20200514h Day 135: Mask Requirements at The Food Bin – No Bandanas, Scarves, or Valves

Mask Requirements at The Food Bin, Santa Cruz, CA – May 14, 2020 (Credit: SurfingTheUniverse.com)

20200514h Santa Cruz, CA: Today, I went shopping at the local grocery story and found the sign at the entrance interesting. While some stores have been selling bandanas for use as wearing masks, and some people have been using scarves or wrapping their head with their shirt, The Food Bin in Santa Cruz, CA is not supporting these actions. Nor or they supporting masks with valves. Instead, you need to have a mask with two straps, ties, or ear loops. It must cover your face from nose to chin. If you arrive at the store without such a mask, you can purchase one at the Herb Store next door.

For me, this is another example of how universes merge together and how the energetic energy of probabilities ripple out to nearby universes. We have universes around us in which different types of masks are the norm, and universes around us in which no masks are the norm. I expect to see a variety of different normals as I continue to surf towards the exit of this pandemic wormhole. I still expect June 8th of this year to be an exit point. Although, in the current universe I feel other unexpected events are on the horizon and I’m curious what new universes I will see as I exit this pandemic wormhole.

20191225W Day -6: Merry Christmas Multiverse! Hong Kong protestors wear Masks

Santa traveling through the multiverse – Captured in Austin, Texas – Dec. 25, 2019 (photo credit: SurfingTheUniverse.com)

20200513W Santa Cruz, CA: I spent last Christmas at my brother’s place in Austin, Texas. In walking around the neighborhood, I saw this Santa decoration. Looking at the looped version of the photo, I notice the periodic nature of the propellers and the beat of distortion. The distortion beats stimulate my imagination about how it might look to see someone traveling through the multiverse. The propellers represent for me the power that repeated habits and continuous focus can have, and how this is the power of free will which enables me to travel inter-dimensionally from one reality to another. Or at least that is how it feels and makes sense to me.

Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, protestors were going to the shopping malls not to buy presents, but to protest for human rights.

Hong Kong protesters in Sha Tin shopping mall – Hong Kong – Dec. 25, 2019 (photo credit: REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson)

I find it interesting to notice that this scene, which shows protestors wearing masks, looks normal in the post-pandemic world. At the time, mask wearing was illegal. Today, not wearing masks is illegal in some places. It’s easy to imagine a current day in which those in Hong Kong are still in the shopping mall wearing masks, and yet there is no pandemic. It is interesting to notice how some things remain constant in the timeline we experience, even if the meaning of that constant thing is different.

20200427M Day 118: Who Is John Galt?

A random car in Santa Cruz, CA with the question “Who is John Galt?” – April 27, 2020

I was walking around the neighborhood and noticed this car with the question “Who is John Galt?”. John Galt is a character in Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, a book I read in college. The novel is about a dystopian parallel reality in which the United States is experiencing widespread shortages and is falling into economic collapse due to increasing regulations and control of companies. As I surf out of this pandemic wormhole, I sense universes in which our increasing governmental control of business is due to other reasons besides a pandemic. It’s easy to sense these universes by noticing the increasing calls and rallies to reopen America, which is a reaction to these nearby dystopian universes in which everything is controlled by a strong, central government. I think I’ll keep surfing through this wormhole and not get out just yet. The normality I’m seeking is not yet recognizable.



20200205W Day 36: Senate Acquits Trump as Romney votes from a parallel reality

Most of us are currently surrounded by a large percentage of universes in which the U.S. Congress representatives vote not with the leaders of the party in which they are affiliated instead of with their conscience. For those who find this appalling, there is evidence of a nearby universe in which conscience-based voting is the rule rather than the exception. This evidence is illustrated by Mitt Romney’s conscious-based vote despite strong arm-twisting by the other members of his party.

Here’s the full text of Romney’s speech explaining why he voted to remove President Trump from office today:

The Constitution is at the foundation of our Republic’s success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of Congress for these many days. We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other’s good faith.

The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a Senator-juror, I swore an oath, before God, to exercise “impartial justice.” I am a profoundly religious person. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the President, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.

The House Managers presented evidence supporting their case; the White House counsel disputed that case. In addition, the President’s team presented three defenses: first, that there can be no impeachment without a statutory crime; second, that the Bidens’ conduct justified the President’s actions; and third that the judgement of the President’s actions should be left to the voters. Let me first address each of those defenses.

The historic meaning of the words “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the writings of the Founders and my own reasoned judgement convince me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they are not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office. To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a president might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove a president defies reason.

The President’s counsel noted that Vice President Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove the Ukrainian Prosecutor General. If he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under investigation, the Vice President should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong.

With regards to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his father’s name is unsavory but also not a crime. Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the President’s counsel that a crime had been committed, the President’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit. There is no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the President would never have done what he did.

The defense argues that the Senate should leave the impeachment decision to the voters. While that logic is appealing to our democratic instincts, it is inconsistent with the Constitution’s requirement that the Senate, not the voters, try the president. Hamilton explained that the Founders’ decision to invest senators with this obligation rather than leave it to voters was intended to minimize—to the extent possible—the partisan sentiments of the public.

This verdict is ours to render. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfilled our duty. The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

Yes, he did.

The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.

The President withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so.

The President delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders.

The President’s purpose was personal and political.

Accordingly, the President is guilty of an appalling abuse of the public trust.

What he did was not “perfect”— No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security interests, and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.

In the last several weeks, I have received numerous calls and texts. Many demand that, in their words, “I stand with the team.” I can assure you that that thought has been very much on my mind. I support a great deal of what the President has done. I have voted with him 80% of the time. But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.

I am aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters, I will be vehemently denounced. I am sure to hear abuse from the President and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?

I sought to hear testimony from John Bolton not only because I believed he could add context to the charges, but also because I hoped that what he said might raise reasonable doubt and thus remove from me the awful obligation to vote for impeachment.

Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country. I believe that our Constitution was inspired by Providence. I am convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our national character. As it is with each senator, my vote is an act of conviction. We have come to different conclusions, fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience.

I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the President from office. The results of this Senate Court will in fact be appealed to a higher court: the judgement of the American people. Voters will make the final decision, just as the President’s lawyers have implored. My vote will likely be in the minority in the Senate. But irrespective of these things, with my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me. I will only be one name among many, no more or less, to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial. They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the President did was wrong, grievously wrong.

We’re all footnotes at best in the annals of history. But in the most powerful nation on earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that is distinction enough for any citizen.


20200203 Day 34: Iowa Democratic Caucus Results in Parallel Universes

In some universes, the final results of the Iowa Democratic Caucus have been released and the winner is …

In the universe I’m in right now, the results have been delayed. The reason for the delay is still being observed and is currently in a superposition of states such as “app failure”, “dotting i’s and crossing t’s”, “waiting for coins to flip”, “back room negotiations”, “quality control”, “busy phone lines”, and “conspiracy against Bernie”.

In the majority of parallel universes, the top three candidates ordered by number of state delegates is:

  1. Bernie
  2. Buttigieg
  3. Warren

with Klobuchar and Biden splitting almost all of the remainder, except for one Yang delegate.


2020 Day 7: 88% Charge

I’m at the Apple Store to investigate why my battery on my 2014 MacBook Pro looses charge so quickly. I remember it dropping quickly from 100% down to 50% and also quickly from 50% to 0%. I remember the battery icon telling me that my battery is damaged and needs immediate replacement. However, I now appear to be in a universe where my notebook battery is ok. Diagnostic testing of the battery now shows it is fine at 84% of new status. I’m testing it now myself to see how fast it discharges. In the last 20 minutes, with only Safari opened, it has gone from 88% (at 14:15) down to 78%.

My understanding of battery technology is once a battery is degraded, it doesn’t magically get better. If it were possible to improve degradable batteries by just surfing to a universe where they were not as degraded, then I imagine at least one classical law of physics would be broken in the process.

Officially, my MacBook Pro battery should last 10 hours for normal web browsing. This does appear to be degraded as I type this because the charge is down to 68% at 14:50, so down 20% in less than 40 minutes.