Tuesday, November 23, 2010

A couple of months ago I secured the administrator's promise to move my roommate out of the room. This roommate was talking to himself all the time very loudly and making insulting remarks about me which I could not answer because he was talking to himself, not me, but I had to listen to it. This in itself was untenable. But added to this, he was frequently leaving feces on the toilet seat and not cleaning it up, forcing me to choose the two alternatives of either doing him service and cleaning it up myself, or living with it. Neither of these two alternatives was acceptable.

The administrator said that he would move this person out of the room when space became available. I didn't belittle his intelligence by asking him what the reasoning was behind this delay. I had every right to do so, however, and just didn't because it was an automatic argument of unknown discomfort and I wanted to maintain neutrality with this administrator, for what it was worth.

If the administrator lacked the authority to break up an existing other room's two roommates in order to switch my roommate with another person somewhere else, so that I would get a new roommate and so would everyone else of the four of us involved, then, in that case of such lack of authority, there was good reason behind the delay.

I fail to see any other argument for there being reason behind it.

Therefore, the delay implied, from my point of view, that the administrator's latitude to exercise the authority in question lay at cross purposes with his estimation of the merits of my complaint.

There are two components of those merits. One, the unacceptability of my roommate's behavior. And two, my standing as a human being, such as it may happen to be across the broad range of ground on which I stand, from mere animal creature, to paying customer of this nursing home, to person dear or not to anyone at all, or to acknowledgment as first by an organization not to be played with and having a distinctly Italian or Roman composition.

As I have said, I reckon there to be only one explanation for the delay. The fact that I have not proven that there could be no others is a fact that I can play with like the administrator can play with his own latitudes.

I'm afraid from the looks of it the matter comes down on my side of the fence. The administrator, Patrick Baalke, and I are at odds on a non-speaking basis.

I had the roommate removed from the room by virtue of a more receptive audience in the recreation therapy supervisor, Ms. Phyllis Gilmore. I have not spoken of this with Mr. Baalke. I gave him two months to either be freed from his unwillingness to use his latitude by the appearance of a free space, or exercise his latitude. I feel this was quite sufficient.

Mr. Baalke is not perfect. But his imperfection is aligned against my credibility as a person of standing, and that is the new untenable situation. Other administrators have been and will be also not perfect. It is probably the case that this one is better taught a lesson than being discarded. I have not insulted his intelligence, after all, and he will need that to appreciate my dissatisfaction with his exercise of power.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

On my size.

Certain factions within my organization are not trusting me but rather waging calculated offenses against me because they estimate my effectiveness as a leader is marginal because of my size.

I see no such deficiency.

Leaders throughout history have been of all sizes. Napoleon was 5 feet 6 1/2 inches tall. If the advantages of height were more significant than the disadvantages, then we would see every species continuing to enlarge without end. In fact, as height increases, the supportability of a body decreases, as supportability goes as the square of linear size divided by the cube, or resultantly the inverse of linear size. The square determines the strength of the frame to support its weight. The cube determines the volume, and therefore the mass, which must be supported by the slower rising area.

A man who understands the role played in warfare by intelligence will always fare better among men than a man who doesn't, on average.

Consider your world, gentlemen, but be comprehensive.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Three milks is over the limit.

We have certain residents here at Bryn Mawr Care who abuse the system and take more amenities than they are alloted. One such case is people taking three glasses of milk when two has been given to us as the limit. A paired male and female both did this at dinner tonight and I asked staff if it was proper to take three. Staff saw what had happened and spoke up that this was wrong. Staff is not prepared to meet the situation of residents acting with brute force and artificial self-righteousness. The two residents walked out with their extra glass each. Nothing was done about it.

I sat down to dinner and these two residents started bad-mouthing the staff. I raised my voice and said that all we had to do was get three milks at dinner and lunch (this was an error. We get milk at breakfast and dinner, not lunch.) and we could live a glorious, or words to that effect, life. The female struck up that the staff acts like a totalitarian government, or something like that. I said granted, but we can't be screwing each other by taking three milks. Then the male attacked me calling me an asshole and saying it was none of my business. This is the way we are encouraged to treat each other by the laxity of the staff in maintaining a just order. But I insisted that the staff step forward and be heard. Several staff did come forward and there was a shouting match. The male resident had somehow discarded one of his glasses of milk and said I was wrong, that he didn't have three glasses. I know he walked away from the meal distribution line with three glasses of milk. The female still had all three of her glasses and in the end the on-duty case manager said she was going to report the girl. This is not a good result. The two of them were equal conspirators in this and the one will support the other downstream from here. The attack on me by the male was not well addressed, as he used guttural speech and I have little experience matching that blow for blow. Progress is nice and I have done considerable toward it, however, without a strong hand always at the ready, things can deteriorate suddenly. As it is I have to keep an eye out in the future for this male antagonist, for he evidently is now going to keep a grudge against me permanently. He's the kind, and there are many, who easily turns to lifelong enemy. I need a good rejoinder to have on my tongue next time I see him where there is room for a skirmish.

Monday, November 15, 2010

New title for autobiography.

I have just uploaded a new revision of my autobiography and changed the title.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Make a test--donate.

Just think how much goodwill you will get with me if you make a donation. The button is in the sidebar at right.

Just think how much economic development will occur if I am happy.

Why not make a test? Science is where I put my marbles, not religion. Science uses tests. If you think what I write is unique, then why not test its range of effects with a donation?

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Stepping up to the plate with regard to radical Islam.

I think it is probably correct to interpret the position of radical Islam to be that the state is stronger that entrusts its government to those of its population who are recognized to be the most spiritual. This is written into the Koran.

Therefore it is possible that radical Islam, when it found out that I had seen on a building the same fire that Moses saw on a bush, and also found out that this fact was known to the top monarchy of the United States, that it was considered by radical Islam that the United States was weak because it had not trusted me to assume the role of government.

This organization of the facts, I might speculate, can be developed into a strategy for maintaining legitimacy in the world's top spiritual leaderships of an attack on the United States.

It would be nice if I could just think this and write words of leadership of the United States. To a certain extent I do this. However, it is not government. Government involves checks and balances. What I have is thinking in the dark about the impact of what I say and write. It's all guesswork.

If I knew that what I wrote was law, I certainly wouldn't write so indiscriminantly as I have done to date, largely trying to establish myself as an authority.

Authority and government are different.

Any ruling body which finds a  voice among its people that commands attention for one reason or another must assess how best to incorporate that voice into the rule of the people. In my case, the matter of my place in rule has been attacked within the organization. I cannot count on anything I write or do being parsed favorably. The position of my attackers within the organization is unknown to me. Also, the point at which they first packaged my life as undesirable is unknown to me. As a result, as I said before, I strike out into the dark.

One could imagine that attacks by Al Qaeda have been less spectacular since 9/11 because I have until now refrained from putting to words my interpretation of the attacks. To a certain extent it's a matter of belief. I am still pretty much a modest person and don't like to attribute world events to myself. When I do act to have such an effect it is usually not specifically designed to have a certain effect on my place in the world downstream from any such effects, only to perturb the world. It is my feeling, and a blatant one, that my poverty is the result of someone's doing, not any result of the law of averages affecting all the various things I have tried in an attempt to escape it. Not only the bottom line of my enterprises have been zero, but also the components of each one have followed the path of zero tolerance for productivity. It doesn't take complex thinking to imagine some scenario in which someone might at some point have concluded, for very concrete reasons, that I am worthless despite this or that success all throughout my life. Environments vary widely and certainly some might find me undesirable. I find this no reason to give up. The total environment has the kind of specifications of its rulers that the master of any small environment will have the basics that could manage a place there. This is the grounds on which political candidates are given a green light for positions of great power. It is a fairly straightforward process. My task will not benefit from an attempt to guess what objections these people have to me and then addressing them with some combination of defense and reform. This I conclude from the standpoint of the structure and dynamics of information. I cannot know the nature of the complaints. It is not that I have a certain attitude about it. It is that my existence is ruled by a certain economic principle which consistently persuades me not to go looking beyond a certain level of composure for the evidence of such complaints. This is inherent within a mindset that chooses to imbue a large environment with goodwill and leadership that it clearly otherwise lacks. The indifference to complaints begins early in such a venture.

The invisible hand in my economics of life made itself deducible when my father told me I wasn't going to get into Yale College. I believe I treated this information as only that. Had I been devoted to an agenda I might well have given it great importance and struggled with it in aggravation. So many years have gone by now that my aggravation is devoted to a whole universe of concerns about my fate. So long as I can rely on the word of IPBI (see my autobiography, segment 7100, item id 8656) that I am First (the only sensible interpretation of this being it refers to a monarchy in the United States) then I know that there is some agency with rulership powers here that will have reason to include an attribution of ability to rule in all its attributions of me, and that any attempt I make to do honor to such a position will include possible realizations of such honor. Unfortunately, this is as yet a pursuit of authority, not government, and the core problem of my life is unaddressed by this.

I will look forward to the development of governing powers in the plans for me. I would meet them with a change of approach. I don't believe any structures exist for such a development. I would go in that direction if there were an expression of interest. I would not if there were not. We already know monarchies exist without published inclusion in the Constitution. I myself do not know what documents apply to the rule of the monarchy that inducted me. I find it hard to believe that they would not exist within law, particularly since my discovery of a bulletin at the Yale Law School that referred to monarchies in the U.S., discussed in the autobiography, segment 5300, item id DCAD.

It is my judgment that government by me would require a different documentation than exists now in support of my place in this monarchy. I have pretty much gone the route with this state of affairs. I don't want it to be represented that my being spiritual has anything to do with religion. For me, it has always been a matter of survival. This produces the corollary of putting my descendants on an equal plane as I keep for myself. There is no other use for much of what I have learned than my descendants avoiding more effectively what I avoided only to the point of immolation. A well governed population is a better substrate for conferring survival logistics upon one's own offspring. They provide exceptions.

Friday, November 5, 2010

When I was applying to college the first time--I went a second time and got a second B.A.--an organization called the College Scholarship Service gathered information from me and my father about our finances and determined how much of my college bill we each should pay. The colleges used the CSS to determine how much they would pay, how much I would pay, and how much my father would pay.

The yearly amount Yale specified that my father would pay was $2000.

Unfortunately, he refused to pay that much. He paid $1200.

Yale never asked me how much he paid and I assume it never asked him either.

I was forced to apply all my summer earnings to cover the difference of $800 each year.

I never complained. This was my father.

Now I'm complaining. Why didn't Yale verify that my father was paying what they determined was his fair share of the bill?

My troubles at Yale were compounded by having to live on a budget without margins.

Additionally, representatives of Yale at a college night at my high school had claimed that Yale would cover what I and my father couldn't. They didn't say anything about loans. When Yale raised its tuition I was forced to accept what it called a Tuition Postponement Option, essentially a loan.

My immaturity prevented me from realizing that both Yale and my father were forcing hardships on me that I never had a chance to assess before going to college and spending my money on it.

Then IIT appeared. I was apparently worth more as a debtor than as a graduate to them. They failed to inform me in my third year when my loans were ready to be signed. As a result, no loans, no final semester, no degree. How am I going to earn an income without a professional degree?

Well, no one was there before I went to IIT to advise me that with a resume showing eight years of undefinable time due to homelessness there would be no hope of getting a job, even if I had the degree.

I am sick of all the lousy input I have gotten in life from those who supposedly were my trusted family and friends.

Alma mater--other mother. What a joke.

No wonder American education is deteriorating. It's fraudulent. You can't build on a rotten foundation.

The U.S. is declining in the world. It thought it was great. It wasn't. It isn't. It won't be.

It considers me irrelevant.

As it sinks into recession, it will regret considering me irrelevant. I will be glad when I die in poverty that I could see the U.S. declining around me.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Obama rally last Saturday.

Saturday I went to a rally on Chicago's Midway Pleasance at which President Obama spoke. It lasted four hours, all on my feet. Two bands played. First time I  ever went to a political rally in Chicago.

I got a good look at the President. His delivery was masterful and his speech well crafted. Never having done any political speech writing I am very impressed with his work.

I plan to vote straight Democratic tomorrow. I'll be a judge of election, as usual. Still a Democratic judge.