wonder why this world is the way it is?
12/8/2022
Interesting how gun control effectiveness has shifted from the metric of gun crime rate, or gun injury rate to gun death rate to serve the interests of those who support gun control. This can be misleading for a few reasons. The first is proficiency in firearms where states with less strict gun control measures tend to have a culture where people are more proficient in the use of firearms leading to more firearm related deaths; whereas states with stricter gun control measures and less proficiency may have more gun crime and injuries and fewer deaths. The second aspect of a higher gun death rate being misleading is conflating self defense with homicide. This goes hand and hand with gun control states potentially having higher gun related crime with lower gun death rates, because the population does not have the means to defend themselves against criminals. Groups promote the metric that supports their position even if the conclusion their promoting is wrong based on the omission of context. It’s also important to note that while gun death rates may be lower in some states that have stricter gun laws, they rank higher in homicide rate than many states that have less strict gunlaws. Which returns us to the point that is the problem that people are killed by guns, sometimes by people in self defense or defense of others, or is the problem that people are being killed? Most importantly, most gun deaths are suicides. Meaning gun death rates being higher are largely the product of people having a greater ease of access to firearms for killing themselves as opposed to people in states with more restrictive laws choosing a different means of suicide. Something that has absolutely no bearing on public safety.
Oregon has narrowly passed a ballot initiative restricting the sale and ownership of firearms. While there are restrictions on the type of firearms that can be owned the state has created a requirement that a person must have a permit to purchase a firearm which seems unconstitutional and should probably be overturned through the courts. A person must demonstrate proficiency in the use of a firearm prior to receiving a permit. A right cannot have a proficiency stipulation attached to it. It would be like if to exercise your freedom of religion you had to have a permit showing proficiency in your stated religious identification for it to be protected. Or if in order to have free speech protected a state requires you to obtain a permit to demonstrate proficiency in articulation or oration.
When I wake up in the morning I drink a pre-workout powder for caffeine mixed with phenibut and then read whatever articles are in my google news feed while I allow the mixture to wake me up and take effect. I saw an article where Starbucks customers were complaining about being given the option to tip. This is somewhat troublesome for efforts to implement the Round Up Gratuity Option Tax Credit. Not that I didn’t know customers could be prejudiced, which is a component of why the tax credit is necessary to gain implementation by nearly all retailers and fast food restaurants to normalize the process and prevent prejudice against individual businesses.
One complaint stated 7 dollars for a coffee, Starbucks makes enough money to pay their employees better. Of course if you can afford 7$ for coffee you can afford an extra dollar to ensure the person providing the service has a decent quality of life. As far as the claim that StarBucks makes enough to pay their employees better wages there are a few things to consider. The average Starbucks location makes about 1.2 million dollars a year in profit, and employs about 20 people. The average location has on average 500 transactions per day. Between customers who do not tip and those who tip more than $1 if the average is customers tip $1.50 per transaction this equals $375 going directly to the employees. Since all 20 employees are unlikely to work each day we’re probably looking at about 12 working during a typical day, with 6 working 4 to 5 hours and 6 working 8 hours. Those working 8 hours would receive 2/3rds of those tips which is $247.50, divided by 6 = $41.25 each or roughly $5 more per hour. The part time employees would receive 127.50 divided 6 = $ 21, divided 4 is again about $5 more per hour. If we call it $400 more per day on labor that Starbucks pays, that’s about $150,000 or over 10% of a store’s profit.
Can Starbucks afford to pay its employees $5 more per hour? Yes and no. When someone makes an investment they are making that investment based on achieving the highest return. In order to make an investment and deal with what comes along with operating the business they’re looking for a certain return on investment. If you can open up a starbucks and anticipate that you’ll earn about a million dollars per year, you may not make that investment if you’re only expecting to make $850,000 per year. Why? Because there are other investments for the same cost and maybe less the headache where you can make over a million dollars per year. This means if Starbucks changes its business model people will take their money out of Starbucks and put it elsewhere. Which means fewer locations and fewer opportunities for people to purchase the service.
Secondly, a company’s profit doesn’t determine the wages it pays. The labor market determines how much a company is going to pay its employees. The labor market is determined by the amount people are willing to work for in an area to do a certain job. We could say the same thing about any business. A guy who is a roofing contractor and makes $10,000 on a roof replacement that takes a week, could probably afford to pay his employees who do the work a portion out of that profit. He isn’t going to do that because that’s the amount of money he wanted to make to facilitate the service, and if he makes less than that he may consider a different line of work where he can make more money on his investment.
Tipping whether through roundup plus, set amounts, or percentages facilitates non-compulsory balance. There are many people in this country who can afford to add onto their purchases to increase the quality of life for people working jobs that do not pay very well. Those who cannot afford it do not have to, and those who can are able to increase the income of those less fortunate than they are. This increased income allows those who earn lower income to spend more which benefits everybody in the additional products and services they are able to purchase, as well as in the money they can save to apply towards some income enhancing endeavor in the future which produces the same aforementioned economic benefits.
As mentioned in the RUGOTC outline, as people in these high volume transaction industries earn more through round up and tipping, it changes the labor market, because companies in industries whose employees do not receive tips are competing for unskilled workers with tipped employee industries. This means they have to offer higher wages to attract unskilled talent. It also means that skilled workers have to be paid more as unskilled workers earn more. No company is going to pay more than is demanded from labor to perform a particular job. This is why RUGO and other tipping programs are necessary to increase wages as a way to change the labor market for low wage workers.
From an existential moral standpoint it provides more opportunities to confirm that people are pieces of shit. Something evident by complaints from customers for being given the option to tip. With more opportunities offered to well off people, the more opportunities they have to confirm that they’re content with maintaining and advancing their advantages over others. Interestingly enough, most disadvantaged people would do the same if they were in more advantageous circumstances.
12/9/2022
You can either watch the video otherwise the relevant content is laid out in my comment. Joe Rogan was interviewing a beekeeper who was using the appearance as a platform to draw attention to what she presented as issues for bees, but the issues she mentions do not have any consequences attached to them. Her presentation included bees facing destruction of habitat, die from pesticides, and essentially have a poor diet because they’re being used to pollinate mono-cultures. She mentions that there are an abundance of thriving beekeepers who ship bees around the country to pollinate these mono cultures. Which means they’re not dying from consuming pesticide sprayed crops in numbers large enough to make bee keeping unprofitable, she mentions no consequence of their poor diet other than it’s not natural (referring to synthetic pollen substitutes), and again we can infer that if they were unproductive due to a poor diet or were dying in mass due to a poor diet that beekeeping would be unprofitable and wouldn’t be a growing industry. I looked through the comments and a majority had expressed the importance of helping the bees. I responded with the following to a person who said exactly that.
Joe Rogan Bees Go Extinct So Will Everything on the Planet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF-3hBv0umo)
Bonnie Wingard
Thank God someone recognized..we need to help the bees
Orion Simerl
Why do we need to help the bees because they don’t have a wide enough variety in their diet? If there was a problem with the bees there wouldn’t be this thriving beekeeping industry. Where do we need bees? They can be sent there. It’s amazing that people cannot take the information and separate it from the lens that it’s being presented through. If there is a market for bees there will always be bees. Nothing she said is of any consequence. She said that bees die from pesticide use, but, if there is a thriving beekeeping industry they’re not dying in numbers large enough to either not be reproduced for the following season, or enough to make bee keeping unprofitable. She mentions their diets but can’t state what the consequence of that diet is. We can go back to the previous point, that if the diet of the bee affected its ability to pollinate crops, or caused the bees to die in large numbers beekeeping wouldn’t remain profitable and there wouldn’t be so many beekeepers. She could have come on and talked about how mono cultures have created a thriving beekeeping industry that serves as the livelihood of so many people. Places where bees are dying off may be a new market creating openings for more people who like caring for bees to earn a living doing it. Instead she has an irrational attachment to an insect and used her appearance on the Joe Rogan show to present a problem that isn’t a problem and people lack the critical thinking skills to separate the information from the lens.
12/10/2022
Content Withheld
This entry was an update to content that is obsolete. Modifications to RUGO, which has become RUSC.
12/17/2022
I’m someone who has been to many places for an impressionable amount of time at each location. By impressionable I mean a month or more, where an accumulation of experience serves as the basis for feelings associated with a particular location as an object. I was thinking about this because I’ve considered going to Vegas because it’s in the center of 3 contested districts but have felt apprehensive. Some of this apprehension is it being on the west coast and some of the prevailing stupidity that exists out there, but I think some it is a product of my experiences out there, and the difficulty of my circumstances during that time.
When I think about Texas, I have a positive opinion of the place. Some of this is due to the general courtesy of people in that place, but outside of that and maybe some positive experiences working or with co-workers (there are negative exp. as well) my general circumstances were pretty good. Making money and not having to worry about housing. There was the underlying not having time element of it, but that feeling was drown out by the feeling that earning money was progress towards my grander ambition where I am now. The point being is, my opinion of Texas is a product of my experiences and circumstances generally being better in Texas than they were in most other places.
Vegas was rough circumstantially, and the roommates I had, especially the second situation became a source of near daily agitation. I was able to save enough money to buy a car, then fix the car enough to leave with less than $1000. My first week out there and I believe I wrote about it in a journal entry from around that time, I was almost scammed out of I think $170 or more. I worked with a guy and he paid me for the day and said he only paid daily for the first 2 days. I figured he would probably agree to pay daily after that since he made it about people not coming to work and I would clearly come to work everyday.
On the second day he asked if I needed some money and I told him I needed the money for the hours I worked that day. He said he told me he couldn’t pay me every day, but I reminded him that he said he would pay daily on the first 2 days. He paid me and we were supposed to work the following day. I called him at 730 and he didn’t pick up. I got a hold of him sometime around 8 and he said we’re probably not going to work. I spoke to him later in the day to see when the work would resume and he said he couldn’t tell me. I never heard from him again. Seems likely he intended to have me work on draws of what he agreed to pay me, or nothing at all until “pay day”, and then when payday comes I don’t hear from him and he’s stole $600 or more of labor from me.
Outside of that it was hard to find work out there. I was there when Vegas was still in pandemic mode, and since it’s west coast and I believe had a democrat as a mayor and or governor, it was very restrictive and the casinos were only allowed to operate at ¼ capacity. Presumably there was less work and more people competing for what little work there was.
The first place I stayed I think they intended to keep my money I paid for the room and kick me out. In fact she subtlety tried to. There was a gate around the apartment and I could not get the key copied. I took it to a locksmith who told me that they needed permission to copy that kind of key from the property owners. When I say gated the gates are between pieces of the apartment building, probably about 9 feet high.
We established that I would call her when I needed the gate opened. I get back to the apartment probably 9pm, probably first day I worked, possibly second or third day there. I call her repeatedly and she doesn’t pick up. I had to go to the main gate where it is open at the top and climb over the gate to get to the apartment. I had a key to the apartment but not to the gate. When I entered the apartment I knocked on her bedroom door and her boyfriend said she was sleeping. There were other instances after this where she was in the apartment and I had to climb the gate. There probably would have been more if not for me and others propping open the gate.
After a while they were doing things on the periphery. Things that seemed intended to agitate me but could also just be things they were doing, where if I address them, there’s plausible deniability of intent, and I look like I’m trying to cause problems. I also wasn’t in a position to be kicked out, where if I reacted to something she could call the police and have me kicked out.
Eventually the sum of those things and another incident culminated in my departure. It was 2 days before I was moving out and I thought I already had a place. It was very cold in the morning and they left the door open as they walked out. Even with this there was some deniability of the intention because sometimes I would leave the door open. I slammed the door and they came back.
She said they left it open because sometimes I leave the door open. The difference is I open the door when it’s 60 to 70 degrees outside, not when it’s 40. She tried to kick me out but I said I’m not leaving. Her boyfriend said it could be me and him instead of me and her. I was happy to oblige him because of what they were doing, and I can hit him, I can’t hit her. He went in the room and grabbed a pistol and said he doesn’t play the same way I play. I told him if he was going to shoot to shoot. This wasn’t the first time I’ve had a pistol pulled on me. As a man, if I’m going to get shot I’m going to get shot, and I may not do what I was going to do, but you’re not going to make me do something because you have a gun. She deescalated the situation and we agreed it would be cool and I would be out on my move out date.
They left and came back and it was awkward. I went to look at another place and it was cheaper than the place I thought I was going to get and available that day. I decided to move in that day.
This was not a good situation either. To get attention, the woman would try to create sympathy for herself by playing the victim to people around her. If you were doing what she wanted you to do she would be very sweet to you, and you become the one that she talked about others to. If you didn’t, she was harassing, sought nearly every opportunity to make your life hard, and you would have to listen to her talk shit about you to her brother when he came by and people on the phone. A lot of the shit was falsely presented and there was no explanation for it.
I remember her telling her mom that she felt like a prisoner in her own home, she can’t stand to be around me, and it was crazy, because I stopped interacting with her altogether. I would come in the house after work, go to my room, and be quiet with maybe the exception of an occasional laugh. Before she found out that I paid rent for a room, not rent for a room, caregiver, and activity partner accommodation, it was the same thing about her brother, although her brother probably did take advantage of her, but he did do things for her. He strangely earned what he gets from her, it’s almost less the value of the things he did for her, and more the value she had of his attention. An exchange of his attention and the things he did for the money he was able to extract from her.
The house was disgusting but I didn’t really notice it in the snap decision I made. Roaches all over the place. I kept the light on in my room to keep them away. I cooked but the taste of the food was always tainted by the awareness of the surroundings, where it was stored and prepared. I stopped cooking, maybe a week to 10 days into my stay.
When I first got there I did all the dishes, and rewashed some of them that were still dirty. After I stopped cooking in the kitchen she would talk about how I don’t help with the dishes or help clean, but I was only in my room, used the bathroom and took showers but always cleaned up after myself. Speaking of which, to spite me she left shit on the seat so I would have to clean it up. Little did she know I was willing to shit at the gym to spite her efforts. She had the audacity while talking on the phone to say the tenant will clean up the yard and rake the leaves. Something that I may have done had she not become so vindictive about me not participating in things with her, like meal planning, cooking for her, watching TV with her, listening to her stories, and being willing to do things for her all the time at a moment’s notice. These are expectations you have to bring up in the beginning when money is changing hands. Would have also been nice to be given a heads-up that you have a serious roach infestation before I move in. If these were the expectations I would have tried to find something somewhere else. I think she said it on the phone to see if I’d do it because by that time she was already on a vindictive streak and I just shut myself off to her. Few word answers to questions, in my room or in or out the door and that was it. Even when she became intent on making my life difficult, I still took the garbage out for her and brought the bins from the house to the curb on garbage day because this was something I agreed to when I moved in.
She would stomp past my door. There was a time when it was close to or after midnight and I had to be up for work at 5:30am to take a 2 hour bus ride to be there by 8, and she knocked on my door and asked if I wanted pizza rolls or something like that. I said no I want to sleep, that I have to be up early. She told me I had to use the back door to come in and out after being there for about 10 days or more. It was solely an effort to inconvenience me and try to provoke a response. She preferred conflict to the absence of interaction.
Funny, but one night I came back from work and she had all the lights off in the living room. As I make my way to the hallway she had a towel or something like that in front of this fake plant at the center of the hallway. I bumped into the plant blocking the mouth of the hallway, I may have moved it and walked around it after bumping into it. Then I turned on the light and it looked like a very poorly thought out trap. Like I was going to run into the plant, slip on the towel and hurt myself. It was very funny to me, had all the components of a home alone scene.
The point being, my circumstances in Vegas were difficult, 2 hour commute to go to work, usually about an hour on the bus to and from the gym, going to Walmart would take 3 hours, and then I had the constant poking from the people I rented from and all those experiences serve as the basis for the underlying feeling I have about the place.
While I think I should start a campaign there, the feelings from my experiences cause me to not want to start there.
The day before I left the hotel yesterday I thought about how unique of a situation it is to leave somewhere and have nowhere to go. That’s a problem very few people in this country ever experience.
I’ve written about my isolation previously. It’s largely the effect of individual development. I haven’t wronged people to cause them to not want to associate with me. I’ve written about this before, but the point is, when you go through a great degree of personal development and learning by yourself no one else goes there with you. People think you’re crazy because they don’t understand you, and they don’t understand you because they’re not interested in the things you’ve become interested in. Not to mention they’re operating out of popular misconceptions about life that they want to keep intact to preserve their values, or the feelings that they get from doing what they do. It’s like Dewey observed, unless a person likes what the group likes and behaves how they behave he is out of the group. Those are not the exact words or the full explanation but that is the idea.
I have a little bit of money and I have a transformative idea and transformative medium of achieving that idea, and understand how numerous interests could benefit from the execution of the idea and the mechanism, which will pave the way for other transformative ideas. It’s so difficult operating out of these circumstances. I have the Field Operations plan pretty much completed which outlines strategy including most of the specifics. I completed creating an academic submission of RUSC to see if economists will do the research to better gauge the anticipated impact. There’s a publication that seems sort of pseudo academic, features academic papers but isn’t an academic journal. I’d rather submit it to an academic journal because the idea is novel and is more likely to lead to the research I’m looking for. At the same time it can take months to find out if it will even be reviewed, whereas all I really need is for it to be published and for economists to be able to cite it to do the research. I should probably submit it to the publication I’m considering.
I have a problem in knowing who and how to contact industry and politicians. I’ve considered calling corporate offices and pitching until I reach the right person. I’ve also considered contacting politicians through their contact forms where hopefully whoever reads the contact would forward it to the representative. I tried calling the national committee but no one picks up.
I thought about contacting lobbying firms in the hope of gaining contacts or facilitating communication with their clients. Other than Pepsi who owns a significant amount of fast food franchises, I’m not sure if RUSC will have a very strong impact on the interests of their clients. Or, I don’t know if the industry (retail)fastfood) is represented through large lobbying firms, since the industry doesn’t seem to have interests at stake as it relates to public policy at the federal level. Yet even if they do not, some of their clients definitely have an interest in one party controlling the house over the other. To represent that interest the firm may want to see if a party supported OPL legislation, and if they did, to make their clients aware of efforts to elect that party. It’s a pretty cheap investment in gaining the desired outcome.
I’m also thinking about how some of these efforts could adversely impact what I’m trying to do. It seems everything is something that has to have something else done first, but to do that thing the other thing has to be done first. I feel like I’ve spent a bunch of money and haven’t done anything. Of course I recognize that there are a lot of things that needed to be thought out during this time I haven’t done anything. I have done things, and even today where I’ve felt unproductive I finished the academic submission that may need to be revised for the publication that I have in mind. It’s the difficulty of the circumstances and knowing that I need funding to finance a solid operations campaign.
I plan on submitting this paper and then making a list of local news outlets, even lesser known local papers but in contested districts and sending a press release summarizing OPL and RUSC. I already wrote the summary. I just need to make the list.
On the subject of figuring things out I think RUGO has only been RUSC for a few days, where RUSC is significantly better in essentially guarenting what RUGO would potentially do, and creating additional benefits in the RUSC form. Missing the evolution of that proposal would have been a great setback. I was already considering it becoming something like RUSC, where either through the state legislature on a state by state basis, or through labor pushing company policy the gratuity option would become the service charge.
I’m plugging away in a sense but not very efficiently. And the lack of efficiency is killing my confidence and sapping my motivation producing greater inefficiency. Not to mention my motivation already suffers from years of the human propensity to ignore and reject without reason or explanation. Not my motivation as far as the general goals are concerned but my motivation to work on specific tasks. To do something requires the prospect of a positive feeling, that either comes innately through the task or where accomplishing the task is perceived as progress towards some goal. There’s a positive feeling associated with progressing efforts. But over the course of years of having those efforts ignored or rejected without reason or explanation, subconsciously these acts are perceived as leading to that end, and you lose the anticipation (subconsciously) of the act producing the positive feelings. It makes it harder to get work done. In procrastination, you become acutely aware of your present circumstances and the stress from that causes you to seek stimulation to relieve that stress which further distracts you from getting done what you need to get done. And you’re bleeding money all the while.
I’m in a very rough spot.
12/25/2022
I do anticipate some backlash to OPLs strategy to those who are so unaware as to not understand how this country’s political system functions. The criticism being that motivating people who otherwise wouldn’t vote to vote for legislation that advances their interests which changes the outcome of an election is a subversion of democracy. On the state level there are some consequential differences, but at the federal level the difference in public policy between democrats and republicans is much less meaningful than accomplishing OPL legislation. Since the districts we focus on are contested, the majority that may be offended by a largely irrelevant outcome is not much larger than the minority who voted for the OPL selected winner. Public policy is decided by industry and other special interests so long as the non-industrial interest does not impact an industrial interest invested in the majority party. The difference between democrats and republicans is which industries interests will be prioritized in public policy based on how industries invest in the parties, and this difference doesn’t have much of an impact on the lives and opportunities of citizens, despite the sharp contrast in rhetoric and position on issues made to seem important to keep the public engaged in the soap opera.
One difference for former college students was the prospect of partial loan forgiveness. This was a good move by democrats to capitalize on the popularity of the idea among that student debt holding demographic. Credit to Bernie Sanders, but also the blame to Bernie Sanders. More so the blame to college students and former college students who proved that they are exactly like the industrial interests that many of them claim to be opposed to influencing politics.
They voted with their interests, to take priority over disadvantaged people in this country, and there are a good many people who are comparatively disadvantaged to people who have student debt. These are advantaged people essentially receiving government assistance. The foundation of happiness is built with one of 2 materials. The first being an income opportunity that allows the person to have time and money. The 2nd is an income opportunity performing work they enjoy doing that is adequate to provide basic comforts. People with college degrees typically stand to make more money than those who do not, and they’ve also positioned themselves to do work they enjoy doing. They’re greatly advantaged over the bottom 50% of income earners who earn less than $38,000, more so over the 22% earning less than $18,000 per year, in better opportunities for income, and performing work they’ve chosen. These people used their votes to take something from the government for their own interests, deprioritizing the poor, whereas industry provides funds to campaigns to encourage people to vote as they prioritize their interests above the interests of the public. Either way, it’s advantaged parties prioritizing their interests over the interests of the disadvantaged, demonstrating that debt relief voters are the same as industry when an opportunity arises to prioritize their interests over the interests of others.
I mention this for those who contend that there are significant differences in parties on the federal level for people. In this case the democrats offered something to a group and they took it, although it still hasn’t been completely fulfilled, but the lives of poor people in this country, their circumstances and opportunity remain unchanged. More importantly, this was an executive action not an act of congress. The same as the vaccine mandates which is actually a significant difference between parties for a limited period of time under the Biden administration, but the makeup of congress had no impact on that policy.
As far as budgets and bills that were passed these were passed with bipartisan support. Legislation is a product of each congressperson inserting something for the industries they represent into bills. Many industries invest in both parties. The point being, OPL isn’t subverting democracy by using non-voter margins to decide house seats and possibly deciding which party will control the house. OPL is giving the non-voting margins something to vote for and using this leverage to accomplish legislation that will meaningfully improve the lives of people in this country from the bottom to the top. Otherwise, you have two groups of people who are voting for candidates because they like the things they say and public policy has little impact on the lives of the public.
—
I exchanged a few messages with a woman on a dating app. She said I intrigued her. I asked why to gain insight into how she perceived me based on my profile. She provided an explanation that was essentially a mirror of my about me section. I thanked her for her insight and then she sent me a reply saying that she saw me as the whole picture because she was an empath. Initially I wasn’t going to respond since we’re on the app for different reasons, but I was bothered by it. I wrote a response and didn’t send it. I didn’t send it because I don’t believe she would have got anything out of it, and she’s looking for someone to be a fixture in her fantasy and I’m not interested in being that.
Unsent Reply
The big picture? I’m not trying to be condescending, but the picture people see can be no bigger than the frame it’s seen through. Symbolically, within the frame fits what people will accept as being true because that frame or perspective is required for their joy. Outside of it there are the things they can’t see because it challenges their invested perspective. Invested meaning their values (what causes them to feel good) rely on life being what they think it is.
The big picture of me is, in my late 20s I asked why I was as I was and the world is as it is. Answering those questions through objective study provided me with the causes of the problems which led to the development of solutions. Long story short, once the light is on, you can’t shut it off, re-insulate yourself with false ideas and content yourself with frivolous entertainment. It’s like if you woke up everyday and you had a sink full of dirty dishes, you would do the dishes, not go about your life never looking at the sink. And once you know they’re there, you can’t stop knowing that.
I liken my situation to the whole house being overloaded with garbage and I can’t wade through it like it isn’t there. My life is dedicated to addressing the garbage because I’m not content wading through it. I mention this because it’s the long explanation that we’re looking for different things on here. My quality of life has a very low ceiling based on the general stupidity that is prolific among this species.
One of many things faulty about modern psychology is the labeling of tendency. It provides opportunities for identity, and those seeking identity will attach the label to themselves through selective analysis of their experiences, and then they’ll consciously try to create evidence that the label is accurate. Similar to astrology. A person can respond differently to the same thing depending on their general circumstances and mood. In one situation they meet the criteria of one personality type and in the other they represent something different. It’s a lot of bullshit for the illusion of believing you understand something about yourself or someone else. But those who play usually play together, so if you keep company with people who subscribe to it you’ll all help it land and seem real. Same as people who believe in astrology will frequently cite behavior being a product of their sign, personality type people will point to their personality type as to why they’ve engaged in some behavior and it’s equally ridiculous.
—
I was probably most irritated by her saying that she saw me as the whole picture which to me was extremely arrogant, condescending, and inaccurate. 1st because the only information she had about me was what was listed on my profile and two brief messages. She could have read information on my websites but she clearly didn’t given her response to the question of why I intrigue her. To see me as the whole picture requires a perspective capable of understanding the whole picture which as far as I can see doesn’t exist on this planet. They try to reduce you to something that fits within their frame while failing to realize there is so much more beyond the borders of their perspective.
—
I sent a press release to 30 media outlets of varying size about RUSC. I only sent 30 because of the timing being the week before Christmas but I wanted to do something. This week I’m preparing to contact the economics department of colleges, contact businesses, and then pay to put my press release on the wire first week after new years. I’m also going to secure a venue and try to hold a focus group. I need something to pan out to motivate me.
12/26/2022
I was on my way to begin the Vegas campaign and I was listening to talk radio. I don’t remember all the points of the woman’s book, but she was making connections about the normalization of radical leftism through higher education, which seems pretty accurate, but instead of doing something substantive, like showing radical professors, the number of students they taught, and how many of them went on to become professors or researchers, she turns her observations into Marxist conspiracy parallels which is something I will return to.
She went on to talk about how all the money going to nonprofits to influence culture is from the left when there used to be more coming from the right. She was essentially pleading for conservatives to spend money on cultural influencing. What she fails to understand is that conservatives cannot influence culture with their values because they’re based on false ideas.
God, country, and family. The problem is your god isn’t real, it’s an inconsistent deity, based on a deity who rewarded obedience and commanded murder and theft. Then became another deity who teaches submission to tyranny. Of those who claim to follow the deity they take the forgiveness part and then project their values onto the deity making the deity a better version of their own reflection. A hypocrite deity, who tells you to love your neighbor as you love yourself but doesn’t love you as he loves himself; since he claims to have created you to be his servant or to be tortured, which isn’t an existence he would want for himself. More importantly we can tell from his absence that the creator’s morality is liberty, since he doesn’t impose on his creation.
One of my biggest issues with Christianity is the idea that what happens on this planet takes place based on the preference of some tyrant deity. He blesses and punishes, which insults those who begin or end up in circumstances that exist by way of the people on this planet. It’s a failure to acknowledge reality and is harmful to communication. The deity itself is inconsistent with liberty, forbidding that which does not impose, commanding that which does impose, and facilitating the ease through which tyranny can take place. The deity was created by man whose understanding is rooted in tyranny. As far as broadening and deepening traditional Christian values into the American culture there are too many people who know enough that your deity is not the creator and his teachings are not ideal. The other portion of people who won’t be influenced are those that I’ve mentioned, who take the forgiveness, and then the deity is a genie and is the best version of their values.
As far as nationalism is concerned, you can’t tell people how great the country is when they’re waking up in hell everyday. The country is not great for them, and no matter how many smiling faces you have telling them freedom, opportunity, prosperity, etc, it doesn’t change their circumstances, or what they’ve endured that led them to those circumstances. This will not resonate with a lot of people in this country.
As far as family is concerned as a cultural value in most cases it is, but it cannot always be prioritized because of circumstances. Not to mention that many who come from families who begin in difficult circumstances often have and develop different relationships with their families.
I think those 3 things christian family nationalism properly summarize the cultural identity of conservatism in America. The point is, unless the conservatives acknowledge their BS, they’re going to continue to lose ground in this country to the leftist BS which in many ways is worse than their own.
The second guy was promoting a book or study that was making parallels to LGBT promotion to Marxism. There was something interesting he quoted from what he termed as the first book of queer studies. It’s interesting to me because I stated something similar about dissent for a brief period where I was a member of a political activist group by that name. I stated that the goal of dissent is for dissent to become the orthodoxy, but of course I meant this in the context where the dissenting conclusion is the correct one, and the orthodoxy is incorrect. He stated that the idea from the book was that being queer had to be normalized but also that which was normal had to be marginalized. Then he compared this idea to Marxism. Whether there is a basis for comparison is irrelevant. You have the quote from the book and you have the results and the effort which is much more important.
The woman from the previous segment commented that Marxists realized they would never achieve what they wanted in government controlled means of production, so they attacked the institutions with the garbage that we have today. But, Marxism is an idea on production and distribution, if you take that away you no longer have Marxism, you’re left with just the baseless assertions of race, gender, and sexuality as a source of disadvantage, the promotion of false ideas about gender and the promotion of LGBT sexuality, attacks on free speech, and the effort to deny the existence of truth. They run a meritless cold war campaign to their brainwashed audience that Marxists are taking over the country, and whether they’re Marxists or not, the problem isn’t Marxism which they admit is essentially dead, the problem is what you’re saying Marxists are responsible for.
My issue with LGBT promotion is the potential harm it causes to children. They’re being introduced to concepts that are not true that will influence them to make decisions that will alter the course of their life and development. It’s not true that some people are boys in girls’ bodies and some people are girls in boys’ bodies. Same sex sexual attraction develops (there’s no genetic basis for sexuality, but I’m not saying that sexuality is a choice I’m saying the attraction develops), and some people adopt values that are consistent with the opposite sex. There’s nothing wrong with a person expressing those values. But when these concepts are falsely expressed to children for some they can and will latch onto the concept and apply a label to themselves for the attention, identity, and social benefits. As far as a person looking how they want to look, dressing how they want to dress, talking how they want to talk and what gender they want to have sex with I don’t have a problem with that, and there are very few people who do.
I do have an idea for a proposal but it would probably be at the state level for a proposal which defeats the purpose of it since states that allow radical sex ed and gender studies into the curriculum of young impressionable students probably wouldn’t pass it. The legislation would be for equal time to address what’s being taught. Where whatever is in the curriculum can be addressed and has to be taught with the opposing argument. The problem is any state that would pass it is a state that probably isn’t teaching it, and any state teaching it probably wouldn’t pass it. Then again, it may be enough of an incentive to encourage people who typically don’t vote to vote in state representatives who would support the legislation. Of course if you’re going to vote for a candidate to pass this legislation the same candidate could probably have it removed from the curriculum. I haven’t looked into where these things come from and who is responsible for what it taught to children.
12/28/2022
New area, did not plan very well for being here, my car is starting to run rough, and I was experimenting with Kratom to see how it affects my performance. I was abnormally bitter and becoming despondent. Maybe not despondent, but the anticipation of failure, the consideration of too many ifs in the wrong direction. Scenarios imagined produce some degree of the anticipated feelings. Since your feelings influence the production of thoughts you continue to spiral until you have a solution, greater certainty of the desired outcome, or acceptance of the undesired outcome. Reaching one of those destinations is the positive feelings that motivates the production of negative thoughts that have negative feelings attached to them.
I called Holly and off loaded some of that shit. I was whiney. My whiney isn’t the same whiney as you conceive it to be, there’s no whine in it, just the word I use to describe when when I’m venting negative shit.
Some of it I think was the Kratom or the need to take more. It played some role in the amplification of negative feelings, and increased focus on something that is seemingly impending, but still too far out to be concerned with. Although if my car goes suddenly and I can’t fix it, this does significantly change my circumstances. The point being is, my actual circumstances didn’t warrant those unproductive thoughts and feelings.
I was mildly embarrassed about this morning. Enough to text Holly when I was at the gym (near the end of my workout when I have maximum endorphin release), that I apologize for calling her with that soft shit.
She said it wasn’t soft, that everybody has those days. Maybe, but I don’t like the way it feels. While this may be interpreted as a value of toughness, it’s actually a competitive value. Not in competition with the general population, more with the circumstances themselves. Ultimately, it’s a matter of self worth, where responding to my circumstances like that, is behavior that I don’t value.
I had a few thought provoking encounters. I began backing out of Del Taco and noticed a car and stopped. I waited and when he drove past he looked like he was giving me a dirty look like I fucked up when I stopped about a foot after I began to reverse and was able to see him. I was upset about that and said as much. He went past me and had to make a u turn and I had to make a left which put him in my line of sight, so I drove past looking at him pissed off, and he wasn’t looking in my direction. That made me wonder if he was even trying to do that to begin with.
After Del Taco I went to Walmart. This woman’s grown or nearly grown child asked if I could do something for his mom. I checked my wallet. Didn’t remember if I had any cash on me and I had a 5 and a 1. I don’t have the income at the moment to be throwing 5s out there, but I put a dollar on their mission since it’s unlikely that $1 will be the difference between getting more money and not missing it, and not getting more money. No likely consequence and value of the feeling of helping out, is greater than what I could purchase for the dollar at that time. I’m recording these things just because it seems like a good opportunity to apply Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison.
When I came back out they were still in the same spot. He asked me about my protein powder. When I left I told them to have a good afternoon, and along with a few other exchanges the woman probably said God bless you about 3x. I thought about it later. Feeling like I should have addressed that superstition, and recognizing why I didn’t. Her saying God bless you is perceived as an effort of her hoping good things for you in that setting. In a casual moment, it feels better to give her that than it does to launch into an objective morality lecture and the moral inconsistencies of the Christian deity.
It is a problem. The idea that God decides who is blessed and who is cursed because under such a perception, she can never truly understand that her circumstances and my circumstances are largely a byproduct of the decisions of all the people on this planet. There is no magic, and you can’t understand reality until you acknowledge how it takes place. This has enormous consequences for communication, the establishment of fact, problem solving, and a number of other things that contribute to negative results.
When I left Walmart I was in the middle lane and I pulled out pretty far waiting to make a left turn. This guy pulled up on the side of me looking frustrated because he couldn’t see if cars were coming to make a right hand turn. I probably would have been upset too but I’m not backing up. I did watch for the cars and turned to him when he could go.
I received a callback from UNLV. I was driving to the gym and didn’t want to get into a focused conversation while I was trying to follow my GPS. When I arrived at the gym I found a voice message with a person to email RUSC to. I sent that out today. I realized there was a lot to take out, and I must have written some of it without internet because when I copied it from the file there were numerous spelling errors in the last few paragraphs. Obviously I edited what I sent to the UNLV contact, but I already submitted this file to The Independent Institute, so I sent a file that had irrelevant information in it, and spelling errors lol. I was going to edit and resubmit it, but wrote this journal entry instead. The content is solid enough to where if it’s understood they should still express interest and if they do I’ll send them a better version.
I made a press release list of 25 newspapers or newspaper contacts but since I’m on west coast time and didn’t have them ready to send until about 1:15, I decided to wait until the morning to send them. My email I attached to the 30 I sent out last week was very weak. The press release itself is solid, but I followed a PR email template and think that may have impacted the effectiveness of the solicitation. The timing was too, only a few days before Christmas. I knew that and sent them anyway because it was something to do. I should probably call when I have the option before sending the press release, if nothing else at least to get the right person.
I plan on looking at an office space tomorrow. I looked at some yesterday, but the one available at that location for $349 is too small, and I don’t really want to pay $695 for a large office, and even if I did, the large offices are not available until the 15th or 20th.
Otherwise I’ll rent a conference room for 2 hours, but I want to have a focus group by the end of next week, or the beginning of the following week. I just hope I can attract participation for $25 for an hour.
We’ll find out.
12/30/2022
Did not do much today, completed hand out for RUSC solicitations and later I will probably finish the focus group questions. I decided not to rent the office space for a few different reason. 1st I don’t know if I can attract focus group participants. The lease requires that I give 30 days notice to have my security deposit returned, so I could end up paying two months rent for a 2 week stay.
I also contacted a venue about renting a conference room for a day. On Monday I plan on going to stores and fast food restaurants, leaving a handout, and trying to get contact information for the owner. I did this in the 14th district in IL, which was decided by 19,000 votes in 2022 and 5,000 votes in the two prior elections. This was under a more primitive version of the plan, and the results were not good. The plan and approach are different this time around and should yield different results. But, they might not, and if not I don’t want to stick myself with a big bill to find that out.
I always think about the suspicion. Most people will perceive a person not as bringing good news that there is a very real chance of them making life changing money ($5 to $15 more per hour), they think what does this guy stand to gain by doing what he’s doing?
The motivation is rooted in addressing tyranny. There are certainly other aspects of it I could address but cannot be addressed without changing people’s circumstances. Most human problems are a product of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money. Creating better opportunities, especially for children as a higher household income creates an environment more conducive to productive interests and habits and the development of intelligence. For me, the fact of liberty, the moral feelings derived from the idea of justice supplies the motivation. In fact some part of it is motivated by being confronted by deception and the happenings in the world, along with the knowledge that people walk around perceiving the world through a lens built on false ideas. It’s difficult to wake up everyday in a world that’s wrong without being compelled to make it right. It’s actually very simple but it isn’t something that anyone else can fully understand. Understanding that liberty is the basis for objective morality, in the absolute truth that liberty and tyranny are the only moral categories, that morality is a determinant of motion for conscious beings, and understanding what that means for everything else. I do what I do because it is right.
This brings me back to what I wrote yesterday or maybe it was the day before about Holly saying it’s alright everyone has days like that. I disagreed but didn’t send her the message. It’s not alright for me because I don’t value that behavior, and I seek my own approval. My approval requires honesty with myself. Except in one area, which is my probability of success. I don’t mislead myself, but I try not to think about the probable outcome based on the forces I’m up against and my history of results and interactions. On the subject of that day, that’s why I was feeling the way I was feeling. I said about as much in the original entry. Thinking about worse things that may be ahead but are not here now.
I wrote about this (self approval) somewhere else, in creator, god, deity as fact and symbolic elements of the psyche as well as addressing common conflation.
Creator is unknowable because anything that has a beginning can never know if they are in the presence of the supreme or something in-between. Based on what we see within the creation, where all the results are the product of the forces in the universe and the free decisions of the creatures in the universe the morality of the creator appears to be liberty because he does not impose on his creation. The implication of this is the creator cannot create beings for purposes that he would not want to exist under. Which is why your deities are not the creator, because to create beings for the purpose of being your servants or being tormented for an eternity are circumstances that the creator would not want to exist under. I won’t go into all the existential implications, but the point being is the creator is irrelevant. Because he doesn’t help or harm in this life, in any afterlife scenario morality determines the appropriate space for the survival of consciousness after death, and you can never know if you’re in the presence of the creator. The books Liberty the Definitive Moral Truth, and the screen play The Survival have the details.
God is what you chase, your true highest value. For some it’s alcohol, meth, or heroin, and for many others it’s their children, money, or a number of other things, (Children in the sense that what people are chasing is for the benefit of their children). Your God is what you actually serve.
Your deity is the approval that you seek. The deities that people call God are their deity, where first they seek their pleasure and then they construct a deity who approves of their pleasure and the idea of it perceiving them better when they do the things they think he wants them to do provides them a positive feeling through improvement of self worth. It’s image promotion to an imagined being: the individual perceives themselves being perceived better by a being based on something they think, feel, or do and this approval improves their self worth. The deity is essentially a person’s source of morality. Which isn’t to say that the deity supplies all the moral rules, but if for instance a child learns something is wrong from a parent, the rule becomes incorporated into the deities values. That’s the personal relationship a person has with God/deity, where the deity takes on their conception of right and wrong as well as supplies rules to be followed unquestionably.
As I stated before I am my own deity because I seek my own approval, and my god is liberty because that’s what I chase. But, when your god is liberty and you exist in a world of tyranny, your
god becomes justice, and there are a lot of times when value comparisons are between the satisfaction of immediate justice and the satisfaction of anchoring justice related goals: where the immediate action has consequences for those goals.
That went a little bit deeper than I intended it to. Another thing worth mentioning was an ad I heard on the radio. It featured a girl talking about an organization feeding her, and the radio host was praising the organization for doing that. Believe me there are few things that make me happier than a child’s satisfaction. I don’t do what I do because I’m motivated by compassion or empathy anymore. That’s how it began but when you understand how everyone plays a role in producing the results we see it’s hard to feel bad for people doing things to themselves, not individually, but collectively producing circumstances for one another. It’s mainly about right except for children before they reach an age where their minds have been corrupted by the world. Compassion in respect to children, but liberty and justice in respect to my general motivation.
Before I went off on that qualifying tangent, the point is they applaud efforts to contribute basic necessities to children without acknowledging how despicable it is that parents go without opportunities to provide these things for their children. This group assisted children of an incarcerated parent, and the child probably typically eats 3 meals a day without the organization’s assistance, but it was framed through the lens that she didn’t. I believe it’s facilitated through a church meaning those three meals probably come with a sermon that does more harm to her mind than the food is going to help her body.
Recap 12/27 to 1/1/2023
Nearly everything planned for the week was completed and some objectives changed based on the development of strategy and priority. I didn’t secure a venue but I think it’s more important to to have participants. I looked at two offices spaces. I seriously considered renting one but I don’t want to make a 2 month commitment to the area, or have to sacrifice 2 months rent. I did contact a venue about a daily rental for a conference room. I asked to rent it for Friday the 5th but I don’t know if I’ll be prepared by then. I may need to move the date back a few days. Perhaps the following Monday.
I may be going out tomorrow to begin obtaining a list of owners, otherwise I’ll begin Tuesday since there are materials that I need to procure. I need to print handouts, maybe purchase a button up. Also need to do my laundry and go grocery shopping. I haven’t prepared. I had my pitch down pretty well in Illinois, I forget that I worked on it and should probably do the same again. It’s probably Tuesday I’ll begin collecting data and promoting at businesses.
I need to post ads on CL for street team promoters and an area director. I may do that tonight. I plan on renting a conference room for a day and doing interviews in the morning and a focus group in the afternoon.
I called 5 universities and 5 economic organizations. I left messages and received one response from one university who I was able to submit a copy of RUSC to. I updated them about a key development in RUSC today. Businesses would lose money with what I was offering. The amount their payroll tax would increase based on their workers increase in pay would be more than the 10% payroll tax credit. I know a 50% payroll tax credit is enough to cover the cost and go a little bit over, but for a company that has 10 employees who earn $15 an hour plus $5 an hour on RUSC the savings is only about $125 a week or $6500 per year. For a popular retail store like Walmart, $120,000 per year per location ends up being millions of dollars every year. At the same time most franchise owners own more than one store where they can potentially benefit through volume but some do not. Either way, I think we can afford to do better, so we won’t make the offer before we know what they want. I would like to avoid having to apply different incentives to different businesses.
I sent 25 more media press releases. Turned out to be about 20 because about 5 of the emails were no good. The problem is I stated 10 percent as the offer. I may need to take some time tomorrow to send that update to all the media people I sent a press release to.
I created various materials, focus group questionnaire, RUSC hand out, an article on RUSC, among other things.
I submitted the RUSC article to 5 political publications. I told them they can publish it as it is or treat it like a press release and contact me to do a story.
I submitted it as a poorly put together academic paper to what appears to be a quasi-academic journal. It’s not peer reviewed but it publishes paper targeted at an academic audience. I need to resend that with the update tonight.
I also left a message with a political party and was told to send an email. Unfortunately what I sent them also contained the 10 percent figure. This is a little more problematic because I was told no one would see it and respond until after the first. If I send the update by itself there’s a chance it won’t be connected. I think I’ll send them the explanation of the update and resend RUSC with it. Also need to do that tonight.
I didn’t finish the focus group presentation or find focus group participants. Also didn’t make a list of businesses to call to get their input on on RUSC. These are all objectives planned for this week.
1/3/2023
I should have known, but I thought different plan and different approach may yield a different result. The problem is I forget these changes don’t help if people don’t understand what you’re saying. I had one woman who said she thinks their store already does it lol. Another woman said she thought she saw an article about what I was promoting but said she’s not a business owner yet. I dropped the ball on that, in part because I was surprised by her saying that. Then again I did submit 50 plus press releases that received no response. I could have reexplained the program to her but she had already referred me to her manager. I mention it for the point that she didn’t understand that what I was promoting was for her benefit more than anyone else’s. Maybe I put too much emphasis on helping the business in an effort to get contact information.
There’s no questions, and canvasing never translates into any signatures. Imagine someone came into your work and told you you could make $5 to $10 more per hour when you’re only making 12 to $15 per hours? They act like they couldn’t use an extra $200 to $600 per week. In their position I’d like to find out how much more I would make, disclose the number of full and part time workers and provide a transaction estimate. I definitely would want to know more. I’d go to the website and sign the petition and encourage other people to sign it. Instead what the fuck are they doing? What could possibly be more important than participating in improving your income and the income of others? Read and sign the petition. Post the shit on your social media, and bring it up when you have opportunities to, go to this website and sign the petition, it improves wages for low income people, cuts spending, and increases tax revenue. That’s a reasonable response, to be interested in something that serves your interest.
Based on responses I know I wasn’t understood, but also based on a lack of a response I know I wasn’t understood. So what do I do? What do I do when I’m on a planet with people who are not smart enough to understand something that not only improves their lives, but the lives of everyone around them? It’s not innate stupidity, it’s conditioning. All of this has enormous implications for my opportunities and quality of life.
It is insane that I cannot draw attention to this. Even more so than my inability to draw attention to other novel and important things I’ve introduced because of how this particular idea is universally beneficial, and directly and substantially improves people’s income, and even the stupidest people want more money.
Someone described the state of humans beings as being under hypnosis. I probably argued against it, largely based on understanding bias and the decision making process but it is like hypnosis, in the sense that facts and values are planted and organized in a way that prevents useful information from entering or being understood. Narrowly programed I guess is a better description, where the mind has no way to connect to things that conflict with or don’t reference something within the program.
I’m going to take a day to recover from this and try my luck with corporations. It’s devastating that canvasing is so ineffective. Mainly because every other avenue to gain exposure also yield no results. Sending press releases, contacting universities, sending articles, contacting politicians and political parties, Google ads etc I wouldn’t mind having to grind a little going into businesses and canvasing if it yielded the results that it should produce. It could spread like wildfire. Should. Even in the absence of RUSC, Balance Stimulus or any of the other ideas, the concept of OPL should be enticing.
OPL itself may be the reason media, universities, and politicians are not fucking with me. I forget that my perspective has been so developed for so long, and the perspective of most people isn’t rooted in fact, it’s a product of how they feel about what they’ve been exposed to. It’s a product of believing other people know better, and choosing opinions about subjects and counting those opinions as fact. In that, they can’t understand things because their perception of what goes on around them is built on ideas that are false. More importantly, since they have low standards for fact, their reasoning is compromised since life consists of opinions and they choose which one’s they want to be true.
It’s insane. I talked to my daughter the other day and any other time anyone would say this I would contend that the problem is with the individual, but in this instance it happens to be with others. Basically she said the problem is with people not with me. And that is true. It’s true because there seems to be a zero engagement policy. If I am wrong it would be easy to show it. The problem is I’m right, not only about politics, solutions to problems, but about morality, about the inconsistencies I point out, about human behavior and human understanding, so I’m ignored.
The one issue that any concerned person in this country should be interested in is increasing income opportunities for low income people. And no one is concerned with that. That’s because nobody really cares. They’re concerned with isolating a problem and using that problem for their own benefit. And they’re able to successfully capitalize on people’s feelings through clever marketing and provide them an opportunity to feel like they’re doing something good when they’re not doing shit, occasionally some benefit to alleviate symptoms, but never addressing the problem that produces the symptoms.
The world is not just ignorant but it’s also fake and idiotic. A safety for the Bills went into cardiac arrest. A day later and they still haven’t diagnosed the cause. Players started crying and praying and they suspended the game. It’s mostly image promoting and then there is a chorus of image promoting competition. People use it as an opportunity to compete with one another about who’s the most compassionate. Motivated by the idea that others perceive them better because they’re displaying a popularly valued quality. It provides positive feelings through the perception of being perceived better that produces an increase in self worth. Secondly, they perceive themselves as being good people for feeling bad for someone else, which increases self worth producing positive feelings.
Praying has got to be the stupidest shit to do or ask for. 1st, there’s no evidence that any results on this planet are the product of anything other than the decisions of the creatures on this planet and naturally explainable happenings. Praying is the same as doing nothing. But even if you still believe it because you’re a fucking idiot, if your deity controls what happens on the planet, wouldn’t it have made more sense for him to have not allowed the thing that happens to occur to begin with? And according to your superstitions, didn’t he already know if he allowed it to happen people were going to pray against it, so being all knowing he would have preemptively prevented it to grant your wishes? After it occurred, what is he doing? Is it like a YouTube promotion where if a video gets x amount of likes he’s going to do something? He’s only going to make him alright if 50 million people ask him? Sorry, didn’t reach the goal of 50 million prayers not granting this request. These are the perspectives people are operating out of because they don’t know shit and have been stripped of critical thinking through authority based reasoning instilled and reinforced since they reach an age of consciousness.
Why continue to fight a losing battle? Unfortunately I don’t have another planet and another species to go to. I’m here. I’m not only real, but I’m true, and values are configured in a way where I cannot content myself in a world of ignorance, deception, and tyranny outside of efforts to address it. I deeply hated everyone today. But it doesn’t change anything because I love liberty even if I hate everybody. If I’m never permitted to draw the attention required to elevate this species I’ve still gained developmentally as much as any person with a lifetime on this planet can gain, and that’s forever. Justice will come on the other side if the tyrant’s refuse to allow it here. Liberty meets tyranny with justice, placing them in a space where they’ll be subject to the tyranny of others. Which is essentially the religious idea of heaven, being under the eternal authority of a deity. And people will discover everything they thought was right, good, and real was complete bullshit, and then learn what they are.
It is frustrating. So far I discovered that people will support anyone who tells them things that make them feel good, and will give their money to anything that they are told should make them feel good, but will ignore, reject, and loathe anyone who tells them the truth and is dedicated to just causes. Not only just causes, but detailed plans and ideas for achieving justice. You cannot earn a living through actually doing good, only through the appearance of it. They give their lives, attention, and materials to frauds while the good, true, and rightly motivated are ignored, ostracized, and suffer debilitating isolation.
1-6-2023
Content Withheld
This was the chronicling of a RUSC development when I was still working on the tax credit portion. It was an idea to use the number of employees per store as a level of tax credit. I don’t want to post it, have it read and potentially confuse people about the mechanism. Other subject was being pulled over in AZ for following too close an the ass I made out of myself during the stop.
1-7-2023
Discovering a mistake carries with it some embarrassment and concern, but it does feel good to overcome it. I can’t believe it has taken me this long to discover it, but I discovered my math was wrong somewhere along the way, or a more accurate method of calculation. The last RUSC I posted a few days ago is wrong, and the new one will be on the OPL website. Just in time as I begin making important calls.
I do have time now to Write my recap but it seems like a chore. Below is a response to a Christian about his deity.
Shortly after Bill’s safety collapsed on the field I watched a few news broadcasts on YouTube trying to learn the cause of his sudden cardiac arrest. To this day no explanation has been provided. I commented about the response including criticism on people asking for prayers and people in the comments section image promoting contrived compassion including bragging about praying. Basic criticism I won’t bore you with here and I’ve already commented about this incident in previous entries. Apparently it’s a story that is doing very well in the ratings and the media is milking it to death. That along with the Republicans having a difficult time electing a speaker, yes America this is what is important according to those who decide importance to you. Increasing wages during a time when inflation has risen 7 percent and wages only 4 percent is not important as evidenced by the media ignoring my press release.
The point is there was a person who with all the intelligence of a 6 year old who said I was delusional, and god and Jesus are real. Safe to say he isn’t a theologian since about 300 years after Jesus death it was decided that Jesus was god. To avoid a long response that would no doubt go unappreciated and not understood I told him to look up the definition of the word delusional to understand how it applied much more to him than it did to me. He responded with you’re wrong god is real. Although I’ve written about this in Liberty: The Definitive Moral Truth and at least a handful of times in this journal below is my response to his assertion that the deity from his religion is real. The content of my response branches out into a much deeper and more detailed response but for the purpose of concision in a comment exchange this is the short explanation I provided him.
@D Thrills 1st your deity is a hypocrite which qualifies his inconsistency. Greatest commandment is to love your god with all your mind, heart, spirit, and strength and second is to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Of course your deity doesn’t love you as he loves himself because his doctrine states he created you with 2 options, to serve him for eternity or be destroyed, and this is not an existence he would want for himself, meaning.A: he created you for evil purposes, and B: he doesn’t love you as he demands you love him, doesn’t love you as he loves himself, and demands you you keep commandments he doesn’t keep.
2nd your deity is a tyrant which is not consistent with the creator or the human ideal. The human constant is that all beings want to do as they please, and all beings can do as they please so long as they are not imposed on by other beings. This means right action is unimposing and wrong action is imposing since in the absence of imposition all beings can do as they please. The justification for imposition is to prevent or neutralize imposition and there are various forms in the production of circumstances, time, deception, and so on and so forth. The point being is, liberty is true, 1st as the human ideal and second because there is no evidence of any result on this planet being produced outside the decisions of the creatures on this planet and natural forces. Which means the morality of the creator is liberty because he doesn’t interfere with his creation.
As to your deity being a tyrant, we begin Adam and Eve where the original sin is disobedience, not an imposing act. The first person who your deity counted as being righteous Abraham for his obedience. The problem is Abraham was going to kill a child to remain obedient to this deity. Deity’s highest value is subordination. A deity created out of human interests to take people’s free will, or liberty. Abraham was not righteous because he would kill an innocent child.
Although according to the archeological record exodus never happened, according to your myth god commanded Joshua to kill all the Canaanites young and old and to take their land. This is imposition, imposing on life and property. Your deity say the thief comes not but to lie, steal, and murder. Your deity checks all the boxes.
Jesus tells you if someone demands your cloak also give him your tunic, if he hits on one cheek let him also strike you on the other, and if he asks for forgiveness to forgive him as many times as he asks. Which facilitates the ease with imposition takes place and is tyrannical, since it commands one not to resist imposition, when resistance is necessitated to preserve liberty.
The duality of morality is liberty and tyranny, and morality is a determinant of motion among conscious beings. Morality motivates action to right a wrong and morality prohibits action that one considers to be wrong. I can explain the mechanism if you’re interested. Morality is either objective in an action is either imposing (wrong), unimposing (right) or justified (right imposing to prevent or neutralize imposition), or morality is subjective and someone decides what is right or wrong based on their preferences. Or they impose on those who they can impose upon as they please.
Existentially, presuming on the survival of consciousness after death there has to be a seperate spaces for those whose morality is tyranny and those whose morality is liberty because they cannot exist in the same space. The propensity of the tyrant to impose is at odds with the propensity of the Libertee to prevent and neutralize imposition creating never ending conflict. If such a situation existed in an eternal space the universe wouldn’t exist because the space beyond would consist of perpetual conflict.
The point of the previous deduction is 1st to point out that Jesus doesn’t decide who goes where based on the people who decide to be his friend and believe in him. Because it leads to eternal conflict. Morality decides and the changing of one’s understanding is the production of a new person not necessarily liable for actions committed under a faulty understanding. Which means forgiveness isn’t required, but also absent that understanding forgiveness doesn’t grant access to a space that operates under a different understanding (liberty/tyrant).
The second point from the existential deduction is that the creator or god according to your deific reference is irrelevant. Because 1: the creator doesn’t help here. He doesn’t grant wishes or prayers and interfere with the liberty of his creation 2: the creator doesn’t choose what space you will go to based on how he perceives you. If consciousness survives death morality will determine what space you’re appropriate for. 3: any being that has a beginning which includes all human beings can never know if they’re in the presence of the creator supreme or something in between since any being in an existence beyond this one will have advantages in the understanding of that space and can claim to be the creator. For example, if fish had a higher capacity for intelligence, as human being pulling a fish out of water could claim to be god, because a fish doesn’t know anything beyond the ocean. In the same sense, a person who dies and regains consciousness in a different space knows nothing about the space and any being he encounters could appear as god having superior knowledge and experience in that space.
If your deity is real, he’s real evil, or he is the devil, the ultimate tyrant according to the definitions provided by your deity. I am right even if you can’t understand it. Ignorance is a product of values meaning people are responsible for what they don’t know.
1/11/2023
This is what you elect. The Democrats are trying to ban gas stoves, and the Republicans trying to defund the IRS and proposing legislation to replace income tax with a sales tax.
Democrats are trying to sell ovens, whereas what the Republicans are trying to produce greater income stratification and the greatest contraction in the economy in US history. How great is the sales tax and how would most Americans fair?
GDP in 2022 was 25 trillion and 5 trillion in income tax was collected. This means the sales tax has to be 20 percent. This means you have to be paying 20 percent in income tax to break even on the sales tax. Roughly half the country pays less than 12%, and those in the next income grouping who represent at least 35% of the population pay 22%. Taking into consideration that many have deductions, and qualify for credits about 85% of the population is going to lose, 10% of the population will have a small gain, 1% of the population will have substantial gains, and .1% of the population will gain absurdly. You have a plan to make 85% of Americans poorer.
Not only have you made 85% of the population poorer, you’ve just reduced the size of the economy because 85% as people have less money to purchase goods and services. 85% of people lose between 5% and 20% of their purchasing power, which means GDP is going to fall by probably 10%. Now we’re not even making up the cost of income tax and we have a plethora of new problems, chiefly unemployment as we lost 10% of economic activity where goods and services weren’t purchased, and the money wasn’t made to pay wages and achieve profits.
But we’re not done. We’re also going to dramatically increase spending. If you’re raising the cost of everything by 20% those who paid no income taxes and those who receive benefits have to be adjusted to maintain an increased cost of living. 20% increase in social security payments and a 20% increase in welfare benefits. We’re going to increase spending by a few hundred billion dollars while losing money as the sales tax fails to cover the income tax, making 85% of the country poorer, 50% substantially poorer, shrinking the economy by at least 10%, and all the associated consequences of doing those things.
Utter stupidity. Not stupid for the interests he serves as .1% of the population would make out absurdly, shifting the majority of the tax burden to a majority of the people who can’t afford it, to reward people who already have more money than they’ll spend on consumption in 100 lifetimes.
There were two reasons for banning gas ovens, and this is in part for show, and in part to serve the interests of companies who manufacture and sell ovens. The climate change basis is contradicted in that it requires 3x as much natural gas to produce electricity to run your stove than it does to operate a natural gas stove according to the California Energy Commission and it costs about half the price. Although more subtly, the Democrats are also making people poorer in energy cost while increasing emissions.
The second reason is based on a study that claims natural gas stoves lead to increased asthma. I haven’t read the study but usually when you do there’s no definitive causation. But say there is, then we do the same thing we do with other potentially harmful products, we force the industry to put a warning on the product and the companies have an opportunity to dispute the claim in court. Any law that does not prevent imposition is an unjust law because it imposes without preventing imposition. One study absent any independent review doesn’t prove anything. Again even if it did, the act of an individual choosing to take a risk that does not impose risk on others is within his right as a free person in a free country.
I was thankful to receive a quick rejection from the journal I submitted to, and I also received a second email from the publisher who wrote that after their analysis of the paper I should submit it to one of their other journals. The list they sent didn’t seem appropriate, but I will check their journals for one that is.
I’ve been riding low. Called top retailers but you can’t get through to anyone. I sent RUSC to their PR people. That’s a doubtful prospect. I’m hanging out around phoenix, trying to figure out a way to get this out there.
1/19/2023
Stopped here to record a comment exchange. I’ve been primarily editing old material haven’t been very productive lately, still trying to figure it the fuck out.
In my YouTube feed I saw a poll about a WNBA player and I visited the comments because I didn’t think there were 900 people interested in the WNBA much less 900 plus people commenting on what a WNBA player should do.
Ended up being a very entertaining decision. Since this post showed up in the feeds of sports fans every comment I saw scrolling down was just people posting random comments as a way of saying no one is interested in the WNBA. It was hilarious.
There was one comment on the recent fusion energy experiment that I responded to. After I responded I answered a question and thought I’d share my position and insight here.
Did you guys hear about the new fusion experiment that generated net energy production?
I responded: It’s a net positive in terms of the energy from the laser to the pellets to produce the reaction, not a net positive in the energy required to power the laser and the experiment to produce the reaction. The energy created represents only 1 percent of the total energy used to produce the reaction. Additionally, this isn’t even a scalable technique if it were an actual net positive. Which means 1: we haven’t produced net energy with fusion, and even if we had, it isn’t as if we can produce bigger pellets and bigger lasers and create energy using this method. We’re no closer to commercial fusion than we were before that experiment.
Skunkmonk asked me “what would you recommend they do?”
(Skunkmonk lol)
@Skunkmonk I’m not sure if the question is what would I recommend for renewable energy or what would I recommend for fusion or energy technology investment?
I think the most exciting source of energy is geo thermal. The problem with geothermal is we previously lacked the ability drill deep enough for it to be feasible in a lot of areas. But there is a new drilling technique and ironically it’s using a laser. According to Anton from What the Math it’s been tested and can achieve the depths required to bore holes for geothermal energy generation. I believe it’s also the cheapest source of energy to generate. Currently there are places in the United States where geothermal energy could be generated abundantly and transported. Yellowstone park, but unfortunately people prioritize the interest of not violating a landscape that maybe a few million privileged people look at every year over the interest of generating low cost carbon free energy. Human stupidity obstructs geothermal immediately in the United States, but the laser drill is on the horizon. Maybe a year away, and it makes geothermal a real possibility just about everywhere.
This drill as it relates to energy generation is 1000x more newsworthy than this slanted narrative on fusion energy. Why? There’s a few reasons, 1st, the news about the fusion energy experiment contents people about progress on climate climate change. The second reason is presenting a story about a breakthrough in renewable energy attracts attention, and the media earns money to attract attention. The third reason is it’s 50 years out ,(or further) and doesn’t compete with any of the present energy technologies.
This leads into why there’s no national obsession with the significantly more promising story about drilling technology and the potential of immediately achieving geothermal. Whether it’s fossil fuel or renewable energy, the industry benefits from energy generation. That’s one area of pronounced difference in political parties. Politics is the prioritization of industrial interests, and fossil fuels largely support Republicans and renewable energy invests more with democrats. With some overlap both ways, where some industries are invested with both democrats and Republicans, and some companies that are involved in fossil fuel use also benefit from policy supporting renewable energy.
What did Biden just do in the ridiculously named anti inflation bill? He did the same thing Obama did in his presidency, he provided 300 billion in renewable energy subsides. This is mostly using public funds to pay for infrastructure that will be owned by and generate profit for private companies. This is why everybody’s excited about fusion, and no one knows anything about this new drilling technology that could make geo thermal power a reality.
How would I spend $300 billion dollars on renewable energy? Since the public is mostly paying for the infrastructure I believe the public should own it. I would do what Sanders recommended and put it under the management of the Power Marketing Administrations who sell the power from hydro electric dams to the utility companies. We would sell power to the utilities at a profit. That profit would be reinvested to continuously build more renewable energy infrastructure until we were about 90 percent renewable since I think that is the limit for renewable generation based on how it is supplied. Then we have profit to keep up with increasing demand and to subsidize the cost of power to low income people without having to spend tax dollars to do it.
As far as climate change is concerned we’re probably already past the point where even a rapid transition to renewable energy will reduce emissions enough to prevent 3 and then 4 degrees C of warming within about 120 years. That world will lead to the collapse of civilization as areas presently habitable become uninhabitable and nations have to redistribute their population to places that are already occupied. It will almost certainly lead to nuclear war.
There was a study recently that showed injecting aerosols into the atmosphere near the ice caps could reduce the temperature enough to ensure the ice caps don’t melt. This is important because ice reflects heat whereas water and land absorb heat, and there’s consequences to ocean, climate, and shoreline if the caps continue to melt. Costs about 9 or 13 billion dollars not much for governments. I say governments because I imagine at some point, for some period of time each nation will be responsible for their own airspace to cool the planet. The US government just funded a 5 year research study on using aerosols to cool the planet.
That’s the plan. To use aerosols to cool the planet until we can transition to renewable energy by using public funds to build private infrastructure, and emissions return to a level that does not cause excessive warming. Aerosols also lead to the depletion of ozone, so while the researchers claim using aerosols at the poles won’t harm ozone, it’s difficult to understand how they’ve reached that conclusion.
1/27/2020
I haven’t been doing much lately. For a few days I was rereading and editing books, I have three left to finish. I’ve been wasting time playing poker. This is a very entertaining activity but also an activity that can have a very negative impact on my mood. Of course there are other things that have negatively impacted my mood.
Each day while I’m on the treadmill for 30 to 60 minutes I see the mainstream news. Day after day of irrelevant content made to seem important, or intent on advancing an agenda to motivate half the country to take political action within a controversy of irrelevancy. I’ve written about some of the stories before I took this hiatus from writing.
Today they released the body cam footage from the police officers in Memphis brought up on criminal charges over the use of force that resulted in the death of a suspect. First of all, why is this national news? This should only be of interest to the people of Memphis, it’s their police and their community. What happened in Memphis has no impact on the lives of people located outside of Memphis. It’s a national story because police are the bad guys is a popular perception in this country. The media doesn’t exist to provide important information, the media exists to reinforce biases to attract attention and earn money. A man dies from injuries sustained while resisting apprehension, and excessive force in policing is a national issue based on 1 police contact out of about 60 million annually.
I haven’t reviewed the body cam footage independently, but I did see what was aired on the news. My preliminary opinion based on what I saw is that the officers were not malicious and did not apply excessive force, even if the force resulted in a fatal injury. There are suspects who like boxers who are too tough for their own good. What I mean by this is there have been a decent number of boxers who finished boxing matches and later died as a result of the damage they sustained. Which is to say you can be hurt very badly and still be actively resisting and no one knows you’ve sustained any serious injuries.
If you’re a law enforcement officer how do you know how much force to use to gain the compliance of a suspect? You start somewhere and then see how the suspect responds to that amount of force and then proceed accordingly. If the force being applied does not cause the suspect to comply then you have to use greater force to gain compliance. When you have a suspect who is very tough, very drunk, very high, etc, if you’re using a strike to gain the compliance of the suspect and he doesn’t respond to it the presumption is it didn’t hurt him enough to comply, so you have to strike him harder. It’s very difficult to know how hard you hit someone if they don’t react to it.
This isn’t Rodney King where the suspect was handcuffed and beaten by rouge officers who for some reason decided they were going to kick his ass. The suspect ran, he was caught, they tried to tase him, they tried to pepper spray him, and they used strikes to gain his compliance. Unfortunately, tragically, the injuries he sustained while resisting resulted in the suspect’s death.
I’m on the treadmill and uncharacteristically for that gym there were two guys a few treadmill down talking. The one guy said of the footage that was uncalled for. I’m obviously not in the conversation but I said loud enough to hear me yeah he was being compliant, sarcastically. Irritating that this cunt of a man would see an officer use a strike against a suspect who refused to comply with lawful orders, and say it was wrong. Arrogance and stupidity. Is it lawful for an officer to use a strike to gain the compliance of the suspect? Yes. It is exactly called for, prescribed to gain compliance. These charges are likely politically motivated. The worst thing for the officers facing charges is they can be sacrificed to maintain order and/or to advance a party’s political interest. For more on that see the book racial perceptions which addresses an instance of alleged excessive force that resulted in an officer being convicted on charges to avoid public outrage.
I was already aggravated before I made it to the gym. Yesterday I won a satellite for a $25 tournament entry. Today I woke up and used the entry to play a $4000 guaranteed tournament. I made it to the final table. There were 8 of us left and I was probably 3rd or 4th in chips, having in the neighborhood 275k and the chip leader had probably about 350k. Top prize was about $1000, top 3 spots were above $500, and 8th spot was a little over $100.
I’m dialed in. I was dealt AJ. At this point in the game I don’t feel great about AJ. I 3 bet the blind and I had two callers. Three bet was at least 15k maybe would have been more and we all have over 200k who are in the hand. The flop was A and two low cards. I don’t remember if I was small blind or if I was on the button. Action may have checked to me or it began on me and I half bet the pot. The guy after me jammed, and the 3rd player folded.
This was a difficult decision. I knew he wasn’t on AK because if he was on AK he either would have reraised me or jammed preflop. I would have folded if anyone jammed preflop, just because of the potential of someone jamming on AK in that position of the game.
I’m thinking maybe he hit a set, or two pairs calling with an A low. But it didn’t make much sense to me that he would jam if he felt that good about his position. Not willing to fold the AJ I called. And it was a good call. He had A 10, I had A J. There’s only 3 cards in the deck that can save him. He had to hit a 10 on the turn or the river. He hit the 10 on the river. I was very upset about that.
I’m in survival mode, I have about 40k left. I was dealt pocket 10s. I jam preflop, and there is one caller. He turned over his hand and he had 8 9. My hand wins 80% of the time versus that hand. He hits a 9 on the flop, and then another 9 on the turn.
It’s sick when you make the right decisions and you’re a huge favorite to win the hands. On the first hand from the point he called he has 12.5% chance of hitting a 10, 1 in 8 times will that happen. Go out being an 8 to 1 favorite, then a 4 to 1 favorite on back to back hands. I feel cheated, it feels like injustice, when you lose an 8 to 1 hand and then a 4 to 1 hand. If my luck was average I would have won that $1000, or at least placed top 3.
I cashed out $130 out of the $150 I had. Poker is generally a waste of time. I’m going to finish rereading these last three books. Then I need to go for a drive and figure something out.
1/30/2023
I was talking to my daughter telling her that I’ve been in something of a stasis for the last few weeks. My efforts in Illinois and Nevada was extremely disappointing. It’s inconceivable to me that a person could tell people he’s promoting legislation that could one be passed, and two substantially increase their income and for them to not be interested. In Illinois I took most of the responsibility since Round Up Service Charge was Round Up Gratuity and I took more of a community activist promoter approach. In Vegas my approach was more business oriented, where instead of explaining the program, how they benefit, and encouraging them to go to the website and share the information with their coworkers, I asked if they had contact information for the owners, and I also emphasized the owners interest in knowing about the program and providing input.
Out of 20 sollicitations I was able to gain one franchise owner’s number. There was a lot riding on canvassing being effective. As I may have already written, I anticipated explaining the proposal to workers in high volume transaction businesses, leaving a handout, and at least the people who saw the handout would be inclined to go to the website and sign the petition. Among those who took 5 minutes to see how they could not only improve their wages, but improve the wages of unskilled workers and increase public revenue, I figured there would be some who would mention it to others. With owner information I can test the incentive and gain access to actual data. Not to mention, if a person stands to gain money annually through the passage of this legislation, it may be worth investing in the promotion of it. Canvassing didn’t yield a single signature or response.
In some instances it was evident that people didn’t understand what I was talking about. One woman said she saw it on her news feed. I did some google searches to see if there was anything similar to what I was doing in the news. Afterall I did send out about 100 press releases, maybe someone did a story and didn’t tell me. I didn’t find anything. Another manager told me they already did round up. LOL In Illinois, although the proposal was a little bit different, after I tell her that the round up will be distributed to the employees, she asked me where the money goes? LOL. It’s funny, but it’s not funny. Not funny when the comprehension of language is limited to short phrases, and I’m trying to earn a living on communicating new ideas to people. Obviously I didn’t find it very funny in the immediate aftermath of those efforts. That’s what really sapped my motivation. It’s sapping in the sense that there may not be anything I can do to be successful in that capacity. I mean “I speaka fucking Engrish”. That’s a South Park quote, one of the greatest characters in cartoon history, the chinese restaurant owner in South Park. Arguing with Japanesse resturant owner, maybe if you speak a engrish I can understand you, he says I am speaka fucking engrish, why don’t you speaka fucking engrish.
That shit is hilarious. I love popular stereotypes. I suppose that’s another reason I hate woke culture. It’s an effort to suppress the enjoyment that comes from ideas about different groups of people. Enjoying something associated with a group of people isn’t implying that all members of the group do said things, and it isn’t used to promote the unequal treatment of said people. More importantly it’s the expression of an opinion, that said thing is funny in a particular context. The name woke as well is so disgusting because you’re applying a term of awareness to positions that represent a complete lack of understanding of subjects associated with those positions.
Anyway, I did receive signatures from a promotional ad I ran on youtube. But these signatures were expensive, in consideration of the total amount of money spent on ads and the number of signatures gained for that price. In other words it wasn’t a good video.
I had a moment at Jimmy John’s today where I was considering running down RUSC with the employees I ordered from. I guess that’s part of what caused me to think about that. It isn’t fear of failure or fear or rejection, but the pain avoidance in knowing the outcome of this effort is going to lead to that disappointment, either because people are irrational, or because people cannot understand in that setting through that medium. I remember when I ended my day after in Vegas and I recognized that in order to really have people’s attention they have to first learn about you through their phones.
My general lack of activity and the declining road worthiness of this car has me thinking about the time I’m wasting and how I don’t have a plan right now. I’m rereading and making minor adjustments on my books. Which is slightly necessary but is largely just something I’m doing to feel like I’m doing something. It’s strange because I always have an idea about what I’m going to do next but now I really don’t know.
I do have a submission of RUSC pending review for publication in an academic journal. Earlier I commented that I don’t know what it will do for me. As I thought about it this evening it could help attract attention. The story itself could be worthy of attention, which would attract attention to these other things. Last grade completed was 8th grade, highest formal academic achievement was a GED obtained while I was incarcerated. Convicted felon, two occasions, former inmate, who has been homeless or living out of a car off and on for the better part of 10 years. Publishing a paper in an academic journal that shows how 50% of the income distribution, and businesses could make more money, while significantly increasing tax revenue and significantly decreasing spending coming from those circumstances could be the story that creates interest in everything else I’m trying to accomplish along with that. Having written that I wouldn’t be surprised to get the rejection in the morning.
2/3/2023
I don’t know. I don’t know what to do. And I’ve been dealing with that through distraction. I typically don’t go more than a few hours without knowing generally what I’m trying to accomplish and the next step to getting there. Obviously I know what I’m trying to accomplish, with OPL, and what I could probably term motionism, truthism, built on liberty as the basis for objective morality and assignment, sequencing, and comparison.
I suppose the term objective morality sounds like a dangerous term. Where someone would say it’s claiming to know definitively what is right and what is wrong. But deduction furnishes us with this duality, because ideal is ideal. The human constant is that all people want to do as they please, which means right and wrong action is determined by whether an action imposes including systemically where systems furnish individual circumstances and circumstances determine an individual’s opportunities to do.
Writing that last paragraph has probably provided me as much satisfaction as I’ve had in a few days. There’s satisfaction in stating something you’ve stated before but with greater concision than you have previously. In this instance it’s referencing circumstantial imposition without providing the full explanation, but providing the evidence in the first cause of every act which is an individual’s circumstances.
Before I was sidetracked by my own comment, I’ve just been fucked up over the last few weeks. I won’t recap my previous unsuccessful efforts, I believe I aired those grievances in my last entry. I actually wrote an entry on the 31st that I took down. I took it down because I mention an incident that could create prejudice against me. There were other things that generally are detrimental to my interests for people to know. It’s a negative portrayal that isn’t representative of how I normally am. Nothing wrong, just suggestive of a temperament that isn’t representative of me.
I’m not sure what to do next. I did have an idea for a research experiment for Lowest Paid Employee Wage Disclosure Marketing. You would get 20 people and give them $100 or some other amount of money to shop in a store. The store would be created for the study and all the products would have LPE ratings and the higher the LPE the higher the cost per item. The participants would get to keep the items they purchase so they have an interest in maximizing value. The store can be stocked with the products they like and use gathered through a survey prior to participation. We can measure if the feeling the participants gain by believing they’re contributing to higher wages is greater than the feeling they have in maximizing how much stuff they get. We learn how often people will pay more for a product that advertises a living wage for their lowest paid employee. Maybe more importantly, since we’ll have a survey of their favorite brands we can see how often people would change their brand based on an LPE rating. Once we have that data manufacturers can be encouraged to add a dime to their price, increase wages, adopt an LPE label, and create marketing campaigns around it. Some of their competitors will do the same thing.
LPE isn’t really necessary if we can achieve a round up service charge because unskilled workers in those industries will benefit from a labor market where unskilled workers have opportunities for high wages in high volume transaction industries. Economically we need two things: the round up service charge, and the balance stimulus. If we achieve these two in that order we’ll have created opportunity for the entire country.
Right now I have no idea how. I had a lot of how tos a few months ago and they’re all ineffective. I’m surprised none of the economic groups I called and left messages with called me back. I did receive one phone call from a group in AZ. I was at the gym. When I called back there was no answer and it wasn’t a business voice mail. Their website sounded too similar to what I want to do with OPL. Lacking the ambition to create voter blocs to decide the seats of contested districts and ultimately decide the house of representatives for the party.that supports OPL legislation. Maybe it wasn’t really that similar, just appeared to be trying to influence policy, probably by serving as a medium for Democrat’s talking points. I decided not to continue the pursuit of communication with this group because it seemed like a grift. Nearly all non-profits are.
Giannis dropped 54 against the Clippers and the Bucks overcame a 21 point deficit to win 106-105. I saw a news clip where in honor of the game Culvers made a donation to charity he supports that provides diapers to families, and they also benefited from Giannis drawing attention to the charity. In the interview the representative of the charity embellished the narrative, stating families are having to decide between purchasing diapers and purchasing food. In that situation people are purchasing food and somebody is going to be washing shitty cloth makeshift diapers. Take it at face value if you want, if the problem is people don’t have enough for diapers then the problem is that people’s income opportunities are inadequate. I think it’s good some people are benefiting by saving money on diapers but this is what charities do. They find a symptom they can create a cause around and people earn handsome salaries to bail water from a boat with a hole, instead of fixing the hole.
2/19/2023
I could almost copy and paste my last two entries and it would be an accurate summary of the time that has elapsed since my last entry. In my car, going to the gym, playing poker, and essentially wasting my life. I drove to DFW and returned to the Walmart in Irving that I spent about a month at last year. Awaiting inspiration I thought I should at least put myself in an area where I can potentially find work and make money through CL gigs, veryable, etc. Two days here and nothing worthwhile has come up.
The most demoralizing part of my efforts is the acknowledgement of the interest and communication barrier, with one being a partial product of the other. People are machines that are part of a broader machinery in interaction, organization, and what is produced collectively. They have no interest in these topics.
Am I someone who blames others for his own failures? Not at all, I’m a person who recognizes that the people who he has interacted with cannot understand what he is telling them. It’s very simple. An incentive to businesses to implement a nominal service charge that will substantially increase worker pay for people in the bottom 50% of the income distribution, increase federal revenue, business profits, and government spending. If a fast food or retail worker isn’t interested in anything else they should be interested in higher wages. Even if they are not interested in working retail or fast food long term, it should still be of interest to have something to fall back on since all jobs will become living wage jobs, or as people pretend to be concerned for the situation of others, to ensure all people have opportunities for living wages. Not to mention the other benefits mentioned and the byproducts in the reduction of crime and other social problems that stem from inadequate opportunities for people to have money.
I’m the only person in this country who has practical ideas that are guaranteed to produce results. We borrow increasingly insane amounts of money on an annual basis to fund the government. The only way to reverse this trend is to decrease spending and increase revenue. The only way to substantially increase revenue is achieved by increasing the income of large swaths of the population so a lot of people pay a little more in taxes. You don’t achieve this by increasing the amount of taxes taken from a few people. Federal spending can only be decreased by increasing people’s income to reduce the number of people who rely on government benefits. It cannot be reduced by cutting spending on industry because industry directs public policy.
You have to be interested in the machinery to understand these things. People are not interested in the machinery, they’re interested in the reinforcement of their perspectives. I come into a fast food or retail business and explain RUSC and they think what is this guy selling? I leave them a summary of the idea on paper, and links to the website. Either they cannot understand the summary or they never read it or share it. The only thing I am sure of is they don’t sign the petition. We can say I didn’t put enough effort into it. The reasoning is simple. If I spend X amount of hours in two locations canvassing and it doesn’t produce a shred of interest it means the tactic is ineffective. We can say well try it until it works. The point is, if it takes 100 hours to gain one person’s interest this is an ineffective strategy. Like I’ve stated previously, it’s more about the interaction itself where it’s evident what I’m saying to people isn’t even being comprehended.
I had to close my bank account because I received a letter that the state of Wisconsin was imposing a lien on the account where my funds would be seized if I didn’t schedule a hearing to dispute it. I tried to open another bank account but the bank I went to who issues debit cards at location will not allow me to open an account without a utility bill. I still have my business account open because it wasn’t mentioned in the letter but the debit card for the account does not work. I received the card at my mail box in Orlando. It was opened and then I had it sent to me in Elgin, IL. I don’t know what happened between the time it was opened and when it was forwarded to me but when I went to activate it it first stated that the pin was incorrect, and then on succeeding attempts told me the card could not be activated. To pay the few bills I have I purchased a Walmart debit card.
I planned on obtaining housing accomodations in DFW since I was confident I could find enough work to make more than it would cost me. Stay for a month, maybe add $1000 to money and have a stable arrangement to regroup from. When I previously posted an ad I received a lot of responses asking for a picture. I included a picture in my new ad. Found out there are a lot of gay men interested in my picture. Highlights a sexuality advantage. I responded to a few of the non-sexual advancement responses but I’m pretty sure they were phone number fishing responses. I’m not really confident that I’m able to find work and I’m not very motivated to work right now.
My motivation for work is to earn money to position myself to promote ideas and material. That’s something I cannot do due to the inability of this species to comprehend. Normalization of stupidity does not make stupidity correct despite the appearance of correctness to the participants. It’s difficult because where does that leave me in life? Obviously I’ve been at low points before, but the difference today is I’ve had ideas that needed to be executed. Now after having attempted some of these things and not only experiencing failure, but understanding that the failure is a product of the culture, the collective hypnosis so to speak that prevents comprehension, where do I go from here?
The previous paragraphs were written over the course of about a week or two. I was in Irving and Frisco for about a week. I didn’t spend much time looking for work and when I did there wasn’t much available. The environment at least in Frisco was filled with irritants. If I itemize them it seems petty but some of it seemed intentional and I addressed some of it as it was occurring. I typically don’t give anyone a reason to have a problem with me. My moral application and the infrequency with which I choose to interact with people puts me out of mind. I won’t go into the details, suffice to say it seemed like there were intentional effort to irritate me. Some of which I addressed and others were more difficult to address because there was plausible deniability where I would appear to over reacting to something the perpetrator could claim was accidental or unintentional.
I don’t have a problem with people having a problem with me. I always wear my shirts and occasionally I see traffic on my website. If there’s something someone wants to talk about we can talk about that. I’m just not a fan of the cowardly shit that was going on. What may seem like paranoia can be understood as the limits of coincidence, where an abundance of coincidences ceases to be coincidence and becomes an effort.
To avoid these negative influences on my mood and the potential of someone finding out fucking around, and dealing with the consequences I decided to leave the area. There was also a cop in the Walmart parking lot I was sleeping in down the road from the Planet Fitness. I was there on 3 or 4 consecutive nights and wanted to avoid that interaction. I was thinking of going to Houston but as you may be able to judge from the previous paragraphs I’m just at an off place right now.
Abeline, TX is a place I’ve stopped at to use the gym or go to Walmart on a few occasions going back and forth between Phoenix and DFW. There’s a rest area fairly close to the city. About a year or two ago when I was flyering I stopped through here and distributed some flyers. I don’t know much about the city, like I said I pass through since it is the only Planet Fitness between Midland and Fort Worth. But in my limited experience it seems like a place where people are well mannered and not trying to bother anybody that isn’t trying to bother anyone. I might spend a week or so out here while I get myself back going again. That’s my initial perception, could prove to be false but in the time I spent flyering, probably 10 times going to gym, and various shopping instances everything has been smooth.
I have a few commercial ideas I’m going to create. Obviously don’t have the funds to finance the production but it will feel good to have them ready should funding become available. As I stated in previous entries, the RUSC article has been submitted to an economic academic journal which could open a door to the academic community and spawn research that could draw attention RUSC and other material. Tomorrow I’m going to get to work on those ads and at least resume an email campaign to promote RUSC, OPL, books, etc.
2/22/2023
Yesterday I made some erroneous calculations spurred by partial engagement in the task. I was at Mc Donald’s and overheard a conversation where a man lamented that his social security payment was insufficient to meet his expenses. I thought about how wage increases from RUSC will increase the amount paid in payroll tax more specifically social security tax and did some quick calculations using the Walmart example that I already had data for and extrapolating that data across retail and fast food. Unfortunately I googled how many social security beneficiaries which I believe describes people who receive benefits from associations with the deceased and not all people who receive benefits. A difference of about 60 million people. The second error I made was not doubling the additional amount of social security tax paid by the employee since it’s matched by the employer.
It’s difficult to say definitively how much more money will be generated because the additional amount of wage increases for those who work in retail and fast food will vary greatly. By definition of a high volume transaction business the increase is at least 2.50 an hour, the preliminary estimate at Walmart is 6.25 more an hour, but it ultimately depends on the ratio of transactions per employee on site. It isn’t unrealistic for some workers to earn $15 more per hour, that’s 30 transactions per hour per employee. A gas station cashier can probably exceed that.
There’s about 22 million people who work in retail and fast food. If the average hourly increase is $6.25 per hour through RUSC it will generate about 40 billion dollars per year in additional social security tax revenue and about 20 billion dollars in additional federal income tax revenue after providing the payroll tax refund to employers and paying for the tax credit. Not a great increase but the direct gain is only the tip of the iceberg.
There are about 55 million people who are considered low wage workers. 20 million are those counted in retail and fast food averaging annual salaries of less than $25,000 per year. It’s difficult say what impact RUSC will have on the unskilled labor market but if we split the difference using the unofficial average for retail and fast food in RUSC and presume unskilled workers in other industries experience an increase of $3 per hour as a product of improved opportunities in retail and fast food, we’re looking at an additional 30 billion in social security tax and about 80 billion dollars in federal income tax. The income tax gains are greater because the additional income tax for RUSC workers is used to cover the additional employer payroll tax from RUSC and used to provide the businesses a tax credit incentive to implement RUSC.
Rough estimate would be about 170 billion dollars in additional federal revenue directly.
Next we have to consider the impact of these low wage workers increased income which provides them about 600 billion more dollars to spend into the economy. This translates into more profits, more jobs, and more taxes. Consumer spending is down, large retailers are closing stores, which will put people out of work and the more people we have out of work the lower wages will go as there’s more competition for jobs.
The other aspect of RUSC is having 10s of millions of people experience a 30 to 100 percent increase in income who previously earned 25,000 per year. Most people who receive welfare benefits are in households where people work but do not earn enough to provide for their needs. With RUSC many of these households will no longer require benefits. I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility that a post RUSC economy could reduce welfare benefits by about 1/3rd. This would equate to about 200 billion dollars in savings.
When all is said and done, RUSC could contribute about half a trillion dollars to the federal budget in increased revenue and decreased spending on an annual basis.
As far social security is concerned it is extremely difficult to increase benefits for 66 million people. It’s an issue I need to research more because the average payment is only $1540 per month. My focus would begin with qualifications. Mainly assets because I believe there are a lot of people who receive benefits who probably don’t need them. And while I wouldn’t necessarily be in favor of creating a criteria where people would lose benefits I’d be interested in seeing where increases could be made that address those most in need in a fiscally responsible way.
I need to go over the budget. A huge portion of the federal budget is wasteful spending and much of it cannot be addressed because it’s money spent on industry who decides which candidates can be elected. We’re not going to cut that spending. But there’s a lot of other areas, funding to states that squander that money to prop donors and supporters on the state level.
One example I recently came across was that California spends 7 billion dollars per year on their homeless population which breaks down to about 40,000 per person. This money is spent inefficiently to maintain homelessness intentionally, where there are various non-profits with employees who earn enormous salaries who are politically connected and politically active. California received money from the federal government to address this problem and these funds filter down to local governments and people who have an interest in maintaining a homeless population. This is one example. This isn’t to say we should cut funds for homeless people, just an example of how the federal budget pledges money to a lot of vague causes that doesn’t benefit the public and a critical examination of the federal budget could produce great savings without detriment to public interests.
I’ll probably never get to this. RUSC will probably never come into existence, or any of the other beneficial ideas I have, or the insights and observations I’ve recorded and discovered over the last 10 years. People are more concerned with bullshit and the reinforcement of their indoctrinated perspectives. With RUSC I’ve contacted about 100 media outlets, I’ve contacted business who would benefit, I’ve ran ads on YouTube, I went into retail and fast food business, explained it to the workers, left a written summary with the workers including links to the website, I’ve called and sent emails to economic groups who claim the cause of addressing inequality, and even contacted universities and nobody gives a shit. Not a single fucking response, criticism, feedback, or acknowledgement. The only prospect pending is a paper I wrote on RUSC to an academic journal. And in years past the promotion of other material has been met with the same indifference and rejection without explanation.
I could get a copy of the federal budget and go through it and follow the money to see where it goes and what not. But why? I worked for 7 months, saved about $6,000 and tried to promote my material and received no attention. After this period I struggled to survive and returned to work and saved close to $12,000 and put about $9,000 into promotion and once again I received no attention. Back to living out of my piece of shit car quickly running out of money because the people in this country are too fucking stupid to understand and act on their own best interest. Now I’m doing nothing. I enjoy watching the dysfunction, and find solace in knowing that at the end of the day, when it’s all said and done when people leave this planet they’ll learn most of what they thought life was isn’t that, and they’ll learn how their ignorance, indifference, and biases produced the results on this planet.
2/22/2023
There was a YouTube post where a user posted a picture that read not black versus white, not rich versus poor only us. They are trying to divide us.
I wanted to chronicle my response which is a good general summary of why people should be interested in what I’m promoting.
1a Everyone wants to do as they please and to do requires time, money, and know how.
1b Know how is acquired through money, time and desire.
1c This means an individual’s ability to do as they please is determined by their opportunities to have money and time.
2a Systems, economic, political, and social largely determine an individual’s circumstances including the opportunities they have for time and money.
3a What’s right and what’s wrong? All people can do as they please so long as they are not imposed on by others, because all people at all times want to do what they want to do.
3 b Imposition consists generally of physical harm, imposing on property, time, reality through deception, and circumstantial imposition.
3c What determines an individual’s circumstances? Systems determine individual circumstances and systems exist through collective consent and participation.
3d Consent is a product of an individual’s benefit from the systems or ideas concerning the system that produce satisfaction. In other words, the system benefits you or you’re contented by nationally biased ideas.
3e Participation is a product of benefit, nationalist indoctrination, or a matter of survival.
3f When an individual’s income opportunities require most of their time to earn an amount that only meets their expenses, these are trapping circumstances.
3g To improve ones income requires money and time, and when a person’s income is only sufficient to provide for their expenses they will never have the time or the money to improve their income and experience levels of freedom experienced by others within the population.
3h Systems that produce trapping circumstances is imposition by the collective on those individuals.
4a People divide themselves because they’re not concerned with the things they pretend to be concerned with, they’re concerned with consuming information that reinforces their beliefs.
5a Everything you see in the world is a product of the decisions that people make.
6a Most of the problems you see are a product of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money and the existence of this condition is not only morally wrong, but it’s a detriment to each individual’s self interest.
That’s absolute truth. If people began to understand this, they could pull their heads out of the fog of their biases and misconceptions and we could begin to focus attention on the main human problem which is income.
But people don’t want that. There’s only a they if you recognize that you’re part of they because you’re not focused on your own moral obligation to address circumstantial imposition. I been writing about this shit and trying to promote these things for 10 years with proposals that guaranteed income increases while advancing every impacted interest and I’m out here f’d up, can’t get so much as a signature on a petition. Meanwhile every fake cause out here that ain’t putting a dime in anybody’s pocket or contributing to individual liberty in any way shape or form has the attention and the support of people seeking to reinforce their biases. All of you are the problem.
2/25/2023
I estimated I have about a month’s worth of expenses remaining in money. I’m not at a good place right now within these circumstances. Fruitless efforts over the past few months have sapped all of my motivation. Not solely because of the results during this period but through all previous efforts. It feels impossible to gain even one ounce of the genuine attention required to understand the things I am saying. In the book Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History I recorded an exchange I had debating a veteran on the merit of a soldier understanding what he was doing in a war. The debate centered around the idea that the Vietnamese were the good guys and the US was the bad guys since the United States intervened in their country to prevent them from having an election because they didn’t like who was going to win the election. He took the position that although the US are the bad guys a US soldier should always consider the enemy as the bad guy. I preferred soldier acknowledgement of whose interests they were fighting to advance and whether the cause was just or tyrannical. I mention this exchange because I stated something to the effect that people’s national biases prevented them from thinking critically on subjects that pertain to those beliefs, and he responded saying he would take it a step further, that people were oblivious to their existence if I’m remembering that correctly.
It seems impossible to introduce people who exist in these bubbles of preference to objective reality. I sometimes refer to people generally as being stupid, and I don’t say this because people are innately unable to understand things, I say it because it’s a condition of choice where a person is guided by the reinforcement of their beliefs which obstructs their ability to recognize, pay attention to, and understand important things that challenge their beliefs. People are motivated to do things based on feelings they don’t understand and the field of their attention is very narrow, and the duration very short. Maybe the duration isn’t necessarily short, but the ability to put a post (a fact) in the ground and then begin to connect it to other posts is very underdeveloped. The common mind is very arbitrary, an example I’ve previously mentioned is how people choose opinion as fact based on if they like that version of reality, not through understanding the subject to determine whether or not the opinion is true or false. Opinions and false facts are validated not based on whether they’re true but based on whether there is sufficient people who subscribe to the opinion or version of events.
Probably going on about a month now, maybe longer, I stopped communicating with someone who I used to communicate with semi frequently and recently visited from Denver. I’d known her for about 6 years, where I saw her somewhat regularly over the first year and then didn’t see her for 4 but still messaged and talked every once in awhile. When I saw her recently she wasn’t the same person she was 4 years before but that’s neither here nor there. I was talking to her and at one point I was listing things I needed, and she had the audacity to say I needed more education. I wasn’t mad about it in the moment because she doesn’t know what the fuck she’s talking about. But later I was irritated by the comment because education is irrelevant to describing observations and motion. Which is what I am describing. Education is only as valuable as its application. And there is nothing in academia that disproves anything I’m putting forward or diminishes the significance of my insights, discoveries, ideas, proposals, or explanations. If someone is wrong about something you can explain to them why they’re wrong based on their position and the subject, so, saying someone lacks education is the equivalent to saying you don’t understand their position or you don’t understand the subject. Otherwise you’d provide an argument based on the observed motion of the subject (facts and the substantiation of those facts), not try to invalidate them through an irrelevant assertion.
I stated the observed motion of the subject because that is everything. I was very proud when my daughter told me that she began to understand what I meant when I told her that everything complex is just basic objects held together through cause and effect sequencing when she began teaching herself. Everything is the definition of the object and its relationship to other defined objects and the causes that produce it and the effects that it produces. That may be hard to understand written that way but based on this self-evident truth by way of the reality that we exist within, the variant of human intelligence on an individual basis is largely determined by bias. In the directing of attention and in the boundaries of acceptable information. This is why I recognized long ago that intelligence is largely a product of objectivity. And I know this personally having been different versions of myself and some were very limited intellectually but improved as I became increasingly objective. When you’re troubled by the problems that exist in the world and truly want to solve them, this can only be accomplished by understanding things as they are, not how you want them to be to reinforce your preconceived notions.
I’m not that guy anymore. I’m not that guy who was moved by compassion and empathy and refocused his life from a place of wanting to relieve people of their burdens. That comes not only from these long difficult circumstances I’ve faced and the general indifference towards my worthwhile productions, but more in developing my understanding of where responsibility for these results rest. It rests with the collective as a whole, with individuals and groups existing within subjective realities that allow them to do the things that make them feel good in life by rejecting information that challenges their beliefs. Self deception. Basically, if you see somebody stick their foot in a bear trap, you don’t feel as bad for them or feel compelled to help them as much as if they stepped on the bear trap through no fault of their own.
I don’t know how many times I’m going to write this there’s certainly been other variations, but there are two points. The first point is that today I am motivated by the pride of liberty, the feeling associated with justice, righting what is wrong, and a generally intolerable situation of living alone in objective reality. Yes I’m aware that some idiot researchers claimed to disprove that objective reality exists by conducting a bullshit experiment essentially using a magic trick to show people can’t see the same thing, or even the correct thing from some vantage point. The only details that are relevant are the details concerning motion. What causes what. And a person whose perspective is built on understanding the causes of motion is living in objective reality whereas those whose perspective is built on ideas that make them feel good, protected from challenge are living in subjective reality. I’m no longer motivated by compassion for others in my general ambition although from time to time I’m still motivated by compassion on an individual basis,
but I recognize the motivating feeling coming from the perceived fulfillment of justice. My general ambitions are the same despite different motivation and the byproduct is improvement in the quality of human life.
The second point which was the main point we began with is I know people become smarter the more objective they become. But people are inaccessible to real shit. Who else in this country has a plan to increase wages among the bottom 50% of income earners by $5 to $10 per hour at zero cost to the employer, while adding 500 billion dollars to the Federal Budget, while increasing the profit of retail and fast food businesses? But they want to hear about footage being given to a media outlet, what new thing Trump lied about, or what senior moment Biden had. You can’t get their heads out of the soap opera. Which applies beyond the political.
I think about this shit and my experiences, and I don’t know what I’m going to do. That’s why I’m saying I’m not at a good spot to have maybe a month of expenses left. If anybody thinks I can I forget all of this and become a simple man with a 9 to 5 it highlights just how ignorant such a person is. That life is fine for a lot of people, but once the lights in the warehouse come on, you can’t forget what you know is there. That’s in reference to an analogy that life is like a dark warehouse and everybody has a flash light and shines it to see the area they like best, oblivious to what exists outside of their field of vision or how what occurs outside their field of vison impacts what they’re seeing. The flashlight is a metaphor for their perspective, and the illuminated field of vison represents their limits of acceptable information that allows them to see what it is they want to see. How do I proceed when I cannot do what I want to do and the alternative is unacceptable? Everything I’ve done over the last 10 years or so has been directly or indirectly a product of promoting my material and advancing my ideas. I positioned myself to work to earn money to position myself to advance my ideas. If I can’t do that then how do I develop the motivation to do anything? That’s why I’m in such a dangerous place right now with resources dwindling. The dark comically inclined reader would probably say there’s a solution I’m not seeing here. I see that solution but it doesn’t seem worthwhile to talk about.
I stopped communicating with the woman from Denver. I didn’t have any plans for her either way, in regard to anything outside our friendship which was social and sexual in nature, but if you’re really interested in the shit I’m trying to do, you’ve had years to read my material and ask questions to understand it. She just happened to text me when I was writing this asking what happened to me, where did I go? She knows she can check my website to know exactly what is going on with me. It’s stupid.
The guy I used to work with in St. Louis texted me the other day asked if I was in town. I appreciated the jobs he got us while I was there for a few weeks and we had a mutually beneficial relationship since I picked him up and took him to the jobs and he usually found the jobs. I maintained some contact with him in the months following he’d hit me up and I’d let him know what was up with me and ask him how things were going. I sent him summaries and let him know what I’m trying to do. He’d say that’s what’s up which basically breaks down to it sounds like you’re doing something worthwhile but I’m not interested. I stopped communicating with him when he asked if I had cashapp. He should know better from when we were working together I’m not the one to be helping him out with money, but he must have got desperate. He also knew I was coming to Texas to work a regular job and save money for what I was trying to do. When he hit me up the other day I didn’t text him back. Like I said, I appreciated the opportunities to make money and he was cool dude generally, but I definitely didn’t owe him anything and I was helping him while he was helping me. If it isn’t serving some purpose associated with LibertyAndTruth or OPL or work what’s the purpose of maintaining contact?
I don’t find myself in the position I’m in today because I reject non-business L&T and OPL based relationships. When people can’t understand you they think you’re crazy. When they think you’re crazy they stop associating with you. 2019 to 2020 I was in Milwaukee fighting my cases from Florida. After seeing old acquaintances on a few occasions my phone rang about as much then as it does now.
Anyway, I’m at a loss for how right now. Can’t sell books, can’t establish any of the required communication for OPL with the public, politicians, or businesses, and cannot draw the required attention to make even a modest living through the promotion of liberty and truth and plans to improve the quality of human life for all people, especially those who are most in need of improvements. As previously mentioned, it’s more than the results themselves, but the experience of the attempts. Where clearly people are not understanding what you’re telling them and apparently not understanding the summaries you’re providing. And in the case of emails and phone calls there’s no response. The PR person from COSTCO responded that management had no comment on RUSC. Other than that no return email or phone calls from media, universities, economic groups, or businesses. And in the 1000s of attempts over the years to various organizations and the solicitation of individuals only silence.
If you cannot motivate people to act in their own best interest I don’t know another approach. You reach a point where you have to accept that people cannot be accessed. They’re incorrigible, corrupted by generations of self deception and deception passed down to succeeding generations and maintained through the propensity of human beings to form conclusions based on how those conclusions cause them to feel.
2/27/2023
At some point, probably not too long ago, I wrote that I think about suicide about as much as anyone should given my circumstances.
Content Withheld
I don’t see any real benefit of maintaining this entry within my journal. It’s an explanation for suicide I posted to be ready had I decided at any point to proceed with the act.
2/28/2023
I occasionally watch the YouTube channel Doughnut Operator. He was a law enforcement officer for a few years, a few years ago, and he covers police shootings. He usually provides the most complete and accurate details available on the incidents he covers. I don’t always agree with him, I think we have a different opinion of Tennessee v. Garner and sometimes he thinks things are justified that I think are not and vice versa. Important to point out, especially in this post, that I watch his channel because the details are complete and accurate and sometimes it’s entertaining, not to reinforce a bias.
In this video a suspect was accused of shooting multiple people and killing 3. Police caught up with him shortly after the last victims called the police. The officers gave him commands to get on the ground and when the suspect did not promptly comply they kicked him to the ground. A gun was discovered on the suspect after he was subdued.
Donut covers social media responses to these incidents. My comment is in response to the comments on the incident, as it provides a good example of people’s propensity to reinforce bias, and mechanism understood through assignment, sequencing, and comparison.
He refers to a previous story of the protester who shot a cop and was killed in response. This content provides another example.
This (the comments to the incident from the video) demonstrates how people choose their reality by consuming information that reinforces their beliefs and avoid, ignore, and reject information that challenges their beliefs. Otherwise, any interested person would research the event to have an informed opinion. The commenter who claimed the suspect was unarmed saw something that reinforces his anti-police bias.
This bias is a product of ideas he has about the world that rely on police being bad. These ideas are important for him to maintain because of the opportunities this version of reality creates for him. Social opportunities for those who subscribe to the same beliefs, positive feelings through a sense of justice in him being outspoken about his opposition to these problems, and a variety of other opportunities to feel good that require his beliefs to be correct. He and others like him see something that reinforces their beliefs so the event becomes important because it appears as reinforcement. If they were interested in the event the first question you would ask is why did the officer kick him in the chest and was the use of force lawful.
If you ask why the first answer comes from the clip that the suspect was being non compliant. He was told to get on the ground and did not comply with commands. In regard to the amount of force used it was effective in positioning the suspect to be taken into custody, and if it didn’t result in any serious or permanent injury then it is hard to consider the amount of force used excessive.
Next we’d ask if the suspect was a threat to the officers and public. Then we would learn about the call they were responding to, and that this suspect had been accused of killing 3 people, with the latest victims being shot shortly before his encounter with law enforcement. Based on those circumstances the police should believe he’s armed. Being non-compliant within those circumstances creates an urgency to arrest him for the safety of the public, the officers and the suspect. It wasn’t the presumption of guilt that caused the officer to kick him as other commenters suggested, but the probability of an imminent threat. If the officers do not act quickly and take him into custody and he reaches to pull up his pants the perception of that probable threat should cause the officers to shoot him. He did him a favor by getting him to the ground in the manner of efficiency that he did.
The go fund me for the peaceful protester shooting a cop is another example, where the appearance of reinforcement is more appealing and important than why he was shot. Don’t even ask why they shot him, use it as an opportunity to feel good by shooting justice a $20 or a $50. It’s also an example of an opportunity to feel good that relies on an idea. You can’t feel good for supporting a good cause if the cause isn’t good.
As ridiculous as some of these things are to a person whose perception does not rely on the police being bad, the same thing applies to everybody else in different areas. They have different beliefs they seek to reinforce for the same reasons these anti-police people interpret the world as they do. Myself excluded, which is why I find it all intolerable to different degrees depending on how harmful the bias reinforcing idea or perception is. Just know to an objective observer there are things that you appear just as outrageous about and difficult to communicate with.
Subconsciously, your mind is always set to an objective intent on producing a positive feeling, and what causes you to feel good often relies on what you believe is true. To preserve your values to continue to get pleasure from the things that give you pleasure your subconscious initiates a threat response or similar negative feeling because information that challenges beliefs threatens values including self worth. Information is avoided, ignored, and rejected.
3/01/2023
I planned on leaving Abilene tonight but that plan had to be postponed due to the weather. I’d be driving into hail and the possibility of tornadoes. Since my car doesn’t have a basement I’ll have to wait a day or two.
In Minnesota, a court ruled in favor of a trans athlete against a powerlifting organization that their women’s division excluding trans athletes is discrimination. The organization will likely appeal and should win the appeal. The distribution of muscle in biological males gives the trans athletes an unfair advantage in women’s sports. That’s a fact that doesn’t change based on identification.
The cliche mainstream argument is transphobic people are using women’s sports that they’re not interested in to oppress trans people. Not as overt as I have stated it but it is implied since the individual is not motivated by their concern for women’s sports. I know I’m not interested in women’s sports, yet I do have a problem with women having to compete against people born males.
It’s not important to me but it is important to the participants and competition, to be able to test their abilities against those of a relatively equal make up, which is why there are gender and or weight divisions in most sports. It’s no different than a person with 2 arms identifying as a person with one arm and forcing 1 arm people to compete against them.
It shouldn’t take more than a doctor providing a human anatomy lecture centered on muscle distribution and bone density differences between biological males and biological females, demonstrating what sports has known for centuries that biological males have athletic advantages.
Should the power lifting organization lose the appeal the solution is pretty.simple. Create a trans-woman division. Transathletes can compete against transathletes. If there’s only one it’s an easy road to the championship.
I don’t have a problem with what people do so long as it doesn’t impose on anyone else. If a male likes the things that a female likes, make up, dresses, men, how they talk etc and wants to apply those values in life there isn’t anything wrong with that. But there’s no genetic basis for someone being born one gender but believing they are the other. It isn’t that a person feels like a different gender, they just like things that are associated with the other gender. My problem is it isn’t fair for women to compete against men in sports, and it prevents us from knowing what women are capable of physically in athletics. How many women’s records does Lia Thomas own?
I bring up the when did you start caring about women’s sports because Marcellus Wiley reported that was the response either himself or others received from his colleagues after opposing trans athletes in women’s sports. He also mentioned how he thought it was horrible that some trans people are killed because they’re trans. A few years ago when this narrative was being promoted and it may be in Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History, I discovered that the homicide rate for trans people was much lower than the homicide rate for non trans people. This is another problem I have with extreme LGBT people, that they promote their sexuality or gender identification as a source of disadvantage.
My final issue with LGBT extremists is the promotion of their sexuality and gender fluidity through deceptive means to children. I had an article I removed from Understand Pol. Func… because I painted myself into a corner to where I would have to find an objective reason why sexuality shouldn’t be promoted. It ultimately comes down to the consequences of sex becoming a person’s highest value, which often occurs in people of all sexual orientations. Its difficult to be against the promotion of sexuality because while some impressionable children may adopt a gay or bi identification for attention, social inclusion, or protection, if they choose to do that there’s nothing inherently wrong with the choice, regardless of how it was influenced and arrived at. But how that identification becomes an important thing in their life can impact their development. I don’t think it is important except for those a person is interested in having sex with and those interested in having sex with that person. It becomes people’s main object of identification and it’s no more relevant than the preference for Coke or Pepsi.
Gender fluidity promotion is much more harmful. First because it isn’t promoted as a series of value which it is, it’s promoted as people essentially being born the wrong gender. They don’t like the things they like which creates the gender identification, some people are the gender of the objects that they like. That’s a harmful false idea. It’s also harmful because children are making decisions to alter their body chemistry which impacts their development.
But I don’t treat anybody differently based on their sexuality or their perceived sexuality, and who ever they’re having sex with doesn’t impact me. These are some of the problems I have with LGBT, an identity based on sexual orientation which to me is a person weak in meaning to allow your identity to begin with your sexual orientation, trans athletes competing against women, the promotion of sexuality as a disadvantage when I don’t think there is evidence that it is, and the promotion of gender fluidity through the misconception that some people are born the wrong gender because of the potential to negatively impact the development and trajectory of children.
3/2/2023
At the gym there is no closed captioning on the TVs, but today there was a Fox news story that featured a quote displayed in the story. I can’t find the story so I don’t know who said it or why Fox was displaying it. I don’t think Fox would support the position the guy was taking in the quote, but it creates an opportunity to discuss important things, like morality, bias, and evil deities. It also allows me to expand on my views of LGBT people and answer the question within the quote.
Essentially, the quote asked why more people were becoming gay, suggested it may be related to elevated estrogen levels in tap water, and went on to conclude that it was because evil was no longer being constrained.
Don’t know the context of the quote and whether this was something Fox News was endorsing, being critical of, or if homophobic stories rate well and so people needed to know what this guy said.
Let’s begin with what is good and what is evil. The human constant is that all people want to do what they want to do at all times. Ideal is for all people to do as they please. All people can do as they please so long as their liberty doesn’t interfere with liberty of others. Acts that impose are wrong and acts that do not impose are right. There are a variety of ways in which one can impose explained in Liberty: The Definitive Moral Truth.
Any consensual act between two people that doesn’t interfere with the liberty of anyone else is a right act.
This is also an example of how the deity is evil. The deity imposes his subjective preference on an act that is objectively good because it does not impose. The deity forbids unimposing acts and this same deity commands acts that impose.
Content Withheld
(Journal Redundancy main points of deities evil stated elsewhere)
There’s nothing morally wrong about being gay, it is an unimposing act. I mentioned yesterday that one problem I had with the LGBT community is the promotion of sexuality as a disadvantage. Some activists would point to this quote and claim homophobia is rampant. Quotes like this do not prevent gay people from having an income, buying or renting a home, access to education, or the denial of services public or private. Yes I’m aware of the instances where a baker didn’t want to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding, but even in that exception there were legal ramifications and remedies.
The other side of it is if anyone knows your sexuality it’s either because you told them or it was inferred through your behavior because your behavior represents the stereotypes associated with your sexual orientation. In that case if people don’t like you it’s based on behavior not sexuality.
I’ll share the corner I painted myself into that I alluded to in the previous entry. I have an issue with the promotion of gender identity since it’s a fictitious concept that can harm the development of children with or without the introduction of hormones. There’s nothing wrong with being trans, but it isn’t a female mind in a male body, it’s a person who likes the things associated with their opposite sex. I don’t know how those values develop but it is all environmental since there is no genetic basis for someone being trans. There’s also no genetic basis for a person being gay, but in both situations these values may not be able to be changed, and there’s need to change those values outside of an individual with conflicting values that prefer those to the values of sexual orientation or gender.
I had and have a problem with the promotion of sexuality and gender identity to children. I mentioned the reason in the preceding entry, because socially isolated children will barter with their sexuality to gain social inclusion into a group, protection since the group is perceived as being disadvantaged, and other opportunities that come from an LGBT identification.
I have a problem with the promotion of gender identity because it’s a false concept with consequences for the development of the child. I had a problem with the promotion of sexuality to children until I realized I couldn’t. Although some children will experiment and may become gay who otherwise wouldn’t without the promotion of it, there’s nothing inherently harmful about being a sexual orientation that you may not have chosen absent the promotion and social advantages.
There are more people becoming gay because of the social recognition that there isn’t anything wrong with it, in part because of the promotion, and the way psychology has directed its social engineering. More times than not a person will accept anything so long as others accept it. Psychology uses this principle to emphasize and de-emphasize values. Masculine values have been debased, pride, strength, toughness, competition, etc and feminine values are promoted. This creates a social environment that is probably more conducive to people becoming gay.
This highlights another subject that alienates me from most factions of people in this country, one whose emphasis is Christian nationalism, and the other whose emphasis is race, gender, and sexuality as a source of disadvantage.
3/4/2023
Abilene is one of the most unique places I’ve spent time around. I usually say that everywhere you go there are decent people and there are assholes and your opinion of the place will largely depend on which interactions left deeper impressions. In Abilene, every person I encountered seemed decent. It reminds me of my own values in regard to the treatment of strangers and pride in having done the right thing even if it’s subtle.
I didn’t have a great deal of interactions while I was there, going to the gym and making purchases was about the extent of my opportunities for interaction, but even in these limited encounters there were notable acts, small things that are a window into a person’s character. For example, I went to Mc Donald’s and after placing my order, perhaps because of the distance between the ordering kiosks the line formed a t where I was on one side and another man is on the other. I didn’t know who was there first so I backed up and motioned for him to go in front of me. He told me to go ahead. In this situation I feel good for giving him the benefit of the doubt and the idea that I’m saving him time, he is presumably motivated by the same idea, including feelings generated from perceiving yourself better, it’s a subtle improvement of your self worth. In his insistence, I’m motivated by allowing him to experience the feeling, and some positive feeling through recognition of good motivation or at least the appearance of.
Contrast that to St. Louis, where after a day of hard work trying to move a clutter and I’m in the gas station with KC. I think I wrote about this in a previous entry, late March to April 2022. I’m waiting in line and a man tries to skip me. In that situation I’m motivated by two things because the circumstances are different. I’m not motivated by the positive feeling of saving him time because it wasn’t my decision to do that. So it’s an attempt to impose on my time. Second, there is an element of pride where I’m trying to figure out what it is about me that causes you to believe you can impose on me? In that situation I believe it was either motivated by race, or it was as he said he didn’t see me, although both KC and myself believed this was unlikely.
Two similar circumstances but not similar enough to produce the same assignments, sequences, comparisons, and objectives.
One night I was leaving the gym and there was a truck in the right turn lane. The truck reversed at the light before I got there and pulled into the middle lane to allow me to turn right on red. I understand that motivation. Today I was driving and hit a red light. Prior to the light turning red I was thinking about moving to the middle lane as to not hold up anyone that had to turn. Unfortunately I stayed in the right lane and felt like an asshole (very subtly, like if you miss a turn and have to take the next turn instead). This feeling wasn’t inspired by the guy in the pick up, who was listening to Spanish music for whatever emphasis anyone wants to put on that detail, it’s just generally the way I’m wired through the understanding of liberty.
Another similar event probably about a year ago that I’ll use as an example but has happened on many other occasions outside of this example. I was driving to Texas passing through Louisiana. I think I was in Monroe or West Monroe, LA. People are getting on the on ramp and I typically give cars space to merge. The quicker they merge the faster traffic is going to pick up. But I don’t like people skipping.
We’re already in the traffic and have been waiting. You’re going to get on the on ramp and try to merge at furthest possible point during stop and go traffic. If I give somebody space to get in and they pull off ahead, they better hope somebody else lets them in because I’m not doing it. Usually somebody does, but on this occasion nobody did for this pick up truck that tried to jump the line and then he was trying to merge when I came back up. I wasn’t letting him in, flipped him off and yell something to the effect that I’m not letting you in bitch.
That’s generally how I am. You take a step back I’ll take a step back, but if you take too many steps forward then I’m stepping forward with you.
Another reason I appreciate the time I spent in Abilene is because some in of it was mentally restorative. How I would react to things in certain places had me questioning if there was something wrong with me for being reactive to inconsiderate shit. When so much is done in such a pussy way where the intentions of the act can be denied and I appear to be some wild stranger for how I’m addressing it, makes it difficult to address properly. Prior to going to Abilene it was beginning to have a gas lighting effect. Reality becomes uncertain due to the second guessing of perception and interpretation.
The point is, in Abilene, in all interactions albeit people do make mistakes you never got the feeling that people were trying to impose or be disrespectful to you. There are other examples as well. Yesterday at Walmart a man noticed $5 dollars near my feet and asked if I dropped it. I was pretty sure I didn’t drop it because my money was in my wallet and I hadn’t opened it. So I told him it wasn’t mine and suggested he give it to the lady working and maybe someone will come back for it.
It was just strange to me to only have encounters with decent people. There was one moment but the guy didn’t do anything wrong, and I don’t know if it was intentional or not. Kinda funny in hindsight.
I had to close my personal bank account. I tried switching my PF to my business bank account that has probably about $100 in it. But the account is under the business name so the payment doesn’t go through. I tried to open a new personal account but the only bank in the area that issues debit cards on site required proof of Texas residency documents that I don’t have.
I checked into the gym but was informed that my payment was 7 days overdue. I purchased a prepaid card a few days prior to pay some bills, business address, cell phone, etc. I used the green dot information to change the bank and made the payment with the card. I told him it was squared away, and he checked and said oh Green Dot Bank. Lol. It’s slightly embarrassing to not have an actual bank to pay for your gym membership. I said yep, but I was thinking man would you shut the fuck up. Everybody doesn’t need to know that. Wasn’t a big deal, the perception of it was funny in the moment and hindsight.
It does seem like a lot of people out there are struggling financially. There’s a lot of houses and buildings that seem extremely run down. I don’t know much about how the labor market is out there, but usually Texans are contented by their sense of nationalism, religion, and fantasies of love. At least the bottom half of the income earners while the top half or third can afford to be contented by other things in addition to the aforementioned contenters of the poor. But nobody’s interested in those solutions.
These little moments are examples of how I’m able to recognize the functions of ASC. I’m not conscious of these functions in the moment, but I am able to isolate moments, and remember key thoughts, feelings, and the actions, and in the isolation of the point with that information including actions and results it’s easy to deduce what’s responsible for the motion based on your general understanding. It’s through your general understanding that processing, conscious and subconscious takes place. Thoughts and feelings are signatures of these processes of comparison.
There was a time when I considered leaving my wallet in my locker. The locker is locked but not impenetrable by any means. Thought about how I would feel if it was taken and at that time I had a good amount of cash on me. In the thought of returning to the locker and the wallet being gone I subtly experience what I would feel if that occured. The feeling motivated me to take my wallet with me.
The initial objective to leave my wallet in the locker is motivated by avoiding the mild discomfort of working out with my wallet where depending on the shorts I’m wearing (zipper pocket or non-zipper pocket) and the socks I’m wearing (short or long socks) I have to work out with my wallet in my sock.
The consequence of the objective is considered first through probability in assessing that it is extremely unlikely anyone would break into the locker.
Then the consequence is considered in severity where however unlikely it is, the consequence would be severe.
It all happens fast and consists of a feeling of relief in considering leaving my wallet and avoiding the burden, monologue thought “nobody’s going to break into the locker”, imaging thought: returning to the locker to find my wallet gone, and then the feeling from that imagined scenario that ultimately causes me to make the decision to take my wallet with me to work out. These are the conscious features of the experience that are a product of subconscious processes involved in all decision making and conscious motion. Not the totality of processes, there are of course others not mentioned in this.
I’ve been spending a good amount of my time playing a stupid game called Top War. Nothing feels worse than having spent an hour or more of your life sitting and playing an adolescent video game on your phone. But I do understand why I’m playing it.
I’m at a point where in 10 years I’ve put forward a great deal of effort and energy promoting my material, ideas, and organizations. In that time I’ve not only gained 0 interest, but I’ve also had 0 reaction. The second part is more important than the 1st, because if there is no interest it may be because there’s no merit, or you’re wrong, but having no reaction to your efforts means people don’t care, don’t understand, or are ignoring you in most cases because they don’t like you or what you’re promoting challenges their beliefs.
I’m at a point where everything I’ve tried has produced no results, and understanding the mechanism of human attention and interests I’ve reached a point where it may be impossible for me to get through to people. Like a modern day astronomer trying to share information with people during the dark ages. There are factions of people in this country just as invested in their beliefs and as unmovable through evidence today as groups during any part of human history.
I know I’m approaching a point where I’ll either be inspired to try, or I’m going to check out because it doesn’t make sense to contend with the incorrigible. There’s other factors in my environment that may also be contributing to these results but I don’t discuss these things because I can’t prove them.
I’ve been playing Top War, going to the gym, and engaging in usually sports related comment exchanges on YouTube to maintain enough positive stimulation to avoid checking out of this bullshit. I know this is the most likely outcome but I’m not completely committed to that course of action and I’m essentially postponing suicide by wasting this time.
Left Premier November 1st with good ideas to improve income opportunities for the bottom 50 percent of income earners and the vehicle through OPL to accomplish them. But this brain dead piece of shit species cannot understand or recognize something that serves their own best interest and act on it. Everything is about the creation and maintenance of appearances, not about substance. There is no common sense.
Common sense is 1 plus 1 equals 2. It’s about exposing everything to critical examination through that understanding. And people lack common sense because they don’t want to expose things that appear to them as they want them to appear to critical examination because they’re afraid that this exposure will destroy the beliefs that rely on that appearance.
I have a shirt I made that states evils greatest assets are ignorance, indifference, and bias. It all stems from bias, the root of self deception and willful ignorance or stupidity. People’s ignorance is determined by where their attention is focused and where they focus their attention is directed by what they like, and what they like is largely determined by what they believe, and what they believe is a product of what they like in the consumption of reinforcing information and the avoidance and rejection of challenging information. Ignorance is a product of bias. Indifference is a product of ignorance in the sense that you can’t be concerned about things if you don’t know about them or don’t know why you should be concerned about them. Maybe through this a person can see that everything is motion and intelligence is a product of objectivity and the application of common sense which reduces all complexity to the definition of simple objects organized in cause and effect sequencing. Outside of quantum physics I suppose where particles don’t always behave or are not observable as everything in the visible world relevant to the human experience.
3/08/2023
I was going to stay in Texarkana for a few days but it was getting warm out, difficult to fall asleep at night, somewhat uncomfortable late morning early afternoon. I’m on my way to St. Louis area where I went around this time last year. There’s a rest area not too far from a planet fitness and I can usually find work in the area.
I’m putting together a general summary of marketable products, books, OPL, legislative outlines, etc that I’m going to put together in a pitch to try to find a consultant who believes he or she can make money by providing advice and support in helping me get the pieces in place for these things to work as they should.
Or maybe it can’t work as it should because people are too invested in their ignorance and stupidity and cannot be reasoned with even to support their own interests. But I’m not more fucked reaching out than I am not reaching out. At least not yet, lol. Maybe in a bad deal having to negotiate from a desperate position, but otherwise seems like something worth trying.
Ja Morant was suspended for posting a video in his Instagram with a gun. Then he issued an apology the next day. I was upset by the apology, not only because it’s authentic and clearly something put together from someone on his team, and because that’s some childish shit. Not going on Instagram with the gun, but apologizing for it.
A man knows why he does what he does. He doesn’t do something and then apologize and claim responsibility for it without explaining why he did what he did. He’s been suspended by the league. Why? Because his apology was the admission that he did something wrong, and he doesn’t even know if he did anything wrong.
We suspect that Ja posted the video with the gun because he thought it was good for his image. He thinks others will have a higher opinion of him if he has the accessory in the video. Otherwise the act is motivated by the idea that would be perpetrators will see the weapon and be less likely to threaten or impose on him, so feelings of security.
Ja is a young globally known athlete with millions of dollars. He has the right to keep arms to defend his person and his property, and is more likely to be targeted due to his fame and fortune than most other people. Showing people he is armed can be a deterrent.
Either way, whether for image or security, Ja didn’t do anything wrong by posting a video with a pistol on his IG, but he didn’t know that, so he let him team post what they posted, admitted he did something wrong, and took the punishment.
I originally had the story wrong because I wasn’t interested in what he did. I was only interested in the fake apology and the implications so I didn’t look into what he actually did. The report was he was on video flashing a gun in a nightclub. I thought there was an altercation so my original summary flowed off that narrative. Then I found out there was no altercation and it was a video he posted on Instagram and all the criticism didn’t make any sense.
I didn’t watch all the reports, but the headlines and titles, and the reports I did see were all critical calling Ja a thug poser among other things. Nobody in sports media pointing out how Ja more than most who have the right should have the means to defend himself and how letting people know he has a gun could make him more secure. That anti-gun culture adopted by the league as image policy should not prevent Ja from implementing whatever security measures he feels he needs to employ to protect himself. Or the fact that there’s nothing wrong with Ja recording a video of himself with a gun even if it is purely for image promotion purposes.
I’m going to get to work on this solicitation.
3/13/2023
It’s probably been about a week now since I wrote that I planned on putting together a pitch. I’ve developed some very poor habits through my demoralization from things not going as they should have. By poor habits I mean wasting time. RUSC was rejected from another journal which is absolutely crazy to me. I’m proposing a way to raise the income of the bottom 50 percent of income earners while also adding half a trillion dollars per year to the federal budget. I don’t know how the idea isn’t relevant to economics where it can be subjected to criticism. It can’t be subjected to criticism other than emphasizing the cost to the consumer. But for those who are in the top 50 percent they’re not going to notice it, and those in the bottom 50 percent will benefit from better income opportunities and also will not notice it. It guarantees the results, higher wages for retail, fast food, and unskilled workers, greater retention of profits for businesses in retail and fast food, increased federal revenue, and decreased federal spending. And these fucking journals recording largely meaningless measurements will not review something that would create the single greatest increase in wages for the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution in American history.
That’s been my experience. Ignored or rejected without explanation because I am right about everything (not sports, that’s a place where I exercise bias and many disputes are subjective). That’s a product of objectivity, because when I discover I’m wrong about something I adopt the correct position. That’s something most people can’t do.
I tried hitting the ground running in Elgin, because I knew I didn’t have much time to make something happen. Contacted media, contacted political parties, contacted businesses, universities, economic organizations, and in person to people who work in fucking retail and fast food. Did more of this in Las Vegas. It’s shocking. I guess maybe not more so than rejections of Liberty as the Basis for Objective Morality, or the complete lack of interest and effort on Assignment, Sequencing and Comparison, just the decision to not acknowledge it without any explanation.
I’m in a real bad spot now. Spending too much time distracting myself from these circumstances, mainly because it seems impossible to reach you puppets. If you don’t know why you do what you do, and don’t subject what you think to critical examination you’re not controlling your strings.
I wrote the following intent on soliciting business consultants. I don’t know how many of them will actually read it, but it seems like something. I mean freelance business consultants. Where a consultant may provide services on commission basis or under a partnership agreement if they believe they can market the products. Otherwise, as freelance business consultants they may have clients looking for opportunities to be involved in this kind of business.
It’s a long shot, but there’s also the possibility that I sell a few books if they read the product description. Everything is a long shot. You want to reach people you have to reach em through their phones. And even then you can’t give them 2 and 2 and expect them to find 4.
The following is part 1 of my solicitation which is the product description. If anybody is interested, I have a field operation plan I’ll send them next including a summary of what I’ve done and the results.
Solicitation Product Summary:
If there is an opportunity to attach yourself and profit from a milestone in human history by being one of the first to participate in the promotion of its elements does that interest you?
My name Orion Simerl, and I am the founder of the Organization for Popular Legislation, owner of two websites OPLnow.com and LibertyAndTruth.org, an author of 7 books, 1 screenplay, about a dozen legislative proposals, and I have a journal with entries that date back about 5 years.
I’m looking for someone who will assist in promotion and strategy for a portion of the proceeds, or through deferred invoices payable contingent on the establishment of proceeds. The ultimate goal of these sales is to fund campaigns for quality of life improvement, through insight, education, and legislation.
The ceiling is high in terms of personal gain as well as the good that may be accomplished.
The contents of this email is a product summary. If there is interest I also have a business plan and summary of my efforts.
I’m beginning with a legislative proposal called the Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive. I’m beginning with a proposal from The Organization because to understand the significance and potential of the Organization for Popular Legislation you have to have an idea of the legislation it is promoting.
Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive.
The RUSCTCI will
*Increase the wages of roughly 50 million people by about $3 to $15 per hour,
*Increase the retention of profits for fast food, retail businesses,
*Increase federal tax revenue,
*Decrease federal spending.
A round up service charge is a charge in the amount of the difference between a customer’s total and the next dollar. For example, if a customer’s total is $44.68 the customer would pay $45. The service charge of $.32 would be distributed to the employees working at the location at the time of purchase.
The service charge will substantially increase the wages of people who work in high volume transaction industries(1), like retail and fast food. We’ve estimated a full time Walmart store associate would earn about $6.25 (2) more per hour if Walmart implemented a RUSC. Many workers would likely earn more since the amount a person earns from RUSC is determined by the number of transactions per employee on site. If a gas station attendant averages 30 transactions per hour he or she would earn about $15 more per hour. In addition to RUSC increasing income for people in retail and fast fast food, other companies who hire unskilled workers will have to pay more to compete for labor.
1: A High Volume Transaction Industry (HVTI) is defined as a business that averages 5 in person transactions per employee per hour.
2: As of January 20th, 2020, it is estimated that Walmart locations average about 10,000 car visits according to The Institute of Transportation Engineers. Not all cars entering a Walmart parking lot are there to make purchases. I’m assuming there are 9,000 transactions per day, and about 45 people working per shift (according to a Walmart manager) Presuming the store is open 16 hours per day the total daily service charges would be split between 90 workers. Since there is no greater likelihood that a total will be closer or further away from the next dollar the average round up is $.50. $4500 split amongst 90 workers is $50 dollars per person, or an additional $6.25 per hour. 1/9/2020 8th and Walton. 8th and Walton is a consulting firm that contracts with Walmart that published the findings of The Institute of Transportation Engineers https://www.8thandwalton.com/blog/walmart-foot-traffic/ Stephen Comeau managed the electronics department in a Walmart from 2013 to 2020 and reported about 45 workers present during a typical shift. This testimony was used to source an estimate of the number of employees working during a typical shift, and in person interviews yielded a similar estimate range where I was told 30 to 60 employees working during business hours at a given time, depending on the time of day, day, and time of year https://www.quora.com/How-many-Walmart-employees-are-working-in-the-store-in-during-an-average-day-at-the-same-time
As RUSC increases the wages of employees in HVTIs, employers will have to pay more payroll tax. No company is going to implement a program that will cost them money, but fortunately as wages increase more money is paid from an employee in federal income tax than an employer will pay in additional payroll tax. This means additional income tax collected can be used to eliminate the cost to the company created through RUSC improving wages. It also means we can afford to incentivize companies to implement the program.
The average wage for a Walmart worker is $12 per hour.(3) This is $24,960 annually. Adding 6.25 per hour through RUSC produces an annual income of $37,960.(4)
3: 12/20/2022 Pay Scale Research, Average Hourly Rate for Walmart Employees. Cashiers, Store Associates, and Stockers earn between $10 and $15 and $10 and $16 per hour averaging roughly $12 according to the site presumably averaged from the actual numbers. https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Walmart.com/Hourly_Rate
4: $12 per hour * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $24,960
$12 per hour + 6.25 RUSC per hour = $18.25 per hour * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $37,960
$24,960 pays $1236 federal income tax.
$24,960 pays $1910 payroll tax(5)
$37,960 pays $2796 in federal income tax
$37,960 pays $2904 in payroll tax.(6)
Payroll tax increases $996
Income tax increases by $1560(7)
The additional payroll tax expense for RUSC is $996 for the employer.
The additional income tax from RUSC income is $1560. RUSCTCI provides the employer a 100 percent payroll tax refund for RUSC earnings that is paid for through the additional income tax collected.
There is $564 of newly generated income tax leftover per employee. We’ve covered employer expenses but most businesses are not going to implement something new just to break even. RUSCTCI provides companies with 50% of the increased revenue. The public keeps half and the company is given a tax credit for the other half.
5: 1/8/2023 Talent.com Income Tax Calculator. The user must input a state Nevada was the state from my search, probably based on a recent search in that location, but the state doesn’t change the federal income tax rate or payroll tax rate. https://www.talent.com/tax-calculator?salary=24960&from=year®ion=Nevada
6: 1/8/2023 Talent.com https://www.talent.com/tax-calculator?salary=40788&from=year®ion=Nevada
7: $37,960 $2904 in payroll tax $37,960 $2796 in federal income tax
$24,960 – $1910 in payroll tax $24,960 – $1236 in federal income tax
Difference is $ 996 Difference is $1560
Walmart employs 1.6 million store associates(8) and would receive $287 per associate. $459 million total annually, and the public would receive $459 million in additional tax revenue from Walmart implementing RUSC. While 459 million in additional tax revenue is not significant in its own right, this is one company among retailers, and retail is one industry among many who would be considered HVTI and be eligible to implement a RUSC. Not to mention additional taxable income generated in other industries who hire unskilled workers as an effect of RUSC on the labor market for unskilled workers. The increase in tax revenue overall should be substantial.
8: Retrieved 1/8/2023 Walmart Corporate About Section 1.6 Million employees in the US. https://corporate.walmart.com/about#:~:text=Walmart%20operates%20approximately%2010%2C500%20stores,Walmart%20U.S.
As wages increase for people who work in retail and fast food, as well as for unskilled workers, the number of workers who rely on government benefits will decrease which will lead to a dramatic decrease in government spending. A less prominent decrease may occur from decreased demand for coin currency meaning we’ll save money on the amount of new coins that need to be minted each year.(9)
9: In 2021 we spent roughly $764 million dollars minting new coin currency. The prospect of savings in this area may amount to a few hundred million dollars. Not significant considering the overall size of the budget, but still a benefit worth mentioning. Department of the Treasury United States Mint, “Congressional Budget Justification and Annual Performance Plan and Report Fiscal Year 2021”. Page 4, Resource Detail Table estimated cost for manufacturing circulating coin currency 2021: $764,159. Whether they minted this amount of coin currency in 2021 is irrelevant because it is likely what they received for their 2021 budget. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/266/22.-Mint-FY-2021-CJ.pdf I previously had a figure of about 600 million dollars for 2021 or 2022 but I was unable to relocate the source of that figure having not recorded it at the time I viewed it.
There is one qualifier for a business to receive the RUSC payroll refund and the tax credit for implementing a RUSC program. The company must maintain 100 percent of base wages prior to RUSC, and must maintain wages equal to 90 percent of pre RUSC wages every 3 years adjusted for inflation. Labor markets decide wages. Walmart averages about $12 per hour for store associates because on average that is what people are willing to work for to do that job. (Varying by area of course to produce that average). If Walmart implemented RUSC and employees earn $6 more per hour on average Walmart could reduce base wages to about $6 per hour and pocket all the round up, since people have shown they are willing to work for $12 per hour. This qualification assures that the workers and the labor market benefit from the Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive.
The Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive serves all affected interests. If a franchise owner stands to make $20,000 per location if the RUSCTCI is passed, it is in his interest to invest in the legislation. The more employees and transactions per employee the more valuable it is to businesses. I’ve been unable to make contact with owners. I’ll talk more about those efforts later.
The Organization for Popular Legislation
The following interests are addressed in the explanation of The Organization for Popular Legislation. This assertion is qualified definitively through my material but we begin with how public policy is created at the federal level. Industry decides public policy through political investment. Candidates are essentially selected by industry through campaign contributions that position the candidates to be competitive in elections. Remuneration comes in the form of public policy and narratives that convince the public that pro-business policy actually serves the interests of the public. The biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans in elections is which industry’s interest will be prioritized in public policy.
There are typically about 40 congressional districts decided by less than 20,000 votes, many districts decided by far fewer than that, and many are perennially contested. OPL seeks to pass legislation by creating voter blocs from among people who don’t vote, many of whom don’t vote because there is nothing to vote for that has a meaningful impact on their interests. The voter blocs are created by showing people that accomplishing OPL legislation is more important to their interests than any difference between a democrat and a republican, and they should vote for candidate x because he voted for or promised to vote for the legislation that directly improves their quality of life.
Gaining a voter pledge begins with getting their signature on a petition preferably with a phone number. Then nearing an election the signer is contacted and reminded which candidate will introduce and or vote for the legislation. If the voter pledges for OPL legislation exceed the margin of victory of previous elections, it essentially means OPL voters will decide who wins the election and candidates in such districts will have to support OPL legislation.
Passing legislation requires more than 20 to 30 representatives, but the ability to decide 20 to 30 seats has other implications. 20 to 30 seats decides which party will control the house. Which means a party that supports OPL legislation can control the house, and it also means the industries that invest more in said party will be closer to having their interests prioritized, and will be able to more effectively force concessions.
RUSCTCI should be very easy to get signatures for, since fast food and retail workers stand to make between 6 and 15 dollars more per hour, with the vast majority earning less than $15 per hour. That hasn’t been my experience. In IL and Nevada I went into retail and fast food locations, asked for managers, explained the idea and left them with handouts that directed them to the website where the petition can be signed and that tactic yielded no signatures, contacts, or inquiries.
That’s OPL in a nutshell, creates and promotes legislation that serve all affected interests, creates voter blocs, and uses the voter blocs to encourage politicians to pass the legislation. There are currently 7 proposals on the website and there are several others that I haven’t posted, as well others that require research or development by people in fields I don’t presently have access to.
I went in detail with RUSC because for a nominal cost to consumers we can increase wages for about the bottom 40 percent of working income earners, while increasing profits for fast food and retail businesses and gaining about half a trillion dollars per year in the federal budget between tax revenue gains and a reduction of people dependent on government benefits. I won’t inundate you with full details for the other ideas currently on the OPL legislative agenda, but some are even more impactful for individual liberty, especially those in the bottom 50 percent of income earners. There are summaries at the OPLnow.com website.
The Organization for Popular Legislation is registered as DBA in the state of Florida, I have a federal EIN, I have a bank account for the organization, and the website.
LibertyAndTruth.org
LibertyAndTruth.org features a few articles including an ongoing 5 year journal, books available for purchase as well as tee shirts and hats that contain themes and messages from the material.
Liberty: The Definitive Moral Truth
The summary of the words liberty and truth begins with the book Liberty the Definitive Moral Truth. Morality is a determinant of conscious motion, in motivating acts perceived as morally right, and prohibiting acts perceived as morally wrong.
Liberty is the basis for objective morality because the human constant (and the constant for all conscious beings) is that all people want to do as they please. Ideal is for all people to do as they please and all people can do as they please so long as the liberty of each individual doesn’t interfere with the liberty of others. The basis is acts that impose are wrong and acts that do not impose are right.
Imposition consists of physical harm, property, threats, deception, time, and opportunity or circumstance. The book goes into the intricacies of these forms of imposition, justifications, and principles that show it is applicable to any moral scenario and always correct.
In addition to laying out the concepts of right and wrong deductions are made about existence itself. I apply the measure of liberty to the tenets of the major world religions showing consistency or inconsistency to liberty. It’s also inferred from the nature of the observable universe that the morality of a creator is liberty, based on the lack of evidence of any supernatural interference, as well as other evidence provided in the book. The duality of morality is liberty and tyranny, where liberty is one objective standard and tyranny has different standards consisting of subjective preferences that are imposed as moral rules. Any morality that calls an unimposing act wrong or an imposing act right except through justifiable circumstances (preventing or neutralizing unprovoked imposition) is the imposition of a subjective preference.
We deduce that if a creator or god is good the beings morality must be rooted in liberty. The book also defines what existence, the purpose of life and the universe probably is based on the intelligent conscious experience and morality.
The Survival
The screenplay The Survival is a product of the concepts identified in Liberty The Definitive Moral Truth and woven into a fictional narrative to explain the application of the concepts in the survival of consciousness after death. The script requires some input from people who are better versed in creating entertainment, but the plot is solid, and the dialogue explains liberty as the basis for objective morality applied to popular ideas about life.
Back to Liberty And Truth
We look around the world and contrary to popular superstitions all the results on this planet are the product of the decisions of people on this planet. While many especially in the US see the world through a lens of their socioeconomic status and believe the results are mostly good, that narrow lens fails to acknowledge the quality of life and opportunity for most people, and how those circumstances produce the overtly negative, like mass shootings, crime, drug dependency, depression, homelessness, poverty, terrorism, war, etc. I mention these things to say that human beings create evil results, and to propose the question: what makes human beings evil?
Human evil is a product of self deception. It begins with a subconscious mechanism to protect value, especially self worth. People do what they like but what they like largely relies on what they believe is true. When a person is exposed to challenging information they often experience a negative feeling. This negative feeling is the subconscious warning that their values are in danger, where changing one’s beliefs can change what things they can do to feel good, as well as change the way they feel about themselves. Information that is challenging is avoided, ignored, and rejected. Information that reinforces beliefs, is sought out, consumed, and not subjected to critical examination.
What are the consequences of self deception? Self deception prevents meaningful communication from taking place, since people don’t analyze information to arrive at the most likely conclusion, they choose what to believe based on how the information makes them feel, and how it makes them feel largely depends on whether the information is reinforcing or challenging. Communication cannot take place because people choose their facts based on feelings as opposed to allowing facts to determine their feelings.
This barrier to communication is largely why we have the issues that we have. Self deception creates the market for deception. People want their false beliefs reinforced and the media, politicians, marketers, etc are able to meet that demand for self deception and use it to further their interests.
Self deception harms motivation because if what a person does derives value from false beliefs then they’re doing things they wouldn’t do if they knew their beliefs are false.
Self deception also limits intelligence since people avoid, ignore,and reject information that challenges their beliefs, and believe things that are not true to maintain their perspective.
Liberty cannot flourish in an environment of deception. There is Liberty and Truth and there is love and deception, because deception is a product of an effort to maintain biases, and truth is a necessary element for liberty.
Truth has value in it’s utility to liberty, in intelligence, motivation, and circumstantially in the sense that individuals’ circumstances are impacted by the inability to collectively communicate caused largely by the desire of individuals to consume belief reinforcing information.
American Prosperity Proposals
The American Prosperity Proposals qualifies the need for attention on improving income opportunities and proposes several ideas, legislative and market based, to improve income opportunities for the bottom 50 percent of the income distribution. Some of which are being promoted by OPL.
Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison: the Organization of Objects and Prioritization of Objectives by the Subconscious Mind.
The book identifies the subconscious processes that produce thoughts, feelings, and behavior through assignments of cause and effect, value as measured through the feelings an objective produces, true and false, and good or bad morally. The book is a mixture of different explanations and presentations interwoven with common experience examples and real life situations.
Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History 2019 to 2020.
This book addresses popular political narratives occurring between 2019 and 2020, essentially showing that most issues made to seem important and the popular positions concerning those issues fail to demonstrate an accurate understanding of the subjects. Many of these issues and positions are recurring which means despite the book being a few years old the material is still relevant. In addition to insight, research, and commentary pertaining to events from the title period, there are chapters dedicated to addressing misconceptions about the creation of the constitution, as well as the functioning of government. To address popular opinion there are chapters and a section that chronicle organic online debates on contentious topics.
The Florida Ordeal
In 2018 I was driving through Florida with about 3 grams of marijuana, a pipe with marijuana residue, and 4 10mg gummy thc edibles, the equivalent potency of about 1.5 grams of marijuana. Although I knew the substances to be illegal in the state I presumed the small amount that I had wouldn’t result in more than a ticket if I was found to be in possession of it.
During the traffic stop the substances were discovered and I was charged with 2 felonies and 4 misdemeanors facing up to 14 years for the charges. When the substances were discovered I didn’t think it was a big deal and I confessed to purchasing the substances legally in another state and knowingly possessing them. The book chronicles the misconduct of my public defender and the judge where I was able to use the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct and the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct to leverage the state to drop the felonies and 2 of the misdemeanors and plead guilty to 2 misdemeanors for a 15 day jail sentence.
Racial Perceptions
Written largely during 2020 this short book addresses popular misconceptions about race as a disadvantage with an emphasis on policing but also concisely addressing studies that suggest racial prejudice is an impediment to employment, criminal justice outcomes and other areas that impact liberty and quality of life.
Covid 19 Media Project
The COVID 19 Media project quantifies the risk of being infected with COVID 19 using data available during the first month of the virus in the US and contrasting that risk to the danger presented by the media, politicians, and others who benefited from exaggerating the danger.
Journal
The last 10 years my life has consisted of working to gain the funds to promote my material, efforts to promote, and enduring very difficult circumstances all the while. The journal chronicles this journey, captures my mood through these times, provides insight into life happenings and events, and demonstrates the application and observation of the novel concepts in Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison, morality, human behavior, and government function. –
There’s probably no way you can truly grasp the significance of the things I’m saying and trying to accomplish through these summaries. The books are available at LibertyAndTruth.org
If you have any interest I do have a business plan and summary of what I’ve done so far.
3/17/2023
I was considering how the tone of these entries over the last few months is similar to someone trapped on Island, lost in the wilderness, or otherwise in a situation they cannot get themselves out of. That is essentially what my circumstances are.
This isn’t none of that whether you think you can or you think you can’t you’re right bull shit. It’s the reality of the circumstances, the mechanisms of human function and the intergenerational investment into popular misconceptions.
I get notifications about neuroscience studies that I read sometimes as some of it is evidence of things I describe through Assignment, Sequencing, and comparison, and I see if there is any findings that contradict or provide insight into a function of ASC. For example, there was a study few months ago that showed memories were stored in three portions of the brain, one of which was emotion. Assignments of value are made based on the feelings associated with objects, and the areas of the brain used to store memory attest to that function. I haven’t come across anything that is contradictory.
Today there was an article that essentially found that people have difficulties communicating because they have different conceptions of the meaning of words, and often assume others have the same interpretations as they do. This is something I generally do not do, because I have general understanding of popular misconceptions and the implications of those misconceptions in understanding things.
I can clear that hurdle because everything I describe is motion, but it requires a level of attention that cannot be gained because these misconceptions make it unimportant or threatening. Bias and self deception, the desire to protect beliefs that give value to objects doesn’t allow for communication to take place to reconcile the different conceptions of words or ideas. Otherwise, without the mechanism to protect beliefs to protect the value of objects, people would be able to communicate functioning conceptions to one another and compare it to the observed motion.
The point being is it’s like being trapped on an island when you know people cannot understand you, both because their perspective consists of things that are not true that as the study suggests impacts the literal meaning of what you’re saying, but more so because what they may manage to understand will be rejected based on their preference to maintain their perspective, to ensure they can continuing doing the things that cause them to feel good. As in many objectives derive feelings from beliefs and discovering a belief is false or bad means it cannot supply feelings for the objects and objectives it supplied feelings for. Sometimes there are self worth implications for beliefs depending on the investment in the belief or if it is associated with one’s identity.
Today I saw a young man with a hoodie on that read god before everything. I was initially angered by the hoodie, mainly because it is blind submission to a fictitious tyranny, and also because of the consequences it has collectively for people interpreting the world and existence through that lens. If you believe that a supernatural power intervenes in human affairs it limits your ability to understand that all the results on this planet are a product of human decision making and other natural causes. If you think the deity will benefit you in the survival of consciousness after death you’re wrong there too because morality isn’t your deities’ subjective preferences, morality is a determinant of conscious motion, and separate spaces would exist to accommodate morality based on liberty and morality based on tyranny.
He wears the hoodie for image promoting purposes. First, he perceives his deity as perceiving him more favorably for wearing the hoodie stating he puts the deity before anything. He may also perceive others as perceiving him more favorably. These perceptions increase self worth and produce good feelings, subtly when the decision is being made to create, purchase, or wear the hoodie and also when he’s paying attention to the fact he’s wearing it. Very subtle positive feelings, and most feelings we experience are subtle. He also probably experience boosts in self worth through his perception of himself in ideas about him being what he thinks is good by wearing the hoodie.
Let’s say I decide I’m going to give him an impromptu lecture on his deity being an inconsistent tyrant, and a run down of morality and liberty. Wearing that hoodie is one objective tied to that deity, but there are countless others that reduce the things in life he can get joy from. The truer he is to that slogan, the more impactful the destruction of that belief in his deity will be. If the conversation takes place it won’t be long before he tells me to leave him the fuck alone, or he becomes quiet, ignores everything I say, and he’s still rocking God before everything and maintaining false beliefs about the world and existence.
I’ve been that guy before. I would hear or see something, inject myself into it and get into arguments. There are an abundance of opportunities. But it didn’t do anything for me. People can have no argument or factual basis for their beliefs or position and walk away choosing to believe it after it has been destroyed. A lot of people running around with a mind full of 2+2 is 5s. And they don’t want to know any different.
If the journal sounds like the journal of a man trapped on a deserted island it’s because it is essentially that in the sense that people you cannot have meaningful communication with is about the same as being in a place with no people. Meaningful communication is communication in the interest of advancing liberty and truth in the utility it has for improving the quality of human life.
I usually go to Walmart after the gym and buy a rotisserie chicken and a 24 ounce container of cottage cheese. About 225 grams of protein. There was a young man out there looking under the hood of his car when I went into the store and he was still there when I came back out. I have jumper cables and some tools so I asked him if he needed a jump? He said he was looking for his power steering, and said his power steering went out. He was on the phone presumably with his dad or someone who knew about cars. He was looking for his power steering reservoir, probably advised that if his power steering wasn’t working it may be because he didn’t have any fluid. I looked under his hood, located his coolant reservoir, his brake fluid reservoir, but stopped looking when I noticed it was a Buick probably less than 10 years old. I asked him the year and he said 2013. Buick is made by GM and I have a 2012 Chevy Malibu. I have electronic power steering, so he probably does too. It’s very unlikely that GM would continue to manufacture cars with hydraulic power steering after introducing electronic power steering.
I’ve had an issue with my power steering for a few months now. The torque sensor is bad so sometimes the wheel will oscillate if I take my hands off it. The power steering works by sensing the torque on the steering wheel and assisting the direction. When the sensor gets bad it sends the wrong signals about the direction of torque on the steering wheel, and it will shut off sometimes. Mine cuts on and off.
I told him he can drive without power steering. It sucks but the wheel turns a little easier when the car is in motion. He seemed incredulous when I told him that but it’s true. I’ve driven my car on many occasions without power steering.
As I drove off I forgot to tell him a trick that usually works for me. As soon as you start the car turn the wheel and it will usually kick the power steering on, sensing the torque on the steering wheel before the bad signals without any movement on the wheel disables the power steering. I briefly considered turning around to tell him but he may have a different issue. Could be a fuse, a relay, or it could be the system itself. The shitty thing about it at least for me is if you replace the torque sensor you have to spend like $300 to take it to the dealer to have the new one calibrated.
I’ve been spamming the solicitation I posted on the previous entry. Targeting posts from people looking for jobs in marketing and sales. My expectations are not high but there’s a chance someone will understand enough to want to understand more and will be able to sell it. There’s also a chance they could read the journal and understand enough to be able to promote a fundraising campaign. That could work out in the sense that they could take a commission from the funds raised and then I would have the funds to pay them for future work within the organization.
I’m just about through the resumes on the site I’m using across the country. While it hasn’t yielded any response I’m fairly confident that it has produced website views. I don’t have a tracker on OPL but I do have one on L&T. I typically.get a few page.hits per day on the L&T site and usually.these are home page hits. But yesterday I had a good amount of hits on this journal page and on the book excerpts page and books as a category. The previous day I had hits on just about every page which suggests that these solicitations have produced some interest in the website.
I suspect the interest could just as well be someone thinking I’m a domestic terrorist looking for something that suggests I’m dangerous within the pages. Not dangerous, I mean I am dangerous but not in a violent threatening terrorist way. Dangerous in my ability to understand, apply, and articulate truth, which is definitive in identifying the causes of motion.
3/18/2023
There is a political Facebook group I’m a member of where someone shared a post implying that systemic racism is a problem in the US. Below is my comment refuting the idea
Systemic racism does not exist.
Begin with policing which is commonly erroneously cited as an example. To qualify racism in policing you need to provide examples of something from the interaction with an officer and suspect that demonstrates treatment was motivated by race or a poc suspect being treated differently than a white suspect based on similar behavior. I’m not aware of even one example.
But suppose there were examples. Considering there are 55 to 65 million police contacts per year you will need an awful lot of examples to claim there is systemic racism in policing. Systemic means there are elements within a system working to produce a particular result. If you had 100 examples it doesn’t represent a systemic problem because these results are the exception to what the system produces, not the product where 99.9999 percent is not producing that result.
Do we all already know about the bs study that implied black suspects were twice as likely to be shot by the police as white suspects? Where the reason was based on black people being only 13 percent of the population but representing 28 percent of police shootings? But failed to mention both white and black suspects were shot in the same proportion of crimes they committed. Black people committed 28 percent of the crimes and represented 28 percent of police shootings, and white people committed 55 percent of the crimes and represented 55 percent of police shootings. Numbers are accurate within a percentage point. I didn’t refer back to my material for the actual numbers
Black people committed a disproportionate amount of crimes because a greater proportion of black people are poor from past systemic racism, and beginning poor predisposes people to criminal behavior. Now some people cite this discrepancy to claim there is ongoing systemic racism since black people have not been able to close the income gap. But why are there poor white people?
There are at least twice as many poor white people in this country as there are poor black people. This is because we live within an economic system where an individual’s opportunities for income largely depend on the amount of money he has. Obviously an individual’s developmental opportunities also largely depend on the household income an individual is born into. More importantly, when a person’s income opportunities are only sufficient to cover their expenses, they don’t experience any wealth accumulation to pass down to succeeding generations. We have poor white people because being born poor predisposes a person to being poor.
Although there is a greater proportion of black people who are poor, they don’t remain poor because they are black, they remain poor because they are poor. 2/3rds of people who begin in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution remain in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution.
Some people cite the unemployment rate of black people being higher than that of white people as evidence of systemic racism. The trend shows the opposite. As unemployment rises in recession and falls during expansion, if there was a preference for white workers, when downsizing occurs the black unemployment rate should rise dramatically and the white unemployment rate should significantly lag behind since companies would be firing the least desirable people. If there is a preference for white workers they would retain white workers and fire black workers. And when growth occurs and unemployment falls the black unemployment rate should lag behind significantly since there is an abundance of white workers seeking employment. But we don’t see that. Over the last 30 years the unemployment rate rises and falls pretty equally by race. Which essentially nullifies the biased studies related to prejudices in hiring.
And why are a greater proportion of black people unemployed? Because a larger proportion of black people begin poor and poor people have fewer worthwhile opportunities. Like most false assertions of racial causation, if we control for class, and compare the unemployment rate for white people who begin poor and black people from the same beginning income grouping, we probably arrive at a similar unemployment rate.
There was a study that showed white defendants had better outcomes in criminal justice proceedings. This is because as a whole white people have higher incomes, which is more than being able to afford a lawyer but the circumstances that impact the decisions of the state and the judge. The study also found that Asians had better outcomes than white people which means race is not the cause of the better outcomes. Asians have the highest median income in the country, so Asian defendants are more likely to benefit from circumstances that produce confidence in the state and judge that the defendant will not reoffend leading to better outcomes
Systemic racism does not exist. Black people are not discriminated against in policing, criminal justice proceedings, education, employment, housing, or access to services public or private. Most of this comes from my book Racial Perceptions so I do have citations available upon request. Race is the greatest tool of distraction and division to ensure class goals are not at the forefront. Inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money is the issue, not racism.
3/20/2023
In a futile effort to promote OPL and RUSC as well as keep myself occupied I’ve joined Facebook groups and I’ve been posting, commenting, and participating in comment exchanges. As expected there is very little understanding or effort to understand anything. Most of these groups are meme posts about tabloid politics and keeping with biased reality TV like narratives.
I’ll be posting some of my comments and exchanges to highlight the obstruction to communication due to bias. I mentioned a study from a neuroscience magazine that was a psychology study. I mentioned it because I agreed that people do have different conceptions of words that can obstruct communication. It’s laughable that the title was why we disagree so much. As if differing conceptions is the main obstruction to communication and not bias. As mentioned in that post, differing conceptions of words and ideas is easily overcome. Disagreement primarily stems from efforts to maintain beliefs and perceptions.
The following is a good example of that. There’s a woman who has a problem with what I’m promoting not because she understands it and doesn’t believe it will do what it does or thinks there is something harmful about it. I believe her problem is that I came into her group and she was threatened by my intelligence. This probably happens more often than I think it does.
The following is my post and the exchange that ensued.
Orion Simerl Post
The Organization for Popular Legislation creates and promotes legislation that serve popular interests with an emphasis on increasing income opportunities and addressing other quality of life issues. The legislation will be passed by forming voter blocs within the 30 to 40 districts that have been decided by fewer than 25,000 votes over the last few elections. While 30 seats doesn’t pass legislation on its own, what it does do in most election cycles is decide control of the house, which is important enough to the parties and their donors to support OPL legislation. If one party refuses the other party will win and keep the house. Chances are, the parties will neutralize OPL by supporting OPL legislation. This will create a highway for passing popular legislation.
This should either excite or concern you. You’re excited if you understand that important public policy is decided through political investment, and recognize how OPL will pass legislation despite those circumstances. Then you should be interested or concerned about what this organization is trying to pass.
We have our outlines and petitions on the website. We seek to accomplish transformational legislation as it relates to improving income opportunities. Our 1st priority is The Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive.
Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive
Sara Overton Comment 1
How exactly is this a “good thing”?
Where does the Constitution specifically give the federal government this authority?
Orion Simerl Comment 1
Apparently you misunderstand. The constitution has created a system with 2 chambers of Congress and an executive branch occupied by representatives who have been delegated the responsibility to legislate. Functionally, representatives, senators, and presidential candidates are selected by industry through campaign contributions that allow them to be competitive. The result is that industry decides public policy and citizens are contented by a soap opera consisting of largely irrelevant issues and coverage that have little to no impact on their interests.
OPL is using the election mechanism to force legislative concessions that benefit the public. It does this by targeting contested districts so 20,000 or fewer people in different states can decide the outcome of house seats. In doing so it will force parties to support OPL legislation, allowing popular interests to be served despite public policy being primarily driven by industry.
If your comment was in reference to the roundup service charge congess has the authority to pass laws and appropreate funds. The Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive incentives businesses in retail and fast food to implement a service charge by covering the additional amount the business will pay in payroll tax from the service charge, and also offers a tax credit that is paid for by the additional income tax created through additional wages paid to employees.
Round Up Service Charge for a nominal cost to the consumer 1: raises the wages of people employed in retail and fast food by about $4 to $15 per hour, 2: it will raise the wages of unskilled workers through it’s impact on the labor market, 3: it will allow businesses in retail and fast food to retain more profit, 4: it will increase federal revenue through additional income tax collected from higher wages, 5: it will reduce federal spending as 10s of millions of people earn higher wages and no longer rely on government assistance.
If you’re asking how RUSCTCI is a good thing I’d have to know what among those points you have a problem with.
If you’re asking how OPL is a good thing it serves as a vehicle through which public interests can be accomplished in a federal government that otherwise functions through industrial investment in politics.
Sara Overton Comment 2
I haven’t misunderstood anything. Again. Point to the exact location in the Constitution that gives the federal government this authority. You do realize that if the Constitution doesn’t specifically give them this authority, then they don’t have that authority, right?
And now for the “popular legislation” premise. That is not how our government works. And this is exactly why the government makes people believe that we have a democracy. We don’t. There is a huge difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. We have a constitutional republic. The biggest difference is that the “majority” or the “popular” idea doesn’t “rule” our lives or the government. Which is your whole premise here.
I have “a problem” with this whole premise. It’s up to each individual company to determine how much each employee makes for their position. It’s up to the employees to decide if they will work for the amount offered. Why do you believe that the government has any say in the matter? And why in the hell should I have to pay more outrageous fees so the company can pay the employees more? How can you guarantee that the company would pay them more?
OPL is no different than any other organization that believes they are “helping” the people.
Orion Simerl Comment 2
Note: I wanted to explain why it was necessary to improve wages, and why employees work for substandard wages. I probably shouldn’t have. She hasn’t read the proposal since she says how can the government make sure the businesses pay, and as will become evident she still thinks the proposal is the government forcing a round up charge. I lost focus a little in this response, mainly because she seems to be asking what authority congress has to make law and appropriate tax dollars.
Again, Article 1 section 7 enumerates Congress with the power to pass laws with presidential approval including the appropriation of funds.
The federal government has the authority to incentive businesses to take action that benefits the public. It’s called a tax credit, and a good portion of government spending is appropriating your tax dollars to businesses, of course typically without any direct benefit to the public.
Clearly your source of indoctrination has not provided you any understanding of how a labor market functions and the negative byproducts of living in a nation where much of the population has inadequate opportunities for time and money. I mean you talk about the constitution and apparently you don’t understand that congress has the power to create law and appropriate funds.
An individual’s ability to improve their income is largely determined by the amount of time and money that they have. Evident by social mobility (studies) that shows 2/3rds of people who begin in the bottom 40 percent of income earners remain in the bottom 40 percent, and the higher an individual’s income is the greater the likelihood that they will move to a higher bracket.
If most of an individual’s time is spent earning an income that only covers their expenses they will never have the time or money to improve their income. They are trapped in those circumstances. Which is responsible for a great deal of crime, drug dependency and other negative results we have in society. Furthermore, an individual’s circumstances are largely determined by systems, and systems exist through collective consent and participation. Systems that produce trapping circumstances are collective imposition on those individuals. It is morally incumbent on the people of a nation to ensure adequate opportunities exist for people to have time and money.
You pretend that people are working for wages in an environment where if people were not satisfied with their wages they wouldn’t work and companies would raise wages. Participation is a matter of survival. More importantly, when a company earns more money they don’t pay their employees more. They pay them whatever people have shown they will work for to do that particular job in a particular area.
You’re talking about exorbitant fees. A round up service charge on retail and fast food purchases is far less than the cost goods have risen in the last year from inflation.
We have an opportunity to raise the wages of about 50 million people in this country substantially, while saving about 500 billion dollars on the federal budget in increased revenue and decreased spending. And you can’t understand any of it because you’re only interested in bias promotion.
You exist between nationalist talking points that don’t apply to substance. OPL is like nothing the people of this country or any other has ever seen. Otherwise it wouldn’t consist of substance, it would consist of the vague rhetoric and platitudes that resonate with a politically illiterate public.
Sara Overton Comment 3
Note: I thought I took a screenshot of her 3rd comment before she deleted it but I must not have. I don’t remember everything that was in it, but the part I’m going to paraphrase she restates in a future comment. The comment began with show me where it says in the constitution that the government can appropriate a private company’s funds. It’s odd she resumed the position later on because I believe she deleted her comment after I posted my response.
Orion Simerl Comment 3
Where have I said anything about the federal government appropriating the funds of a business? You don’t even understand the proposal. Hilarious.
You’re for lower wages, more people relying on government benefits, less tax revenue, less profitable businesses, a weaker economy, and are opposed to a legislative proposal you clearly don’t understand because nothing I’ve said involves the government telling a business what to do with their money.
If a business implements a round up service charge that is distributed to their employees the proposal provides them a refund for the cost of the additional payroll tax, the cost of which is covered by the additional income tax collected through the increased wages, and they would also receive a tax credit in the amount of 50 percent of the additional income tax generated from the round up wages. A Walmart worker would earn about $6.25 more per hour. This amounts to an additional $1560 more per year they pay in federal income tax. Payroll tax increases by $996. From the income tax paid the employer’s payroll tax for the additional round up wages is refunded. This leaves $564 left per employee. Half is given to the business as a tax credit for implementing the service charge and raising their employees wages. The other half is kept by the federal government. Based on Walmart employing 1.6 million store associates in the US Walmart retains 459 million dollars and the federal government makes 459 million.
That’s what I’m talking about and none of that is the government deciding how a private business is going to spend it’s money.
If you ever want to know what’s wrong with this country, find a mirror.
Sara Overton Comment 4
“Sara Overton Where have I said anything about the federal government appropriating the funds of a business? 😂. You don’t even understand the proposal. Hilarious.”
Except, that’s exactly what you are proposing. Let’s see.
* You are proposing that Congress pass a law for businesses to “round up” the price consumers pay. Check.
* You are proposing that Congress pass a law that tells private businesses what to do with those “round up” charges. Check.
* You are trying to justify that Congress has this authority by proposing more taxation without representation just so it “might” fall under Article 1 Section 7. Because the government doesn’t already tax the shit out of the people. And that would be the only way it might fall under Artical 1 Section 7. But that is questionable too. Check.
Please explain how the government would not be appropriating the funds of private businesses by this proposal? Can you even do that without your pathetic ad homenim attacks?
“You’re for lower wages, more people relying on government benefits, less tax revenue, less profitable businesses, a weaker economy, and are opposed to a legislative proposal you clearly don’t understand because nothing I’ve said involves the government telling a business what to do with their money.”
Oh goodie. More ad homenim attacks. Are you sure that you are trying to get people to agree with your proposal? Because ad homenim attacks are not the way to get anyone to agree with you. It is also against the rules that you agreed to when you joined this group. This will be your first warning.
The fact remains that you do not know enough about me to attempt to tell me what I’m “for”. Nor have I said anything about my personal beliefs. I’m simply asking you to prove where the federal government has the authority to do this, in which you haven’t been able to answer. Go figure.
“If a business implements a round up service charge…”
Because of a law that the federal government made. Again, how exactly is that not the government telling a private business how to appropriate their funds again?
“That’s what I’m talking about and none of that is the government deciding how a private business is going to spend it’s money.”
Again. From a proposed law from the federal government. That tells a business what to do with this money. So yes. That is exactly what you are proposing.
“If you ever want to know what’s wrong with country find a mirror.
Wow. Again with even more ad homenim attacks. All because you believe that is the only way to “bully” someone into agreeing with you. And again. That’s not how this group works. Nor is it any way to get people to agree with any proposal you make.
Now. Let’s address this “popular legislation” premise. Why do you believe that the people even want, or agree, with this proposal?
Orion Simerl Comment 4
Not passing a law telling businesses to round up the price of customer purchases and making them distribute it to their employees.
Passing a law that provides a tax refund and tax credit IF a business considered high volume transaction decides to implement a round up policy according to the specifications of the law.
That’s like saying Congress doesn’t have the authority to subsidize renewable energy because they’re telling businesses how to invest their money. It’s the same thing. It is an incentive for the businesses to make more money by doing something that benefits the public.
Pointing out that you clearly don’t understand the proposal isn’t an ad hominem attack, it’s the correct conclusion based on your assertion that providing an incentive to encourage a business to do something is Congress appropriating the funds of a business.
As for where I get that people want or agree:
Higher wages
Decreased government spending
Increased tax revenue through higher wages to reduce deficit spending and the need to sell bonds.
Check the polls. Are there any where people respond that they want more government spending, lower wages, decreased federal revenue, lower profits for businesses?
Note: Now her buddy entered the conversation.
Skot Curtis Comment 1
The problem isn’t with your proposal per se, the problem is that you think the government needs more of the peoples’ money.
This is nothing more than a cash grab from the people, so the government can have more money to waste.
The problem isn’t that the government doesn’t have enough of our money, the problem is the Congress spends because they are not responsible with our money.
Your proposal does nothing to solve this problem, but takes more money out of my pocket. What problem are you trying to solve with this?
Orion Simerl Comment SC 1
The problem it solves is raising the wages of about 40 million people in this country. Those who earn on average 24,000 per year will make 35 to 45,000. Addressing the root cause of nearly all problems, which is inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money at an average cost to the consumer of $10 to $15 per month depending on how many in store retail purchases they make or how often they eat fast food. It will reduce spending as people’s wages increase and far fewer are dependent on government benefits. I don’t know if you’re aware of this but we sell over a trillion dollars of government bonds on an annual basis to pay our bills, meaning we need more revenue and less spending.
Skot Curtis Comment 2
Did you forget that this round up tax will have to be paid by the very workers you are trying to help every time they buy something? 
Note: I probably provided a poor estimate of the average monthly cost to the consumer. The truth is it’s difficult to estimate because unlike Skot claims, it isn’t every time someone buys something. In order for a business to qualify for the tax credit for implementing a round up service charge, that business must average 5 in person transactions per employee per hour. Not all stores meet this criteria, and not all purchases that people make are in store. It’s difficult even if it were all purchases to get the data for the average amount of purchases made per month by people in the bottom 50 percent of the income distribution, much more difficult to know how many of those purchases are from businesses considered to be high volume transaction businesses. I believe a more accurate answer to be closer to $20 to $30 than $10 to $15. Either way, most people can afford that and it’s much less than people have experienced from inflation over the last few years and the people who cannot afford $20 to $30 will be able to afford it after RUSC is implemented.
Orion Simerl Comment SC 2
It’s not a round up tax, it’s a service charge. Yes, and anyone who cannot afford to pay an extra $10 a month will be better able to afford it through the implementation (of RUSC) , especially those workers in retail and fast food who will benefit most. Let’s see, earn $6 per hour more but save $10 a month on round service charge, or $20 per hour but then they have to pay $10 a month in service fees for retail and fast food purchases. As wages increase for people in retail and fast food it will cause companies who hire unskilled workers to increase wages since they will be competing for unskilled workers in retail and fast food.
Sara Overton Comment 5
You telling me I don’t understand the proposal simply because I question congresses authority over this proposal is ridiculous. That’s no different than saying if she doesn’t agree with me she must not understand it. Which at best is a childish and immature argument.
However, you have proven you don’t understand the constitution or the limitations of government with your assertions.
I want you to forget about this proposal and focus on the legality here. Prove to me that the constitution allows for the government to make a law like this.
Orion Simerl Comment 6
It isn’t a disagreement. A disagreement would be you stating the proposal won’t do something I claim it does. I believe you understand the proposal but are too invested in your position on a (previous) misunderstanding to admit it.
Congress can offer tax credits and tax refunds to encourage businesses to do things.
You stated the proposal is Congress telling businesses how to spend their money and telling them what to do. By now you should understand you were wrong. It is a tax refund and credit to incentivize businesses to implement a round up service charge. The authority is derived from congress’s power to make law including tax law. Article 1 section 7 and the 16th Amendment.
Note:. There were a few other comments I wasn’t able to capture. One where she tried to use my statement to Skot where I said it wasn’t a tax it was a service charge to make the case It was telling businesses what to do and I couldn’t have it both ways. In one of my own comments I lost I mentioned examples of tax refunds and credits for renewable creation. She responded that it was because of people like me that Congress did those things. Her position evolved from congress doesn’t have the authority to provide tax credits but it does them anyway. She essentially acknowledged that Congress does and could implement the proposal. The last comment I have is Skot Curtis and my response to him.
Skot Curtis Comment 3
You’re ignoring the basic problem. Your service charge will hurt the very people you claim to help.
They frequently use retail and fast food services
(He posted a gif with a picture of a salad that read word salad blah blah blah
Orion Simerl Comment SC 3
How is a retail or fast food worker hurt by an expense that amounts to somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 per month when their income increases by $1000 per month?
3/23/2023
I’ve been wasting so much time for a fairly long time now. I saw an organization that claimed to help homeless people. In the desperation that I’m facing I decided to send them a summary of my products, my circumstances, and the circumstances that I’ve existed in for the last 9 years. The version I sent I edited before I sent it but there may still have been some errors, and I said some things that probably would have been better left unsaid.
Content Withheld
3/25/2023
As the desperation and indecision grow, I decided tomorrow I’ll take some kratom and figure it the fuck out. I may not, but that’s the plan. I used to say that a lot, usually while driving, that others driver’s need to figure it the fuck out if they’re driving poorly. The phrase reminded me of a time when Chris from Premier played me a voice message from some girl. I don’t remember it exactly but it was something like I kinda feel like this but then I kinda feel like this, and I want to do this but maybe I should do that. I said she needs need to figure it the fuck out. 😂
I don’t usually take kratom. I think I wrote about it before, but I purchased it to motivate me to get things done. It’s calming, very similar to how hydrocodone makes you feel, and it seems to improve my focus. If you take it in early you have to take it again in the afternoon or you may become irritable and depressed. If you take on consecutive days when you stop taking it it can cause you to become very depressed. I purchased it probably January, took it a few days and stopped to see what the symptoms were, and decided the negative outweighed the positive.
I’ve had half a jar of it for over two months. Other than last week where I took some to try to change my mood and stimulate some productive thoughts I haven’t taken it. But I need to figure something out, because my circumstances are not improving by doing nothing. I have been out here for a while now with nowhere to go, so I have been slowly going nowhere.
I have a general criteria, can I make money there, is there a place close by where I can sleep in my car, a planet fitness, and are there any closely contested congressional districts. It’s difficult because everyplace is the same few brands of ignorance in different proportions, Christian Nationalists, Woke Progressives, and those who are indifferent to how systems shape their individual circumstances and the circumstances of others. That equals 100% stupidity, that seeks to reinforce that stupidity and avoid, ignore, or reject anything that challenges their faulty beliefs.
3/28/2023
Yesterday there was a mass shooting in Nashville, at a private Christian school. The shooter was a 28 year old woman who identified as a trans man according to reports and may have been under the influence of male hormones at the time. 7 people were killed including the shooter, 3 9 year old children and 3 staff members.
I’ve seen the usual headlines attempting to reduce the tragedy to the hormones the woman was taking(unknown at this time whether she was on hormones or not), mental health, and guns. As I always say, these incidents are a product of US systems, political, economic, and social. 1 of these events every 10 years is an anomaly, 10 every year is a product.
When I use the term social system I’m referring to the ways in which people interact with one another and the formation of relationships, which bleeds into human behavior and the formation and maintenance of individual perspectives. The root of all human problems is self deception. I typically say self deception and inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money, but that too is a product of self deception where communication is obstructed or attention is distracted and no remedy can move forward.
I often discuss the mechanism of self deception, which is rooted in a negative feeling identifying threats to value, including self worth that causes people to avoid, ignore, and reject challenging information. Beliefs serve as the basis for the feelings that people derive from the things they do. Discovering that a belief is false means they can no longer feel good about the things they do. An example I’m about to cover is if a person is a Christian, discovering that their deity is false means they no longer get the joy they get from going to church, abstaining from things the deity forbids, telling others about the deity, and it’s tied to their identity. The more invested they are in a lie the greater the blow is to their self worth.
Unfortunately the police have not released the shooter’s manifesto. I’m interested in reading it to better understand her motivation. The El Paso Walmart shooters manifesto is available online. I read that I think was only 3 to 6 pages. Some of his grievances were legitimate but much of it was overblown. Either way, it was recognition of being imprisoned by popular misconceptions and being powerless to draw attention to the problems he saw and affect change. He had no solutions, the problems he perceived were overstated, but he did what he did primarily as a person who began to understand that he existed in a nation built on deception. While it’s another topic altogether, although a person may not have an accurate picture of the world, when they begin to discover that what they’ve been left to believe is untrue it impacts their entire perspective. Beliefs are internalized through the feelings they produce, and those beliefs are connected sequentially to a variety of other objects, and also connected to objects in the feelings they produce and creating the hierarchy of value. It’s like a house of cards, where when you pull a card from the bottom it topples the cards. Then you have to begin restacking and rearranging them. Not a great analogy, but the point is, a person has to reestablish how they understand the world around them, both in function, and in value. In doing so, so many things become possible and the only way to do it is to be grounded in objectivity. To reassemble things often the wrong way a lot of times and then learn yourself out of those things until you’ve assembled them correctly.
What we know about this shooting is that the Shooter identified as trans gender
She attended the the Christian school probably about 15 years prior.
She did not identify anyone in her manifesto.
Tennessee just passed anti-trans legislation.
Since all we can do is speculate based on the information that we have I’ll make a few assumptions that may prove false.
She may have been motivated by the state’s anti trans legislation.
She may have made the connection that the legislation was motivated by Christian conservatives.
She may have chosen the school based on prejudiced teachings against homosexuality and men expressing interests with things women tend to like and women expressing interests in what men typically like. It’s safe to say she didn’t have a great experience at the school otherwise even if she planned on targeting Christians in response to the legislation she would have chosen a different target if she had a pleasant experience during her time at the school. Although I also suspect she chose the school based on the familiarity with the building. She may have chosen the location based more on familiarity than a negative experience but it’s also true that her experience wasn’t positive enough to not choose it as a target.
The two elements of the legislation that I am aware and there may be more, is the legislation prevents children from receiving hormone treatment and surgery, and it also makes drag shows illegal.
The first element I support because I don’t believe children should be making medical decisions that impact their development and will affect them for the rest of their lives. Children are also persuaded not only by what they are taught in classrooms which in Tennessee is probably not a curriculum including gender identity but what’s available to them on the internet. Transism for lack of a better term is promoted as a girl who is born a boy and a boy who is born a girl. There’s no genetic basis for the assertion, and there’s also no basis for a boy feeling like a girl or vice versa because having been born one gender you cannot know if how you feel is how a person of the opposite sex feels generally. Some people like things that are associated with the opposite sex and the application of those values is transgender. I don’t have an issue with people being trans. However, when it’s promoted how it is promoted to young impressionable minds, especially children who may have social issues, not part of a group, difficulty making friends it can be an opportunity for belonging, a way to get attention, social interaction, and becoming part of a protected group. A group that is perceived by some members of society as disadvantaged and deserving of special treatment. In addition, exposure to this information can be interpreted as a diagnostic checklist, where the reason they have the difficulties that they have is because they’re actually transgender. Once that conclusion is reached by a child they may either become it, or ride it until they discover otherwise. But whether they are or are not they shouldn’t be making decisions about their chemical make up and development or surgically modifying themselves until they are adults.
While some might question what difference it makes if a person is the other gender trapped in the body they were born in, or if they develop and apply likes associated with the other gender? The difference is if they have doubts they don’t have to kill themselves as many do because they’re too invested in the idea that they’re the other gender in the wrong body. They can just accept that they liked those things and now they no longer like them.
On this element of it we have the shooter who is probably too invested in false ideas to recognize that legislation that prevents children from medically changing their gender is a legitimate measure to protect children from harming themselves.
Because the shooter has probably self indoctrinated trans ideology, there may be no way she can understand and respect this. I was debating a trans person about a week ago who mentioned that something in the neighborhood of 95 percent of trans people who underwent surgery and hormone treatment reported increased feelings of well being. It was meta data gathered from all study’s over about a 10 year period. I pointed out to her that the participants in those studies were probably adults. It also didn’t provide how long after the treatment the respondents were asked, where if the average time is 1 year after treatment that answer may be different if you ask 5 or 10 years after the treatment.
I do not support the element of the legislation that effectively bans performances in drag. There is no public benefit to this legislation. It’s imposing a subjective preferences onto others, effectively telling people what clothes they are allowed to wear while dancing. It’s immoral to forbid acts that do not impose. Of course there’s no way the legislators or the people who support this legislation can be persuaded because their morality is subjective and likely rooted in a false and inconsistent deity. The explanation is in the legislation, banning performances by male or female impersonators or entertainment that is harmful to minors. How does a performance in a private establishment that does not permit minors matter if minors are not permitted to witness the entertainment? More importantly, how does a performance by a male or female impersonator harm children? It doesn’t, unless you have an irrational belief that it is wrong to be a male or female impersonator, and thus any exposure to a male or female impersonator harms children by suggesting that it is okay. And it is okay.
As for the Christian component these are the most self deceiving people on the planet. Not only do they avoid challenging information and are uncritical of what they believe, but the vast majority don’t even study their own religion. Much like other subjects like politics they accept other people’s opinions and internalize them as fact.
The bulk of irrational legislation that imposes on the lives of others from the right is rooted in Christian superstitions. Why is it wrong to be gay? Because the deity said so. Why is it wrong to be transgender? Because the deity said so. Why is abortion wrong? Because the deity said so. That’s a little bit of a stretch since it really comes down to not understanding that a fetus is not conscious which prevents it from being imposed on, but it’s tied to ideas that preventing a person from being born is denying the will of god, and the prolifer ranks are primarily Christians.
If the law preventing children from accessing trans medical treatment was a motivating factor this is rooted in the self deception of the shooter who refuses to be critical of her position that children are not capable of making decisions that will impact their development and effect them the rest of their lives, and the belief that some people are born as the wrong gender.
If the law preventing performances by male or female impersonators was motivating, this is rooted in the legislators self deception that there is something innately harmful to children in seeing a male or female impersonator.
If it’s motivated by Christianity in general this is rooted in the over 2 billion people in the world who have subscribed to an inconsistent tyrant deity’s doctrine that they refuse to subject to critical examination because of how it makes them feel. Self deception. I’ve written about Christianity in books as well as within this journal. You don’t have to go back too far to find an entry highlighting the stupidity and inconsistencies with the religion.
The United States and human beings generally will continue to produce mass killers. People who have been alienated from the various herds, people with limited worthwhile opportunities, people who have seen through the bullshit and find themselves with a new fringe bullshit perspective, people seeking fame, among other things that a world full of self deception driving the supply of deception produces. Legislators do not care, and the people (industry) who position the legislators to be elected do not care, because they are largely insulated from the problems that befall the general population. The narrative is guns, mental health, substances, or anything that draws attention away from societal failings. The myth of American goodness and the misconceptions that American society is built on has to be maintained to ensure those who benefit from this organization of society and have power will continue to benefit and maintain power. Christian Nationalists, woke progressives, and the politically indifferent are the preferred groups to maintain the illusion that benefits wealth and power.
Why am I not a mass killer? If this is the first you’ve read from me that might seem like a strange proposition but if anybody should be killing people indiscriminately it should be me. 😂 I’m being playful there and I don’t care if you find it reprehensible. Circumstantially, I check every box. 2nd, it’s a serious issue and I’m the only one taking it seriously, while others are praying which is the same as doing nothing, while others are pointing to implements and the substances a perpetrator may or may not have been under the influence of.
I’ve been homeless for the better part of 9 years, mostly living out of a car but I have had stretches in shelters and sleeping on the streets. I have an indisputable moral philosophy that is always correct and demonstrates how moral human failings produce human problems. Through this moral philosophy and the conscious experience, deduction and inference can be made about a creator, existence, and the rules of other spaces that are more probable than any other explanation. I have a theory of the mind which is also indisputable that no one is willing to pay attention to. I have several books that address popular misconceptions and concisely explain the basic functions of politics and economics. I created an organization that creates a pathway for legislation that benefits the public to be passed in a system that is directed by industry through political investment. I have several legislative proposals that will address income opportunities in this country, some that benefit all affected interests, as well as other proposals addressing impediments to individual liberty. None of these things can be received because people are committed to biases and a non-biased perspective at some point offends all biases. I also recognize that self deception is a product of moral failings. I recognize that nearly all people are tyrants. I’m also hopelessly trapped by these circumstances.
With that understanding and outlook, it would make sense to most that such a person may be inclined to indiscriminately harm people. First, self deception produces collective imposition where individuals are harmed circumstantially by individual’s commitments to false beliefs, the obstruction it creates to communication, and the directing of attention. While it is fair to say my circumstances are a product of collective self deception, there isn’t one individual solely responsible for my circumstances. Imposition is justified to prevent or neutralize imposition, or as an implement of justice towards making a party whole after they’ve been imposed upon. I cannot hold any particular individual accountable for my circumstances (at least not that I’m aware of), and would be wrong for harming people indiscriminately. I have moral certainty about things that were discovered and developed through objectivity. That is why Ill kill myself before I’ll kill anybody without a just and direct cause.