ADDITIONAL UPDATES > PAGE Y2K

UPDATE 1-18-2000 AM: Some more anomalies for the books!

On January 3, 2000 while at one of the Dupage County PADS sites where one can obtain a shower I was harassed. According to the generally accepted rules, each person that signs up for a shower is allowed only 10 minutes to take a shower. This also seems to be the position at some of the shelters in the City of Chicago, but not all.

Based on custom, shelter volunteers rarely hold people to an exact 10 minute shower. It is generally understood that most of the participants in the showers try their best to adhere as close to the allowance as possible. The shower rule in its most terse enforcement does not realistically take into consideration the facilities' provisions for the taking of a shower, the physical size of the individual and the character of the individual. There seems to be a presumption that everyone is trying to cheat the system! This positioning is certainly presumptuous and unprofessional!

Contrary to a lot of the very sensitive articles about dedicated volunteers noted over the years in the newspapers, a goodly number and fortunately not the majority of volunteers look on their jobs as another chore that they have to perform. They are quick to presume or take a negative interpretation of those of us who participate in the shelter program.

Having recently read a number of articles in the newspaper archives I am encouraged that there are some genuinely motivated volunteers involved in the programs. Never-the-less, we the recipients often are being abused and unrealistically treated. I trust that those volunteers that are involved because they really care thus having the "right stuff" will get to the bottom of the anomalies that many of we shelter persons are experiencing and deal with each person respectfully in light of their particular and peculiar circumstances.

It is clear that some volunteers may be just burned out and have become cynical and thus vent their frustrations on the people they should be helping. It is also clear that some of the volunteers are just politico "leg men" for certain control groups in their given control areas.

Many people in the shelter system are there not because one is merely out of "luck" but rather they are there due to deliberate deception, defamation and criminal conduct on the part of certain jurisdictional control groups. They, (some volunteers), lay in wait to exact their will on a free people, (sheltered persons), so to cover up their indiscretions and anomalies that perhaps their objects of attention, (sheltered persons), are aware of having occurred. It seems that they are actually transferring their hostility onto the participants and unfortunate for a well intended sheltered person they pay for the volunteer's errant action.

Granted not all volunteers do this nor are all the shelter participants of a proper attitude. However, in my observation over the last almost year in the shelter system, the errant one is not always the sheltered person and the volunteer often creates a circumstance or altercation that need not have occurred as in my case.

One of the more popular ways of the control group exacting their will on a particular individual or individuals rather than the true spirit of the program is to network against that person. Where under more fair and impartial circumstances an individual might do just fine and in fact excel immensely, one finds himself bogged down with technocrats in their knit picking.

Now mind you, I am an electronics and computer technician, I feel I can speak. When a technocrat exacts a stricture on a people that is not reasonable, normal or realistic and say they are just following the rules they indeed violate the spirit of the rule and the ultimate mandate that required the rule in the first place. I do not think that rules are made to be broken but rather used with discretion as even the laws of our land are likewise intended to be enforced. The rules are supposed to be created to help us not to enslave and disrupt us!

A good example of a technocratic enforcement of the law is demonstrated, for instance, by a law enforcement officer in interpreting the application of a vehicle code. If you drive a car in the State of Illinois there is a law that says that you are violating the law if you modify your car in any way that was not intended by the original equipment manufacturer! Generally speaking a law officer uses this law if they feel your car is using an improper suspension system, unacceptable tire specifications or muffler system or anything they might deem unsafe to the general public.

However, a "technocrat" in this case would exact an interpretation that for instance would give you a ticket for a chip of paint that is missing from your car. He could state that due to the fact that your car no longer exemplifies the original equipment manufacturer finished product standards you are violating the law and thus you should be ticketed. Certainly the spirit of the state law never intended an enforcement to be so finely tuned or critical that you cannot get a dent in your car or paint chipped without incurring a vehicle code violation. Certainly a technocratic enforcement of the law would be an abuse of discretion!

A number of years ago I was ticketed for a similar type of infraction. My car's windshield had an internal crack in it which was for the most part not obviously noticeable to the average person unless they were looking for it. The crack in all reality did not pose a safety hazard anymore than a normal windshield. Glass was not loose, and it did in no way restrict the view or safe operation of the vehicle. Yet I was told to replace the entire front windshield on my circa. 1971 Oldsmobile in the late 1980s. As you can imagine, it cost me considerable money and time as I had to do it myself or else mothball the car.

Interestingly, I noted numerous cars in the environs and the like with similar or clearly unsafe windshields freely moving around the community. Having talked with some of those drivers with similar cracks as mine I was informed that the police, in their experience, are not concerned about such cracks unless they clearly pose a safety hazard and/or obstruct the view of the driver. Obviously I was pulled over by a "technocrat" police officer and prosecuted by a "technocrat" prosecutor and judged by a "technocrat" judge who were not really interested in the reality of the circumstances of the crack in my windshield nor public safety but rather seeking a way to put myself under extreme standards for which the general public is not usually held thus holding me to a higher standard or technocracy! They thus used the law improperly so to harass me financially and interfere with other legal obligations of which I was engaged.

Well, back to the current circumstances. I took a shower on January 3, 2000 and it, by my estimation and by confirmation with another volunteer, took approximately twenty minutes. While I was soaped up just about to shower off a volunteer, I will label as "Moe Howard" due to the fact that he has similar characteristics as the man most people know from the comedies and due to the fact that I do not know his name, knocked on the door and let me know that my time was exceeded. I related to him that I was just showering off and would be right out.

When I was out of the shower and drying off I was again informed by "Moe" that other people had to get in the shower. I related to him that I was moving as fast as one can and that due to my 6'5" frame it does take a little longer to dry off than the average person and that a towel absorbs the water only so fast. I indicated that I thought he was harassing me. Just as I was about to put my clothes on another volunteer asked me if I was alright. I replied that I was alright and would be out as soon as I had my clothes on. I was out of the shower room a few minutes later.

I related this event to some of my fellow participants and that was the end of it.

However, on January 10, 2000, with no prior warning, upon entering the same shelter site I noticed a note on the volunteer's table stating that I could not take a shower that night! I inquired about that note and I was told that because I took too long in the shower I was penalized one shower period. I objected and indicated that I would take the issue to a higher source. A lady volunteer said that it will not make any difference, complain all you want she said. I related it will make a difference where I am taking it. I was pooh hood.

On January 17, 2000 I again entered the same facility and when I attempted to sign the shower list I was told by the volunteer named Dave that I was permanently banned from taking a shower at the site. I inquired as to what provoked this extreme action. Again I was told that it was because I had taken too long a shower on January 3, 2000.I replied saying that they already penalized me on my last visit! I said that this action was extreme and unreasonable! Dave said in effect that that was too bad! They said that they have to follow the rules. I said that this is harassment! I said that they are not dealing with some teen-age punk that is deliberately testing the rules to see with what he can get away. I said I am 49. I said that I wanted the names of the volunteers at the intake table and he started to give them to me.

When I told him that I would relate this episode on my internet newspaper "The Porcupine Quills" he retracted the names and told me to be careful with that. I stated that he should sue me but he would not be getting anything! Dave's response was that I was pushing it and would be put out of the shelter if I continued.

I left the volunteer table and a few minutes later went back to the same table just letting Dave know with whom he is really dealing. I said that in Christian spirit I suggest he read Matthew 18:1-14 very carefully! I then left to pursue dinner. He was admonished in this fashion due to the fact that too many people were being abused and disrespected with his brand of "law and order".

As most of you already know, I exact the utmost effort to try to get the facts straight and be not only impartial but fair as ABC's David Brinkley once advocated reporters should attain when they report the news. It is not my intent of this media to misrepresent the facts but rather impart the truth as best I understand it, as best the facts are made known to me and as best as I can humanly convey them, all circumstances considered especially in light of Matthew 18:1-14.

My intent in telling Dave to sue me was an attention getter for the purpose of shaking him up to the reality of what he was doing and the reality that the general public was going to be reading about it. It was also an attention getter to the reality that I really don't have any assets under the present circumstances.

I later related the episode to one of the more objective and senior volunteers who periodically takes on the spiritual aspects of the assemblage. He said that he was a former Army man and that they took ten minute showers as a rule. He suggested removing any acceptable attire before entering the shower scenario so to cut time in the shower room. (Realistically, it seems to me, most people are not going to half dress while they are eating so to jump in the shower at a moment's notice.)

I related that not only this site has a shower problem but others also. The others have separate showers for men and women but this site is impacted with one shower to be shared with everyone. I related the other sites are not as strict on the ten minute rule resultantly but this site apparently is due to the impact one available shower creates.

I related additionally that the water pressure is not realistically sufficient to effect a proper shower in ten minutes. I related that the size of people do make a difference as to how long one takes. I related that the hours that we take showers, roughly between 7 and 10 P.M., are late in the day and people are not moving as fast as they would perhaps in the morning or midday. I related to effect a ten minute shower under the present conditions it would realistically only allow for one’s genitals and butt and the like to be washed.

A general consensus was that the site provides us with both body soap and shampoo. To wash one's hair twice as most persons do would require approximately five minutes. To soap up the body and rinse another five minutes. Undressing and dressing another five minutes not to mention drying off. The efficiency of drying off often depends on the kind of or absorbency of the towel you are given as well as the humidity and temperature level of the air around you. With the reduced water flow and pressure one cannot effect a swift wet down and rinse off. Realistically a ten minute shower just does not make the reality list under these circumstances.

I was told by another volunteer that Dave/the group, was saying that I had taken 40 minutes to shower. I said the reality was more like 20 minutes as that is what it usually takes me under similar conditions to enter the room and leave the room and he agreed that seemed more realistic to him also.

Mind you the clock ticks from the moment one enters the shower room,(not the moment one turns on the water), till the moment you are dried off, dressed and out the door. Truly this timing method is not fair. Truthfully the alleged time taken was not representative of the factual time taken by myself from entering to exiting the shower room.

I related that last Spring I was aware that larger persons were reasonably allowed more time to shower especially if they were toward the end of the list. I believe I was toward the later part of the list. I never had a problem with this site prior and was surprised at this sudden attention to stringent technicalities.

I was referred to the supervisor and related the scenario above and he agreed that some definite improvements are in order. It is also noted that it is hard for a supervisor to over rule subordinates due to the fact it has been hard to get willing volunteers to man the sites! Certain subordinate volunteers clearly take advantage of their leverage and abuse the true spirit of the PADS program. Certainly Mrs. McIntyre would role over in her grave if she knew how the PADS program was being run.

I related that not only myself has noted a distinct hostility and presumptuous disrespectfulness from certain of the volunteers. Being a businessman using PADS to cut costs due to lack of regular income certainly does not warrant being abused by volunteers with an attitude that presume and assume that if you are in PADS it is because you are a social misfit or failure overtaken by alcohol, drugs, perversions or the like.

I made it clear to the spiritual leader volunteer that I am here not because of the traditional failures of life but rather due to criminal and political elements in this county that do not believe in mutual equal rights under the law and mutual free enterprise.

UPDATE 1-27-2000 P.M.: Folks, The local police department has "blown me off" and is in essence refusing to investigate, at least properly, the thefts and illegal conversions of third party property and the like reported previously. I am proceeding up the ladder of command!

The college has apparently again "blown me off" in reversing their illegal eviction of myself from the public campus.

The storage people have not notified me of any changes in the 150 square foot storage that houses in essence my business and court files etc. I am not satisfied with the silence! I have recently checked numerous databases of classified newspapers and have found no notices of auction or the like pertaining to myself. The storage persons are trying to unjustly enrich themselves!

I am still investigating and preparing for the legal pursuit that seems inevitable with the above noted issues.

Stay tuned!!!

UPDATE 2-3-2000 A.M.: In passing: It seems especially in the last month in PADS amongst some of my co-participants and while interfacing with certain "old timers" in Naperville that they feel that I do not work!!!

It seems that the attitude that I do not work also existed in my former neighborhood in Naperville and with "the Man" since then! It seems that because they did not see or know me to leave at a given A.M. time and come "home" at a given P.M. time or drive a car, much less a late model car, that I could not be "working"! The presumption was what could he be doing in there so long or what could he be doing in taking so long to get a job! He certainly could not be "working"! Even going out on sporadic service calls did not seem to be enough stimuli that I might just also be "working" to earn a dollar! Nor did participating in acknowledged and established job acquisition programs in the Chicago shelter system satisfy some of their critiques! I wonder what they do with school teachers who "work" nine months of the year, construction workers, security and law enforcement officers and commodity workers and the like who "work" sporadically and are at home when not "working" especially during the day! Are they not "working" also?

This morning I was in a restaurant interfacing with the owner and one of his "old timer" customers and the "old timer" made the comment toward me: "You work?!" I simply replied "yes I work!"

If the facts were known it seems that, some people do not respect a person's right to choice of the type of WORK that people do. In their perception if you are not driving a truck or digging a ditch or going to "job temps" with the rest of them you could not possibly be working! At PADS this presumption has provoked chides and feistiness from, especially, some of my co-participants toward me! My reply has been "let's not put on the 'blinders', ok"!

Another presumption seems to be that the only calling for a person is to have a job that will support a family or a marriage, that if you are not married by my age you must be a pervert! I am not kidding! A social worker in Dupage County suggested that over a year ago! My response was that Saint Paul suggests that it is better if we are not married! Keep in mind that Dupage County is supposed to be "a" if not "the" bastion of Christian living! Saint Paul was self-employed, single and a tent maker and yes, he "worked" the way I understand it! And, by the way, according to circumstantial evidence, Saint Paul probably did not always get a "shower" when he wanted / needed it either!

It is apparent, as prior noted in the notes referring to shelter conduct in Chicago, that there is a prejudice to people who are self-employed! As you recall, I would be denied a spot in the shelter for the night if I did not appear at same shelter prior to 9 P.M. in spite of the fact that other persons who worked for a "time stamping" employer were given privileges to call in and come in after 9 P.M. and have a spot reserved.

Well folks, "old timers", peers and youngsters there are some of us who "work" in our "homes-offices" or "library-offices" or "computer lab-offices" and push pens and do research and utilize computers and the Internet to conduct business or stimulate business. We also use something called the telephone, fax and e-mail not to mention word of mouth!

Believe it or not, we can successfully conduct a profitable business by doing so! It is extremely unfair to judge a person by one's own life style in a pluralistic work environment. Not everyone "works" the way you "work" and yes they are traditional responsible citizens, barring illegal interference and malicious propaganda designed to see that one who does not "conform" to the control group's "standard" are made out to be a "failure" and "irresponsible" in their conception and the like! In fact, some of us "non-workers" can run "rings" around you "workers" especially in accomplishments, productivity and the bottom line, of course, barring illegal interference! God forbid that I am being conditioned! They would not do that would they?

Hope this answers the nagging question as to whether I work or not!

UPDATE 2-3-2000 P.M.: With regard to the SHOWER issue: Last Monday I was not informed of any change in the positioning by Dave or anyone else to allow a resumption of my use of the showers at that site. I did not inquire either. I sensed Dave seemed to be fuming and I stayed away.

There is evidence of discriminatory conduct in the enforcement of the shower time limits at this site! There is also evidence of singling out certain persons for "special attention" via what may amount to entrapment due to coercion in their picking fights via what could be construed as cheap shots and hyperbole using a technocratic approach as a cover.

I have had no problems at the other two shower sites since the punitive actions at the Monday site! I have utilized the two other showers as I have prior to the fall out at the Monday site. Stay tuned!