Worm-free, Mattise, McQueen, Stolen Diaries

I accidentally de-wormed myself this morning. I don't think I had worms before, but if I did, I won't anymore!

There are all these vitamins, supplements and homeopathic remedies around and while I wouldn't take a substance I'm not familiar with, since it said "herbal extract" I figured it was fine. And, it is fine. And it's even for children, it says. But I read the list of herbs and it was for some "Para A" solution.

It said to dissolve dropper full into water. I didn't. I put it right under my tongue, where it burned the living daylights out of me. I thought, "Wow. This stuff is really going to clear something out!"

And then I went to look it up online. It said it was a "vermafuge" and I don't know what the heck that is. All this stuff about worms was coming up with the word. Then I found out, it's a de-wormer.

So anyway, I will be worm-free for sure! I am sure I was already, but now I really am! I think these herbs are used for things besides worms and I don't believe this is what it was prescribed for, but regardless...

And then I put in a load of laundry and noticed this shirt on top of the washer. It had sort of an acid-wash look to it and then I found the same thing while browsing art online, going from a BBC article and then clicking on all the links to the museums featured. They were all U.S. museums and the photo of the Persian Ceiling by Chihuly is what led me to click on everything else.

I looked at the exhibition in Boston, for Chihuly, with also the camel drawing by the Holland people, and the Cathedrals, and then the one in D.C. with Alexander McQueen but all I looked at were Peruvian textiles. The tassled tunic caught my attention and I wanted to know more about the Peruvian's and Bolivians. I looked at the "double-headed serpent" tunic and the warrior scene tunic, wondering what a warrior scene in ancient peruvian art looked like. Really, it looks MC squared. E=mc2. There is this E that is featured throughout the tunic. As for McQueen, I already saw "the Savage Garden" in a magazine within the last year. I had a McQueen ensemble cut out and pasted to the inside of one of my diaries that was stolen. It was from the early 1990s, about 1993 or so, (the diary that was stolen and the ensemble). It was a dress from a runway collection. It's the only dress I cut out and pasted to any diary, aside from a little girl in a McClintock style dress. (the girl was on the inset at the beginning of the diary, I believe, with a quote about "blissful dreams of long ago" (from Sweet Genevieve) and on the very last page of the diary, where there was dark green paper before the cover, I had teacups, a McQueen runway dress, and a photo of a woman in a trenchcoat and knee-high boots in a crowd and I cut it out bc I had liked it for some reason. There is another woman in the photo I think, or men watching her. I had someone in 1998-2002 questioning me about why I had cut out these items or that photo of the woman (christa schneider and someone else, when I lived on Hemlock St. in Portland, Oregon, which was in 1999-2002 or 2003) and I said I had just liked the way it was framed or the mood of the photo. It was from a fashion magazine. I recall it had "spooked" someone and I didn't know what the big deal was. The woman in the photo had shoulder length, straight dark hair, 3/4 knee thigh length trench coat, and knee high boots--she's walking down a sidewalk out in public and the face is sort of blurry and it looks like a paparrazi shot. I think the woman in the McQueen dress had red hair (they were 2 separate photos I cut out). I had teacups I liked, with roses on them pasted alongside the other things (in 1993-4). The teacups were pink and cream or white with a gold rim. So who is the criminal that has my diaries, by-the-way?

This one was, I believe, a large book with a dark green marble looking cover front and back. The contents are of my stay as a nanny and return. I believe the year in it is 1993-1994. I had another large book (8x10 or 11 hardback books) that had Klimt on it and this was one of the very first diaries ever stolen from me and contained some of my original poetry. It was Klimt's "The Kiss". That diary was stolen in the late 1990s. I had my green diary until I had to stay at Steve May's house in Wenatchee in 2009. It was noticed before it was stolen, less than a decade earlier. About 7 years earlier. 7 is a really interesting number, is it not?

Before I am angry again, over theft of all of my personal and private belongings, and um...my life, onto the next museum. By the way, do the criminals ever get ANY original ideas of their own? or do they just like to steal from me? Torture is like, what? a way to ensure things go as planned? the best possible way to degrade me and bring out the worst?

Sorry, but I was right when I said people killed and tortured others on behalf of the Middletons.
And I'm also right about upwards of a billion(s) rather than mere million being spent to construct things the way some political groups wanted to make their construction. You can claim to "love" whoever you want, and love their mafias & criminals too? and love the torture of innocent kids? because the more I think about it, and the more I "wake up" from the torture and drug stupor I've been in, the more I think some of this is going back about 7 years or more (at least). Maybe not everything with my life, I'm sure, but there is no ruling out the other crap now. I had always wondered why anyone would freak out about the photos or pictures I'd chosen to paste inside that diary.

The article I looked up today on BBC is in the Travel (Arts & Architecture) section and is by Alex Kinzig and the bar at the top of the page, is dark green and lighter green and they're the same colors as the marbling on that diary that was stolen from me. It was that dark green, the lighter green and a little bit of black I think.

The last 2 museums I looked up were in California. I liked the graffiti thing best with the first one and I've never been into Andy Warhol. And then I paid more attention to the art from the second museum and I liked Mattise and Clyfford Still. I didn't really like "The Woman with Hat" and then I took it in panels, covering up most of it and then looking at the balance of color and form in slices, and anyway around, in diagonal or vertical panels, it's pretty cool. You could abstract the whole thing and it would still work. It's a painting I feel can be put on its side or upside down and it still works. The only reason it has to be rightside up is because it's sensible to look at it, as human form and rightside up. But if you look at it by blurring the idea that it must be viewed this way, it can be viewed in parts, at almost any angle. So I like it in panels. I don't like her ear. If it were me, I'd hide that baby. I want to Van-Gogh it. In one vertical panel you can see the ribbon around her neck is the exact opposite color gradation (sorry, I'm not an Art History major so I don't know all the right words) as the tie around her waist. The lighting or shadowing of the color is made exactly opposite. I looked at it, after looking at it in panels, both horizontally and diagonally, and thought, "It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be beautiful." The colors and design are more attractive than the woman herself.

Then, on the other Mattise, the Conversation, I like the arms. And I like how the museum paired the 3 paintings side by side, with the Conversation and then the red and black modern, and then the Still, balancing the yellow. The arms seem so simple, and yes, it's simple to then notice the same swooping form on the opposite part of the painting, but something so whole and symbolic doing the arms this way. And I liked Clyfford Stills, Untitled, 1959. The bottom right corner has the exact EXACT same effect as the shirt my Dad has, folded up on the washer and dryer right now. I was studying this effect on the shirt this morning, I don't know why, and then I found the same thing in this painting a half hour later. Congruence!

Did I come up with this word or was it "sent"? I don't know. It fits. And I double checked congruence in terminology and also in geometry and it fits. I'm reading about the difference between "congruent" and "similiar" in congruence, geometry now. I think the acid wash effect or design is perfectly congruent with what the shirt on the washing machine.
***************
I finished this and then walked away and have come back to write a few more things.

I didn't start this post thinking about the diaries. I don't know what happened, it just occured to me, partway through and then I was upset on the spot.

I don't want anything other than my son back without a lot of hooplah, safety, and basic things for myself. Everything else, to me, it really doesn't matter. So a bunch of losers won a nasty game. Whoever they are, and I can't claim to know who they all are and what they're about and I'm also not saying it's anyone I've mentioned here in this post, directly. It really does not matter. What is past is past, and I want my son.

That's it.

As for how I'm doing, I woke up today and reached into the cabinet for a bottled water and I withdrew my finger, in shock, and put it out again, because I thought, "What is that?" It was nothing. It was the feeling of smooth plastic with my fingertip. I am regaining, somehow, the sense of touch, and I guess, some of the other natural senses that I've been deprived of. It's like I had a combo of torture and being drugged out of my mind, to not feel or something. I guess it's wearing off. I couldn't believe how smooth and soft the plastic felt. That is seriously sad. I mean, it's really sad, when you think there is something wonderful about the texture of the top of a plastic lid. At any rate, I don't care. I am glad to maybe begin to start feeling things again.

I'm out of shape and think I want to mow a track around a field for a private track. I don't know if that idea will fly.

The things I wanted to correct from my last posts were the name of an author: I said "Janet" but it's "Jean Carper" Food as a Miracle Medicine; I said strings were wind instruments (ahem); and I was going to finish my thought about insurance, which was to say there is a point to insurance, and buying it doesn't mean there is a disaster waiting to happen. I realize "accidents" happen. My thoughts are that, if a jury determines something is really an "accident" they don't use "punitive damages". Punitive damages are reserved for really horrible and usually, intentional or very willful negligence. It's not awarded for "honest mistake" or "simple negligence" or that kind of thing. Which is why I don't think there should be any cap to it. For example, this might be an extreme comparison, but if someone murders a person, is there a cap to the penalty for a cold-blooded planned and cruel murder or for ongoing years of torturing someone?

If a medical company or person, literally kills someone or knowingly does something that they would reasonably know could lead to their eventual death, and then they try to cover it up, should there be a "cap" to the punitive damages a jury can decide on?

Why should there be any caps to punitive damages for civil suits? and why are there not enough lawyers to take civil suits for people who need them most, who will probably never have their case heard simply because they can't afford to pay a civil attorney that doesn't base fees on contingency? this is how the justice system gets ahead of itself, or the wrong people get ahead of the justice system, rather.

If the public initially had to pay higher fees or rates while insurance companies and those they insure clean up their act, I would say it's worth it, in order to get them to clean up their act. But why should the public pay the expense at all? The point of a free and competitive marketplace, is survival of the fittest,...I mean supposedly, in a capitalist and democratic society. So if this is true, then why are the big guys always pulling for eachother and ahead of anyone else who wants to try the waters? Isn't that monopolistic practices?

When monopolistic practices flourish, and lobbyists buy all the new law changes to benefit the plutarchs, or bad plutos, then how is it even possible to have a healthy form of capitalism? If there is no true democracy, capitalism on its own might just lead to plutocracy or facism by the few privileged and/or corrupt.

The federal government investigates monopolistic practices. So if insurance companies jack up their rates just to compensate for their own errors in allowing corrupt handlers to manage the accounts, the public shouldn't have to buy into the idea that then WE will be penalized. No, the corrupt company should go out of business.

And that's not for "accidents happen". I'm not saying a company should go out of business for mistakes of simple error or negligence that was minor. But for very serious attempts to obstruct justice, or collude, or intentional and willful harm to others, don't we think they should go out of business? or, at least, lose about 1/8th or so of their money?

Instead, we buy into the idea that we will have to pay for their crimes, and that everyone will suffer because of the irresponsibility or corruption of a few. But that's a very misplaced idea and I think it serves the interests of the "special" or who "think" they are "special" and should be immune to accountability.

It also makes it almost impossible for better competitors to start a new business and compete at all. The other big guys will edge out the smaller competition by raising rates together and acting like a monopoly, unless the federal government starts cracking down on them.

And this idea applies to state agencies as well. If they are corrupt, they should not be immune to lawsuits and punitive damages. And who is the healthy competition to the state agencies? Should they "stay in business" if they are constantly corrupt? if just one agency is corrupt? what do we do if the corporation is a state agency? how do we prevent monopolistic practices then?

I've never taken political science, so don't look at me.

Anyway, I have been meaning to clarify that when I said in my earlier post, "What happened to responsible supervision" and brought up Jr. getting hurt while someone is washing dishes with their back turned, and bringing up "why buy flood insurance if you're not in a flood plain?" I do realize "accidents" can happen. And that is supposed to be the point of insurance. It is not to "catch" or break the fall of criminals in some kind of safety net.

If a jury hears that criminals are in a company, they don't fault the whole company or the head of the company for punitive damages unless it's clear the head knew all along. But also, if a company is constantly being sued by people that work and act like criminals, if that company cannot properly manage or supervise the number of employees it has, it's time to downsize. If they are unable to make wise decisions to downsize on their own, and the problems continue, they get downsized by others, who take their business elsewhere.

So are these lawyers and lobbyists telling us that WE have to pay for the downsizing?

I would rather pay higher rates for a smaller and newer competitor that I can trust my money with, than pay low rates for some big competitor that has a record of corruption and play MY odds that I'm not going to be the next guy they screw over.

Instead of allowing insurance companies and their lawyers to "play the odds" against the public, the public needs to be more proactive and think about how they are playing their own odds and what they are allowing. They control the marketplace only as much as the public allows them to control the marketplace. And some of the controls are also with the federal government in making sure things don't get abusive.

If anyone has an answer about who the healthy competitor to a state agency is, let me know.

I was only thinking of these things because I watched "The Rainmaker" (a movie based on the John Grisham novel about an insurance co).

Last night we watched Orde Winngate (BBC movie) and I am not sure what I could say politically about that one! At one point, I dropped a big scoop of ice cream onto myself while watching and as I was looking down at it and I said, "Oh no!" someone said, "Great shot!" and then I looked up to see Orde in the tub with his backside exposed and we all said in unison, "Oh, great shot!" It was a pretty good movie, the dialogue was good. He said the British policy was to help others defend themselves and he tried to help Israel in having their own state because they didn't have a place at all. I guess that was in 1938 and then there was a large massacre after this and then after this, they got statehood. Then I read about civil war with Israelites, in 2 Samuel, ch. 2 or 3, and then from this book about women of the Bible I read about (just random) 1, song of solomon woman or bride, rizia and honoring the dead by wanting to give people a decent burial, and then "rebeccah and the camel courtship" and then I ended up randomly on that one again this morning, "rebeccah and the camel courtship". So I turned to Genesis and read the story about rebeccah and isaac and thought about how he was a survivor. Isaac was. He was almost sacrificed or made a sacrifice and then I thought, how would it be for rebeccah to find out about this? unfortunately, this gives me no insight into my career direction.

Gotta go.