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.


I was going over Assignment Sequencing, and comparison and came across a item I had in the section on objective morality, under speech as imposition, where I wrote imposing speech consists of threats, deception, and sounds that can cause physical injury.  I removed the latter but it probably still stands.  

It’s interesting in consideration of what I’ve experienced at the gym.  Constant small irritants, that may or may not be intentional.  Like you have a bunch of lockers in the locker room, if you see a lock on a locker choose one that isn’t right next to that one with a lock on it, so there’s no possibility we’re going to be in one another’s way.  Common fucking sense.  And it seems like these mother fuckers are always slamming lockers.  Today after the second person slammed their locker when I finished I said if you’re going to slam the mother fucker slam the mother fucker.  And as I was walking there was somebody looking at me and I heard him say something.  So I came back in and said what’s up?  He said he thought I was talking to him and he couldn’t hear what I said so I told him I said if you’re going to slam the mother fucker slam the mother fucker and that’s why I slammed my locker.  He said we could just have a conversation because I said what I said aggressively.  Obviously, I slam the locker hard so they can experience what I experience every time they slam their locker.  And I put the umph on it so they can feel it.  

The reason we can’t have a conversation begins with people not having enough sense not to do the shit to begin with.  The second reason I’m not interested in conversations about shit that men should know better than to do is I’m not in a good enough space not to whoop somebody’s ass if they say the wrong thing to me.  That’s something I have to factor in, where consequence isn’t the argument, the consequence is what could happen if the person fucks up.  

Had to whoop this dude in Del Rio on the job site.  He was putting things in the hallway while we were bringing products into the rooms.  First time I went by I moved his items to the side so we could get our cart through.  After distributing the product we came back through the hallway and he had more shit stacked in our way.  So I took his shit and threw it out of our way.  One of the items was a container full of small plastic pieces that went all over the place.  He and his partner were like WTF.  I told them you’re not the only ones working here.  One of em said you’re not the only one working here either mother fucker.  I said I know, that’s why when ever I have shit in the hallway I put it to the side so people can get through, and you.just saw us come through there.  He said okay.  We got back to our business and he got back to his.  

I don’t know how much time passed, may have been 10 minutes may have been a few hours.  But I’m about to get into the elevator and he comes in front of me and says I don’t care how big you are I should whoop your ass.  You know I’m big on liberty, so I thought I’d give him what he wanted.  Actually, I interpreted it as a threat, so hit him, but it was a glancing blow.  I think I grabbed him and hit him again and then we started wrestling and I put him on the ground.  Then I kneed him in the side before positioning myself hit him.  I hit him, and seeing that he wasn’t going to be capable of any offense I said are you done?  

It was pretty funny because he said no I’m not a pussy.  Then Mark’s brother Adam said you’re not a pussy but you sure are stupid.  I hit him again, then grabbed his arm that was up (he was positioned on his side) and I was in a mounted position). And pulled it across his body, essentially pinning his other arm by by pulling it over his arm that was underneath him and partially pinned by his body.  This gave me one hand and gave him no hands.  He’s in a defenseless position, I ask him if he’s good, he says yeah and I let him up.  

Had I wanted to I could have beat him senseless.  Everything there went well, but you can never guarantee that the person is going to be okay when you’re through, and you can never be sure that it’s going to be free of consequence.  

I think I need a change of scenery.  I’ve been here going on 3 weeks, the routine is stale and I need to drive to think.  

Immediately after this I leave the gym and my bumper cover is pulled out of the slots.  I don’t know if somebody pulled it, or if somebody knocked it pulling out.  It wasn’t a huge deal but I was already pissed, and this added to that anger.  

There was another incident Del Rio, where I was upset about the cleaning crews moving shit we were installing.  One of them asked me why I was so angry?  

I don’t think I answered him, but it was about a garbage they had in the hallway that I tipped in passing.  The trash can along with cleaning supplies mop buck etc was blocking the path and something I was carrying to install caught on the trash can and knocked it over.  

The truth is I’m not so angry, but may react to bullshit.  And I’m more apt to react or be angry because I’ve answered questions 99 percent of people with million tries at life never even ask, and there is seemingly no outlet for any of it.  Snake Bite, who I used to make music with had a lyric that went “it’s hard times for a real nigga, but good times for a ho nigga, I’m about to blow nigga”.  

I’m not reducing my body of work to gaining the conscious perception of motion through objective morality and all the things that deduce from that understanding, there are of course quality civic ideas, and other meritorious insights.  But people prefer the regime of the bullshit they’ve bought into.  And they have a very limited ability to understand.  To understand a point, connect that point to the next point, while understanding what these things mean to their interests and other affected parties.  

In a sense, I’m not able to do what I want to do because I live among a species that is intellectually and emotionally primitive, that is incapable of understanding and acting on their own best interest.  If you do some bullshit that precipitates anger, these are circumstances that produce the mood that that anger comes from.

But even with that being said I’m usually not angry.  Polite, respectful, usually finding something funny about something.  


I was talking to my daughter telling her that I’ve been in something of a stasis for the last few weeks.  My efforts in Illinois and Nevada was extremely disappointing.  It’s inconceivable to me that a person could tell people he’s promoting legislation that could one be passed, and two substantially increase their income and for them to not be interested.  In Illinois I took most of the responsibility since Round Up Service Charge was Round Up Gratuity and I took more of a community activist promoter approach.  In Vegas my approach was more business oriented, where instead of explaining the program, how they benefit, and encouraging them to go to the website and share the information with their coworkers, I asked if they had contact information for the owners, and I also emphasized the owners interest in knowing about the program and providing input.  

Out of 20 sollicitations I was able to gain one franchise owner’s number.  There was a lot riding on canvassing being effective.  As I may have already written, I anticipated explaining the proposal to workers in high volume transaction businesses, leaving a handout, and at least the people who saw the handout would be inclined to go to the website and sign the petition.  Among those who took 5 minutes to see how they could not only improve their wages, but improve the wages of unskilled workers and increase public revenue, I figured there would be some who would mention it to others.  With owner information I can test the incentive and gain access to actual data.  Not to mention, if a person stands to gain money annually through the passage of this legislation, it may be worth investing in the promotion of it.  Canvassing didn’t yield a single signature or response. 

In some instances it was evident that people didn’t understand what I was talking about.  One woman said she saw it on her news feed.  I did some google searches to see if there was anything similar to what I was doing in the news.  Afterall I did send out about 100 press releases, maybe someone did a story and didn’t tell me.  I didn’t find anything.  Another manager told me they already did round up.  LOL   In Illinois, although the proposal was a little bit different, after I tell her that the round up will be distributed to the employees, she asked me where the money goes?  LOL.  It’s funny, but it’s not funny.  Not funny when the comprehension of language is limited to short phrases, and I’m trying to earn a living on communicating new ideas to people.  Obviously I didn’t find it very funny in the immediate aftermath of those efforts.  That’s what really sapped my motivation.  It’s sapping in the sense that there may not be anything I can do to be successful in that capacity.  I mean “I speaka fucking Engrish”.  That’s a South Park quote, one of the greatest characters in cartoon history, the chinese restaurant owner in South Park.  Arguing with Japanesse resturant owner, maybe if you speak a engrish I can understand you, he says I am speaka fucking engrish, why don’t you speaka fucking engrish.  

That shit is hilarious.  I love popular stereotypes.  I suppose that’s another reason I hate woke culture.  It’s an effort to suppress the enjoyment that comes from ideas about different groups of people.  Enjoying something associated with a group of people isn’t implying that all members of the group do said things, and it isn’t used to promote the unequal treatment of said people.  More importantly it’s the expression of an opinion, that said thing is funny in a particular context.  The name woke as well is so disgusting because you’re applying a term of awareness to positions that represent a complete lack of understanding of subjects associated with those positions. 

Anyway, I did receive signatures from a promotional ad I ran on youtube.  But these signatures were expensive, in consideration of the total amount of money spent on ads and the number of signatures gained for that price.  In other words it wasn’t a good video.  

I had a moment at Jimmy John’s today where I was considering running down RUSC with the employees I ordered from.  I guess that’s part of what caused me to think about that.  It isn’t fear of failure or fear or rejection, but the pain avoidance in knowing the outcome of this effort is going to lead to that disappointment, either because people are irrational, or because people cannot understand in that setting through that medium.  I remember when I ended my day after 4 hours in Vegas and I recognized that in order to really have people’s attention they have to first learn about you through their phones.  

My general lack of activity and the declining road worthiness of this car has me thinking about the time I’m wasting and how I don’t have a plan right now.  I’m rereading and making minor adjustments on my books.  Which is slightly necessary but is largely just something I’m doing to feel like I’m doing something.  It’s strange because I always have an idea about what I’m going to do next but I really don’t know.  

I do have a submission of RUSC pending review for publication in an academic journal.  Earlier I commented that I don’t know what it will do for me.  As I thought about it this evening it could help attract attention.  The story itself could be worthy of attention, which would attract attention to these other things.  Last grade completed was 8th grade, highest formal academic achievement was a GED obtained while I was incarcerated.  Convicted felon, two occasions, former inmate, who has been homeless or living out of a car off and on for the better part of 10 years.  Publishing a paper in an academic journal that shows how 50% of the income distribution, and businesses could make more money, while significantly increasing tax revenue and significantly decreasing spending coming from those circumstances could be the story that creates interest in everything else I’m trying to accomplish along with that.  Having written that I wouldn’t be surprised to get the rejection in the morning.  LOL.


I haven’t been doing much lately.  For a few days I was rereading and editing books, I have three left to finish.  I’ve been wasting time playing poker.  This is a very entertaining activity but also an activity that can have a very negative impact on my mood.  Of course there are other things that have negatively impacted my mood.  

Each day while I’m on the treadmill for 30 to 60 minutes I see the mainstream news.  Day after day of irrelevant content made to seem important, or intent on advancing an agenda to motivate half the country to take political action within a controversy of irrelevancy.  I’ve written about some of the stories before I took this hiatus from writing.  

Today they released the body cam footage from the police officers in Memphis brought up on criminal charges over the use of force that resulted in the death of a suspect.  First of all, why is this national news?  This should only be of interest to the people of Memphis, it’s their police and their community.  What happened in Memphis has no impact on the lives of people located outside of Memphis.  It’s a national story because police are the bad guys is a popular perception in this country.  The media doesn’t exist to provide important information, the media exists to reinforce biases to attract attention and earn money.  A man dies from injuries sustained while resisting apprehension, and excessive force in policing is a national issue based on 1 police contact out of about 60 million annually.  

I haven’t reviewed the body cam footage independently, but I did see what was aired on the news.  My preliminary opinion based on what I saw is that the officers were not malicious and did not apply excessive force, even if the force resulted in a fatal injury.  There are suspects who like boxers who are too tough for their own good.  What I mean by this is there have been a decent number of boxers who finished boxing matches and later died as a result of the damage they sustained.  Which is to say you can be hurt very badly and still be actively resisting and no one knows you’ve sustained any serious injuries.   

If you’re a law enforcement officer how do you know how much force to use to gain the compliance of a suspect?  You start somewhere and then see how the suspect responds to that amount of force and then proceed accordingly.  If the force being applied does not cause the suspect to comply then you have to use greater force to gain compliance.  When you have a suspect who is very tough, very drunk, very high, etc, if you’re using a strike to gain the compliance of the suspect and he doesn’t respond to it the presumption is it didn’t hurt him enough to comply, so you have to strike him harder.  It’s very difficult to know how hard you hit someone if they don’t react to it.  

This isn’t Rodney King where the suspect was handcuffed and beaten by rouge officers who for some reason decided they were going to kick his ass.  The suspect ran, he was caught, they tried to tase him, they tried to pepper spray him, and they used strikes to gain his compliance.  Unfortunately, tragically, the injuries he sustained while resisting resulted in the suspect’s death.  

I’m on the treadmill and uncharacteristically for that gym there were two guys a few treadmill down talking.  The one guy said of the footage that was uncalled for.  I’m obviously not in the conversation but I said loud enough to hear me yeah he was being compliant, sarcastically.  Irritating that this cunt of a man would see an officer use a strike against a suspect who refused to comply with lawful orders, and say it was wrong.  Arrogance and stupidity.  Is it lawful for an officer to use a strike to gain the compliance of the suspect?  Yes.  It is exactly called for, prescribed to gain compliance.  These charges are likely politically motivated.  The worst thing for the officers facing charges is they can be sacrificed to maintain order and/or to advance a party’s political interest.  For more on that see the book racial perceptions which addresses an instance of alleged excessive force that resulted in an officer being convicted on charges to avoid public outrage.  

I was already aggravated before I made it to the gym.  Yesterday I won a satellite for a $25 tournament entry.  Today I woke up and used the entry to play a $4000 guaranteed tournament.  I made it to the final table.  There were 8 of us left and I was probably 3rd or 4th in chips, having in the neighborhood 275k and the chip leader had probably about 350k.  Top prize was about $1000, top 3 spots were above $500, and 8th spot was a little over $100.

I’m dialed in.  I was dealt AJ.  At this point in the game I don’t feel great about AJ.  I 3 bet the blind and I had two callers.  Three bet was at least 15k maybe would have been more and we all have over 200k who are in the hand.  The flop was A and two low cards.  I don’t remember if I was small blind or if I was on the button.  Action may have checked  to me or it began on me and I half bet the pot.  The guy after me jammed, and the 3rd player folded.  

This was a difficult decision.  I knew he wasn’t on AK because if he was on AK he either would have reraised me or jammed preflop.  I would have folded if anyone jammed preflop, just because of the potential of someone jamming on AK in that position of the game.  

I’m thinking maybe he hit a set, or two pairs calling with an A low.  But it didn’t make much sense to me that he would jam if he felt that good about his position.  Not willing to fold the AJ I called.  And it was a good call.  He had A 10, I had A J.  There’s only 3 cards in the deck that can save him.  He had to hit a 10 on the turn or the river.  He hit the 10 on the river.  I was very upset about that.  

I’m in survival mode, I have about 40k left.  I was dealt pocket 10s.  I jam preflop, and there is one caller.  He turned over his hand and he had 8 9.  My hand wins 80% of the time versus that hand.  He hits a 9 on the flop, and then another 9 on the turn.  

It’s sick when you make the right decisions and you’re a huge favorite to win the hands.  On the first hand from the point he called he has 12.5% chance of hitting a 10, 1 in 8 times will that happen.  Go out being an 8 to 1 favorite, then a 4 to 1 favorite on back to back hands.  I feel cheated, it feels like injustice, when you lose an 8 to 1 hand and then a 4 to 1 hand.  If my luck was average I would have won that $1000, or at least placed top 3.  

I cashed out $130 out of the $150 I had.  Poker is generally a waste of time.  I’m going to finish rereading these last three books.  Then I need to go for a drive and figure something out.   


Stopped here to record a comment exchange. I’ve been primarily editing old material haven’t been very productive lately, still trying to figure it the fuck out.

In my YouTube feed I saw a poll about a WNBA player and I visited the comments because I didn’t think there were 900 people interested in the WNBA much less 900 plus people commenting on what a WNBA player should do.  

Ended up being a very entertaining decision.  Since this post showed up in the feeds of sports fans every.comment I saw scrolling down substantially was just people posting random comments as a way of saying no one is interested in the WNBA.  It was hilarious.  

There was one comment on the recent fusion energy experiment that I responded to.  After I be responded I answered a question and thought I’d share my position and insight here.

Did you guys hear about the new fusion experiment that generated net energy production?  

I responded: It’s a net positive in terms of the energy from the laser to the pellets to produce the reaction, not a net positive in the energy required to power the laser and the experiment to produce the reaction.  The energy created represents only 1 percent of the total energy used to produce the reaction.  Additionally, this isn’t even a scalable technique if it were an actual net positive.  Which means 1: we haven’t produced net energy with fusion, and even if we had, it isn’t as if we can produce bigger pellets and bigger lasers and create energy using this method.  We’re no closer to commercial fusion than we were before that experiment.

Skunkmonk asked me “what would you recommend they do?”

(Skunkmonk lol)

 @Skunkmonk  I’m not sure if the question is what would I recommend for renewable energy or what would I recommend for fusion or energy technology investment?  

I think the most exciting source of energy is geo thermal.  The problem with geothermal is we previously lacked the ability drill deep enough for it to feasible in a lot of areas.  But there is a new drilling technique and ironically enough its using a laser.  According to Anton from What the Math it’s been tested and can achieve the depths required to bore holes for geothermal energy generation.  I believe it’s also the cheapest source of energy to generate.  Currently.there are places in the United States where geothermal energy could be generated abundantly and transported.  Yellowstone park, but unfortunately people prioritize the interest of not violating a landscape that maybe a few million privileged people look at every year over the interest of generating low cost carbon free energy.  Human stupidity obstructs geo thermal immediately in the United States, but the laser drill is on the horizon.  Maybe a year away, and it makes geothermal a real possibility just about everywhere.  

This drill as it relates to energy generation is 1000x more newsworthy than this slanted narrative on fusion energy.  Why?  There’s a few reasons, 1st, the news about the fusion energy experiment contents people about progress on climate climate change.  The second reason is presenting a story about a breakthrough in renewable energy attracts attention, and the media earns money to attract attention.  The third reason is it’s 50 years out ,(or further) and doesn’t compete with any of the present energy technologies.

This leads into why there’s no national obsession with.the significantly more promising story about drilling technology and the potential of immediately achieving geothermal.  Whether it’s fossil fuel or renewable energy industry benefits from energy generation.  That’s one area of pronounced difference in political parties.  Politics is the prioritization of industrial interests, and fossil fuels largely support Republicans and renewable energy invests more with democrats.  With some overlap both ways, where some industries are invested with both democrats and Republicans, and some companies that are involved in fossil fuel use also benefit from policy supporting renewable energy.  

What did Biden just do in the ridiculously named anti inflation bill?  He did the same thing Obama did in his presidency, he provided 300 billion in renewable energy subsides.  This is mostly using public funds  to pay for infrastructure that will be owned by and generate profit for private companies.  This is why everybody’s excited about fusion, and no one knows anything about this new drilling technology that could make geo thermal power a reality.  

How would I spend $300 billion dollars on renewable energy?  Since the public is mostly paying for the infrastructure I believe the public should own it.  I would do what Sanders recommended and put it under the management of the Power Marketing Administrations who sell the power from hydro electric dams to the utility companies.  We would sell power to the utilities  at a profit.  That profit would be reinvested to continuously build more renewable energy infrastructure until  we were about 90 percent renewable since I think that is the limit for renewable generation based on how it is supplied.  Then we have profit to keep up with increasing demand and to subsidize the cost of power to low income people without having to spend tax dollars to do it.  

As far as climate change is concerned we’re probably already past the point where even a rapid transition to renewable energy will reduce emissions enough to prevent 3 and then 4  degrees C of warming within about 120 years.  That world will lead to the collapse of civilization as areas presently habitable become uninhabitable and nations have to redistribute their population to places that are already occupied. It will almost certainly lead to nuclear war.  

There was a study recently that showed injecting aerosols into the atmosphere near the ice caps could reduce the temperature enough to ensure the ice caps don’t melt.  This is important because ice reflects heat whereas water and land absorb heat, and there’s consequences to ocean, climate, and shoreline if the caps continue to melt.  Costs about 9 or 13 billion dollars not much for governments.  I say governments because I imagine at some point, for some period of time each nation will be responsible for their own airspace to cool the planet.  The US government just funded a 5 year research study on using aerosols to cool the planet. 

 That’s the plan.  To use aerosols to cool the planet until we can transition to renewable energy by using public funds to build private infrastructure, and emissions return to a level that does not cause excessive warming.


This is what you elect.  The Democrats are trying to ban gas stoves, and the Republicans trying to defund the IRS and proposing legislation to replace income tax with a sales tax.  

Democrats are trying to sell ovens, whereas what the Republicans are trying to is produce the income stratification and greatest contraction in the economy in US history.  How great is the sales tax and how would most Americans fair? 

GDP in 2022 was 25 trillion and 5 trillion in income tax was collected.  This means the sales tax has to be 20 percent.  This means you have to be paying 20 percent in federal income tax to break even on the sales tax.  Roughly half the country pays less than 12%, and those in the next income grouping who represent at least 35% of the population pay 22%.  Taking into consideration that many have deductions, and qualify for credits about 85% of the population is going to lose, 10% of the population will have a small gain, 1% of the population will have substantial gains, and .1% of the population will gain absurdly.  You have a plan to make 85% Americans poorer.  

Not only have you made 85% of the population poorer, you’ve just reduced the size of the economy because 85% of people have less money to purchase goods and services.  85% of people lose between 5% and 20% of their purchasing power., Which means GDP is going to fall by probably 10%.  Now we’re not even making up the cost of income tax and we have a plethora of new problems, chiefly unemployment as we lost 10% of economic activity where goods and services weren’t purchased, the money wasn’t made to pay wages and achieve profits.  

But we’re not done.  We’re also going to dramatically increase spending.  If you’re raising the cost of everything by 20% those who paid no income taxes and those who receive benefits have to be adjusted to maintain an increased cost of living.  20% increase in social security payments and a 20% increase in welfare benefits.  We’re going to increase spending by a few hundred billion dollars while losing money as the sales tax fails to cover the income tax, making 85% of the country poorer, 50% substantially poorer, shrinking the economy by at least 10% and all the associated consequences of doing those things.  

Utter stupidity.  Not stupid for the interests he serves as .1% of the population would make out absurdly, shifting the majority of the tax burden to a majority of the people who can’t afford it, to reward people who already have more money than they’ll spend on consumption in their lifetimes.  

There were two basis for banning gas ovens, and this is in part for show, and in part to serve the interests of companies who manufacture and sell ovens.  The climate change basis is contradicted in that it requires 3* as much natural gas to produce electricity to run your stove than it does to operate a natural gas stove according to the California Energy Commission and it costs about half the price.  Although more subtly, the Democrats are also making people poorer in energy cost while increasing emissions.  

The second reason is based on a study that claims natural gas stoves lead to increased asthma.  I haven’t read the study but usually when you do there’s no definitive causation.  But say there is, then we do the same thing we do with other potentially harmful products, we force the industry to put a warning on the product and the companies have an opportunity to dispute the claim in court.  Any law that does not prevent imposition is an unjust law because it imposes without preventing imposition.  One study absent any independent review doesn’t prove anything.  Again even if it did, the act of an individual choosing to take a risk that does not impose risk on others is within his right as a free person in a free country.  

I was thankful to receive quick rejection from the journal I submitted to, and I also received a second email from the publisher who wrote that after their analysis of the paper I should submit it to one of their other journals.  The list they sent didn’t seem appropriate, but I will check their journals for one that is.  

I’ve been riding low.  Called top retailers but you can’t get through to anyone.  I sent RUSC to their PR people.  That’s a doubtful prospect.  I’m hanging out around phoenix, going to edit my books and try to figure out a way to get this out there.  


Discovering a mistake carries with it some embarrassment and concern, but it does feel good to overcome it. I can’t believe it has taken me this long to discover it, but I discovered my math was wrong somewhere along the way, or a more accurate method of calculation. The last RUSC I posted a few days ago is wrong, and the new one will be on the OPL website. Just in time as I begin making important calls. It works perfectly. I’m very excite (Borat shit).

I do have time now to Write my recap but it seems like a chore. Below is a response to a Christian about his deity.

Shortly after the Bill’s safety collapsed on field I watched a few news broadcasts on YouTube trying to learn the cause of his sudden cardiac arrest. To this day no explanation has been provided. I commented about the response including criticism on people asking for prayers and people in the comments section image promoting contrived compassion including bragging about praying. Basic criticism I won’t bore you with here and I’ve already commented about this incident in previous entries. Apparently it’s a story that is doing very well in the ratings and the media is milking it to death. That along with the Republicans having a difficult time electing a speaker, yes America this is what is important according to those who decide importance to you. Increasing wages during a time when inflation has risen 7 percent and wages only 4 percent is not important as evidenced by the media ignoring my press release.

The point is there was a person who with all the intelligence of a 6 year old who said I was delusional, god and Jesus are really. Safe to say he isn’t a theologian since about 300 years after Jesus death it was decided that Jesus was god. To avoid a long response that would no doubt go unappreciated and not understood I told him to look up the definition of the word delusional to understand how it applied much more to him than it did to me. He responded with you’re wrong god is real. Although I’ve written about this in Liberty: The Definitive Moral Truth and at least a handful of times in this journal below is my response to his assertion that the deity from his religion is real. The content of my response branches out into a much deeper and more detailed response but for the purpose of concision in a comment exchange this is the short explanation provided him.

 @D Thrills  1st your deity is a hypocrite which qualifies his inconsistency.  Greatest commandment is to love your god with all your mind, heart, spirit, and strength and second is to love your neighbor as you love yourself.  Of course your deity doesn’t love you as he loves himself because his doctrine states he created you with 2 options, to serve him for eternity or be destroyed, and this is not an existence he would want for himself, meaning.A: he created you for evil purposes, and B: he doesn’t love you as he demands you love him, doesn’t love you as he loves himself, and demands you you keep commandments he doesn’t keep.  

2nd your deity is a tyrant which is not consistent with the creator or the human ideal.  The human constant is that all beings want to do as they please, and all beings can do as they please so long as they are not imposed on by other beings.  This means right action is unimposing and wrong action is imposing since in the absence of imposition all beings can do as they please.  The justification for imposition is to prevent or neutralize imposition and there are various forms in the production of circumstances, time, deception, and so on and so forth.  The point being is, liberty is true, 1st as the human ideal and second because there is no evidence of any result on this planet being produced outside the decisions of the creatures on this planet and natural forces.  Which means the morality of the creator is liberty because he doesn’t interfere with his creation.  

As to your deity being a tyrant, we begin Adam and Eve where the original sin is disobedience, not an imposing act.  The first person who your deity counted as being righteous Abraham for his obedience.  The problem is Abraham was going to kill a child to remain obedient to this deity.  Deity’s highest value is subordination.  A deity created out of human interests to take people’s free will, or liberty.  Abraham was not righteous because he would kill an innocent child.  

Although according to the archeological record exodus never happened, according to your myth god commanded Joshua to kill all the Canaanites young and old and to take their land.  This is imposition, imposing on life and property.  What does your deity say the thief comes not but to lie, steal, murder.  Your deity checks all the boxes.  

Jesus tells you if someone demands your cloak also give him your tunic, if he hits on one cheek let him also strike you on the other, and if he asks for forgiveness to forgive him as many times as he asks.  Which facilitates the ease with imposition takes place and is tyrannical, since it commands one not to resist imposition, when resistance is necessitated to preserve liberty.  

The duality of morality is liberty and tyranny, and morality is a determinate of motion among conscious beings.  Morality motivates action to right a wrong and morality prohibits action that one considers to be wrong.  I can explain the mechanism if you’re interested.  Morality is either objective in an action is either imposing (wrong), unimposing (right) or justified (right imposing to prevent or neutralize imposition), or morality is subjective and someone decides what is right or wrong based on their preferences.  Or they impose on those who they can impose upon as they please.  

Existentially, presuming on the survival of consciousness after death there has to be a sesperate space for those whose morality is tyranny and those whose morality is liberty because they cannot exist in the same space.  The propensity of the tyrant to impose is at odds with the propensity of the Libertee to prevent and neutralize imposition creating never ending conflict.  If such a situation existed in an eternal space the universe wouldn’t exist because the space beyond would consist of perpetual conflict.  

The point of the previous deduction is 1st to point out that Jesus doesn’t decide who goes where based on the people who decide to be his friend and believe in him.  Because it leads to eternal conflict.  Morality decides and the changing of one’s understanding is the production of a new person not necessarily liable for actions committed under a faulty understanding.  Which means forgiveness isn’t required, but also absent that understanding forgiveness doesn’t grant access to a space that operates under a different understanding (liberty/tyrant).  

The second point from the existential deduction is that the creator or god according to your deific reference is irrelevant.  Because 1: the creator doesn’t help here.  He doesn’t grant wishes or prayers and interfere with the liberty of his creation  2: the creator doesn’t choose what space you will go to based on how he perceives you.  If consciousness survives death morality will determine what space you’re appropriate for.  3: any being that has a beginning which includes all human beings can never know if they’re in the presence of the creator supreme or something in between since any being in an existence beyond this one will have advantages in the understanding of that space and can claim to be the creator.  

If your deity is real, he’s real evil, or he is the devil, the ultimate tyrant according to the definitions provided by your deity.  I am right even if you can’t understand it.  Ignorance is a product of values meaning people are responsible for what they don’t know.   


I have the first revised version of the of the round up service charge tax credit incentive with a working tax credit amount.  10,000 tax credit per location for 10 or fewer employees, 15,000 per location for 11 to 30 employees, and 20,000 per location for 30 or more employees.  While this may not seem like much and for larger retailers like Walmart it may not be enough.  Walmart would receive about a 200 million dollar tax credit for their 10,000 stores, but the amount gained in income tax would be 540 million.  (Might be 580, don’t remember it’ll be on Oplnow.com page tomorrow.  It does work, the question is whether Walmart or other large retailers would do the right thing gain 200,000 million dollars per year.  

Yet, what it may lack for the large retailers it should make up for in it’s appeal to fast food.  Tom Kings Holdings just filed bankruptcy citing inflation and essential the inability to recover after the response to COVID.  Part of the problem was having to down size his workforce when his 90 units were either closed or limited to drive thru only service, and then when restrictions were loosend he had trouble finding new employees to open all his stores at maximum capacity.  Imagine he adopted a round up service charge.  For 1, he doesn’t have a problem with labor because there are a lot of people who will work a burger king job making $20 plus dollars per hour with RUSC.  Second, maybe he could have survived with the tax credits per location.  TOMS wasn’t failing altogether, some units were probably profitable, and he cites debt servicing as a cause for bankruptcy.  If before this occurred when his businesses were profitable before COVID, maybe keeping 1.3 million dollars per year prior to the pandemic would have put them far enough ahead that they would have been able to weather the restrictions and recovery.  

I’m much more confident about franchises and retail with few employees adopting RUSC than I am large retailers.  Large retailers will probably come around from internal pressure and the need to maintain an adequate number of workers.  One large retailers will force the hand of others to retain socially conscious consumers and to retain talent. 

I feel good about the program again.  

I was pulled over today, and I made it an embarrassing event.  He told me he pulled me over for failing to maintain a safe distance.  I initially thought this was bullshit because I almost always have two or more car lengths between myself and the vehicle in front of me.  I was irritated.  Presuming he was pulling me over to see if the car smelled like weed, or something was in plain view that would give rise to probable cause to search and find something.  After thinking about it a little bit is possible I may have been momentarily too close.  I don’t like to use my brake if I’m on the interstate, so while I usually leave a lot of space between myself and the car in front of me, when traffic begins to slow down I allow the gap to close rather than hit my brake.  He may have observed me following closer than is legally allowable for a brief period of time but it’s a poor reason to pull someone over.  

I don’t remember how close I was for how long I was so it didn’t really matter.  I should have asked him the legally allowable distance.  I told him he can pull people over anytime he wants to.  He said that was my opinion and I said reasonable suspicion.  That has nothing to do with the reason for the traffic stop, since reasonable suspicion is a reasonable belief based on the officer’d experience that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or could occur based on the totality of the circumstances.  Obviously doesn’t apply here where he pulled me over based on the claim that I was following too closely to the truck in front of me supposedly supported by video evidence.  Felt stupid for bringing that, but the point was that police have pretty widespread authority under reasonable suspicion, at least to contact which creates an opportunity for crime to be discovered.  Again non-applicable would have rather not said that stupid shit.  

I was upset because I didn’t have access to a copy of my current insurance and didn’t know how big an issue that was going to be.  Coincidentally, I had a telemarketing call for an auto insurance quote while I was pulled over.  I was proceeding with the call and would have purchased a policy right there if he wanted to make me do that.  When he returned to my car he let me go with a warning telling me to watch how close I was following and to make sure I keep a copy of my current  insurance with me.  I’ll have to look that up for Arizona.  

I’ve been pulled over for some BS over the years, and I’ve written about it.  


I should have known, but I thought different plan and different approach may yield a different result.  The problem is I forget these changes don’t help if people don’t understand what you’re saying.  I had one woman who said she thinks their store already does it lol. Another woman said she thought she saw an article about what I was promoting but said she’s not a business owner yet. I dropped the ball on that, in part because I was surprised by her saying that. Then again I did submit 50 plus press releases that received no response. I could have reexplained the program to her but she had already referred me to her manager. I mention it for the point that she didn’t understand that what I was promoting was for her benefit more than anyone elses. Maybe I put too much emphasis on helping the business in an effort to get contact information.

There’s no questions and canvasing never translates into any signatures.  Imagine someone came into your work and told you you could make $5 to $10 more per hour when you’re only making 12 to $15 per hours?  They act like they couldn’t use an extra $200 to $600 per week.  In their position I’d like to find out how much more I would make, disclose the number of full and part time workers and provide a transaction estimate.  I definitely would want to know more.  I’d go to the website and sign the petition and encourage other people to sign it.  Instead what the fuck are they doing?  What could possibly be more important than participating in improving your income and the income others?  Read and sign the petition.  Post the shit on your social media, and bring it up when you have opportunities to, go to this website and sign the petition, it improves wages for low income people, cuts spending, and increases tax revenue.  That’s a reasonable response, to be interested in something that serves your interest.  

Based on responses I know I wasn’t understood, but also based on a lack of a response I know I wasn’t understood.  So what do I do?  What do I do when I’m on a planet with people who are not smart enough to understand something that not only improves their lives, but the lives of everyone around them?  It’s not innate stupidity, it’s conditioning.  All of this has enormous implications for my opportunities and quality of life.  

It is insane that I cannot draw attention to this. Even more so than my inability to draw attention to other novel and important things I’ve introduced because of how this particular idea is universally beneficial, and directly and substantially improves people’s income, and even the stupidest people want more money.

Someone described the state of humans beings as being under hypnosis.  I probably argued against it, largely based on understanding bias and the decision making process but it is like hypnosis, in the sense that facts and values are planted and organized in a way that prevents useful information from entering or being understood. Narrowly programed I guess is a better description, where the mind has no way to connect to things that conflict with or don’t reference something within the program.

I’m going to take a day to recover from this and try my luck with corporations. It’s devastating that canvasing is so ineffective. Mainly because every other avenue to gain exposure also yield no results. Sending press releases, contacting universities, sending articles, contacting politicians and political parties, Google ads etc I wouldn’t mind having to grind a little going into businesses and canvasing if it yielded the results that it should produce. It could spread like wildfire. Should. Even in the absence of RUSC, Balance Stimulus or any of the other ideas, the concept of OPL should be enticing.

OPL itself may be the reason media, universities, and politicians are not fucking with me. I forget that my perspective has been so developed for so long, and the perspective of most people isn’t rooted in fact, it’s a product of how they feel about what they’ve been exposed to. It’s a product of believing other people know better, and choosing opinions about subjects and counting those opinions as fact. In that, they can’t understand things because their perception of what goes on around them is built on ideas that are false. More importantly, since they have low standards for fact, their reasoning is compromised since life consists of opinions and they choose which one’s they want to be true.

It’s insane. I talked to my daughter the other day and any other time anyone would say this I would contend that the problem is with the individual, but in this instance it happens to be with others. Basically she said the problem is with people not with me. And that is true. It’s true because there seems to be a zero engagement policy. If I am wrong it would be easy to show it. The problem is I’m right, not only about politics, solutions to problems, but about morality, about the inconsistencies I point out, about human behavior and human understanding, so I’m ignored.

The one issue that any concerned person in this country should be interested in is increasing income opportunities for low income people. And no one is concerned with that. That’s because nobody really cares. They’re concerned with isolating a problem and using that problem for their own benefit. And they’re able to successfully capitalize on people’s feelings through clever marketing and provide them an opportunity to feel like they’re doing something good when they’re not doing shit, occasionally some benefit to alleviate symptoms, but never addressing the problem that produces the symptoms.

The world is not just ignorant but it’s also fake and idiotic. A safety for the Bills went into cardiac arrest. A day later and they still haven’t diagnosed the cause. Players started crying and praying and they suspended the game. It’s mostly image promoting and then there is a chorus of image promoting competition. People use it as an opportunity to compete with one another about who’s the most compassionate. Motivated by the idea that others perceive them better because they’re displaying a popularly valued quality. It provides positive feelings through the perception of being perceived better that produces an increase in self worth. Secondly, they perceive themselves as being good people for feeling bad for someone else, which increases self worth producing positive feelings.

Praying has got to be the stupidest shit to do or ask for. 1st, there’s no evidence that any results on this planet is the product of anything other than the decisions of the creatures on this planet and naturally explainable happenings. Praying is the same as doing nothing. But even if you still believe it because you’re a fucking idiot, if your deity controls what happens on the planet, wouldn’t it have made more sense for him to have not allowed the thing that happens to occur to begin with? And according to your superstitions, didn’t he already know if he allowed it to happen people were going to pray against it, so being all knowing he would have preemptively prevented to grant your wishes? After it occurred, what is he doing? Is it like a YouTube promotion where if a video gets x amount of likes he’s going to do something? He’s only going to make him alright if 50 million people ask him? Sorry, didn’t reach the goal of 50 million prayers not granting this request These are the perspectives people are operating out of because they don’t know shit and have been stripped of critical thinking through authority based reasoning instilled and reinforced since they reach an age of consciousness.

Why continue to fight a losing battle? Unfortunately I don’t have another planet and another species to go to. I’m here, I understand the problems, I’ve discovered objective morality,among other intellectual qualifications. I’m not only real, but I’m true, and values are configured in a way where I cannot content myself in a world of ignorance, deception, and tyranny outside of efforts to address it. I deeply hated everyone today. But it doesn’t change anything because I love liberty even if I hate everybody. If I’m never permitted to draw the attention required to elevate this species I’ve still gained developmentally as much as any person with a lifetime on this planet can gain, and that’s forever. Justice will come on the other side if the tyrant’s refuse to allow it here. Liberty meets tyranny with justice, placing them in a space where they’ll be subject to the tyranny of others. Which is essentially the religious idea of heaven, being under the eternal authority of a deity. And people will discover everything they thought was right, good, and real was complete bullshit, and then learn what they are.

It is frustrating. So far I discovered that people will support anyone who tells them things that make them feel good, and will give their money to anything that they are told should make them feel good, but will ignore, reject, and loathe anyone who tells them the truth and is dedicated to just causes. Not only just causes, but detailed plans and ideas for achieving justice. You cannot earn a living through actually doing good, only through the appearance of it. They give their lives, attention, and materials to frauds while the good, true, and rightly motivated is ignored, ostracized, and suffers debilitating isolation.

Recap 12/27 to 1/1/2023 

Nearly everything planned for the week was completed and some objectives changed based on the development of strategy and priority.  I didn’t secure a venue but I think it’s more important to to have participants.  I looked at two offices spaces.  I seriously considered renting one but I don’t want to make a 2 month commitment to the area, or have to sacrifice 2 months rent.  I did contact a venue about a daily rental for a conference room.  I asked to rent it for Friday the 5th but I don’t know if I’ll be prepared by then.  I may need to move the date back a few days.  Perhaps the following Monday. 

I may be going out tomorrow to begin obtaining a list of owners, otherwise I’ll begin Tuesday since there are materials that I need to procure.  I need to print handouts, maybe purchase a button up.  Also need to do my laundry and go grocery shopping.  I haven’t prepared.  I had my pitch down pretty well in Illinois, I forget that I worked on it and should probably do the same again.  It’s probably Tuesday I’ll begin collecting data and promoting at businesses.  

I need to post ads on CL for street team promoters and an area director.  I may do that tonight.  I plan on renting a conference room for a day and doing interviews in the morning and a focus group in the afternoon.  

I called 5 universities and 5 economic organizations.  I left messages and received one response from one university who I was able to submit a copy of RUSC to.  I updated them about a key development in RUSC today.  Businesses would lose money with what I was offering.  The amount their payroll tax would increase based on their workers increase in pay would be more than the 10% payroll tax credit.  I know a 50% payroll tax credit is enough to cover the cost and go a little bit over, but for a company that has 10 employees who earn $15 an hour plus $5 an hour on RUSC the savings is only about $125 a week or $6500 per year.  For a popular retail store like Walmart, $120,000 per year per location ends up being millions of dollars every year.  At the same time most franchise owners own more than one store where they can potentially benefit through volume but some do not.  Either way, I think we can afford to do better, so we won’t make the offer before we know what they want.  I would like to avoid having to apply different incentives to different businesses.  

I sent 25 more media press releases.  Turned out to be about 20 because about 5 of the emails were no good.  The problem is I stated 10 percent as the offer.  I may need to take some time tomorrow to send that update to all the media people I sent a press release to.  

I created various materials, focus group questionnaire, RUSC hand out, an article on RUSC, among other things.  

I submitted the RUSC article to 5 political publications.  I told them they can publish it as it is or treat it like a press release and contact me to do a story.  

I submitted it as a poorly put together academic paper to what appears to be a quasi-academic journal.  It’s not peer reviewed but it publishes paper targeted at an academic audience. I need to resend that with the update tonight.  

I also left a message with a political party.and was told to send an email.  Unfortunately what I sent them also contained the 10 percent figure.  This is a little more problematic because I was told no one would see it and respond until after the first.  If I send the update by itself there’s a chance it won’t be connected.  I think I’ll send them the explanation of the update and resend RUSC with it.  Also need to do that tonight.

I didn’t finish the focus group presentation or find focus group participants.  Also didn’t make a list of businesses to call to get their input on on RUSC.  These are all objectives planned for this week.  


Did not do much today, completed hand out for RUSC solicitations and later I will probably finish the focus group questions.  I decided not to rent the office space for a few different reason.  1st I don’t know if I can attract focus group participants.  The lease requires that I give 30 days notice to have my security deposit returned, so I could end up paying two months rent for a 2 week stay.   

I also contacted a venue about renting a conference room for a day.  On Monday I plan on going to stores and fast food restaurants, leaving a handout, and trying to get contact information for the owner.  I did this in the 14th district in IL, which was decided by 19,000 votes in 2022 and 5,000 votes in the two prior elections.  This was under a more primitive version of the plan, and the results were not good.  The plan and approach are different this time around and should yield different results.  But, they might not, and if not I don’t want to stick myself with a big bill to find that out.  

I always think about the suspicion.  Most people will perceive a person not as bringing good news that there is a very real chance of them making life changing money ($5 to $15 more per hour), they think what does this guy stand to gain by doing what he’s doing?  

The motivation is rooted in addressing tyranny.  There are certainly other aspects of it I could address but cannot be addressed without changing people’s circumstances.  Most human problems are a product of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money.  Creating better opportunities, especially for children as a higher household income creates an environment more conducive to productive interests and habits and the development of intelligence.  For me, the fact of liberty, the moral feelings derived from the idea of justice supplies the motivation.  In fact some part of it is motivated by being confronted by deception and the happenings in the world, along with the knowledge that people walk around perceiving the world through a lens built on false ideas.  It’s difficult to wake up everyday in a world that’s wrong without being compelled  to make it right.  It’s actually very simple but it isn’t something that anyone else  can fully understand.  Understanding that liberty is the basis for objective morality, in the absolute truth that liberty and tyranny are the only moral categories, that morality is a determinate of motion for conscious beings within a space, and understanding what that means for everything else.  I do what I do because it is right.   

This brings me back to what I wrote yesterday or maybe it was the day before about Holly saying it’s alright everyone has days like that.  I disagreed but didn’t send her the message.  It’s not alright for me because I don’t value that behavior, and I seek my own approval. My approval requires honesty with myself.  Except in one area, which is my probability of success.  I don’t mislead myself, but I try not to think about the probable outcome based on the forces I’m up against and my history of results and interactions.  On the subject of that day, that’s why I was feeling the way I was feeling.  I said about as much in the original entry. Thinking about worse things that may be ahead but are not here now.   

I wrote about this (self approval) somewhere else, in creator, god, deity as fact and symbolic elements of the psyche as well as addressing common conflation.   

Creator is unknowable because anything that has a beginning can never know if they are in the presence of the supreme or something in-between.  Based on what we see within the creation, where all the results are the product of the forces in the universe and the free decisions of the creatures in the universe the morality of the creator appears to be liberty because he does not impose on his creation.  The implication of this is the creator cannot create beings for purposes that he would not want to exist under.  Which is why your deities are not the creator, because to create beings for the purpose of being your servants or being tormented for an eternity are circumstances that the creator would not want to exist under.  I won’t go into all the existential implications, but the point being is the creator is irrelevant.  Because he doesn’t help or harm in this life, in any afterlife scenario morality determines the appropriate space for the survival of consciousness after death, and you can never know if you’re in the presence of the creator.  The books Liberty the Definitive Moral Truth, and the screen play The Survival have the details.  

 God is what you chase, your true highest value.  For some it’s alcohol, meth, or heroin, and for many others it’s their children, money, or a number of other things, (Children in the sense that what people are chasing is for the benefit of their children).  Your God is what you actually serve.   

Your deity is the approval that you seek.  The deities that people call God are their deity, where first they seek their pleasure and then they construct a deity who approves of their pleasure and the idea of it perceiving them better when they do the things they think he wants them to do provides them a positive feeling through improvement of self worth.  It’s image promotion to an imagined being: the individual perceives themselves being perceived better by a being based on something they think, feel, or do and this approval improves their self worth.  The deity is essentially a person’s source of morality.  Which isn’t to say that the deity supplies all the moral rules, but if for instance a child learns something is wrong from a parent, the rule becomes incorporated into the deities values.  That’s the personal relationship a person has with God/deity, where the deity takes on their conception of right and wrong as well as supplies rules to be followed unquestionably.

As I stated before I am my own deity because I seek my own approval, and my god is liberty because that’s what I chase.  But, when your god is liberty and you exist in a world of tyranny, your deity becomes justice, and there are a lot of times when value comparisons are between the satisfaction of immediate justice and the satisfaction of anchoring justice related goals: where the immediate action has consequences for those goals. 

That went a little bit deeper than I intended it to.  Other thing worth mentioning was an ad I heard on the radio.  It featured a girl talking about an organization feeding her, and the radio host was praising the organization for doing that.  Believe me there are few things that make me happier than a child’s satisfaction.  I don’t do what I do because I’m motivated by compassion or empathy anymore.  That’s how it began but when you understand how everyone plays a role in producing the results we see it’s hard to feel bad for people doing things to themselves, not individually, but collectively producing circumstances for one another.  It’s mainly about right except for children before they reach an age where their minds have been corrupted by the world.  Compassion in respect to children, but liberty and justice in respect to my general motivation.    

Before I went off on that qualifying tangent, the point is they applaud efforts to contribute basic necessities to children without acknowledging how despicable it is that parents go without opportunities to provide these things for their children.  This group assisted children of an incarcerated parent, and the child probably typically eats 3 meals a day without the organizations assistance, but it was framed through the lens that she didn’t.  I believe it’s facilitated through a church meaning those three meals probably come with a sermon that does more harm to her mind than the food is going to help her body.


New area, did not plan very well for being here, my car is starting to run rough, and I was experimenting with Kratom to see how it effects my performance.  I was abnormally bitter and becoming despondent.  Maybe not despondent, but the anticipation of failure, the consideration of too many ifs in the wrong direction.  Scenarios imagined produce some degree of the anticipated feelings.  Since your feelings influence the production of thoughts you continue to spiral until you have a solution, greater certainty of the desired outcome, or acceptance of the undesired outcome.  Reaching one of those destinations is the positive feelings that motivates the production of negative thoughts that have negative feelings attached to them.  

I called Holly and off loaded some of that shit.  I was whiney, but I could have went there had she not been encouraging.  My whiney isn’t the same whiney as you conceive it to be, there’s no whine in it, just the word I use to describe when when I’m venting negative shit.  

Some of it I think was the Kratom or the need to take more.  It played some role in the amplification of negative feelings, and increased focus on something that is seemingly impending, but still too far out to be concerned with.  Although if my car goes suddenly and I can’t fix it, this does significantly change my circumstances.  The point being is, my actual circumstances didn’t warrant those unproductive thoughts and feelings.  

I was mildly embarrassed about this morning.  Enough to text Holly when I was at the gym (near the end of my workout when I have maximum endorphin release), that I apologize for calling her with that soft shit.  

She said it wasn’t soft, that everybody has those days.  Maybe, but I don’t like the way it feels.  While this may be interpreted as a value of toughness, it’s actually a competitive value.  Not in competition with the general population, more with the circumstances themselves.  Ultimately, it’s a matter of self worth, where responding to my circumstances like that, is behavior that I don’t value.  

I had a few thought provoking encounters.  I began backing out of Del Taco and noticed a car and stopped.  I waited and when he drove past he looked like he was giving me a dirty look like I fucked up when I stopped about a foot after I began to reverse and was able to see him.  I was upset about that and said as much.  He went past me and had to make a u turn and I had to make a left which put him in my line of sight, so I drove past looking at him pissed off, and he wasn’t looking in my direction.  That made me wonder if he was even trying to do that to begin with.  

After Del Taco I went to Walmart.  This woman’s grown or nearly grown child asked if I could do something for his mom.  I checked my wallet.  Didn’t remember if I had any cash on me and I had a 5 and a 1.  I don’t the income at the moment to be throwing 5s out there, but I put a dollar on their mission since it’s unlikely that $1 will be the difference between getting more money and not missing it and not getting more money.  No likely consequence and value of the feeling of helping out, is greater than what I could purchase for the dollar at that time.  I’m recording these things just because it seems like a good opportunity to apply Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison. 

When I came back out they were still in the same spot.  He asked me about my protein powder.  When I left I told them to have a good afternoon, and along with a few other exchanges the woman probably said God bless you about 3x.  I thought about it later.  Feeling like I should have addressed that superstition, and recognizing why I didn’t.  Her saying God bless you is perceived as an effort of her hoping good things for you in that setting.  In a casual moment, it feels better to give her that than it does to launch into an objective morality lecture and the moral inconsistencies of the Christian deity.  

It is a problem.  The idea that God decides who is blessed and who is cursed because under such a perception, she can never truly understand that her circumstances and my circumstances are largely a byproduct of the decisions of all the people on this planet.  There is no magic, and you can’t understand reality until you acknowledge how it takes place.  This has enormous consequences for communication, the establishment of fact, problem solving, and a number of other things that contribute to negative results.  

When I left Walmart I was in the middle lane and I pulled out pretty far waiting to make a left turn.  This guy pulled up on the side of me looking frustrated because he couldn’t see if cars were coming to make a right hand turn.  I probably would have been upset too but I’m not backing up.  I did watch for the cars and turned to him when he could go.  

I received a callback from UNLV.  I was driving to the gym and didn’t want to get into a focused conversation while I was trying to follow my GPS.  When I arrived at the gym I found a voice message with a person to email RUSC to.  I sent that out today.  I realized there was a lot to take out, and I must have written some of it without internet because when I copied it from the file there were numerous spelling errors in the last few paragraphs.  Obviously I edited what I sent to the UNLV contact, but I already submitted this file to The Independent Institute, so I sent a file that had irrelevant information in it, and spelling errors lol.  I was going to edit and resubmit it, but wrote this journal entry instead.  The content is solid enough to where if it’s understood they should still express interest and if they do I’ll send them a better version.  

I made a press release list of 25 newspapers or newspaper contacts but since I’m on west coast time and didn’t have them ready to send until about 1:15, I decided to wait until the morning to send them.  My email I attached to the 30 I sent out last week was very weak.  The press release itself is solid, but I followed a PR email template and think that may have impacted the effectiveness of the solicitation.  The timing was too, only a few days before Christmas.  I knew that and sent them anyway because it was something to do.  I should probably call when I have the option before sending the press release, if nothing else at least to get the right person.   

I plan on looking at an office space tomorrow.  I looked at some yesterday, but the one available at that location for $349 is too small, and I don’t really want to pay $695 for a large office, and even if I did, the large offices are not available until the 15th or 20th.  

Otherwise I’ll rent a conference room for 2 hours, but I want to have a focus group by the end of next week, or the beginning of the following week.  I just hope I can attract participation for $25 for an hour.  

We’ll find out.


I was on my way to begin the Vegas campaign and I was listening to talk radio.   I don’t remember all the points of the woman’s book, but she was making connections about the normalization of radical leftism through higher education, which seems pretty accurate, but instead of doing something substantive, like showing radical professors, the number of students they taught, and how many of them went on to become professors or researchers, she turns her observations into Marxist conspiracy parallels which is something I will return to.  

She went on to talk about how all the money going to non-profits to influence culture is from the left when there used to be more coming from the right.  She was essentially pleaing for conservatives to spend money on cultural influencing.  What she fails to understand is that conservatives cannot influence culture with their values because they’re based on false ideas.  

God, country, and family.  The problem is your god isn’t real, it’s an inconsistent deity, based on a deity who rewarded obedience and commanded murder and theft.  Then became another deity who teaches submission to tyranny.  Of those who claim to follow the deity they take the forgiveness part and then project their values onto the deity making the deity a better version of their own reflection.  A hypocrite deity, who tells you to love your neighbor as you love yourself but doesn’t love you as he loves himself; since he claims to have created you to be his servant or to be tortured, which isn’t an existence he would want for himself.  More importantly we can tell from his absence that the creators morality is liberty, since he doesn’t impose on his creation.  This is probably my biggest issue with Christianity, the idea that what happens on this planet takes place based on the preference of some tyrant deity.  He blesses and punishes, which insults those who begin or end up in circumstances that exist by way of the people on this planet.  It’s a failure to acknowledge reality and is harmful to beneficial communication.  The deity itself is inconsistent with liberty, forbidding that which does not impose, commanding that which does impose, and facilitating the ease through which tyranny can take place.  The deity was created by man whose understanding is rooted in tyranny.  As far as broadening and deepening traditional Christian values into the American culture there are too many people who know enough that your deity is not the creator and his teachings are not ideal.  The other portion of people who won’t be influenced are those that I’ve mentioned, who take the forgiveness, and then the deity is a genie who grants their prayers when it’s in his will lol, and is the best version of their values.  

As far as nationalism is concerned, you can’t tell people how great the country is when they’re waking up in hell everyday.  The country is not great for them, and no matter how many smiling faces you have telling them freedom, opportunity, prosperity, etc, it doesn’t change their circumstances, or what they’ve endured that led them to those circumstances.  This will not resonate with a lot of people in this country.  

As far as family is concerned as a cultural value in most cases it is, but it cannot always be prioritized because of circumstances.  Not to mention that many who come from families who begin in difficult circumstances often have and develop different relationships with their families.  

 I think those 3 things christian family nationalism properly summarize the cultural identity of conservatism in America.  The point  is unless the conservatives acknowledge their BS, they’re going to continue to lose ground in this country to the leftist BS which in many ways is worse than their own.  

The second guy was promoting a book or study that was making parallels to LGBT promotion to Marxism.  There was something interesting thing he quoted from what he termed as the first book of queer studies.  It’s interesting to me because I stated something similar about dissent for a brief period where I was a member of a political activist group by that name.  I stated that the goal of dissent is for dissent to become the orthodoxy, but of course I meant this in the context where the dissenting conclusion is the correct one, and the orthodoxy is incorrect.  He stated that the idea from the book was that being queer had to be normalized but also that which was normal had to be marginalized.  Then he compared this idea to Marxism.  Whether there is a basis for comparison is irrelevant.  You have the quote from the book and you have the results and the effort which is much more important.  

The woman from the previous segment commented that Marxists realized they would never achieve what they wanted as in government controlled means of production, so they attacked the institutions with the garbage that we have today.  But, Marxism is an idea on production and distribution, if you take that away you no longer have Marxism, you’re left with just the baseless assertions of race, gender, and sexuality as a source of disadvantage, the promotion of false ideas about gender and the promotion of LGBT sexuality, attacks on free speech, and the effort to deny the existence of truth.  They run a meritless cold war campaign to their brainwashed audience that Marxists are taking over the country, and whether they’re Marxists or not, the problem isn’t Marxism which they admit is essentially dead, the problem is what you’re saying Marxists are responsible for.  

My issue with LGBT promotion is the potential harm it causes to children.  They’re being introduced to concepts that are not true that will influence them to make decisions that will alter the course of their life and development.  It’s not true that some people are boys in girls bodies and some people are girls in boys bodies.  Same sex sexual attraction develops (there’s no genetic basis for sexuality, but I’m not saying that sexuality is a choice I’m saying the attraction develops), and some people adopt values that are consistent with the opposite sex.  There’s nothing wrong with a person expressing those values.  But when these concepts are falsely expressed to children for some they can and will latch onto the concept and apply a label to themselves for the attention, identity, and social benefits.  As far as a person looking how they want to look, dressing how they want to dress, talking how they want to talk and what gender they want to have sex with I don’t have a problem with that, and there are very few people who do. 

I do have an idea for a proposal but it would probably be a state level for a proposal which defeat the purpose of it since states that allow radical sex ed and gender studies into the curriculum of young impressionable students probably wouldn’t pass it. The legislation would be for equal time to address what’s being taught. Where whatever is in the curriculum can be addressed and has to be taught with the opposing argument. The problem is any state that would pass it is a state that probably isn’t teaching it, and any state teaching it probably wouldn’t pass it. Then again, it may be enough of incentive to encourage people who typically don’t vote to vote in state representatives who would support the legislation. Of course if you’re going to vote for a candidate to pass this legislation the same candidate could probably have it removed from the curriculum. I haven’t looked into where these things come from.and who is responsible for what it taught to children.


I do anticipate some backlash to OPLs strategy to those who are so unaware as to not understand how this country’s political system functions.  The criticism being that motivating people who otherwise wouldn’t vote to vote for legsilation that advances their interests which changes the outcome of an election is a subversion of democracy.  On the state level there are some consequential differences, but at the federal level the difference in public policy between democrats and republicans is much less meaningful than accomplishing OPL legislation.  Since the districts we focus on are contested, the majority that may be offended by a largely irrelevant outcome is not much larger than the minority who voted for the OPL selected winner.  Public policy is decided by industry and other special interests so long as the non-industrial interest does not impact an industrial interest invested in the majority party.  The difference between democrats and republicans is which industries interests will be prioritized in public policy based on how industries invest in the parties, and this difference doesn’t have much of an impact on the lives and opportunities of citizens, despite the sharp contrast in rhetoric and position on issues made to seem important to keep the public engaged in the soap opera.  

One difference for former college students was the prospect of partial loan forgiveness.  This was a good move by democrats to capitalize on the popularity of the idea among that student debt holding demographic.  Credit to Bernie Sanders, but also the blame to Bernie Sanders.  More so the blame to college students and former college students who proved that they are exactly like the industrial interests that many of them claim to be opposed to influencing politics.  

They voted with their interests, to take priority over disadvantaged people in this country, and there are a good many people who are comparatively disadvantaged to people who have student debt.  These are advantaged people essentially receiving government assistance.  The foundation of happiness is built with one of 2 materials.  The first being an income opportunity that allows the person to have time and money.  The 2nd is an income opportunity performing work they enjoy doing that is adequate to provide basic comforts.  People with college degrees typically stand to make more money than those who do not, and they’ve also positioned themselves to do work they enjoy doing.  They’re greatly advantaged over the bottom 50% of income earners who earn less than $38,000, more so over the 22% earning less than $18,000 per year, in better opportunities for income, and performing work they’ve chosen.  These people used their votes to take something from the government for their own interests, deprioritizing the poor, whereas industry provides funds to campaigns to encourage people to vote as they prioritize their interests above the interests of the public.  Either way, it’s advantaged parties prioritizing their interests over the interests of the disadvantaged, demonstrating that debt relief voters are the same as industry when an opportunity arises to prioritize their interests over the interests of others.  

I mention this for those who contend that there are significant differences in parties on the federal level for people.  In this case the democrats offered something to a group and they took it, although it still hasn’t been completely fulfilled, but the lives of poor people in this country, their circumstances and opportunity remains unchanged.  More importantly, this was an executive action not an act of congress.  The same as the vaccine mandates which is actually a significant difference between parties for a limited period of time under the Biden administration, but the makeup of congress had no impact on that policy.  

As far as budgets and bills that were passed these were passed with bipartisan support.  Legislation is a product of each congressperson inserting something for the industries they represent into bills.  Many industries invest in both parties.  The point being, OPL isn’t subverting democracy by using non-voter margins to decide house seats and possibly deciding which party will control the house.  OPL is giving the non-voting margins something to vote for and using this leverage to accomplish legislation that will meaningfully improve the lives of people in this country from the bottom to the top.  Otherwise, you have two groups of people who are voting for candidates because they like the things they say and public policy has little impact on the lives of the public.  

I exchanged a few messages with a woman on a dating app.  She said I intrigued her.  I asked why to gain insight into how she perceived me based on my profile.  She provided an explanation that was essentially a mirror of my about me section.  I thanked her for her insight and then she sent me a reply saying that she saw me as the whole picture because she was an empath.  Initially I wasn’t going to respond since we’re on the app for different reasons, but I was bothered by it.  I wrote a response and didn’t send it.  I didn’t send it because I don’t believe she would have got anything out of it, and she’s looking for someone to be a fixture in her fantasy and I’m not interested in being that.  

Unsent Reply         

The big picture?  I’m not trying to be condescending, but the picture people see can be no bigger than the frame its seen through.  Symbolically, within the frame fits what people will accept as being true because that frame or perspective is required for their joy.  Outside of it there are the things they can’t see because it challenges their invested perspective.  Invested meaning their values (what causes them to feel good) rely on life being what they think it is.  

The big picture of me is, in my late 20s I asked why I was as I was and the world is as it is.  Answering those questions through objective study provided me with the causes of the problems which led to the development of solutions.  Long story short, once the light is on, you can’t shut it off, re-insulate yourself with false ideas and content yourself with frivolous entertainment.  It’s like if you woke up everyday and you had a sink full of dirty dishes, you would do the dishes, not go about your life never looking at the sink.  And once you know they’re there, you can’t stop knowing that.  

I liken my situation to the whole house being overloaded with garbage and I can’t wade through it like it isn’t there.  My life is dedicated to addressing the garbage because I’m not content wading through it.  I mention this because it’s the long explanation that we’re looking for different things on here. My quality of life has a very low ceiling based on the general stupidity that is prolific among this species.   

One of many things faulty about modern psychology is the labeling of tendency.  It provides opportunities for identity, and those seeking identity will attach the label to themselves through selective analysis of their experiences, and then they’ll consciously try to create evidence that the label is accurate.  Similar to astrology.  A person can respond differently to the same thing depending on their general circumstances and mood.  In one situation they meet the criteria of one personality type and in the other they represent something different.  It’s a lot of bullshit for the illusion of believing you understand something about yourself or someone else.  But those who play usually play together, so if you keep company with people who subscribe to it you’ll all help it land and seem real.  Same as people who believe in astrology will frequently cite behavior being a product of their sign, personality type people will point to their personality type as to why they’ve engaged in some behavior and it’s equally ridiculous.  

I was probably most irritated by her saying that she saw me as the whole picture which to me was extremely arrogant, condescending, and inaccurate.  1st because the only information she had about me was what was listed on my profile and two brief messages.  She could have read information on my websites but she clearly didn’t given her response to the question of why I intrigue her.  To see me as the whole picture requires a perspective capable of understanding the whole picture which as far as I can see doesn’t exist on this planet.  They try to reduce you to something that fits within their frame while failing to realize there is so much more beyond their borders.  

I sent a press release to 30 media outlets of varying size about RUSC. I only sent 30 because of the timing being the week before Christmas but I wanted to do something. This week I’m preparing to contact the economics department of colleges, contact businesses, and then pay to put my press release on the wire first week after new years. I’m also going to secure a venue and try to hold a focus group. I need something to pan out to motivate me.


I’m someone who has been to many places for an impressionable amount of time at each location.  By impressionable I mean a month or more, where an accumulation of experience serves as the basis for feelings associated with a particular location as an object.  I was thinking about this because I’ve considered going to Vegas because it’s in the center of 3 contested districts but have felt apprehensive.  Some of this apprehension is it being on the west coast and some of the prevailing stupidity that exists out there, but I think some it is a product of my experiences out there, and the difficulty of my circumstances during that time.  

When I think about Texas, I have a positive opinion of the place.  Some of this is due to the general courtesy of people in that place, but outside of that and maybe some positive experiences working or with co-workers (there are negative exp. as well) my general circumstances were pretty good.  Making money and not having to worry about housing.  There was the underlying not having time element of it, but that feeling was drown out by the feeling that earning money was progress towards my grander ambition where I am now.  The point being is, my opinion of Texas is a product of my experiences and circumstances generally being better in Texas than they were in most other places.  

Vegas was rough circumstantially, and the roommates I had, especially the second situation became a source of near daily agitation.  I was able to save enough money to buy a car, then fix the car enough to leave with less than $1000.  My first week out there and I believe I wrote about it in a journal entry from around that time, I was almost scammed out of I think $170 or more.  I worked with a guy and he paid me for the day and said he only paid daily for the first 2 days.  I figured he would probably agree to pay daily after that since he made it about people not coming to work and I would clearly come to work everyday.  On the second day he asked if I needed some money and I told him I needed the money for the hours I worked that day.  He said he told me he couldn’t pay me every day, but I reminded him that he said he would pay daily on the first 2 days.  He paid me and we were supposed to work the following day.  I called him at 730 and he didn’t pick up.  I got a hold of him sometime around 8 and he said we’re probably not going to work.  I spoke to him later in the day to see when the work would resume and he said he couldn’t tell me.  I never heard from him again.  Seems likely he intended to have me work on draws of what he agreed to pay me, or nothing at all until “pay day”, and then when payday comes I don’t hear from him and he’s stole $600 or more of labor from me.  

Outside of that it was hard to find work out there.  I was there when Vegas was still in pandemic mode, and since it’s west coast and I believe had a democrat as a mayor and or governor, it was very restrictive and the casinos were only allowed to operate at ¼ capacity.  Presumably there was less work and more people competing for what little work there was.  

The first place I stayed I think they intended to keep my money I paid for the room and kick me out.  In fact she subtlety tried to.  There was a gate around the apartment and I could not get the key copied.  I took it to locksmith who told me that they needed permission to copy that kind of key from the property owners.  When I say gated the gates are between pieces of the apartment building, probably about 9 feet high.  

We established that I would call her when I needed the gate opened.  I get back to the apartment probably 9pm, probably first day I worked, possibly second or third day there.  I call her repeatedly and she doesn’t pick up.  I had to go to the main gate where it is open at the top and climb over the gate to get to the apartment.  I had a key to the apartment but not to the gate.  When I entered the apartment I knocked on her bedroom door and her boyfriend said she was sleeping.  There were other instances after this where she was in the apartment and I had to climb the gate.  There probably would have been more if not for me and others propping open the gate.  

After a while they were doing things on the periphery.  Things that seemed intended to agitate me but could also just be things they were doing, where if I address them, there’s plausible deniability of intent, and I look like I’m trying to cause problems.  I also wasn’t in a position to be kicked out, where if I reacted to something she could call the police and have me kicked out.  

Eventually the sum of those things and another incident culminated in my departure.  It was 2 days before I was moving out and I thought I already had a place.  It was very cold in the morning and they left the door open as they walked out.  Even with this there was some deniability of the intention because sometimes I would leave the door open.  I slammed the door and they came back.  

She said they left it open because sometimes I leave the door open.  The difference is I open the door when it’s 60 to 70 degrees outside, not when it’s 40.  She tried to kick me out but I said I’m not leaving.  Her boyfriend said it could be me and him instead of me and her.  I was happy to oblige him because of what they were doing, and I can hit him, I can’t hit her.  He went in the room and grabbed a pistol and said he doesn’t play the same way I play.  I told him if  he was going to shoot to shoot.  This wasn’t the first time I’ve had a pistol pulled on me.  As a man, if I’m going to get shot I’m going to get shot, and I may not do what I was going to do, but you’re not going to make me do something because you have a gun.  She deescalated the situation and we agreed it would be cool and I would be out on my move out date.  

They left and came back and it was awkward.  I went to look at another place and it was cheaper than the place I thought I was going to get and available that day.  I decided to move in that day.  

This was not a good situation either.  To get attention, the woman would try to create sympathy for herself by playing the victim to people around her.  If you were doing what she wanted you to do she would be very sweet to you, and you become the one that she talked about others to.  If you didn’t she was harassing, sought nearly every opportunity to make your life hard, and you would have to listen to her talk shit about you to her brother when he came by and people on the phone.  A lot of the shit was falsely presented and there was no explanation for.  I remember her telling probably her mom that she felt like a prisoner in her own home, she can’t stand to be around me, and it was crazy, because I stopped interacting with altogether.  I would come in the house after work, go to my room, and be quiet with maybe the exception of an occasional laugh.  Before she found out that I paid rent for a room, not rent for a room, caregiver, and activity partner accomodation, it was the same thing about her brother, although her brother probably did take advantage of her, but he did do things for her.  He strangely earned what he gets from her, it’s almost less the value of the things he did for her, and more the value she had of his attention.  An exchange of his attention and the things he did for the money he was able extract from her.  

The house was disgusting but I didn’t really notice it in the snap decision I made.  Roaches all over the place.  I kept the light on in my room to keep em away.  I cooked but the taste of the food was always tainted by the awareness of the surroundings l, where it was stored and prepared.  I stopped cooking, maybe a week to 10 days into my stay.  

When I first got there I did all the dishes, and rewashed some of them that were still dirty.  After I stopped cooking in the kitchen she would talk about how I don’t help with the dishes or help clean, but I was only in my room, used the bathroom and took showers but always cleaned up after myself.  Speaking of which, to spite me she left shit on the seat so I would have to clean it up.  Little did she know I was petty enough to shit at the gym.  She had audacity while talking on the phone to say the tenant will clean up the yard and rake the leaves.  Something that I may have done had she not become so vindictive about me not participating in things with her, like meal planning, cooking for her, watching TV with her, listening to her stories, and being willing to do things for her all the time at a moments notice.  These are expectations you have to bring up in the beginning when money is changing hands.  Would have also been nice to be given a heads-up that you have a serious roach infestation before I move in.  If these were the expectations I would have tried to find something somewhere else.  I think she said it on the phone to see if I’d do it because by that time she was already on a vindictive streak and I just shut myself off to her.  Few word answers to questions, in my room or in or out the door and that was it.  Even when she became intent on making my life difficult, I still took the garbage out for her and brought the bins from the house to the curb on garbage day because this was something I agreed to when I moved in.    

She would stomp past my door.  There was a time when it was close to or after midnight and I had to be up for work 5:30am to take a 2 hour bus ride to be there by 8, and she knocks on my door and asks if I wanted pizza rolls or something like that.  I said no I want to sleep, that I have to be up early.  She told me I had to use the back door to come in and out after being there for about 10 days or more.  It was solely an effort to inconvenience me and try to provoke a response.  She preferred conflict to the absence of interaction.  

Funny, but one night I came back from work and she had all lights off in the living room.  As I make my way to the hallway she had a towel or something like that in front of this fake plant at the center of the hallway.  I bumped into the plant blocking the mouth of the hallway, I may have moved it and walked around it after bumping into it.   Then I turned on the light and it looked like a very poorly thought out trap.  Like I was going to run into the plant, slip on the towel and hurt myself.  It was very funny to me, had all the components of a home alone scene.  

The point being, my circumstances in Vegas were difficult, 2 hour commute to go to work, usually about an hour on the bus to and from the gym, going to Walmart would take 3 hours, and then I had the constant poking from the people I rented from and all those experiences serve as the basis for the underlying feeling I have about the place.  

While I think I should start a campaign there, the feelings from my experiences cause me to not want to start there.  

The day before I left the hotel yesterday I thought about how unique of a situation it is to leave somewhere and have no where to go.  That’s a problem very few people in this country ever experience.  

I’ve written about my isolation previously.  It’s largely the effect of individual development.  I haven’t wronged people to cause them to not want to associate with me.  I’ve written about this before, but the point is, when you go through a great degree of personal development and learning by yourself no one else goes there with you.  People think you’re crazy because they don’t understand you, and they don’t understand you because they’re not interested in the things you’ve become interested in.  Not to mention they’re operating out of popular misconceptions about life that they want to keep intact to preserve their values, or the feelings that they get from doing what they do.  It’s like Dewey observed, unless a person likes what the group likes and behaves how they behave he is out of the group.  Those are not the exact words or the full explanation but that is the idea.  

I have a little bit of money and I have a transformative idea and transformative medium of achieving that idea, and understand how numerous interests could benefit from the execution of the idea and the mechanism, which will pave the way for other transformative ideas.  It’s so difficult operating out of these circumstances.  I have the Field Operations plan pretty much completed which outlines strategy including most of the specifics.  I completed creating an academic submission of RUSC to see if economists will do the research to better gauge the anticipated impact.  There’s a publication that seems sort of pseudo academic, features academic papers but isn’t an academic journal.  I’d rather submit it to an academic journal because the idea is novel and is more likely to lead to the research I’m looking for.  At the same time it can take months to find out if it will even be reviewed, whereas all I really need is for it to be published and for economists to be able to cite it to do the research.  I should probably submit it to the publication I’m considering.  

I have a problem in knowing who and how to contact industry and politicians.  I’ve considered calling corporate offices and pitching until I reach the right person.  I’ve also considered contacting politicians through their contact forms where hopefully whoever reads the contact would forward it to the representative.  I tried calling the national committee but no one picks up.  

I thought about contacting a lobbying firms in the hope of gaining contacts or facilitating communication with their clients.  Other than Pepsi who owns a significant amount of fast food franchises, I’m not sure if RUSC will have a very strong impact on the interests of their clients.  Or, I don’t know if the industry (retail)fastfood) is represented through large lobbying firms, since the industry doesn’t seem to have interests at stake as it relates to public policy at the federal level.  Yet even if they do not, some of their clients definitely have an interest in one party controlling the house over the other.  To represent that interest the firm may want to see if a party supported OPL legislation, and if they did, to make their clients aware of efforts to elect that party.  It’s a pretty cheap investment in gaining the desired outcome.    

I’m also thinking about how some of these efforts could adversely impact what I’m trying to do.  It seems everything is something that has to have something else done first, but to do that thing the other thing has to be done first.  I feel like I’ve spent a bunch of money and haven’t done anything.  Of course I recognize that there are a lot of things that needed to be thought out during this time I haven’t done anything.  I have done things, and even today where I’ve felt unproductive I finished the academic submission that may need to be revised for the publication that I have in mind.  It’s the difficulty of the circumstances and knowing that I need funding to finance a solid operations campaign.  

I plan on submitting this paper and then making a list of local news outlets, even lesser known local papers but in contested districts and sending a press release summarizing OPL and RUSC.  I already wrote the summary.  I just need to make the list.

On the subject of figuring things out I think RUGO has only been RUSC for a few days, where RUSC is significantly better in essentially guarenting what RUGO would potentially do, and creating additional benefits in the RUSC form.  Missing the evolution of that proposal would have been a great setback.  I was already considering it becoming something like RUSC, where either through the state legislature on a state by state basis, or through labor pushing company policy the gratuity option would become the service charge.  

I’m plugging away in a sense but not very efficiently.  And the lack of efficiency is killing my confidence and sapping my motivation producing greater inefficiency.  Not to mention my motivation already suffers from years of the human propensity to ignore and reject without reason or explanation.  Not my motivation as far as the general goals are concerned but my motivation to work on specific tasks.  To do something requires the prospect of a positive feeling, that either comes innately through the task or end of the task, or where accomplishing the task is perceived as progress towards some goal.  There’s a positive feeling associated with progressing efforts.  But over the course of years of having those efforts ignored or rejected without reason or explanation, subconsciously these acts are perceived as leading to that end and you lose the anticipation (subconsciously) of the act producing the positive feelings.  It makes it harder to get work done.  In procrastination, you become acutely aware of your present circumstances and the stress from that causes you to seek stimulation to relieve that stress which further distracts you from getting done what you need to get done.  And you’re bleeding money all the whole.  

I’m in a very rough spot.      


I made changes to the Round Up Gratuity Option last night.  Mainly removing the option to maximize and increase the benefits of the program.  I’m radically more enthusiastic about the proposal than I was prior to these changes.  While I believed it would be successful in its previous form I believed it was going to take a strong marketing campaign to encourage a level of participation to create the benefits in the degree that I forecast.  Now those results are pretty much guaranteed if I can pass the legislation.  RUG, as it is known now, will produce an unprecedented increase in wages for the bottom 50% of income earners in this country.  The success of RUGTC will put pressure on congress to pass other OPL legislation based on the success of this RUGTC.  Establishes credibility, and it’s also a prerequisite for a balance stimulus in changing low demand jobs currently facing labor shortages to high demand jobs.  As well as reducing the cost of a balance stimulus as low income earners increase their income moving into higher income groupings and changing balance stimulus qualifications.        

There was recently an article published about StarBucks new tipping option consisting of a response from a customer and an employee who had a negative opinion of the option.  I wrote about it briefly a few days ago.  RUG will address both the customer complaint and the workers complaint.  The worker feels uncomfortable asking customers if they want to leave a tip.  RUG automatically rounds up the price and its company policy.  Additionally, most customers are not concerned with contributing they’re nickels and dimes to ensure the employees of these establishments are well compensated.  What they don’t want is to be faced with the pressure of having to decide to add dollars to every purchase they make.  They want the price.  If it’s $9 instead of $8.58 they’re not going to have a problem with that.  They just don’t want to sit across from someone who just made them their order, get their purchase for 8.58, and then be asked if they want to tip.  The following is the new version of RoundUp Gratuity Tax Credit.  The petition can be signed at https://www.oplnow.com/round-up-gratuity-tax-credit-incentive/  

Round Up Gratuity is a charge applied by businesses in high volume transaction industries in the amount of the difference between the total price and the next dollar that is distributed to the employees as gratuity.  For example, if a customer’s total is 87.63, they would pay $88 and $.37 would be placed in a gratuity fund to be distributed to the workers.       

High volume transaction industries are businesses who average 5 in store purchases per hour per employee and are primarily represented by retail and fast food.

As of January 20th, 2020, it is estimated that Walmart locations average about 10,000 car visits according to The Institute of Transportation Engineers.(1)  Not all cars entering a Walmart parking lot are there to make purchases.  Let’s assume there are 9,000 transactions per day.  There are about 45 people working per shift.(2)  If we presume the store is open 16 hours per day that total daily gratuity would be split between 90 workers.  Since there is no greater likelihood that a total will be closer or further away from the next dollar the average round up is $.50.  $4500 split amongst 90 workers is $50 dollars per person, or an additional $6.25 per hour.  For other businesses such as fast food which may have a higher ratio of transactions per employee the earnings could be greater.  

1: 8th and Walton, 1/9/2020  https://www.8thandwalton.com/blog/walmart-foot-traffic/  

2: Stephen Comeau who managed the electronics department in a Walmart from 2013 to 2020 reported about 45 workers present during a typical shift.  https://www.quora.com/How-many-Walmart-employees-are-working-in-the-store-in-during-an-average-day-at-the-same-time 

To encourage businesses to implement Round Up Gratuity we want to offer those businesses a 10% payroll tax credit.  The public does not lose 10% in tax revenue because what’s provided in the payroll tax credit will be exceeded by what’s gained in income tax from people who previously paid little or no taxes, paying more or some taxes as their incomes increase.  

Round Up Gratuity will serve a variety of purposes.   The median income for a fast food worker is $25,100,(3)  which is very near to 2/3rds of the national median income as well as 1/3rd of the household income.  The median income for a gas station attendant is $23,601 per year.(4)  The average income for a retail store associate is $28,000.(5)  RUG will increase the income of millions of people employed in those industries.  Just as, if not more importantly, RUG will increase the income of all unskilled workers.  As the incomes of people employed in high volume transaction industries increase, other industries in competition for unskilled labor will have to offer higher wages.  For example, if a person can earn $20+ per hour working at Walmart, a company who is hiring people to dig a hole is going to have to pay something comparable to hire him, otherwise he’ll seek employment in retail or fast food.  

3: Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2021 “Fast Food and Counter Workers”.  https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes353023.htm 

4: Salary.com, 8/29/2022 “Gas Station Attendant Salary in the United States”.  https://www.salary.com/research/salary/alternate/gas-station-attendant-salary 

5: Zip Recruiter visited 9/19/2022, “Retail Sales Associate Salary”.  https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Retail-Sales-Associate-Salary#:~:text=How%20much%20does%20a%20Retail,%2Fweek%20or%20%242%2C401%2Fmonth.     

Retail and fast food continue to experience a shortage of workers.  RUG will dramatically increase the wages of people working in these industries and increase demand for these jobs.  A byproduct of this demand will be a more reliable, efficient, and stable team benefiting the employer and the customer alike.  Reliability and employment longevity are faciliatetd through a high quality income.  Efficiency will improve as the workers have a stake in the amount of transactions they are able to process on a day to day basis.  Growing demand for these jobs will allow these businesses to hire employees who are committed to team and company goals, instead of having to settle for employees who will show up.     

In 2022 we spent about 620 million dollars minting coins.  I have no way to forecast an amount of savings but I would think we could conservatively save 100 to 200 million dollars per year in the cost of minting coins since RUG would eliminate the need for coins in high volume transaction industries.  Admittedly, the savings isn’t very significant, but what is significant is the cumulative impact of this change being spent into the economy as opposed to it being lost, destroyed, or stored.  Many people lose their change, throw their change away, or it sits somewhere and is never spent, or is spent infrequently.  Instead of it being withheld from the economy it will be spent into the economy by the recipients of the round up gratuity.  

79% of families who received SNAP benefits in 2018 (6) had at least 1 employed member of the household.  22.5% had 2 incomes and 8.4% had 3 or more incomes but still qualified for benefits.  RUG will decrease spending on government assistance by increasing wages among all unskilled workers, directly through the gratuity and indirectly by the impact it will have on the labor market.  Again, I cannot forecast what the reduction will be, (7) but considering the United States will spend about 550 billion dollars on welfare programs in 2023, and considering the anticipated increase in wages for people in high volume transaction industries the savings will be substantial.  

6:  The United States Census Bureau, 7/21/2020 “About a Third of People Who Received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Had 2 or More People Working”. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/07/most-families-that-received-snap-benefits-in-2018-had-at-least-one-person-working.html   

7: An estimate can be made based on the total amount of transactions within all HVTIs, multiplied by .50 and divided by the workers to arrive at the annual round up per worker.  Then adding the average RUG amount to the average salary would provide us with the anticipated rise in income and the total could be compared to income qualifications for benefits.  The before RUG and after RUG can be used to gauge how many people would no longer require benefit supplementation and we could arrive at an estimate in savings.  This still doesn’t take into account how many total unskilled workers would establish incomes that don’t require government benefits from improvements in the labor market for unskilled workers. 

Round Up Gratuity will produce the following benefits

  • Workers in high volume transaction industries will earn substantially higher wages.
  • Unskilled workers will earn higher wages through improvements in the labor market.  
  • Business in high volume transaction industries through the payroll tax credit as well increased reliability, efficiency, and stability from their employees.  
  • The public will benefit from increased revenue as income taxes paid exceed the 10% provided to businesses through the tax credit.  
  • The public will benefit from decreased spending through reduced demand for coin currency.
  • The public will benefit  from decreased spending through a reduction of people reliant on government benefits.  
  • The public will benefit from economic growth as low income people increase their income, purchase more goods and services, leading to more profit, more investment, and more employment.  

A high volume transaction business or a retail or fast food business will receive a 10% tax credit for implementing a round up gratuity program.  To be eligible for the tax credit the business must maintain 100% of the base wages paid prior to the implementation of RUG, and 90% of base wages adjusted for inflation.  The reason for this stipulation is to prevent companies from reducing the base wages after the implementation of RUG, which would eliminate the benefit to the worker and to the labor market.  The 90% of base wages adjusted for inflation is to ensure that base wages still increase nearly on par with inflation without overburdening the company. 


I came across two examples today of how people are unable to separate information from the lens it is presented to them.  The first is the Brittney Griner spectacle.  On ESPN’s Pardon the Interuption with Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon, they talked about how relieved they were that she was back home and called her a political prisoner despite having committed a crime in that country.  As I mention in the comment I don’t really care one way or the other because the consequence of the trade will probably have no impact on the lives of anyone in this country despite the narrative that is being promoted on Fox News.  I wanted to record this observation because this story demonstrates mass manipulation.  

Pardon the Interruption (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWIG-ifENYc)

Crazy.  She wasn’t wrongfully detained; she brought a substance to a country that was illegal in that country.  It happens to be very illegal in that country and many drugs are across the world.  Then he traded a high value prisoner who may facilitate violence against people around the world.  Why did he do that?  Because people on the right will be outraged, and then it can be used as something to call them racist or haters of women which will motivate their base.   I personally don’t care about it one way or the other because it probably has no impact on the lives of anyone in this country, but it is a story that has held their attention and will be used for political marketing.  It’s insane that they call her a political prisoner when she broke the law of that country.  I can’t remember a time when the media, even sports media, could make blatantly false statements.  Luckily she’s a gay black woman, because had she been a straight white male athlete she wouldn’t have been released.  Honestly, it was  a move to boost support among their base and to use it to reinforce the idea among stupid people that republican’s are racist because they know there would be outrage.  This outrage is stoked by the right to rally their base in drawing attention to a marine who may actually be a political prisoner (I’m inclined to believe he was a spy but that’s not an informed opinion) accused of espionage.  It’s stunningly effective mass manipulation.  Controlling what people are paying attention to, which by the way, has no impact on the lives of anyone in this country, and making a decision for the sole purpose of political marketing including producing a response from your opponents that can be used for additional marketing.  

That’s the comment I left, and while claiming her race, gender, and sexuality played a role in her release may be controversial, I think it’s accurate.  If Pat Connaughton brought thc cartridges to Russia it would have been reported once and you wouldn’t have heard about it again, because If you take away race, gender, and sexuality there’s no political benefit.  And then you’re left with just a basketball player for an arms dealer and the left becomes outraged and remember that they’re pro gun control. If it was a republican making the same deal for Pat Connaughton, it would be promoted by the left as evidence of white male privilege. A republican adminstration probably wouldn’t make a deal for Pat or Brittney. Maybe Trump would for Brittney seeing it as an opportunity to challenge the position of the left that he’s a racist, but he probably would have got the marine too. This isn’t argument about racial, gender, or sexuality privilege, it’s only a privilege when there is a specific incident that can be used for political gain. The point is that controversy is created for political gain and the act is motivated by the anticipation of the aforementioned effects.  

On the other side of it, beyond it being politically advantageous for Putin in Russia in obtaining the release of someone who is seen as a political prisoner through the Russian lens, he probably believes that forcing Biden to trade an arms dealer for a basketball player will be advantageous for Trump’s reelection in 2024.  He gives the American people too much credit in the ability to form independent opinions based on facts alone.  Which brings me to a better example of people being unable to separate information from the lens through which it is presented. 

You can either watch the video otherwise the relevant content is laid out in my comment.  Joe Rogan was interviewing a bee keeper who was using the appearance as a platform to draw attention to what she presented as issues for bees, but the issues she mentions do not have any consequences attached to them.  Her presentation included bees are facing destruction of habitat, die from pesticides, and essentially have a poor diet because they’re being used to pollinate mono-cultures.  She mentions that there are an abundance of thriving bee keepers who ship bees around the country to pollinate these mono cultures.  Which means they’re not dying from consuming pesticide sprayed crops in numbers large enough to make bee keeping unprofitable, she mentions no consequence of their poor diet other than it’s not natural (referring to synthetic pollen substitutes), and again we can infer that if they were unproductive due to a poor diet or were dying in mass due to a poor diet that bee keeping would be unprofitable and wouldn’t be a growing industry.  I looked through the comments and a majority had expressed the importance of helping the bees.  I responded with the following to a person who said exactly that.  

Joe Rogan Bees Go Extinct So Will Everything on the Planet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF-3hBv0umo)

Bonnie Wingard Thank God someone recognized..we need to help the bees

Orion Simerl Why do we need to help the bees because they don’t have a wide enough variety in their diet?  If there was a problem with the bees there wouldn’t be this thriving beekeeping industry.  Where do we need bees? They can be sent there.  It’s amazing that people cannot take the information and separate it from the lens that it’s being presented through.  If there is a market for bees there will always be bees.  Nothing she said is of any consequence.  She said that bees die from pesticide use, but, if there is a thriving beekeeping industry they’re not dying in numbers large enough to either not be reproduced for the following season, or enough to make bee keeping unprofitable.  She mentions their diets but can’t state what the consequence is of that diet is.  We can go back to the previous point, that if the diet of the bee affected its ability to pollinate crops, or caused the bees to die in large numbers beekeeping wouldn’t remain profitable and there wouldn’t be so many beekeepers.  She could have come on and talked about how mono cultures have created a thriving beekeeping industry that serves as the livelihood of so many people.  Places where bees are dying off may be a new market creating openings for more people who like caring for bees to earn a living doing it.  Instead she has an irrational attachment to an insect and used her appearance on the Joe Rogan show to present a problem that isn’t a problem and people lack the critical thinking skills to separate the information from the lens.  


Interesting how gun control effectiveness has shifted from the metric of gun crime rate, or gun injury rate to gun death rate to serve the interests of those who support gun control.  This can be misleading for a few reasons.  The first is proficiency in firearms where states with less strict gun control measures tend to have a culture where people are more proficient in the use of firearms leading to more firearm related deaths; whereas states with stricter gun control measures and less proficiency may have more gun crime and injuries and fewer deaths.  The second aspect of a higher gun death rate being misleading is conflating self defense with homicide.  This goes hand and hand with gun control states potentially having higher gun related crime with lower gun death rates, because the population does not have the means to defend themselves against criminals.  Groups promote the metric that supports their position even if the conclusion their promoting is wrong based on the omission of context. It’s also important to note that while gun death rates may be lower in some states that have stricter gun laws, they rank higher in the homicde rate than many states that have less strict gunlaws. Which returns us to the point that is the problem that people are killed by guns, sometimes by people in self defense or defense of others, or is the problem that people are being killed?  

Oregon has narrowly passed a ballot initiative restricting the sale and ownership of firearms.  While there are restrictions on the type of firearms that can be owned the state has created a requirement that a person must have a permit to purchase a firearm which seems unconstitutional and should probably be overturned through the courts.  A person must demonstrate proficiency in the use of a firearm prior to receiving a permit.  A right cannot have a proficiency stipulation attached to it.  It would be like if to exercise your freedom of religion you had to have a permit showing proficiency in your stated religious identification for it to be protected.  Or if in order to have free speech protected a state requires you to obtain a permit to demonstrate proficiency in articulation or oration.  

When I wake up in the morning I drink a pre-workout powder for caffeine mixed with phenibut and then read whatever articles are in my google news feed while I allow the mixture to wake me up and take effect.  I saw an article where Starbucks customers were complaining about being given the option to tip.  This is somewhat troublesome for efforts to implement the Round Up Gratuity Option Tax Credit.  Not that I didn’t know customers could be prejudiced, which is a component of why the tax credit is necessary to gain implementation by nearly all retailers and fast food restaurants to normalize the process and prevent prejudice against individual businesses.  

One complaint stated 7 dollars for a coffee, Starbucks makes enough money to pay their employees better.  Of course if you can afford 7$ for coffee you can afford an extra dollar to ensure the person providing the service has a decent quality of life.  As far as the subject of StarBucks makes enough to pay their employees better wages there are a few things to consider.  The average Starbucks location makes about 1.2 million dollars a year in profit, and employees about 20 people.  The average location has on average 500 transactions per day.  Between customers who do not tip and those who tip more than $1 if the average is  customers tip $1.50 per transaction  this equals  $375 going directly to the employees.  Since all 20 employees are unlikely to work each day we’re probably looking at about 12 working during a typical day, with 6 working 4 to 5 hours and 6 working 8 hours.  Those working 8 hours would receive 2/3rds of those tips which is $247.50, divided by 6 =  $41.25 each or roughly $5 more per hour.  The part time employees would receive 127.50 divided 6 = $ 21, divided 4 is again about $5 more per hour.  If we call it $400 more per day on labor that Starbucks pays, that’s about $150,000 or over 10% of a store’s profit.  

Can Starbucks afford to pay its employees $5 more per hour?  Yes and no.  When someone makes an investment they are making that investment based on achieving the highest return.  In order to make an investment and deal with what comes along with operating the business they’re looking for a certain return on investment.  If you can open up a starbucks and anticipate that you’ll earn about a million dollars per year, you may not make that investment if you’re only expecting to make $850,000 per year.  Why?  Because there are other investments for the same cost and maybe less the headache where you can make over a million dollars per year.  This means if Starbucks changes it’s business model people will take their money out of Starbucks and put it elsewhere.  Which means fewer locations and fewer opportunities for people to purchase the service.  

Secondly, a company’s profit doesn’t determine the wages it pays.  The labor market determines how much a company is going to pay its employees.  The labor market is determined by the amount people are willing to work for in an area to do a certain job.  We could say the same thing about any business.  A guy who is a roofing contractor and makes $10,000 on a roof replacement that takes a week, could probably afford to pay his employees who do the work a portion out of that profit.  He isn’t going to do that because that’s the amount of money he wanted to make to facilitate the service, and if he makes less than that he may consider a different line of work where he can make more money on his investment.  

Tipping whether through roundup plus, set amounts, or percentages facilitates non-compulsory balance.  There are many people in this country who can afford to add onto their purchases to increase the quality of life for people working jobs that do not pay very well.  Those who cannot afford it do not have to, and those who can are able to increase the income of those less fortunate than they are.  This increased income allows those who earn lower income to spend more which benefits everybody in the additional products and services they are able to purchase, as well as in the money they can save to apply towards some income enhancing endeavor in the future which produces the same aforementioned economic benefits.  

As mentioned in the RUGOTC outline, as people in these high volume transaction industries earn more through round up and tipping, it changes the labor market, because companies in industries whose employees do not receive tips are competing for unskilled workers with tipped employee industries.  This means they have to offer higher wages to attract unskilled talent.  It also means that skilled workers have to be paid more as unskilled workers earn more.  No company is going to pay more than is demanded from labor to perform a particular job.  This is why RUGO and other tipping programs are necessary to increase wages as a way to change the labor market for low wage workers.  

From an existential moral standpoint it provides more opportunities to confirm that people are pieces of shit.  Something evident by complaints from customers for being given the option to tip.  With more opportunities offered to well off people, the more opportunities they have to confirm that they’re content with maintaining and advancing their advantages over others.  Interestingly enough, most disadvantaged people would do the same if they were in more advantageous circumstances.  


While reflecting on the 2022 midterm election results I wondered if people understood?  In 2020 there were over 130 congressional elections decided by fewer than 50,000 votes, and probably two dozen decided by less than 15,000 votes, some within a few hundred votes, one district was won by only 6 votes.  In 2022 there were over 90 districts decided by less than 40,000 votes, with many being similar to 2020, and many being decided by much less than 40,000 (hundreds, thousands, and ten thousands). 

 OPL doesn’t need to swing a majority of elections to pass its legislation.  In 2022 5 districts swings control of the house, and 2 senate districts change control of the senate.  There are 5 districts that could swing with less than 15,000 people voting in these districts for one candidate or the other.  That means 75,000 people could have decided control of the house.  

To pass legislation we create a voter bloc in each district capable of swinging the election from one party to the other, depending on which party supports our legislation.  Eventually we expand it improving the certainty of determining control of the house.  Where one election we predict 5, the next we may predict 10, the next it may be 20, and so on and so forth until OPL decides control of the house no matter how the public votes. Where those in secure districts remain secure, and there are not a enough contested districts that will go one way to prevent OPL’s desired outcome.   

We unite these people through popular legislative ideas aimed at improving income opportunities and other impediments to liberty.  And only OPL can do that because it is born out of pure intentions.   

This creates other implications.  If certain industry who invest more heavily with one party over the other know their interests can be prioritized depending on how one group in this country votes, first, they’re going to support that group to ensure they get the result they want, and second, they’re going to encourage candidates they support in key districts to publicly support the legislation and fight for it’s passage.  And if they renege (It’s 3 books lol) we vote for the other party in the next election and swing control of the house.  This means The Organization should be able to pass at least one piece of popular legislation every term, where some may be adopted without the need to use the voting bloc on popular support and merit.  

I can’t get people to support this, but people afford radio ads to save fucking orangutans.  And you wonder why this world is the way it is?  


Just a few thoughts about a few things I’ve seen.

I saw an article that the governor of Illinois has provided a billion dollars for citizens including landlords to pay their rent.  It’s a good thing if you have the resources to help your population who are unable to house themselves, to house themselves, even though he’s essentially appropriating money to property owners.  If this money isn’t appropriated for that purpose, their housing industry loses a billion dollars.

What people fail to realize is it speaks to a more serious issue.  The fact that there is an environment where people in Illinois are unable to earn an income that meets their most basic necessities.  Pritzer as the Illinois governor has presided over this environment and has not proposed any solutions to improve income opportunities for those who cannot afford to pay their rent.  Some of this is probably a product of their covid policies, but it highlights how democrats service the condition of people being poor and impoverished, without providing opportunity for the poor to improve their circumstances.  As mentioned, they’re also able to serve donor interests by providing a billion dollars to the real estate investors who rent to the poor, and rental property ownership is typically highly concentrated.  Huge investment and management companies who own a large percentage of apartments.       

I saw another advertisement for Mayor Lightfoot’s Safer Chicago Plan.  Without looking into the details of this plan I assume it must be loaded with ideas to improve income opportunities since the best predictor of criminality including violent crime is the household income a male is born into.  We also know that the pre incarceration median income of incarcerated people is about 2/3rds the median income of the general population.  If she is attempting to make Chicago safer from crime, this begins with improving income opportunities.  Or maybe the plan reverses her increases on vice taxes.  Lower income people are the greatest consumers of tobacco products, meaning increasing taxes on tobacco is increasing taxes on the poor.  

In another advertisement Lightfoot takes credit for a statistical reduction in homicide and crime. Statistics for political campaigning can be cherry picked by choosing a period of time where a decrease can be observed. 2nd, a reduction in crime and homicide may reflect a national trend and is not neccessarily the result of policy changes. COVID lock downs, economic downturns, among other things can have an impact on crime where when these things change there will be a reduction in crime. Most importantly, crime ebbs and flows where periods of high crime and homicide can be followed by reductions often since reported crime leads to arrests and prosecutions reducing the amount of criminals committing crimes in periods following. This is to say a reduction in crime and homicide can either be contrived through selective comparison, or unrelated to the policies of the mayor. Those who support her will watch an ad, parrot the statistics, and give her the credit.

If I was interested I would read the plan and provide a thorough criticism of it, but the investment of time doesn’t serve any positive purposes.  These are casual reflections on items that came into my field of attention.  Like Pritzer who shares responsibility for residents in his state being unable to afford their rent and requiring a billion dollar allocation, Lightfoot shares responsibility for the issue of safety requiring attention.  

As I wrote in the previous entry about the Union Rights Amendment, most proposed solutions are nothing more than campaign promotion tools, and or a means of funneling public funds into private hands.  This leads into another article I read that a ballot initiative to add an amendment to the state constitutions of Louisanna and Oregon failed to pass.  It’s essentially meaningless gesture since slavery is prohibited at the federal level through 13th amendment.  It’s essentially meaningless because no one own slaves or is trying to own slaves.  The reason the amendments didn’t pass is because they could have had consequences in the context of programs for prisoners.  In Oregon the amendment could have impacted reform programs for incarcerated people and also stopped state revenue generating practices that presently exist within Oregon Corrections.  In Louisiana the amendment they were trying to pass could have expanded the power of the state to use forced labor from corrections.  

Rehabilitation of inmates requires the changing of an inmate’s circumstances.  I began putting together a petition for the state level to introduce a work program for inmates with less than 3 years remaining on their sentences.  Instead I created eligibility for inmates to receive balance stimulus after their release.  If an inmate is released back into the same circumstances that led them to criminality to begin with, chances are they engage in criminal behavior again.  If they have an opportunity to earn money and can leave with a 5 figure nest egg they have a much better chance of becoming productive members of society.  In the absence of a balance stimulus, and in the absence of a work program that offers inmates compensation, a work program especially if it is a work program that allows an inmate to acquire skills in some vocation is better than nothing at all.  The inmate will develop productive habits, work ethic, and learn skills that may aid upon his or her release.  The programs also help pass the time for the inmates and often include additional perks (In any kind of work capacity incarcerated)  In Oregon, the token amendment would have harmed people.  

People are signing these bullshit ballot initiatives that don’t do shit, so some group of people tyring to reinforce their biases can claim a state constiuttional amendment accomplishment.  It’s difficult for most people not to sign it, as refusal without explanation implies that you’re for slavery.  You’d have to explain that you’re not signing it because you don’t want to validate the dedication of time, energy, and resources to something that has no impact on people’s quality of life.  That’s why I wouldn’t sign it.


Before I talk about a half day of canvassing and the complete futility of that endeavor, I want to acknowledge the Illinois right to unionize bill since I’ve seen it in my news feed and heard it on the radio.  The short explanation of what it does is to allow people to collective bargain and an amendment to the Illinois constitution to prevent right to work bills.  It’s pretty stupid because it doesn’t do anything other than give the Democrats something to market as a progressive change that doesn’t change anything.  LOL.  I did laugh out loud after writing that because it’s funny.  You already had the right to collective bargain and the amendment does nothing because if the majority reverses you can get rid of the amendment.  They wouldn’t spend money on the advertising if stupid people wern’t celebrating the victory of nothingness and the progression towards nothing.  

As far as unions go I won’t express my personal opinion of unions which is more from a worker’s perspective than a general perspective, from a general perspective I think it’s positive for workers to be able to unionize to grant wage, benefit, and workplace concessions from their employer since a single a employee is at the mercy of the labor market.  If people with your skills are working for a certain amount of money in that area no matter how much a company makes, they’re not going to pay more than that.  Unions can be effective for some workers to increase their income, benefits, and conditions.  

A union cannot always achieve increases.  There is a limit to what a company can afford.  Where a union fails to get increases, increases can be achieved through other means.  Round up gratuity is one of those means.  

Today there was a woman who after I explained the beginning of it to her while I was waiting on a manager, said she declined all the round ups for donations at checkout.  Had she said she thinks people wouldn’t round up I would have reminded her about the great difference between donating to charity, and providing a small tip for the person who provided you service.  Come to find out she didn’t know what I was talking about because she said where does the money go?  This was after I explained round up gratuity gives the customer the option to round up and the money is distributed to the workers.  LOL.  Tell me you didn’t understand it without telling me you didn’t understand it. 

First Walmart I went to the manager said she would put it in the break room.  Later I went to another Walmart and suggested it to the manager and she said she couldn’t put it in the breakroom.  This was just prior to a manager at TJMax refusing to accept the handout on the grounds that she couldn’t do any soliciting.  It’s insane to see people so adamantly opposed to their own interests.  These were the only three negative experiences but close 12 hours later no one has signed a petition for about 6 hours worth of effort.  I would have continued but thought I reached an amount of contact that would allow me to gauge the potential effectiveness of canvasing.  Distributing X amount of handouts will produce X amount of pledges.  

I anticipate it being a failure as an effective means to attract attention.  People are uninterested. 

The last handout I gave to a manager at Walgreens raised some concern.  She asked if I contacted corporate?  In the moment I told her weren’t looking for sponsorship until we collected some signatures.  Later I wondered if she asked so she could submit the idea to corporate herself?  She seemed to understand what I was saying.  

That may raise the question as to why I’m not contacting companies and encouraging them to implement round up gratuity directly?  If one company introduces round up gratuity it benefits the workers from 1 brand of stores.  It doesn’t produce the benefit to the labor market, and only potentially raises the wages of one store brand of workers.  Most importantly it may not be effective at one store, since effectiveness will increase with normalization.  On the other side of it, it could create a disadvantage for that store as a potential irritant to customers that would cause some to shop with a competitor.  Offering a tax credit to businesses will cause many businesses to implement a program at the same time.  On the fast food side of things this isn’t really an issue since they have exclusive rights over their menus.  When you want a $5 biggie bag and your total is $5.50, you’re not going to get something else because you don’t want to feel compelled to spend $6.   Trying to accomplish this on a store by store basis may make it  not beneficial to the company, much less beneficial to the workers, and reduced benefit to the public since one store brand will not have a significant impact on the economy through widespread increased incomes, including outside of high volume transaction industries through the impact on the labor market.  

I was also exhausted after the 6 hours which doesn’t make too much sense considering what I was doing wasn’t very labor intensive.  In most places other than the gas stations I asked for a manager.  Once the manager arrived I introduced myself and the organization, and I explained the Round Up Gratuity Option Tax Credit Legislation.  I had a funny confusing moment in the day.  I was traveling down 176 and there is a road that branches off.  Off of the road that branches off there is a Mc Donalds which is loosely connected with a Walgreens a few stores down.  I stopped at the Walgreens and spoke with the manager and since there wasnt too much activity at the Mc Donalds I stopped at the Mc Donalds to speak with someone there and leave a handout.  I pulled out onto the road and knew where 176 was, but I went back the way I came on 176.  In doing so I revisited a Walgreens I was already at.  I went into the store and went to photos because thankfully there were customers in the front.  I looked over the counter and it was a manager I already talked to.  I was confused.  LOL.  I said did I just talk to you at another store?  She said no you were just here.  Pretty funny.  I looked stupid.  Didn’t feel stupid but it would have if I wouldn’t have recognized the store associate and asked her to page the manager.  

I was venting a little bit after realizing how futile the effort was.  Shit always feels hopeless, more or less.  When you think you have something that may be able to attract some attention and then you realize it isn’t just ineffective but completely fucking useless you reevaluate what the situation actually is.  I live among a population whose truth depends on how something makes them feel, not based on fact, reason, rationale, or consistency.  Based on yesterday’s entry, this is a people who can’t do basic math to arrive at a reasonable conclusion about risk.  Most importantly, most people don’t really care about anything outside their immediate circle of concern.  You have to either reinforce or reference something they already believe or are familiar with to have their attention.  The species produces the results it has produced since it began to organize itself, products of tyranny.  Tyranny that grows from self deception and drowns out the essential ingredients for intelligence.  One essential ingredient to intelligence is honesty, otherwise, a person isn’t thinking about the subject, they’re thinking about how the subject causes them to feel and accept or reject information based on what it means to their values.  

I was called an iconoclast.  I had to look the word up. I didn’t know what it meant, I don’t think I’ve ever heard it before.  A person who attacks cherished beliefs or institutions.  Superficially that does describe me, but it only describes me because people’s chosen beliefs including their ideas about institutions are founded on things that are not true.  It’s a byproduct of loyalty to the truth in its utility to liberty, and the satisfaction in the idea of justice in the liberation it stands to produce.  

After I left the gym today I went to the Dollar Tree nearby because I needed garbage bags.  The person checking out in front of me told the cashier god bless you.  It’s disgusting to hear that kind of ignorance.  If you god blesses he is a tyrant because he chooses good outcomes for some and not for others.  Essentially creating a disadvantage for others, and giving others an advantage based on some subjective bias, even if earned through obedience.  It’s no surprise that human beings being tyrants would create tyrant deities.  Use these tyrant deities to gain contentment and compliance from the population.  Christianity is the dominant religion on this planet because Constantine recognized that the religion didn’t promote challenges to the state and at the time it was advantageous to his ambition to unite Rome.  Jesus wasn’t officially defied until over 300 years after he died at the council of Nicea in the early 4th century.  

The proof is in the pudding.  Why did Adam and Eve fall out of gods favor?  Not because they ate the fruit but because they were disobedient.  Why was Abraham counted as righteous even though he was willing to kill a child?  Because Abraham was obedient even unto evil.  A god that commanded genocide, the killing of children and the elder, and the forcibly taking of land from the Cannanites.  Something that clearly didn’t take place because DNA evidence confirmed that people living in modern Lebbonon, areas of Syria, and the Palestinian terretories share specific genetic characteristics.  It’s so ridiculously primitive to believe that god created people to do as he says and he’ll reward you but disobey him and he’ll harm you.  

That’s a human understanding and mode of operation.  People have no ability to acknowledge contradictions because their perspective is built on contradiction they repress.  The Christian deity is a hypocrite.  According to their deity, god’s first commandment is to love god with all body, mind, spirit, and heart, and the second commandment is to love your neighbor as you love yourself.  According to the Christian belief god has created human beings to be his servants, or to be tortured for eternity.  This is a situation that god wouldn’t want for himself, which means he doesn’t love you as he loves himself, and yet he tells you to love him more than he loves you, and tells you to love others as yourself when he doesn’t love you as he love himself.  

I address these things principally, since pointing out contradictions between the known universe today and the known universe when these deities were created isn’t convincing for those who are willing to deny the same science that makes their way of life possible.  There was UFC fighter recently who claimed the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

Leaving those things aside we know all the happenings on this planet are the result of the decisions made by the creatures on this planet and other explainable natural happening.  We know the human constant is that all people want to do what they want to do at all times.  This means action that imposes is wrong and action that does not impose is right.  Of course in world where systems create individual circumstances, and systems function through participation and produces benefits for some, that inaction can be an act of imposition, among other things.  The absence of the creator suggests that the morality of the creator is liberty.  This means the creator does not impose on beings that do not impose.  It also means the creator is irrelevant since it does not help you in life, and based on laws of space and morality the creator does not help you if consciousness survives death.  There’s no benefit of worship or obedience, which is the basis for the statement it’s just to avoid useless sacrifices.  Imposing on yourself is wronging yourself, so avoiding imposing on yourself is the righting of a wrong.  

I have a new strategy I’m going to start tomorrow I feel pretty good about.  We’ll see how that goes.                   


I don’t remember where I saw it, it was either in a news video or I may have read it in my news feed, but there was some interesting information about covid vaccines.  There was a study that found about 6 out 100,000 people, primarily males under the age of 24 develop myocarditis after receiving a covid vaccine.  Myocarditis is inflammation of the middle muscle in the heart and can precipitate a heart attack or stroke.  When not fatal, myocarditis can lead to permanent damage to the heart.

I’m not against vaccines for people who are older than 65 and/or have a serious medical condition, but it highlights the excited stupidity of the general population that people who are that young are receiving vaccines enmasse.  If you’re looking at the last years of your life a covid vaccine is a good idea because anything more than a brisk breeze can kill you, including covid.  A vaccine may buy a few months or a few years worth of life.  But for people who are younger than 24, you have a higher probability of getting Myocarditis from the vaccine than you have of dying of covid if you happen to become infected. 

The data I’m using is from the CDC counting cases, deaths, and deaths with underlying medical conditions from the period of March 2020, to September of 2021.  This is the data I gathered while working on the book The Covid -19 Media Project.  It’s representative of the viruses characteristics since it is a span of over a year and half.  This is also a period before vaccines.

There were 17 million cases among people who are under the age of 39.  There were 12 people who died out of 17 million who did not have underlying medical conditions.  Which means if you’re a healthy person under the age of 39, you have a better chance of experience myocarditis from the vaccine than you have of dying if infected with the virus.  5 (rounding down) out of 100,000, or 1 in 20,000, versus 12 out of 17 million, or 1 in 1.4 million healthy people under the age of 39 will die if infected with the virus.  The chances of experiencing myocarditis from the vaccine is 72x greater than a healthy person under the age of 39 dying if infected with covid.  The chances of dying from covid versus a young person getting myocarditis from the vaccine is even greater because there’s a good chance the person wouldn’t be infected to have the 1 in 1.4 million chance of dying from covid.  There are 158 million people aged 0-39 in the United states.  In a year and a half there were 17 million reported cases in the US among people aged 0-39, which means you’re chances of being infected were only 1 in 9.29.  If you’re under 39 your chances of experiencing myocarditis from the vaccine is 668 times greater than your chances of dying from covid if you do not have serious underlying medical conditions.  

The media, pharmaceutical companies, essential businesses, and other businesses who benefited from covid in other ways, as well as health officials basking in the spotlight, academics who could bring attention to their work by reinforcing the narrative, politicians who saw it as an opportunity to serve their donor interests and create support for their party, whipped up hysteria and are still riding it to the bank today.  

Yesterday I addressed a few main reasons people say they vote, but there is one difference between the parties that could seriously impact people’s quality of life.  That’s if there is, or appears to be a new covid variant that could lead to the masks, social distancing, vaccine mandates, among a plethora of other restrictions justified through a false threat to public safety.  Of course most of that is on a state by state basis, so it doesn’t apply much to electing federal legislators.  

If you were to read back in the previous collection of these entries you will probably find the following in a few entries.  The following is an excerpt of the introduction from the book The Covid 19 Media Project.  It’s just a table of the numbers through which risk can be assessed, and compared.  Bias may not be able to be overcome, since most of the population is motivated by feelings they don’t understand, but the numbers do confirm the fact that for a person without serious underlying medical conditions under the age of 39, the vaccine is a much greater risk than the virus itself.  

It also shows that only a few percent of the population could die if infected, which means it was never a threat to public safety.  The supreme court ruling Jacobson v. Massachusetts which was the case that established that an infectious disease could be a threat to public safety, the disease was smallpox.  Smallpox at its deadliest could kill 30% of the population whereas covid would likely only kill about 1%.  This isn’t why covid didn’t qualify as a threat to public safety.  It doesn’t qualify as a threat to public safety because covid could kill a few percent of the population but only 1% would die, whereas smallpox could kill 100% of the population but only 30% would die.  Smallpox is a threat to public safety because it is randomly deadly and anyone infected could die of the virus, whereas covid “only kills the weakest segments of the population”, and therefore only a few percent of the population could die if infected.  That has been and remains the biggest and most implied misconception of the virus, that anyone could die if infected.  That’s why young people in this country have experienced myocarditis.  

The table below along with analysis of data of the survival rate of the hospitalized with underlying medical conditions support the conclusion that Uros Seljak of Berkeley reached after studying the Italian data:  “If you want to know what your chances of dying if infected with covid, it’s about the same as your chances of dying of natural causes in the next year”.  The reason we are where we are at economically with the inflation that we have and damage to the world economy, is not because of Covid19, but because of the response to it through the hysteria created among the population.  It’s very troubling when a population will not or does not know how to investigate risk for themselves.  This isn’t only on the left, but also on the right where most people on the right cannot tell you anything about the data, they will only parrot something they read on dubious website or heard on talk radio.  It’s also troubling because covid 19 is called covid 19 because it was discovered in 2019.  The coronavirus is always changing with new variations being discovered annually or sometimes multi annually.  It wouldn’t  be difficult to resell a vaccine resistant covid variant to at least half the population again and induce more hysteria.  

September 15th 2021

Total Covid-19 Deaths: 667,000

Age Range                      Total Deaths(1)         Deaths, No Underlying Conditions(2)                  

0   to 17 Years Old          439                            1 (3)

18 to 29 Years Old          3212                          3

30 to 39 Years Old          9240                          9

40 to 49 Years Old          23,501                       94  

50 to 64 Years Old(4)      110,689                     1340  

65 to 74 Years Old          147,568                     7525

75 to 84 Years Old          176,763                     26,514

85+        Years Old          187,342                     54,329  

1:  CDC Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease Covid-19, Table 1 Data As of 9/15/2021 Accessed 9/16/2021 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm         

2:  Statista “Percentage of People Who Died From Covid-19 in the United States from January 22nd to May 30th 2020, by Presence of Underlying Medical Conditions and age.”  The sample size is 40,243 covid-19 deaths for which underlying medical conditions were known which is a large enough sample size to represent the characteristics of the virus between age demographics.

3: The rate provided in the source for the presence of underlying medical conditions is .1 which seems to be the minimum value.  If 1 person died in that age range the percentage of people who died with no underlying medical conditions should be  .23.  It is possible no one in this age group died and the minimum value is .1.  Erroring on the side of caution I have assigned 1 death with no underlying medical conditions to this age range.  

4: The age groupings align from groupings 0 to 49.  After 0 to 49 the provisional death count statistics change to 50 to 64, 65 to 74, 74 to 85 and 85 plus, whereas the percentage of people who died without underlying medical conditions continues in 10 year groupings.  The higher the age the more people who die without the presence of underlying medical conditions.  To reconcile the unlike age groupings that occur above the age of 50 I used the higher age value of deaths without underlying medical conditions and halved it.  In the age group 50 to 64, deaths without presence of underlying medical conditions ages 50 to 59 represented .9% of deaths in that age range.  Deaths without underlying medical conditions in people aged 60 to 69 represented 2.4% of deaths.  So the value used for the age range 50 to 64 years old is represented by 1.2%.  Although the number of people who died without underlying medical conditions who were aged 60 to 64 may exceed 1.2%, for people who are 50 to 59 years old none of those people died at a rate that was above .9%, so this method of reconciliation seems like a fairly accurate compromise.  I preferred this estimation to a range, since 2.4% of people in the age range 60 to 69 represents more people aged 65 to 69 than it does 60 to 64, and would have the effect of grossly inflating the number of people who die without underlying medical conditions between the ages of 50 to 59, which make up the majority of the age range 50 to 64. 

There were 17,008,087 cases of covid-19 among people aged 0 to 39 and there were 12 deaths among people in that age range infected without an underlying medical condition.(5)   The chances of a person who is under 39 years old dying if infected with covid 19 are about 1 in 1.4 million.  In the article when I say the healthy population interacting with one another when there were restrictions is a matter of sickness and recovery the numbers support that conclusion.  People aged 39 and younger represent 52.2% of the population.  

5: Statista Total Number of Cases of Covid-19 in the United States as of September 14th, 2021, by Age Group.  https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254271/us-total-number-of-covid-cases-by-age-group/

There were 4,714,501 cases of covid-19 among people aged 40 to 49, and there were 94 deaths occurring in this age group among people who did not have underlying medical conditions.  A healthy person aged 40 to 49 has a 1 in 50,154 chance of dying if infected with covid-19 or .05% chance of death.  

There were 6,291,163 cases of covid among people aged 50 to 64, and there were 1340 deaths among people in that age range without underlying medical conditions.  A healthy person aged 50 to 64 has a 1 in 4694 chance of dying if infected with covid. 

There were 2,310,603 cases of covid among people aged 65 to 74 and there were 7525 deaths of people without underlying medical conditions in that age group.  A healthy person aged 65 to 74  has a 1 in 307 chance of dying if infected with covid 19.  Which is to say that even for a person who is 75 years old without underlying medical conditions that chances that they will die are exceedingly slim.  

There were 1,176,504 cases of covid among people aged 75 to 84 and there were 26,514 deaths.  A healthy person aged 75 to 84 has a 1 in 44 chance of dying if infected with covid, or about 2.5% chance.  

Finally, we have people aged over 85 who represent the bulk of people who have died of covid-19 without underlying medical conditions.  There were 654,197 cases of covid among people aged over 85, and there were 54,329 deaths, roughly a 1 in 13 chance of death or 8%.  People in this age range are at risk of dying of anything due to immunosenescence.  As we age our bodies lose the ability to fight off viruses and other infections. 

For the general healthy population people aged below 74, which represents 93.1% of the population, the chances of dying from covid-19 are so minimal as to be negligible.  For the 4.9% of the population who are over 74 they have a 2% chance of dying if infected, and the 2% of the population who are over 85 years old have an 8% chance of dying if infected, but even this group has an elevated risk of dying from everything.          


A portion of the previous entry pertained to a poll asking if people voted.  I did not vote and I mentioned that one of the reasons was because I didn’t have a permanent address to register to vote from.  I was traveling with a company for about 5 months saving money to get myself off the ground living in hotels.  Now I have some money saved waiting for the completion of OPLNOW.com website and I’ll be traveling promoting that.  It was disingenuous to include that in the explanation, because even if I was operating from a permanent location I wouldn’t vote.  I explained the reason I didn’t vote in that exchange.  The short answer is the difference between the policy of the democrats and the policy of republicans doesn’t have any significant impact on my life and opportunities or the life and opportunities of most people in this country.  Especially not those who could most benefit from a government that was concerned with empowering the underclasses for the benefit of all people. 

I didn’t really think of it before this, but OPL gives people who don’t vote because politics doesn’t significantly change their lives, something to vote for.  It was created as vehicle to pass legislation, and I did think about how OPL could motivate people to vote who haven’t voted before, just didn’t really think about how widespread that explanation is.  Almost half the country doesn’t vote in most elections.  2020 was something of an anomaly as voter turnout is concerned where only 38% of the voting age population didn’t vote.  

But what was at stake?  What is at stake?  Did people go to the polls because they were concerned with women’s rights?  What do they think they will accomplish?  A constitutional amendment?  Do you think 3/4th of state legislatures are going to pass an abortion rights amendment, even if you could put a 2/3rds majority of one party in both houses of congress?  It is a legal issue or it is a state issue, so no one voted for women’s rights in this election.  

Who voted for action on climate change?  What do the democrats do at the federal level about climate change?  They give huge amounts of public money to private companies to build renewable energy infrastructure, but not enough to make a significant impact in the reduction of emissions.  During the Obama Administration he spent about $300 billion on subsidies for renewable energy.  The Biden bill, I think it was the inflation reduction bill or some goofy name like that, spent $300 billion on subsidies for renewable energy.  During his first year, I don’t know if it passed or not there were appropriations to finance private research on renewable energy generation, storage, transmission, bio fuels, carbon scrubbing, as well as some other research pertaining to reducing emissions.  

This helps reduce emissions?  Not significantly enough to avoid a 3 degree C warmer world by the end of the century.  The two issues I have is what is being spent and how it is being spent is enough to satisfy industry, but it is not enough to reduce emissions and I don’t believe that public funds should be used to pay for private assets.  They would argue that spending $300 billion on subsides purchases more renewable energy than spending $300 billion dollars on renewable energy infrastructure.  

I remember during the Obama Administration there was a solar farm being constructed for something in the neighborhood of a billion dollars.  I used to use as an example for Centers for Economic Planning, because the company put up about 400 million, the rest was covered by grants and 0 interest public loans.  But as soon as construction was complete they would get a rebate, I think was an an advance on a depreciating value tax credit over the life of the infrastructure that was over 400 million dollars.  I don’t know if this particular project was successful, I remember hear about problems with CA solar farms it may have been one of them I don’t know.  But that’s irrelevant to the point.  The point is the public put up all the money to build the infrastructure, but NRG would gain possession of it along with the contract to sell the power to Pacific Gas and Electric.  Once the infrastructure was complete, the public got a billion dollars of renewable energy infrastructure, for slightly more than a billion dollars.  

This approach to incentivize the creation of renewable energy infrastructure actually retards the process.  If you are or plan to be in the power generation sector when subsidies expire you’re not going to invest in renewable energy infrastructure, you’re going to wait until there’s a democrat in office who will give you public funds to create it.  Renewable energy infrastructure project are only being undertaken when there’s money from the government.  

Now it isn’t that I don’t have a renewable energy plan.  It just isn’t as thorough as I need it to be to create a petition for it.  To make I’ll need to retain the assistance of engineers or some other people with specialized knowledge.  I’ll explain momentarily.  The US government should be spending money on the construction of renewable energy infrastructure annually.  But instead of subsidizing the construction, they should be building it and selling it to the utility companies.  Bernie Sanders had the right idea to build it and put it under the authority of the Power Marketing Administrations.  

If Obama would have spent his $300 billion on renewable energy and put the infrastructure under the authority of the PMAs, the public would have gained an asset and earned profit from the sale of energy.  This profit can be reinvested to build more renewable energy infrastructure, and can also be used to subsidize the cost of power to low income people, without spending tax dollars.

Normally, I am not for the public being involved in the market as a producer of goods and services, but power generation, and the implementation of renewable energy is a public necessity.  If the public is going to pay for the infrastructure for a service that is a necessity for the public, in that service and in the reduction of emissions, then the public can provide that service, at least in part.  

The federal government building infrastructure for renewable energy and selling that energy at a profit to build more infrastructure would do what to the market?  It would encourage the private sector to invest more into the creation of renewable energy infrastructure to get in on long term generation before the public.  

The reason I need people with specialized knowledge to complete the petition is it has to be supported by a plan for the amount.  Say for example we want to spend $150 billion per year on building renewable energy infrastructure to sell the utility companies who will sell it to the public.  I don’t want a petition that is an appropriation of a dollar amount designated for that purpose.  I’d rather have a reference to a thorough plan showing what will built, who will manufacture, deliver, and assemble it.  How the power will be transported and stored, and what utility will be purchasing it and an estimation of the annual revenue potential.  I have this idea on the back burner, as well as some other petitions I didn’t include in the initial 7. Off topic, but I have an idea similar to round up gratuity to address shortages in hospitality staff.  Don’t want to stray too far here but I’ll bring it back up at another time.   

Anyway, if you voted for climate change action, you voted to do little more than marginally reduce emissions and use public funds to pay for private assets.  As well as slowing investment in renewable energy once the subsidy runs out.  

It showed 50% of people believe the economy and job creation was the most important issue.  This doesn’t really mean much, with Biden we had an infrastructure bill which doesn’t have a major impact on the economy.  Providing states with money to retain private companies to repair public infrastructure.  Every spending bill the appropriation of public funds to private profits directly or indirectly.  Policy differences between the democrats and the republicans typically have very little impact on the economy, which is to say for most people there isn’t going to be any more or any less opportunity based on which party has a majority in congress or occupies the white house.  

Clinton presided over a period of great economic growth, but had Bob Dole, or H Bush been in office this growth would have still occurred.  It was a product of advancements in telecommunications, microprocessors, and other innovation being brought to market that would have occurred no matter who was in office.  

If you’re voting to improve the economy you probably suffer from 1 of 2 delusions.  That democrats are going to stimulate the economy through spending, or that the republicans are going to lower taxes, and deregulate to increase private investment to create more jobs.  

Maybe you voted for college loan forgiveness?  I read that it is being blocked at least in a few states by the courts who are ruling that debt forgiveness must come from an act of congress, not an executive order.  Most of us are unaffected by partial loan forgiveness, at least on the surface.  Some could be affected since we’re essentially using public funds to help an advantaged group.  If you have a college education not only do you typically have better income opportunities as far as pay is concerned, but you also have the luxury of working in a field that you chose as opposed to earning a living to survive based on local availability and your skills.  I read an article that stated 73% of people polled who anticipated receiving student debt relief were going to use the money they saved to eat out more and travel.  Meanwhile you have people who grow up in circumstances where they spend most of their lives within a 10 mile radius.  I don’t agree with student debt relief for the same reason I don’t agree with corporate welfare, because if we as a people are going to use our collective resources to help a group it should be an advantaged group.  Either way my life and the lives of most people in this country who do not have student loan debt will be the same either way, since it’s lost revenue not an appropriation.  

It could become an appropriation.  I know of people who signed up for school to take out loans and would keep the money that was beyond what was required by the school.  Then not go to school.  I wonder if any of the people who receive loan forgiveness are among those who gamed the system for a quick hand out.  If their loans are forgiven will they be able to apply for new loans to do it again?  I know a few people who did that but don’t know exactly what it is they did.  

If you voted for school loan forgiveness, maybe you’ll get something worthwhile.  

We could keep going with this but I want to relax for a little while.  


I’m waiting for my website to be finished.  I sent a message to the designer asking him when it would be complete and he responded in a week or so.  He put together the mock up consisting of the home page and the petition directory in less than a day.  There are 7 petition pages which are essentially just one design with the content, and a form containing a few basic fields and an area to sign.  Then the submission emails me the form and signature.  Beyond that there is a contributions page containing 3 ways to contribute: either contact us and we have things you can do, a one time donor option, or a membership option.  He has to set that up and make it function through my stripe account, but that is just about all he has to do.  It doesn’t make sense to me that it would take a week or so.  Not to mention I asked for a date not an estimate.  I figured one of two things.  Either A: he doesn’t want to get it back to me in a day because he’s worried I’m going to call the price in question because of how fast he got it done.  I’m not, I just want my product.  Or B: he puts his time into creating these mock ups and gets deal after deal and he’s behind on other people’s projects. 

I seriously considered going to my bank and doing a chargeback because I was under the impression that it would be done by the weekend.  It’s now Thursday, he had the mockup done on Monday and I paid him Tuesday morning.  Were we talking about a week from Tuesday, a week from today which is Thursday, or were we talking about a week or so which maybe 10 days away?  I notified him that I was considering doing a charge back and going with another company.  I told him I’d decide by the end of the day.  

He emailed me back and said he just had a lot of stuff going on and that he’d finish it by tomorrow or Monday at the latest.  I was satisfied with this so long as I get it on Monday.  I apologized to him.  I could have approached the situation better but I’m thinking about what it could be and the fact that he told me it would be a week or less and he started on Friday I think.  Had he told me it would be two weeks to complete I wouldn’t have hired him.  Now we’re essentially looking at a week, but when you have most or at least half of it done in a day, you don’t expect it to take more than 2 days to complete.  

I’m no really concerned about rehearsing any presentations since I’m beginning with RUGO front and center and have a plan for who I will present it to on a daily basis.  There’s no need for that.  I should run my books through another editing phase since members will receive free books.  Also be good to brush up on content maybe update some data to the most current.  

I have been spending a little too much time on youtube.  I’ve had some lively debates on a few videos.  Mainly an officer charged with excessive force for deployment of a taser on a non-compliant suspect, and the other a poll about voting.  I shouldn’t say lively debates because the people who reply to my comments have nothing of substance to contribute.  The first few comments are substantive and after that it’s them saying things about me or taking the non-sequitur route.  I can unravel it in each comment but it often leaves me wondering if they know they’re wrong and just continue to reply to get a response, or if they’re truely that stupid.  By that I mean having no rational basis for their position, but still trying to maintain it despite having to know they are wrong.  

This Matt Mconhay with a perm looking dude kept on saying nothing.  At one point I told him that his whole comment consisted of opinions not rooted in any basis of fact and went onto respond to it.  Then he responded saying that my comment was purely opinion.  I had to make choice because he probably didn’t even read my response and just copied what I said.  Do I leave it alone or do I itemize how my comment was not opinion?  I decided to respond and thought I’d put it on the website.    

In the other exchange there were a few times when I was significantly irritated.  When people show they cannot comprehend and produce a thought pertaining to what is said yet want to keep making statements that don’t apply to the comment or the general subject that’s stupidity at it’s finest.  My frustration isn’t just in what’s going on, it extends into the implications of what is going, how people think, and how people retard themselves through self deception in efforts to maintain their perspective.  Maintaining their perspective is crucial to protecting their value of objects, or ensuring the things that make them feel good can continue to make them feel good.  I’ll provide additional commentary to the exchanges.  

In the past, most notably in the book Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History 2019-2020 I’ve recorded youtube exchanges because they provide an untainted sample of what and how people think, including commitments to biases that produce denial.  So while this could be interpreted as me chronicling winning debates against stupid people, that isn’t the purpose.  The purpose is more showing how people have strong opinions founded on nothing but their preference for those opinions.  People assign truth to ideas not based on logical fact founded calculations, but purely based on want the thing to be true based on what it means to maintain their perspective and how that perspective maintains their ability to like things and feel good.  

The video comes from Rebel HQ titled Chicago Cop Gets Felony Charges or Excessive Force.  https://youtu.be/k_Rp2rFHxCQ 

Since I describe the circumstances and sequence of events within my comments and go over them a few times during the course of different exchanges I won’t summarize the video and make this more repetitive than it already is.  I will say that the video is a news cast and it is intentionally misleading.  This a tactic of news editing to attract more attention to the story by making the officer seem malicious.  This is why we should have the Media Disclaimer Mandate on the screen.  

The video begins by showing just the final clip of the event.  The moment where it appears the suspect is going towards the ground and then he is tased seemingly before he has a chance to.  This is done to create a first impression where the officer’s actions look wrong.  There’s an emotional connection made that will bias the viewer later when the full context of the event is revealed.  The second two inaccuracies are statements that are inconsistent with facts.  The reporter calls the suspect an innocent man.  The man is not innocent because upon making contact with the officer, the officer attempts to put him in restraints which is lawful while detaining a suspect to conduct an investigation based on reasonable suspicion.  He broke the law on camera when he pulled away and ran from the officer, resisting and obstructing his investigation.  He’s not an innocent man.  The media also said he was compliant which he was not.  First he pulled way from the officer when the officer tried to handcuff, second he ran, and third which is the most crucial aspect of this use of force is the suspect went to the ground with his hands on the ground and then got back up.  Then slowly went to the ground and may have been ready to spring back up again.  He was not being compliant and given his behavior there’s no reason to believe he wouldn’t have got back and maybe tried to run again as he did previously.  The suspect is also behaving strangely, possibly under the influence of drugs, doesn’t have identification, and the officer knows nothing about who he is, why he ran, and why he’s being non-compliant. 

Interaction with the suspect is based on the suspect walking through a yard and the officer responding to a call about someone pulling on gates and moving suspiciously around people’s property.   

Orion Simerl

The officer should be acquitted of the charges.  He’s conducting an investigation based on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is prowling.  The officer has the right to detain the suspect while conducting his investigation.  While attempting to put the suspect in restraints, the suspect fled.  In addition to reasonable suspicion for prowling the officer has probable cause for obstruction,hindering, or resisting since he pulled away and ran while he was being lawfully restrained.  The suspect stopped running and began negotiating with the officer to put his taser down.  The officer issued multiple commands for the suspect to get on the ground.  The suspect initially ignored the commands.  Then the suspect began to get on the ground but got back up.  Given the observed indecision of the suspect, the fact that he has already resisted restraints and ran, it’s reasonable to believe that he would have ran again.  The officer is sworn to enforce the law which includes an obligation to arrest people who break the law.  When a suspect is non compliant an officer may use force to gain the compliance of the suspect.  Using the taser to ensure a non compliant suspect who has already ran and is refusing commands to get on the ground is not an excessive force.  Had the suspect not resisted being put in restraints initially, the officer would have finished his investigation which would have probably consisted of verifying the suspects identity, and seeing if the caller could identify the suspect as the person who was prowling.  If the suspect would have got on the ground and not got back up the officer would have detained him, verified his identity, found out if he was prowling and why if was, and then made a decision as to whether or not he wanted to charge him with obstruction for pulling away and refusing restraints.  The officer didn’t do anything wrong, this is the product of politically motivated DA, and the media exploiting anti police sentiment to attract attention to their broadcast.


There is zero reason to detain him though.  Cop pulls up, questions him, checks his pockets then threatens to arrest him for lying with zero evidence of that. Guy is in front of his own house getting harassed by a cop. If the guy really wanted to flee, the super out of shape cop wasn’t stopping him…. But you’re right, cops should be able to do whatever they want to you just because & you better listen, after all they passed high school.  

Orion Simerl @McDamaged  

The suspect can be detained because there is reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime based on the totality of the circumstances (Terry v. Ohio).  The circumstances are as follows, LE was called because they received a complaint that someone was prowling.  The officer observes the suspect in the area walking through a yard.  The officer makes contact to investigate on the basis of reasonable suspicion.  In such an investigation an officer has to identify the suspect.  The suspect doesn’t have an ID.  Even if he did have ID during the course of his investigation, at any time he can detain the suspect while he conducts his investigation.  Go read Terry v. Ohio so you can understand reasonable suspicion and what an officer can and cannot do during an investigation.

McDamaged @Orion Simerl  

Everything I find on terry v Ohio pertains to searching a suspect. He allowed the officer to search him & the officer found nothing. It doesn’t say you can arrest him over nothing. He threatened to arrest him for lying with zero evidence to back up that claim or that he had/was committing a crime he also found nothing on him. The yard he seen him in was his own yard which he informed the officer. Terry vs Ohio was a cop who witnessed 2 men checking windows and when he searched them he found a gun on both of them.

Orion Simerl @McDamaged  

I understand that you don’t want to read more than a paragraph google search or use even the most minimal amount of common sense when the conclusion damages your subjective interpretation of justice.  If you read the case law Terry v. Ohio establishes that an officer may investigate bases on reasonable suspicion which may include a search depending on the nature of that suspicion.  A person has the right to remain silent but they must identify themselves and they can be physically detained while the officer conducts his investigation.  The suspect is already detained before the officer attempts to cuff him.  An officer has reasonable suspicion to investigate if it is reasonable to believe a crime has occurred, is occurring, or could occur based on the totality of the circumstances.  Again we have the call that prowling is occurring and the officer observing the suspect engaging in behavior consistent with the reported crime.  A person being investigated must identify themselves to the investigating officer.  The suspect was being detained for his investigation into the prowling report and to establish his identity.  The stop and the officer’s attempt to place him in restraints is 100% lawful.

Andre for eoc Usbeusivn @Orion Simerl  

even if the detention is valid the use of force with the taser was not, which apparently the cop who did it even knows, considering he claims it was “accidental” lol but sure keep boot licking im sure the cops are all your friends man you love government agents we get it.

Orion Simerl @Andre for eoc Usbeusivn  

The suspect was not compliant.  He began going down after being told multiple times, but he didn’t go to the ground and began coming back up each time he was going to the ground.  That is not compliance.  Considering the suspect ran once and now is wavering between getting on the ground or not getting on the ground it’s reasonable to believe he may run again.  What options does the officer have in this situation where he is obligated to detain and possibly arrest the suspect for obstruction or hindering his investigation, and resisting detainment?  He can go hands on which is extremely dangerous since he is by himself or he can wait and hope the suspect doesn’t run again.  It’s very easy to miss with a taser.  If the suspect makes a sudden movement and begins running from what is a running stance he doesn’t know who he just let escape.  It’s unfortunate if what you’re saying is accurate that the officer said it was an accident.  Something he probably said based on encouragement from the department to avoid repercussions from the publicity surrounding the incident.  Had he not, Graham v. Turner brings us objective reasonableness.  Which states that the use of force must be judged based on circumstances at the time and whether in the moment a reasonable prudent officer would make the decision.  At the moment we have a suspect being investigated on reasonable suspicion for prowling.  The suspect did not have identification, and did not have a key for the house he claimed he resided in.  The suspect resisted restraints and ran from the officer.  The suspect refused lawful commands to get on the ground.  The suspect began to go to the ground but then got back up.  In the moment the officer doesn’t know who he is, and what he may have done to cause him to  pull away from the officer and run from him.  In the moment the officer is justified to use force to ensure the suspect doesn’t run away since he is refusing commands and being non-compliant.  If he said it was accidental then he blew his defense.  As for the boot licker comment, what does that mean to you?  Does that mean a person who understands the law and how it is applied to actions and events who doesn’t believe a law enforcement officer should face charges when in his service to the public he acts lawfully?  It’s funny because I see right through you pieces of s**.  I call you a piece of s** because if you were concerned about abuse of police authority you would study the law and the statistics.  You would know that there are 55 million police contacts in the United States each year.(1)  Then you would know that a handful of controversial uses of force which in most cases are lawful, does not constitute a systemic problem with policing.  But you’re not concerned with that.  You’re concerned with advancing your bias because of the positive  feelings you derive from a fake moral position and the opportunities the position creates for you socially.  Second, as I stated, you would learn the law.  Terry v Ohio, Graham v. Turner, Tennessee v. Gardner, Pennsylvania v. Mimms etc, so when you see something you can know if it is legal or not.  If you were really concerned with criminal justice and policing, you’d be concerned with changing the circumstances that produce criminals, which is rooted in the household income a person is born into, and the income opportunities people have.

1: I added the notes for this post.  I cannot include them in youtube exchanges because youtube will reject comments that contain URLs.  Elizabeth Davis, Anthony Whyde, BJS Statisticians, Lynn Langton Ph.D., former BJS Statistician, 10/11/2018 “Contact Between the Police and Public, 2015”.  Bureau of Justice Statistics.  https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6406 

New Exchange

Nota Person

Lick boots pussy

Orion Simerl @Nota Person  

I’ve provided a summary of the circumstances that form the legal basis for the officer’s actions and you’ve failed to challenge or dispute anything within that summary.  Instead you express your bias through false assertions that I have a bias towards police officers.  Then you go internet tough guy and call me a pussy when I could beat the shit out of you.  How much time have you done?  How many interactions have you had with police that weren’t a product of you and your half gender friends waving signs about shit you don’t understand?  I’ve done 6 years in jails and prisons.  Had probably 100 interactions with police, made a living from criminality for a significant portion of my life.  Been treated unfairly by some police but didn’t allow those interactions to color my perception of all leo.  For a time I was biased, but that’s the nature of being a criminal.  Although the laws are not all just there’s a reason for laws.  All people want to do what they want to do.  Which means any act that imposes is wrong and any act that does not impose is right.  (Imposition has many forms and sometimes inaction is imposition but not relevant to this point). We agree to laws and the enforcement of laws that prevent imposition because we are freer with laws than we are without them.  LEO are tasked with protecting the liberty of the public, which is one of the most noble professions on this planet.  It would be nobler if all the laws reflected the interests of the public, prevented imposition, and we lived in a nation where all people had adequate opportunities for time and money, which is the motivator of most criminal behavior, but the essence of the job is still the same.  LEO shouldn’t be punished when they act within the confines of the law when serving the public.  That’s the reason for my comment.  Of course when they act outside of the law they should, and when they do I summarize the circumstances and show why the act is unlawful.  As opposed to you who sees anything that can be ignorantly interpreted as wrongdoing by police as wrong doing because it advances your anti police bias that is built on feelings not reason.  You’re a puppet.

Nota Person @Orion Simerl  

bro it’s okay you like the taste of boot. You don’t need to keep writing paragraphs detailing how loose your butthole is and how police cock fills it.

NOTE: I resort to playing the game with him.  

Orion Simerl @Nota Person  

Looks like you’re projecting, but that’s another concept you’re probably not familiar with.

Nota Person @Orion Simerl  

mans took one psych course in prison and now thinks he’s smart. Project these nuts lol

Orion Simerl @Nota Person  

Man (well maybe a man you have some LGBT shit going on in that picture) cannot make a sustained point concerning the subject of controversy.  so he uses adolescent insults in lieu of anything worthwhile to write.

Nota Person @Orion Simerl  

bruh if you want to know something know this: these cops will be the first ones to arrest you for not wanting your kids to get hormone suppressants. These cops will be the first ones to take your guns. They don’t think they serve you or anything romantic like that. Stop being so naive. To them, it’s just a job. It’s a paycheck. I don’t actually judge them too much. They have to feed the kids and all, but they still can and will kill, maim, imprison, etc you if you make their job hard or if they are ordered to. If you want law and order this system will only give you that if you give it your soul.

Orion Simerl @Nota Person  

That’s purely opinion from someone who doesn’t have experience on either side of law enforcement (criminal, legal, statistically).  Sure, if a mother is trying to give her children hormones and the father tries to stop it he may be arrested according to the law and the police would be the ones to do it.  In that situation I wouldn’t fault the officers for enforcing the law I would fault the law makers, and citizens for allowing parents to f*** up their children.  Guns are protected by the courts, taking people’s guns is a fundraising tactic for the NRA, a call to political action from the right, and an empty solution to violence that is not a solution from the left.  Not to mention as we saw during COVID many law enforcement officers, primarily Sheriff’s refused to enforce COVID mandates based on their oath to the constitution and rightly believing that COVID didn’t qualify as a threat to public safety to be used as a justification to take away the rights of citizens.  I’m also a felon who cannot legally own a gun but I do support the right of others to own guns to protect their persons and property.  I know it isn’t about those specific examples, it was more about the same police who enforce laws that are inherently good, enforce laws that are against things that you think I like.  

Funny, because you’ve clearly stereotyped me based on an objective analysis of law and application as a conservative, which I’m not, but they are right about some things, the same as liberals are right about some things, with both leanings being both wrong about most things.  And yes, some officers approach policing like working in a warehouse, punch in, write some tickets, make some arrests and punch out.  Some police are worse than that, they’re ambitious so they’re looking for crime as opposed to being reactive to it, they’re trumping up charges trying to earn promotions.  But most police, even if they don’t see themselves as the defenders of liberty, have a genuine desire to help people and are not trying to make anyone’s life harder.  Anytime a suspect is noncompliant they assume the risk that comes with necessitating the use of force which can result in them being seriously injured which is the nature of force.  I’ve been pulled over without cause, had excessive force used against me, and had police dump excessive and exaggerated charges on me, but overall most of the negative treatment I’ve received has been because of my behavior.  As I stated before or it may have been to someone else, 55 million police contacts per year, and a handful of controversial interactions that are typically lawful.  Even if every controversial use of force was actually excessive force, it represents a very small fractional percentage of police and policing.  

You have it backwards, where you believe most police are bad based on your selective viewing of police, because you seek out information that reinforces your bias.  How many videos have watched of police being killed?  2 officers are killed every 3 days on average.  This provides context for what happens when police approach suspects lackadaisically, or when they withhold force in dangerous situations.  Often these situations don’t seem dangerous to the public until the point where an officer is being shot.  The reason I comment on these videos is because the general anti-police factions who want to express their opinion about what they’re seeing don’t know what they’re seeing.  They have no understanding of law, why an officer is doing something or what authority he is acting on.  It’s like a person who has never watched a football watching the game, seeing legal hits and saying they’re penalties.  Then pretending that they’re concerned about the person being tackled but it cannot be true because if they cared they would learn the rules.  That’s what I hate about the anti police factions and most activists in this country: their positions are rooted in false moral feelings for taking the position, the social opportunities the position creates or maintains, and the positive feelings coming from image promotion through the position.  Because when you care about a problem you learn about it and figure out solutions, and when you only care about what the problem does for you personally, you seek out information that reinforces the idea that the problem is a problem and avoid information that challenges that belief.  LibertyAndTruth(dot) org

Nota Person @Orion Simerl  

everything you just said is purely opinion from someone who took a few courses in jail lol

Orion Simerl @Nota Person  

You can’t, I’m rubber you’re glue me by inaccurately trying to apply a statement to my comment that I’ve accurately applied to your comment.  Also never taken a course in jail or prison, other then HSED when I was 18.  

1: Stating that an officer will arrest someone who tries to interfere with a mother approved medical process if it breaks the law is not opinion it is fact.  

2: Stating that police will not take away guns because it is protected by the 2nd amendment is not an opinion, it is a fact.  The motivation as to why citizens are concerned about the government taking away their guns being A: NRA fund raising, B: Republican’s activating their base, and C: Democrats proposing gun control as a solution that does not solve any problems to activate their base, is not an opinion, but a logical deduction based on the motivation of said groups, A: why would the NRA promote the idea that the government is coming for guns when the right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment?  Because if the right to bear arms isn’t threatened, they have no reason to exist or for people to become members and fund their organization.  B Why would republicans promote the idea that democrats want to take away guns when they know the courts will protect the second amendment?  Because if people think their right to bear arms is under threat they’re more likely to vote.  

2C: Why do democrats propose strict gun control as a solution to violence mainly mass murder, when they know they’re limited by the 2nd amendment to enact federal gun control legislation and that the measure will not reduce violence?  Because it encourages their base to vote if reducing violence is important to them.  C Why doesn’t gun control prevent violence?  Evidence that gun control doesn’t reduce mass killings is evident by the Australian data where prior  20 years prior to the 1996 massacre where 36 people were killed where gun control did not exist, and after that event when gun control was implemented there were more mass killing events and more mass killing incidents in the 20 years after gun control.(1)  More importantly, as it relates to gun violence in general, states like California who have strict gun control laws have higher rates of gun violence than many states like Arizona that have very lax gun control regulations. (2)  

1: Orion Simerl “Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History 2019-2020”, pg 46.  “In Australia, in the 20 years prior to the 1996 mass shooting there was a total of 95 people killed in mass murder events. In the 20 years after 1996 there were 96 people killed.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia Each incident is cited with a news citation in the wiki article.

2: https://everystat.org/#California Gun injuries 29th highest.  https://everystat.org/#Arizona Gun injuries 37th highest.  California has a gun control rating of A for restrictiveness and Arizona has a rating of F.  While we can say that this comparison is cherry picked, and it is, the fact remains that California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and yet ranks 29 in gun injuries which means presumably 28 other states with fewer gun restrictions have lower rates of gun injuries.  Which means gun control on its own does not prevent the use of guns. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state 

3: Sheriffs in some counties around the country did refuse to enforce covid mandates regarding them as unconstitutional (ref available upon request).(3)

3: This really doesn’t need a citation and there plenty of articles on the subject but here is one to substantiate the point.  https://time.com/5921863/police-enforce-covid-restrictions/   

4: I am a felon with a substantial battery and an escape conviction, who has had other felony charges dropped.  I cannot legally own a firearm.  

5: You did stereotype me based on an objective analysis of this incident because I didn’t mention anything about my position on firearms or children being given hormones but you presumed I was for one and against the other as would be consistent with conservative stereotypes.  

6: There were 61 million police contacts in 2018.(5) The first return on search didn’t want to go to my notes to find my source on 55 million assertions.  A dozen controversial examples of policing represents a small proportion of policing which qualifies as a very minute exception and not normative policing.  

5: Department of Justice “Contacts Between the Police and Public 2018”.  https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf 61.5 million, and I believe this is the most up to date data on the subject.  

7: 2 officers are killed in the line of duty every 3 days.(5)  

5: I was wrong about this.  I thought I remembered seeing a number in the 200s but for 2021 it was actually 129.  A little more than 1 officer every 3 days.  https://www.police1.com/police-heroes/articles/129-officers-killed-in-line-of-duty-in-2021-fbi-report-says-cFWzKEn9J20qC0sH/ 

7: It is self-evident that people who are truly concerned about things learn about them so they can address them.  Everything I stated was fact, or in the instance of different entities’ motivation for misleading the public about guns, a logical deduction to the most likely cause.

The following exchanges are from a youtube poll asking did you vote?


Not all the responding comments are negative and I’ve included the positive comments and neutral comments for what they add to the subject or for my response to those comments.  

Orion Simerl 

I don’t have a permanent residence to register to vote from, but even if I did I would not have voted.  At this point, you’re voting to determine which industry’s interest will be prioritized in public policy.  That is the difference between a democrat or a republican.  This could change in 2024 with the creation of The Organization for Popular Legislation.


I agree with you! There’s like six parties yet we’re all divided by two? Once my vote as a libertarian matters, then I’ll vote. But now it’s “vote to get the other guy out”. How counterintuitive.

Orion Simerl @Miraa2k12  

OPL creates and promotes legislation and collects voting pledges to pass that legislation.  The goal is to have a number of people pledge a vote for the candidate who supports the legislative agenda that exceeds the margin of victory in the previous election.  Website oplnow dot com should be up by Friday and we’re going to begin campaigning around the round up gratuity tax credit hopefully Monday.  The objective is to control elections through a voting bloc to force concessions from industry where we can achieve specific legislation to achieve quality of life improvements.  Until the website is finished there’s more information on LibertyAndTruth dot org

New Exchange

Carl Frye

Organization for Popular Legislation, does that have anything to do with job creation and economic development?

Orion Simerl @Carl Frye  

Yes.  I have people working on the website now.  First legislative outline being promoted is called The Round Up Gratuity Option Tax Credit.  Round up gratuity allows customers to round up their purchases from high volume transaction businesses and for that money to be distributed to the workers.  High volume transaction industries are businesses like retail and fast food, walmart, target, mc donalds, gas stations etc.  We’ve estimated that a full time Walmart worker would earn about $4.50 more per hour if Walmart implemented a RUGO.  Other businesses like gas stations or fast food restaurants could make even more.  To encourage businesses to implement a round up gratuity option we’re offering a 10% payroll tax credit.  This won’t cost the taxpayers money because what’s lost in the 10% payroll tax will be made up for in additional income tax collected by people making more money in those industries.  In addition to increasing the wages for workers in these industries, it will also increase the wages of other low skilled workers.  Companies that hire low skilled workers will be competing for low skilled workers with high volume transaction industry low skilled workers who will make more.  In other words, if a person can work at Walmart and earn 20 plus dollars per hour with round up gratuity, they’re unlikely to want to dig holes for 15 dollars an hour.  Meaning companies looking to hire people to dig holes will then have to pay wages comparable to what other low skilled jobs are paying.  Of course when you increase the purchasing power of the bottom 50% of income earners they have more money to purchase goods and services, leading to more profits, reinvestment, jobs, etc.  This is only one of 7 legislative ideas we’re promoting.  Our emphasis is on improving income opportunities recognizing that most problems are a product of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money.

New Exchange

Detonation Pyrotechnics 

You don’t vote then don’t bitch. You lose that right when you don’t exercise your most important right.

Orion Simerl @Detonation Pyrotechnics  

Public policy is determined by political investment where the difference between candidates has no meaningful impact on my life or the life of others of a similar socioeconomic status.  To vote is to legitimize a political narrative that is false, where there is no choice since a candidate must first be selected by money before they can be voted for by the public.  I have every right to complain and you have none because you voted for this, legitimized the charade, and I did not.

New Exchange

Mike Ouxma 

No one is going to vote for you bunch of pot heads trying to start your own party.

Orion Simerl @Mike Ouxma  

Doesn’t mean much coming from someone who is too stupid to comprehend the subject he’s responding to.  Maybe you need some pot to broaden your comprehension skills?

NOTE: I began the comment insulting, mainly because his comment is devoid of any effort to understand what it is he has a problem with.  No one mentioned anything about using marijuana and OPL is not a political party.  He sees things I’ve said as being challenging to his outlook and this motivates him to make a comment.  

Mike Ouxma @Orion Simerl  

So I hit it right on the nose otherwise you wouldn’t be so upset. Typical liberal

Orion Simerl @Mike Ouxma  .

Not upset, you’re retarded.  You stated no one is going to vote for a bunch of pot heads which shows 1: that you think what I described is a political party running for office.  This means you didn’t comprehend what was being described.  2: There is nothing from what I wrote that implies me or we are pot heads.  Your conservative bias and preference for maintaining the myths your perspective is built on sees anything that challenges mainstream ideas as threatening and liberal.  I am not a liberal and also not a conservative, where the left is right about some things, the right is right about others, but for the most part both groups are wrong about most things, and the subscribers like yourself are strung along by political narratives that have no impact on people’s quality of life.  Now you can get back to your talk radio and resume allowing your feelings about ideas direct you to letting other people think for you.  Or continue poorly thought out comments about things you don’t understand for my entertainment.

Mike Ouxma @Orion Simerl  

which one of you pot heads came up with the idea of “majority rules” in a Republic? Let’s hear your first proposal. Let me guess,abortion or something our constitution already covers. Trans rights? Gtfoh! Lmao

Orion Simerl @Mike Ouxma  

You have no ability to articulate an original thought or intelligently participate in a conversation, only spout out the stereotypes that you think the rest of the world who is not you consists of.   Who said majority rules?  Now you’re dumb ass (you are stupid with a capital S) with no basis is claiming myself or my organization takes positions on trans rights or abortion for which there is no evidence of from anything stated.  Like I said, you lack the ability to participate in a conversation and draw from things floating in your head and spew them randomly.  Since I already ran down with another commenter proposal 001 is called Round Up Gratuity Option Tax Credit, a market based idea to increase income opportunities for the bottom 50% of income earners.   Round up gratuity allows customers to round up their purchases from high volume transaction businesses and for that money to be distributed to the workers.  High volume transaction industries are businesses like retail and fast food, walmart, target, mc donalds, gas stations etc.  We’ve estimated that a full time walmart worker would earn about $4.50 more per hour if Walmart implemented a RUGO.  Other businesses like gas stations or fast food restaurants could make even more.  To encourage businesses to implement a round up gratuity option we’re offering a 10% payroll tax credit.  This won’t cost the tax payers money because what’s lost in the 10% payroll tax will be made up for in additional income tax collected by people making more money in those industries.  In addition to increasing the wages for workers in these industries, it will also increase the wages of other low skilled workers.  Companies that hire low skilled workers will be competing for low skilled workers with high volume transaction industry low skilled workers who will make more.  In other words, if a person can work at walmart and earn 20 plus dollars per hour with round up gratuity, they’re unlikely to want want to dig holes for 15 dollars an hour.  Meaning companies looking to hire people to dig holes will then have to pay wages comparable to what other low skilled jobs are paying.  Of course when you increase the purchasing power of the bottom 50% of income earners they have more money to purchase goods and services, leading to more profits, reinvestment, jobs, etc.  This is only one of 7 legislative ideas we’re promoting.  Our emphasis is on improving income opportunities recognizing that most problems are a product of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money.  Think, ask a question before ignorantly opening up your sewer pretending that the small minded catch phrases that you’ve memorized are somehow applicable to something you know nothing about.

Mike Ouxma @Orion Simerl  

ok blm junior,I’ll keep my eye put for y’all but I’ll tell you,you’re going to be stuck with liberals and felons. Good luck getting votes out of them. Just be honest and tell us you’re there for the grifting.

NOTE: The BLM junior comment is particularly funny in consideration of the other exchange where I’m accused of being a boot licker or having a pro police bias.  

New Exchange


Then you have zero right to complain about any policies or laws that enstatite.

Orion Simerl @Ozark1987  

I already answered that meat puppet programed response.  There’s no significant difference between the two parties and the policies of both parties have no impact on my quality of life.  Public policy is determined by political investment, the difference between parties and candidates is which industries interests will be prioritized in public policy.  To vote is to legitimize the idea that one party or the other represents my interests or the interests of the public.  Why vote when whoever is elected is going to do the same thing as the other candidate?  The only thing that changes is the rhetoric and how the interests of industry is packaged and sold to the public as something that benefits them.  Furthermore, I have every right to complain because I didn’t vote for this shit, and you did.

Ozark1987 @Orion Simerl  

you’re a fool and need to go do some research instead of just drinking the media koolaid. Dumbass

Orion Simerl @Ozark1987  

Nothing I’ve said is a position that comes from mainstream media.  You strike me as a fox news watcher who also listens to right wing talk radio.

Ozark1987 @Orion Simerl  

I don’t watch mainstream media, but keep regurgitating their nonsense and blaming other people for watching mainstream media. Nice deflection

Orion Simerl @Ozark1987  

Again you’ve failed to address anything within my comment, only claimed the origins of my comments come from MSM except that recognition that public policy is directed by political investment and both parties represent industrial interests is not a mainstream media point.  However, your position that there’s a substantive difference between parties and that voting is important is a mainstream position.

Ozark1987 @Orion Simerl  

it’s not a valid point period. There is literally no logic or reasoning that backs that up. Only your emotions.

Orion Simerl @Ozark1987  

Really,?  Thomas Ferguson papers showing the flow of political money how industries separate their donations between parties and candidates, including companies who support both parties and both candidates in presidential elections.(1)  If a company donates money to one candidate because they support this candidates position on policy, why would they also support the other candidate whose policies are supposed to be different?  Because it’s an investment.  Beyond this is how presidential candidates rely on donations of 1000 or more for 90 percent of their itemized donations, with 2/3rds or more coming from donations of 10,000 or more.(2)  You cannot be competitive without donations from industry.  90 plus (don’t have notes in front of me I’m at gym) percent of campaign contributions for Congress people come from less than 3/10th of a percent of the population, i.e wealth and industry.(3)  2004 study from Kansas showed that companies who lobbied for the American jobs creation act received 224 for every 1 they spent lobbying.(4)  Sunlight foundation found that the 200 most politically active corporations receive about $1000 in subsides, tax credits, grants, and contracts for every 1 dollar they spent on lobbying.(5)  Name a bill that doesn’t benefit industry.  You know nothing and can’t even put forward an argument or state a fact.  Saying my position isn’t valid is an opinion not supported by fact or reason.

1:  I’m referencing the papers Party Competition and Industrial Structure in the 2012 Elections: Who’s Really Driving the Taxi to the Dark Side?  And  “Industrial Structure and Party Competition in the age of Hunger Games: Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election”  Ferguson, Joregenson, and Chen.  These papers track the flow of money from different companies to candidates.  The 2012 analysis was interesting because it showed how in the republican primary how popular candidates could not remain competitive due to lack of funding.  Both papers have a tables that categorize contributions by industry and show what percentage of firms within an industry contributed to which presidential candidate.  When the percentage totals more than 100% it means some firms donated to both candidates.  There was also a paper on the 2020 election I didn’t finish reading because according to the lead author they couldn’t accurately track the money and it took a more traditional political science approach.  It put forth ideas about how events like Covid, labor sentiments, among other things influenced voters.  My conclusion about why Trump lost in 2020 and won in 2016 was a little simpler.  I believe Trump won in 2016 because he received in the neighborhood of 1.3 million votes from Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016 and did not receive these votes in 2020.  This combined with the democrats coopting every left leaning grass roots movement to effectively get new voters to the polls is the reason the democrats won in 2020.  This isn’t to say Trump can’t win in 2024 because he won’t have the support of Sanders voters.  Presidents get credit and fault for whatever is taking place during their presidency and people will contrast their situation under Trump to their situation under Biden and he may win on the strength of that in 2024.  Although Desantis would probably be preferred by the republican establishment.    

2: Citing same papers from FN1: In 2016 75% of Trump’s campaign was financed by donations exceeding $10,000, and 72% of Clinton’s campaign was financed from donations of at least $10,000.  In the 2012 election “almost two thirds of itemized financing” for Obama’s campaign were donations of $10,000 or more, for Romney it was more than 70%, while both candidates relied on donations of over $1000 for “about 90% of their funding”  

3: Open Secrets Dollarocracy https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/dollarocracy/04.php   “Donations from individuals giving $200 or less make up a fairly small wedge in the fund-raising pie: a little over 10 percent of the money collected by House members and about 15 percent for senators.” The remaining 85 to 90 percent of funds came from less than 3/10s of 1 percent of the population.

4: Raquel Alexander, Susan Scholz, and Stephen Mazza. “Measuring Rates of Return for Lobbying Expenditures: An Empirical Analysis Under the American Jobs Creation Act” University of Kansas, Lawrence. Pg 1 companies who lobbied for a tax holiday provision in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 received “in excess of $220 for every 1 dollar spent.”

5: Fixed Fortunes: Biggest Corporate Political Interests, Spend Billions, Get Trillions. Sunlight Foundation , by Bill Allison and Sarah Harkins, 11/17/14 http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-biggest-corporate-political-interestsspend-billions-get-trillions/ The Sunlight Foundation examined 200 of the most politically active corporations in the United States between 2007 and 2012 and found that during the period these corporations invested 5.8 billion dollars in political spending, and over the same period received 4.4 trillion dollars in federal business support.  The report concludes “…the nation’s most politically active corporations for every dollar invested received $760 from the government,…(and some corporations) received 1000 times or more”.

New Exchange

B Weinmann

If you don’t vote you don’t really get to complain

NOTE: This the third person to post the same cliche so I entered the response a little hostile.  

Orion Simerl @B Weinmann  

Shut your dumb ass up read the other responses to that meat puppet reply.  3 people with the same cliche statement is evidence of indoctrination.  Voting changes what when both choices are the same thing under different rhetorical branding?


It was time for me to leave Premier.  I appreciate the opportunity Mark gave me to save some money and try to get myself off the ground.  I did leave a little earlier than I might have liked but I’m at where I’m at.  

I went to Chicago to get started.  Well not really.  I thought the hotel was about 20 miles outside the city, northwest suburbs area, but I’m actually about 40 miles out.  Good in the sense that when I don’t need to go to the city I don’t have to deal with traffic and the Cook County bullshit, but bad because it means I’m about an hour and a half away.  I came here largely because there were multiple closely contested congressional races in 2020, but with the midterms only days away it could change making Chicago a less optimal place to be, especially in the winter.  

When the nature of your business relies on the idea that a marginal number of people can determine the outcome of elections, you have to begin your campaign in districts where the margin of victories are relatively small.  It’s a matter of can we get 50,000 pledges to pass specific pieces of legislation in an area with 750,000 people in it.  That’s 1 person out of 14, that seems doable.  Of course when the margin of victory is smaller you need fewer pledges to meaningfully encourage a candidate.  20 thousand pledges to a candidate who won their district by 10,000 votes is serious, especially if the pledges come from people who didn’t vote in the previous election.  At the same time, if a candidate’s margin of victory is typically a few hundred thousand votes based on a common bias in the district, there’s no way you would ever get enough pledges to change the outcome.  If the objectives are important enough maybe over time, but beginning it’s better to be in areas where the voters are most evenly divided.  The path of least resistance.  The margin of victories will probably be similar to 2020 or at least reasonably well contested.  Districts don’t usually go from being decided by 29,000 votes, to a 100,000 votes.  You have near equal divergent bias among the voters so the outcome will always be relatively close.  Democrats vote for democrats, republicans vote for republicans, and some small percentage of the voting population changes their votes according to something that’s made to seem important to them in the political narrative. 

There’s two things OPL is doing.  The first is letting a candidate know that their chances of winning their election may hinge on whether or not they want to publicly support the legislation demanded by the pledges.  The second may be a bargain with industry, since although most industry is represented to different degrees by both political parties, there are some industries that have much more influence among one candidate or one party.  The difference between a democrat or republican in office determines which industries interests are prioritized.  Once OPL establishes its presence, the candidates who support OPL will do so with the blessing of their donors, and industry will concede the demands of the organization and the supporting public to have their candidate elected to improve their influence over other policies.       

I’ve just had two ideas for promoting and making money.  The most difficult part of this is finding an in to talk to people.  Main methods are to start a group or attend groups that are civically oriented.  Now I have something where I’m not completely reliant on those two mediums to reach an audience. I’m not going to write them here though.  Proprietors secret.


Yesterday I was finally able to establish a bank account for TOPL.  This was an important step for me.  After weeks of working 6 or 7 days every week and often having little motivation after work I have 4 days off.  I’ve finished creating the outline and content for the website.  Unfortunately I don’t feel good because I’ve been squandering so much time and there are things I can be doing.  

It has been difficult for me to focus.  Part of this has been my inability to obtain marijuana.  It’s been about 4 weeks since I’ve had any.  Prior to this I may smoke a bowl at night 3 to 5 times per week.  An 8th of an ounce or 3.5 grams usually lasts about a month.  For me marijuana eliminates distractive stress and uneasiness and allows me to focus on objectives and stimulates thought towards those ends.  Through what I think and what I accomplish while under the influence improves my mood.  Without it I’m overwhelmed by the depression facilitated through my circumstances, and this depression causes me to escape it through unproductive activities like playing poker, other games, and watching youtube videos.  This in turn produces more depression because upon the cessation of that stimulation I’m painfully aware of the time I’ve wasted.  Eventually I sink low enough to do something and feel mildly better through whatever it is I did that feels somewhat productive.  Then the cycle will repeat.  

I have a great lack of social opportunities, relationships, and interaction generally which is detrimental to my well being including cognitively.  Enhancement of my mood can lead to the creation of opportunities but at the same time my perspective, values, and interests generally prevent the establishment of meaningful social relationships or quality interaction as I perceive it.  I’m not lonely or saddened by the acknowledgement of my loner status, only concerned about the negative impact it may have.  I also feel that this will correct itself once I’m actively advancing the goals of TOPL.  There are also negative cognitive effects from the work I do which is very repetitive.  

My awareness of these things creates stress subconsciously that has a negative impact on my mood and also has the potential to create cognitive decline.  I feel the weight and I don’t feel as sharp as I did even a few months ago.  Although reengagement into content or the focus of my attention can reverse that.  The issue is it’s difficult to know in the moment how much stress is diminishing my abilities.  There have been periods in my life where stress was significantly limiting but I didn’t realize it until I revisited material from that period.  All stress isn’t the same.  There is stress that improves the mind when it’s front and center and you’re conscious of it.  There is other stress from circumstances that is worn like a vest in the sense that you’re not really aware of it but it’s there, it weighs you down, and it dulls you without you being aware of it.  

I’m not a person who is given to a great deal of worry contrary to what the previous paragraphs may suggest.  I’m reminded of those things periodically and I move on.  Otherwise, I’m accepting of all outcomes while trying to control the things I can control to obtain the desired outcomes.  Worry is a product of the subconscious creating objectives to reduce or eliminate uncertainty or to arrive at a place where a foreseeable unacceptable outcome is acceptable or made acceptable through preparation of how one will proceed should the undesired outcome occur.  The positive feeling that motivates worry is the elimination of the negative feeling through the reduction of uncertainty or the ability to accept an undesired outcome, both of which are the basis for fear.  While I live with the absence of fear or at least relatively in the absence of fear compared to most people, fear can be a positive in the sense that fear can fuel a person’s drive.  My drive is fueled through self worth and justice.  This is why I feel like shit when I’m unproductive.  I also recognize that I may accomplish more if I was motivated more by fear, but at the same time, having been motivated by fear during a time when I was more stressed (the period when I was going to court in Florida) my execution also suffers when fear is motivator.  I would also accomplish more if I had access to marijuana.  

I’ve established the bank account for the organization.  Next I need to have the website built.  I have a 30 page outline that includes all the content and functions of the website.  Now I need to hire someone to create it.  I was looking at resumes on craigslist about a week ago.  I plan on hiring an assistant essentially to open doors, schedule presentations, make phone calls, and do other things that I don’t want to do.  I found a web developer and contacted him.  At the time I didn’t have the TOPL bank account established but I thought I might try him out at redesigning this site for a few hundred dollars, and if he performed well I would retain him to design the TOPL site.  

I sent an inquiry asking about his rate and he told me he charged $35 per hour.  I told him that I wanted a flat rate since I would have no way of knowing how long it actually takes him to complete the job.  This is a wordpress site which should be pretty straightforward.  I have a PHP issue that has to be corrected but from what I’ve seen online someone who knows what they’re doing should be able to correct that issue in less than an hour.  From there the old theme is uninstalled, a different theme is installed, and then there’s some customization of the theme.  I would expect a price that reflects 5 to 8 hours of work.  He sent me a reply that it would take him 34 hours, or about $1200 to do this.  I may be willing to spend somewhere around this amount to create the TOPL website although I think I can probably get it done cheaper, but there’s no way I’m willing to spend that amount to redesign a wordpress website.  If he’s trying to charge for 34 hours on a wordpress website what would he try to charge me to create the TOPL website?  After I sent him an email explaining that having this site redesigned wasn’t worth $1200 he sent an email asking about what my budget was.  The problem is he already tried to gouge me so I don’t want to work with him.  It’s like if you needed an oil change and they told you it was going to be $300.  If you refused and they asked what your budget was for the oil change you’d already be inclined to go elsewhere since they began with such an unfair price.  

This site looks atrocious.  I may need to spend a few hours fixing the PHP issue so I can change the appearance myself which won’t be great but it will be better.  I need to find someone to create the TOPL website because what I need it to do and how I need it to appear far exceeds my design abilities.  Unfortunately, I cannot really do anything until I have the TOPL website up.  

Once I have the TOPL website up I’ll begin promotion wherever I’m at which may be Winslow, AZ.  This will primarily be practice since whatever district Winslow is in, or Flagstaff since I think it’s 50 to 70 miles from Winslow, probably isn’t contested.  The strategy of collecting voter pledges for legislation becomes viable when the margin of victory for a congressional candidate is less than 50,000 votes, which in 2020 represented about 135 seats.  

I plan on finishing the job in Del Rio and the job here in Dallas which should take about 3 and a half weeks.  After this I believe we have a few weeks until the job in Winslow will begin.  Whether I go to Winslow to begin the job may depend on what I’m able to accomplish in those few weeks.  If I’m ready, I may be able to get rolling at that time.  I see myself presenting TOPL and the legislative outlines and attracting interest, pledges, membership, and donations.  With a little bit of that I should be able to meet with politicians and get some of them on board with most of TOPL’s legislative agenda.  With their support this may rapidly bring that agenda to the broader public and bring it into the popular political narrative and accomplish changes that will improve the quality of American life.  


Ive been working very hard at work as I enter into these last 6 weeks or so of employment. Outside of work, the work towards my broader ambition outside of this 6 weeks of construction has been slow and at times frustrating. My DBA The Organization for Popular Legislation is now valid and I have an EIN number that I can use to open a bank account in the organizations name. Haven’t had the time to open the bank account for the Organization but it doesnt seem like a priority at least until I have the website up. I’m currently having problems with this website. I cannot access the theme editor. I created a new hearder, something simple that moves away from the generic header that’s there now.

With the new website and ambition I can seperate some the political from this site. This site has been under a very old domain orioncs.net that I don’t want to get rid of because of because it’s a collection of a lot of different pages and versions of pages which are not public but stil accessible by me through the admin screen. I also own LibertyAndTruth.org that I forward to this site. I should create a new website using that domain. Right now I don’t have the time for that. It would be pretty simple in that I would take my active pages and products and put the site on some other hosting. It’s something I could probably do on my own. I also own OPLNOW.com which may be The Organization for Popular Legislation website. I’ve created an outline for what will be on the website but this is something I need hire someone to build. The difficulty is hiring someone to build it while still understanding how to update it. I say Oplnow.com may be the website for OPL because OPL might be TOPL. I have purchased TOPL.app but the problem with TOPL.app is pelple are unfamilar with that extension, and the extension itself implies that the destination is to an app and not a website.

I have to decide on an acronym. I like TOPL because the idea of the organization in a sense is to do just that: to topple politicans who will not support popular legislation. Installing switches through the establishment of voter blocs who can give an election to a candidate or take an election away from a candidate. It’s unique in that it proposes legislation that will signifcantly change the lives of people in this country. It’s built on an accurate depiction of problems and political functioning. Much of the country is going to vote according democrat or republican, progessivism or conservatism, or even some other bullshit even more insignficant than that. In many districts across this country elections are decided by 10s of thousands of votes. If there are blocs in different districts of 10, 20, or 30 thousand votes, incumbants who have won previosly by smaller margins are going to be very inclined to support the OPL/TOPL agenda. I am leaning towards TOPL but on the other hand it may be unduly aggressive.

I do plan to hire someone. The first reason is because I don’t like to talk on the phone and there are going to be a lot of phone calls to make. Some of those calls will be contacting to groups to arrange meetings and events where I can appear before groups, explain TOPL/OPL and the pledges and see if I can gain pledges and interest. Other calls will be appointments for other calls. Setting up calls with potential donors who I can discuss my plans with and try to gain their support. I know I need someone to schedule promotional appearances, bypass gate keepers, and create opportunities for me to get in touch with people I am interested in getting in touch with. Before they can do this they will need to understand enough about the organization and some of the ideas to perform the marketing tasks successfully. Another task will be will be opinion based, like TOPL or OPL.

I’ve created 2 pledge summaries, the second one is probably the most difficult of the 10 I plan to begin with. I should have the other 8 finished in about a week. I need to create a TOPL video introduction outline. That’s my priority. Everything else on my list is complete other than the petitions and the video outline.

I started this entry to share the first draft of the Balance Stimulus Pledge Summary which I condensed from the final draft. The first draft was very choppy in how it was written and I took it places it probably didn’t need to go. I’m not going to share it until I have a chance to edit it. Then I’ll share that draft here. Below is the OPL logo, a TOPL logo shirt (the logo will just be the letters), and the heading banner for the site that I cannot upload. It’s not a great improvement but it is some improvement. My grafic design abilities and concepts leaves a lot to be desired. I’m also leaning towards TOPL because the logo looks better. The OPL logo I have now looks like Obama is running for a third term. LOL.


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