Daily Journal 2

The content of this page consists of reflections on my day to day life, some of which is necessary to reduce stress, other times to express insights about human behavior, the application of morality, or analysis of news, articles, and narratives.

This is the successor to the Daily Journal page that goes back 5 years.


The past few entries in this journal have been very substantive content.  Unfortunately I’ve done almost nothing but sleep, eat, and lay in bed after finishing an early day at work today and I need something to get me off of youtube and into something productive as the day is approaching its end.  I have a few random things I’ve written down on my list and a few realizations.  

About a week ago I wrote about relative value where the same sum of money means different things to different people based on how that sum can facilitate some end for the individual or entity.  In the original post the comparison was between what $35 means to me versus what $35 means to the city of Chicago.  Essentially, what the city can do with $35 versus what I can do with $35, and how soon that $35 could become relevant for both parties.  

Today on my way to Walmart there was a man with a sign on the freeway off ramp.  I remembered I had cash on me so I gave him $2 as I often do when I’m in a position.  After I rolled up the window I thought about why it feels good to give money to people with signs.  It’s in the relative value.  Where $2 is not going to be very relevant to me in the immediate future, and $2 for him will presumably facilitate some immediate end.  Food, beer, drugs, etc.  If you have $0, even $2 immediately improves your opportunity.  I’ve always understood that it felt good through the acknowledgement of improving someones liberty without expending much time or energy to do it, but today is the first time I considered relative value as a subconscious factor in producing the positive feeling.  

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 anyway.  

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 sd 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. 


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 be presented 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 to 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 anyway, 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 it’s 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.  Circumstantially trapped is a person whose income opportunities are roughly equal with their expenses and where most of a person’s time is spent accumulating 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 address 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 individuals 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 some 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.


The following is an extension of the 9/10/2022 entry below. 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 seperately. 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 of 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. 

It’s all a we’ll pray for you statement.  Outside of that being the stupidest shit to say since your act does nothing to improve the circumstances that someone is dealing with, it’s also a statement that tells the person that you don’t care.  Take mass killings for example, people say we’ll pray for the victims and the familys.  News anchors have said things to this effect.  What you’re saying is you don’t care enough about the issue to understand why it happens to prevent it from happening.  I won’t go into specifics here, but a big part of the reason people cannot understand it, is because 1: it causes them to confront deep seated beliefs, and 2: which is a wide offshoot of 1, they have to acknowledge that these are the results that the people in this country, often themselves indirectly included, produce.  The political, economic, and social systems in this country produce people who indiscriminately want to kill other people.  We’ll pray for you since we want to maintain our narrow perspective on life while giving a low energy image promotion of compassion.  They’ll couple that with feeling bad about the event which further increases their self worth in the idea that their sad feelings about the event makes them a good person.  Some of those bad feelings are produced by them imagining themselves as the victims.  Then they’ll break the news to others and they can “vibe” back and forth about how bad they feel and how tragic it was.  I hate the word vibe.  I use it to describe positive sensations created from image promoting and moral feelings produced subconsciously or contrived through imagination of empathy.  Whereas most use the word to describe positive feelings they typically cannot identify.  

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.  Where 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.  He 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 to 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.


Yesterday my daughter want 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 over a year, 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 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 impose 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 had about how other Chicago, cool county, and IL policies impose on the income of their citizens and drive other problems.  


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, 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 Terretories.  

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 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.


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 reason 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 where 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 it rained during those 10 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 better.  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.  Helpful in ensuring more items get to where they need to be.  

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 2 and 1 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 in 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.  The human constant is that all beings want to do what they want to do at all times.  Any act that does not impose is good and any act that does impose is bad because it prevents someone from exercising their liberty.  There are of course underlying rules rooted in liberty that allow it to be consistent and ideal but that is the basis.  Imposition can be considered direct and indirect, physical imposition, imposition on property, deception, circumstantial imposition, and imposition on time.    Then there is tyranny where right and wrong is determined by an authority whether an act imposes or not, and then there are tyrants who impose on others unless they’re presented with a consequence that harms them more than the imposing act benefits them.  

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 derrive 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 middle of mid 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. 

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 we 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 manuels and whores himself out to attornies who are sueing 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.  


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 officers 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.  

Not only in this situation but others.  This is an incorrigible species that should destroy itself through nuclear war as climate change reduces habitable surface area nations war with one another to relocate their populations to habitable areas.  The moral evolutionary check on intelligent life.  

On the topic of climate change Biden recently signed and passed a bill that he boasts will reduce emissions in the US by 40 percent.  I haven’t had an opportunity to review the bill but in a brief summary I read it is what I’ve told you all climate change legislation is.  About $400 billion dollars in subsidies and tax credits to incentive industry to produce renewable energy.  The funneling of public funds into private hands.  The public paying for renewable energy infrastructure that will be owned by private companies and guarantee profit for these companies.  In an ad he states the public won and special interests lost.  It’s comical if not for the facts that stupid people, which is most people will believe it.  


I don’t remember what prompted me to pursue this outlet but I decided to write a short article about morality and existance 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 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 a 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 Irrelvant.

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 principle.  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, 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 are 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.  Suffice it to say that most of what people like is based on associations.  

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.  Prior to the 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 moral 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.  

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 and 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 know 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.  

Why God’s Existence is Irrelevant

All monotheistic deities which for the major religions are essentially the same deity with modifications describe god as a conscious being, one who can become angry or be merciful, who is all knowing and thoughtful, whose acts are motivated by feelings like all others.  

Morality exists as a determinant of motion for conscious beings.  I don’t think anyone would deny that their deity has a moral code, and in fact, people typically see their deity as the embodiment of morality who supplies their moral code.  Morality imposes feelings that motivate or prohibit action.  This is self-evident for every honest person on this planet.  Morality is prohibitive in that a negative feeling will occur when someone is about to do something they believe is wrong.  A person may have thoughts related to the moral implications of the act, but absent or preceding thoughts the negative feeling is imposed subconsciously to avoid a loss of self worth.  If an individual does something they believe is bad they associate it with their identity and feel bad about themselves.  The complete mechanism is described in the unabridged version of this article.  

Morality is motivating when there is a positive feeling associated with righting a wrong, even if the initial response is anger or sadness.  Making an effort to right a wrong will increase a person’s self worth which produces positive feelings, and sometimes, failing to act to right a wrong will produce negative feelings, the avoidance of which motivates the act; as the pursuit of a positive feeling is also the avoidance of a negative feeling.  

Morality is either objective or it is subjective.  How can morality be objective if every person has a different conception of what is right and wrong based on different reasoning?  The human constant, in fact the constant of all creatures and conscious beings, is that everyone wants to do what they want to do.  Everyone can do what they want to do so long as they are not imposed on by other creatures.  This means a right act is an act that does not impose and a wrong act is one that does impose.  Then there is subjective morality where what a person believes is good and bad is subjective, where acts that are unimposing are believed to be bad, and perhaps acts that are imposing are believed to be good.  

For example, the old testament deity, who is the Christian deity and the Muslim deity, called acts that were imposing good, and acts that were unimposing bad.  Adam and Eve did what?  They ate from the tree they were told not to eat from.  The consequence of eating from the tree, where it was the tree of knowledge and gave them knowledge of good and evil is irrelevant.  That wasn’t the sin.  The sin was disobedience.  Abraham is counted as righteous before god not because he was righteous enough to refuse to kill a child based on the command of a voice, but because he was willing to do evil to be obedient to the deity.  The story of Joshua being ordered to kill all the canaanites young and old (which according to DNA evidence did not happen) is a deity that orders murder and theft which are imposing acts.  Joshua according to the literature obeyed the deity in carrying out imposing acts. 

The Christian deity supplies the reason why the deity cannot exist.  The Christian deity and the Muslim modification of that deity have created conscious beings who like it, wants to do what they want to do.  He’s supplied them only two choices for their eternal existence, eternal servitude or eternal torment.  First these are two options the creator would not want for himself, to come into existence for the purpose of being an eternal servant or to be eternally tormented.  In fact it really isn’t even an option since eternal servitude for a free willed being is a form of torment.  It also makes the Christian deity a hypocrite, since he tells his followers to love him with all their heart, mind, spirit and strength, and also to love their neighbor as they love themselves, but in making them for purposes he would not want to be made he demonstrates that he doesn’t love them as he loves himself. 

Morality is divided into objective morality and subjective morality, where the latter can be classified as tyranny, and the former classified as liberty.  Subjective morality is tyranny because it means people will impose on others either because they believe that it’s right or do not care if it is wrong.  Objective morality is objective because it serves all people’s interests simultaneously, allowing for the greatest expression of subjective likes.  

Imposition exists in forms of physical harm, property including income, deception, time, and circumstances.  The unabridged version of this article includes the mechanisms. Speech cannot be considered imposition unless it is deceptive or threatening.  The same thing can be said to 3 different people in the same context, and one may be indifferent, another may feel good because of it, and another person offended.  If a person feels bad because of something someone said, it isn’t the words themselves, it’s the person’s subjective interpretation of those words.  It isn’t morally wrong to say anything you want to say.  Of course living among tyrants there can be consequences even if the consequences are morally unjustifiable.  

We observe the space that we exist in and there is no evidence of anything taking place on this planet that wasn’t caused by the creatures on this planet or the interaction of objects through known physical processes.  This means all the results on this planet are a product of the creatures on this planet and natural processes.  This suggests that any creator’s morality is liberty because he does not impose on his creation.  God is irrelevant in your physical existence because he cannot help you because he does not impose.

Another reason god is irrelevant is because god cannot impose on conscious beings who do not impose on others.  Imposition is justified to prevent or neutralize imposition, otherwise it is wrong.  And again, no conscious being would create something to violate its morality because doing so reduces his self worth and produces a negative feeling.  

Most importantly, worshiping and obeying a deity has no benefit to a person in a space beyond if consciousness survives death. Morality is a determinant of motion.  If you had an eternal space of liberty that consisted of beings whose morality was liberty and beings whose morality was tyranny the universe would not exist.  There would be perpetual conflict because the propensity of the tyrant to impose to do as he pleases is in constant conflict with the propensity of the libertee to prevent and neutralize imposition.  For this reason, if consciousness survives death, there must be two spaces to accommodate the preferred motion produced by the morality of different beings.  No person asked to come into existence, and any creator whose morality is objective has to provide its creation with what it wants for itself.  Which is to continue existing and to freely create as he pleases.  If consciousness survives death then people’s consciousness should go to the space that suits their morality, since a space facilitates motion, and morality is a determinant of motion.  This means that god is irrelevant because he doesn’t arbitrarily place people in good or bad situations based on who he likes because of their obedience.  A person chooses their appropriate space based on their understanding and application of morality.

For those who prefer the idea of one being who is responsible for the creation of the universe we can begin there.  I typically begin my theory of existence with multiple beings but it doesn’t change the principle basis for a creator’s limitations in what he could produce or the probable purpose that life exists to begin with.  If you have an eternal being, such a being’s liberty is limited by his experience.  Soon such a being will do everything it wants to do and existence will become stale and tormenting.  

The universe is the random scattering and assembly of matter through the processes of the space that it exists within.  The universe exists for the purpose of producing life.  Why would a being or beings create life in a random environment?  Any being capable of creating a universe has no need for servants because he isn’t limited in his capacity to do, except of course by his own morality.  A servant serves no purpose because he can will whatever he wants to happen, and creating beings for service or torment would violate that beings morality.  The universe exists to produce life randomly to create new beings with new experiences to ensure that any being or beings who exist in spaces beyond existence doesn’t become stale.  Any being or group of beings given an infinite amount of time will do and experience everything they want to do until they are sick of doing everything.  The universe is the reproductive mechanism of consciousness, furnishing eternal spaces with new beings and new experiences to perpetuate eternal and uninhibited liberty and creation.  This is the most probable explanation for existence based on the existence and functionality of morality, the absence of a creator’s presence or interference in the universe or human activities, the limitations of a conscious being or beings in a limitless environment, and the conscious experience.    

God cannot create beings for the purpose of being his servants because it violates his morality.  God also wouldn’t create beings that exist temporarily because god having existence wouldn’t want to cease to exist.  God has to want for others what he wants for himself since anything short of this would be considered imposition, violate his morality, and cause him to feel bad.  As far as intelligent beings are concerned, God can only reproduce, and the universe is the reproductive mechanism of consciousness to furnish spaces beyond with new beings and new experiences to ensure existence doesn’t become a burden. 

Finally, if consciousness survives death no one can ever know if they’re meeting god.  If consciousness survives death it survives death in a space that is not in the physical.  The evidence being that once someone dies their body decays and there is no evidence of them existing in the physical.  If you lose consciousness and wake up somewhere else any being you encounter will have superior knowledge of the space and could comparatively seem like god.  Any being having a beginning will never know if they are in the presence of the supreme, or the first cause of all existence, or if they are in the presence of something in between.   

God is irrelevant because no being having a beginning will ever know if they’ve met god.  

God is irrelevant because as is evident, he doesn’t interfere in the physical and therefore god does not help or bless while you’re alive.    

God is irrelevant because presuming that consciousness survives death, a person’s consciousness will go to the space that is appropriate for their understanding and application of morality. 

A person will never know if they’ve met god, god does not help them in life, and god does not help after life presuming consciousness survives death.  

These are deductions made on the presumption that the creator is good and operating out of objective morality for which there is evidence based on what we observe within the universe.  If I am wrong about the purposes I’ve assigned for life and the universe based on a presumption that consciousness survives death it doesn’t change the fact that there are two main moral distinctions, and objective liberty based morality is ideal for human beings in our physical existence here on earth.  
Lastly, it’s important to understand where this comes from.  What I’ve done is understood morality as a force that motivates and prohibits motion, and considered how that idea would be applied to different spaces consisting of non-physical conscious beings without limitations.  I’ve observed a universe that seems to exist for the purpose of producing life, and considered why something would exist for the purpose of producing life instead of nothing existing at all.  I deduce what a creator(s) can do based on objective morality and how the acknowledgement, worship,  praise, or obedience to a creator is irrelevant.  I briefly apply objective morality to the most popular deity to show that he is a tyrant.  While some of this is speculative, it’s speculative based on true concepts and mechanisms.

5 years of journal entries The Daily Journal Page