This has been a gloriously fast week. I've gotten into my routine now and the time is flying by. While I really enjoy myself here with my mother, I also really look forward to getting back to my own place in Ottawa and getting my thesis started. It's like waiting for a spanking when you're a kid... you know it's coming... you know it's going to hurt... you may or may not think you deserve it... but you wish your dad would stop screwing around and get it over with. The waiting is nerve-wrecking. I have a good idea [I think... and others agree] but I'm not sure where I'm going with it. Anyway... this past week I read most of Stephen King's Needful Things on the trolley to and from work. I should finish it tonight. By reccomendation, I think my next book will be either Crash by J.G. Ballard or Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller. I'm trying to relax my mind with fiction but I'm also trying to read authors who write well in preparation for the 11,000 word paper I'm getting ready to have to birth. I'm hoping to expose myself to new writing styles and effective uses of prose so that my thesis doesn't read like a high school term paper on crack like oh-so-many other thesis papers read. If anyone has any recommendations I'd love to hear.
Last night I took my mom to see Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat at a small theatre on Coronado Island. We had a blast! It was a really fun show and the actors were very talented and very entertaining. Mom and I laughed outloud through quite a few acts. Then after we left, we stopped at a small shop for gellato before going home. It was a very fun night.
That's about the only exciting thing I've done this week. I've gone to watch the sunset from the top of Golden Hills a couple of times and I went out to Sunset Cliffs one night and watched the sun hit the water (I love that). Things are going well and I'm looking forward to the weekend. As for now, I need to get to work. Goodbye all... until next time.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Wise words from a military man...
"...everyone think[s] that what we're trying to do here [in the Horn of Africa] really doesn't count, but it does. You can't make the Horn a better place simply by killing bad guys."
-Capt. Bob Wright, who heads strategic communications for the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa in Djibouti
Now try that while replacing the word, Horn, with the word, World.
-Capt. Bob Wright, who heads strategic communications for the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa in Djibouti
Now try that while replacing the word, Horn, with the word, World.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Internet Radio to Fall Victim to Unfair Rate Hikes
I don't know how many of you listen to internet radio but it is getting ready to die. Although internet radio is considered public domain and garners no income from advertisments, the record industry has lobbied a new law that will increase their current royalty rates by as much as 1200%! Even artists are opposed to this rate hike because it means that all the small stations that play their music will go off the air. Below is the body of an article from a Legal News website... For more info you can visit http://www.savenetradio.org/
From FindLaw Legal News and Commentary:
This Tuesday, June 26, is a "day of silence" on which webcasters will protest the hike in Internet radio royalty rates, scheduled to become effective July 15, and to apply retroactively to January 1, 2006. Webcasters have also asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for an emergency stay of the rates ruling.
The webcasters have an excellent point: Instead of increasing rates enough to properly compensate rights holders and encourage creation, the new rates are so unreasonably high that they are threatening the survival of an entire industry. Unless the new regulations are successfully repealed, the new rates will result in true perpetual "radio silence" for thousands of online radio stations - a loss for rights holders, distributors and consumers alike.
Background: How the Current Rates Came To Be
In 1998, Internet radio was added into the copyright law, via inclusion in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Currently, webcasters running music-based radio stations pay an annual fee, plus 12 percent of the stations' profits, to the music industry's royalty collection organization, SoundExchange. These rates are applied evenly throughout the industry: Media giants such as Yahoo! pay the same organization, pursuant to the same calculation, as the smaller independent webcasters serving a tiny niche audience.
The rates are not only manageable, but they have enabled phenomenal growth in a relatively new industry. An estimated 70 million people regularly consume Internet radio - and this number has been growing steadily. To serve this audience, there are literally tens of thousands of online radio stations available in the U.S. alone.
What changed, and why? The answer is that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) naturally sought to be better compensated from the revenues of this booming industry. Webcasters and others with an interest in keeping the rates low strongly opposed the change. Nevertheless, the RIAA successfully lobbied for a rate hike.
On March 2 of this year, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) issued its ruling on the matter. (The CRB is a panel of three retired judges established in May 2005 and empowered by Congress to determine royalty rates for broadcast material.) The ruling said that public broadcasters must pay webcasting royalties in the same manner as commercial broadcasters do. The panel also declared that royalty rates will increase by approximately 30% in each of the next two years. In addition, each station must now pay an annual per station "administrative fee" of $500. Further, as noted above, the new rates, though effective on July 15 of this year, will be applied retroactively to January 1, 2006. All in all, this translates to what is, at a minimum, a whopping 300-1200% royalty rate increase.
As a result, not only must every public radio webcaster pay crippling royalty rates, each must also endure the burden of increased record-keeping and reporting requirements and carefully consider whether to participate in expensive copyright tribunals and CRB hearings to challenge the ratings policy.
From FindLaw Legal News and Commentary:
This Tuesday, June 26, is a "day of silence" on which webcasters will protest the hike in Internet radio royalty rates, scheduled to become effective July 15, and to apply retroactively to January 1, 2006. Webcasters have also asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for an emergency stay of the rates ruling.
The webcasters have an excellent point: Instead of increasing rates enough to properly compensate rights holders and encourage creation, the new rates are so unreasonably high that they are threatening the survival of an entire industry. Unless the new regulations are successfully repealed, the new rates will result in true perpetual "radio silence" for thousands of online radio stations - a loss for rights holders, distributors and consumers alike.
Background: How the Current Rates Came To Be
In 1998, Internet radio was added into the copyright law, via inclusion in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Currently, webcasters running music-based radio stations pay an annual fee, plus 12 percent of the stations' profits, to the music industry's royalty collection organization, SoundExchange. These rates are applied evenly throughout the industry: Media giants such as Yahoo! pay the same organization, pursuant to the same calculation, as the smaller independent webcasters serving a tiny niche audience.
The rates are not only manageable, but they have enabled phenomenal growth in a relatively new industry. An estimated 70 million people regularly consume Internet radio - and this number has been growing steadily. To serve this audience, there are literally tens of thousands of online radio stations available in the U.S. alone.
What changed, and why? The answer is that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) naturally sought to be better compensated from the revenues of this booming industry. Webcasters and others with an interest in keeping the rates low strongly opposed the change. Nevertheless, the RIAA successfully lobbied for a rate hike.
On March 2 of this year, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) issued its ruling on the matter. (The CRB is a panel of three retired judges established in May 2005 and empowered by Congress to determine royalty rates for broadcast material.) The ruling said that public broadcasters must pay webcasting royalties in the same manner as commercial broadcasters do. The panel also declared that royalty rates will increase by approximately 30% in each of the next two years. In addition, each station must now pay an annual per station "administrative fee" of $500. Further, as noted above, the new rates, though effective on July 15 of this year, will be applied retroactively to January 1, 2006. All in all, this translates to what is, at a minimum, a whopping 300-1200% royalty rate increase.
As a result, not only must every public radio webcaster pay crippling royalty rates, each must also endure the burden of increased record-keeping and reporting requirements and carefully consider whether to participate in expensive copyright tribunals and CRB hearings to challenge the ratings policy.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Free speech? Really?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion (the "Establishment Clause") or prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Although the First Amendment only explicitly prohibits the named rights from being abridged by laws made by Congress, the courts have interpreted it as applying more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all law-making ("legislative") authority to Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment's terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches. source
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student Monday in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner case -- a split decision that limits students' free speech rights.
Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002.
Principal Deborah Morse confiscated it and suspended Frederick. He sued, taking his case all the way to the nation's highest court.
The justices ruled 6-3 that Frederick's free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority's written opinion called a "sophomoric" banner.
"It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority. (Opinion)
Roberts added that while the court has limited student free speech rights in the past, young people do not give up all their First Amendment rights when they enter a school.
Roberts was supported by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito. Breyer noted separately he would give Morse qualified immunity from the lawsuit, but did not sign onto the majority's broader free speech limits on students.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message."
He was backed by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
(cont)
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion (the "Establishment Clause") or prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Although the First Amendment only explicitly prohibits the named rights from being abridged by laws made by Congress, the courts have interpreted it as applying more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all law-making ("legislative") authority to Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment's terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches. source
________________________________________________
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student Monday in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner case -- a split decision that limits students' free speech rights.
Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002.
Principal Deborah Morse confiscated it and suspended Frederick. He sued, taking his case all the way to the nation's highest court.
The justices ruled 6-3 that Frederick's free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority's written opinion called a "sophomoric" banner.
"It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority. (Opinion)
Roberts added that while the court has limited student free speech rights in the past, young people do not give up all their First Amendment rights when they enter a school.
Roberts was supported by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito. Breyer noted separately he would give Morse qualified immunity from the lawsuit, but did not sign onto the majority's broader free speech limits on students.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message."
He was backed by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
(cont)
Sunday, June 24, 2007
As I sit here eating grapes...
(if my site loads too slowly because there's too much video embedded in it, someone please let me know and I'll fix it)
Hi all. things have been anything but lively here. I'm really enjoying my summer here with my mom. I take a short walk and a long trolley ride to work in the morning and the same going home. I've been getting some reading done finally. (mmm... good grapes) Mom cooks dinner often (I forgot how much I loved my mom's cooking) and I cook here and there to fill in the gaps. I take long walks every evening up and down Golden Hills, in the park at the top of the hill or through downtown at the bottom of the hill. It's really peaceful. Tonight I went out and practiced the harmonica while I walked. I learned to play Amazing Grace through a half-hour stroll through the neighborhood.
The cats are doing well. Actually, Little Bit is doing well... Morph, on the other hand, he's been a bit off lately. While my Aunt Shell (mom's sister) was visiting she slept on the sofa-bed in the living room. Well, the first night they pulled it out I guess Morpheus heard the springs and it freaked him out. You see, the single thing he is afraid of more than any other thing in his world is my ironing board. It's an old-school ironing board... you know, one that would support human weight... and the springs make a nice rusty screech as the legs fold. Terrified. So the pull-out bed on the sofa makes the same sound only a lot louder. He didn't step foot in the living room for a good week or more. Only within the past day or two has he crept into the living room to check things out. It's hilarious. He comes around the corner crouched and stalking like the ninja that he is. He seems to think the couch is alive and he must be cautious. He creeeeeeeeeps along step...... by....... step... and stops, his neck craned forward to investigate the couch. He circles it now, eying it warily. Terrified. Hilarious.
I''ve started a couple of new paintings. That's fun... but nothing to talk about or show yet.
I'm half way through reading Needful Things. It's getting pretty good. I hope to finish it this week. I've done no work on my thesis... some thinking but I keep thinking myself in circles and that's developing my understanding which is further developing my confusion. So it goes. I really just go through my day to get to my evening walk. I really love walking through different parts of downtown and looking at the architecture. It's interesting how my tastes, opinions and understanding have developed and changed over 6 years. All that to say, though, that I'm enjoying myself here.
I want to say Hi to Chuck and Mary K. I've sent a few emails but keep getting them back... then I keep forgetting to ask mom and Corey for your new email address and so you never get my emails. Just want to say hello. Hello.
Well. My grapes are gone. That means it's time to get ready for bed. Goodnight all.
Here are some videos to watch...
Hi all. things have been anything but lively here. I'm really enjoying my summer here with my mom. I take a short walk and a long trolley ride to work in the morning and the same going home. I've been getting some reading done finally. (mmm... good grapes) Mom cooks dinner often (I forgot how much I loved my mom's cooking) and I cook here and there to fill in the gaps. I take long walks every evening up and down Golden Hills, in the park at the top of the hill or through downtown at the bottom of the hill. It's really peaceful. Tonight I went out and practiced the harmonica while I walked. I learned to play Amazing Grace through a half-hour stroll through the neighborhood.
The cats are doing well. Actually, Little Bit is doing well... Morph, on the other hand, he's been a bit off lately. While my Aunt Shell (mom's sister) was visiting she slept on the sofa-bed in the living room. Well, the first night they pulled it out I guess Morpheus heard the springs and it freaked him out. You see, the single thing he is afraid of more than any other thing in his world is my ironing board. It's an old-school ironing board... you know, one that would support human weight... and the springs make a nice rusty screech as the legs fold. Terrified. So the pull-out bed on the sofa makes the same sound only a lot louder. He didn't step foot in the living room for a good week or more. Only within the past day or two has he crept into the living room to check things out. It's hilarious. He comes around the corner crouched and stalking like the ninja that he is. He seems to think the couch is alive and he must be cautious. He creeeeeeeeeps along step...... by....... step... and stops, his neck craned forward to investigate the couch. He circles it now, eying it warily. Terrified. Hilarious.
I''ve started a couple of new paintings. That's fun... but nothing to talk about or show yet.
I'm half way through reading Needful Things. It's getting pretty good. I hope to finish it this week. I've done no work on my thesis... some thinking but I keep thinking myself in circles and that's developing my understanding which is further developing my confusion. So it goes. I really just go through my day to get to my evening walk. I really love walking through different parts of downtown and looking at the architecture. It's interesting how my tastes, opinions and understanding have developed and changed over 6 years. All that to say, though, that I'm enjoying myself here.
I want to say Hi to Chuck and Mary K. I've sent a few emails but keep getting them back... then I keep forgetting to ask mom and Corey for your new email address and so you never get my emails. Just want to say hello. Hello.
Well. My grapes are gone. That means it's time to get ready for bed. Goodnight all.
Here are some videos to watch...
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Modest Mouse concert
When I first got into town in mid-May I went to a concert with my sketchbook instead of a camera. These are the sketches I did standing front and center amongst a throng of dancing people. Nothing special... but they were fun.
1. girl next to me 2. no one's listening to the lead-off band
9. Man Man's drummer gone wild 10. lanterns on Modest Mouse's stage set
16. Isaac Brock (when the crowd was really going)
1. girl next to me 2. no one's listening to the lead-off band 
3. Lead-off band's guitarist 4. Eyes on Man Man's mic stand
5. Man Man guitarist 6. Man Man lead singer/keyboardist
7. Man Man drummer with a rag on his head 8. The guy next to me likes the band
9. Man Man's drummer gone wild 10. lanterns on Modest Mouse's stage set 
11. The crowd is getting thick 12. this girl talks alot
13. Johnny Marr (guitarist) 14. Eric Judy (bassist)
15. Isaac Brock (lead singer) (before the dancing really started)
16. Isaac Brock (when the crowd was really going)
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Our president now has the very real legal authority to put soldiers in our streets without asking anyone...
Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
May 18, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild
With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.
In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”
Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”
He laid this all out in a document entitled "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20."
The White House released it on May 9.
Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.
The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”
It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”
This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”
The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.
But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”
The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”
Among the efforts coordinated by the President would be ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to “provide for orderly succession” and “appropriate transition of leadership.”
The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.
She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.
As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to “state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”
The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for “private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,” as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.
The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.
“This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.”
The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes.”
May 18, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild
With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.
In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”
Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”
He laid this all out in a document entitled "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20."
The White House released it on May 9.
Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.
The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”
It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”
This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”
The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.
But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”
The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”
Among the efforts coordinated by the President would be ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to “provide for orderly succession” and “appropriate transition of leadership.”
The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.
She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.
As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to “state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”
The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for “private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,” as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.
The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.
“This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.”
The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes.”
Monday, June 11, 2007
Just in case I go missing...
In case you missed it, I was recently almost ejected from a Southwest Airlines airplane (while still on the ground... no worries) for wearing a T-shirt the captain didn't like. I plan to push this as far as it can be reasonably pushed. I have given this letter to many friends and gotten many responses back. I am in the process of getting in touch with the ACLU and we'll see where this goes. If you know of anyone who would be interested in reading this, please send it their way or send them my way. I sat in silence and endured a bit of humiliation but I plan to bring it back tenfold through telling my story. I hope this helps people understand that the basic freedoms we so deeply value are being stripped from us. These new discriminations aren't being used to find and catch terrorists, they are being used to keep opinionated people like me from voicing their opinion in too public a venue. I'd love to hear your thoughts, for or against.
[I'm kidding about going missing, by the way...I hope]
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Customer ServiceSouthwest Airlines
P.O. Box 36647-1CR
Dallas, TX 75235-1647
Attn: Colleen Barrett, President
Ms. Barrett:
On June 6th 2007 I boarded Southwest Airlines flight 1917 from Phoenix, Arizona to San Diego, California at approximately 3:30 local time. As I boarded, a flight attendant (who would later reluctantly identify herself only as “Donna”) saw that I was wearing a T-shirt that bears a stylized picture of George W.Bush and the words, “International Terrorist.” She looked at me in disbelief and exclaimed, “I can’t believe you are wearing that shirt!” to which I replied, of course I am. I always wear this shirt when I fly.” As I seated myself in the exit row she continued her comments, saying, “And I’ve got you sitting there? I don’t think so!” and stormed off towards the back of the plane saying something further I could not understand. She returned momentarily and asked, “Is that George Bush on your t-shirt?” to which I replied, “Yes, ma’am, it is.” She left in a furor saying, “Yeah, I thought so,” and signaling franticly to someone in the rear of the plane. After another few moments the captain of the flight (who refused to reveal his name) came to my seat along with 2 flight attendants and spoke over the gentleman in the aisleseat to say to me gruffly, “Sir, you need to change that shirt or de-board the plane.” I responded politely, “I don’t think you can do that, sir,” and he said, “We can and we’re getting ready to take you off the plane.” He thrust his finger at my shirt, “That has the word terrorist on it and it offends the crew and makes people uncomfortable, especially since 9-1-1. Now take it off or turn it inside out.” I asked, “Free speech doesn’t count on airplanes?” and the captain replied, “Not on my plane. Change it or we’ll take you off this plane.” Shocked, I thought it better to deal with this later in writing and so asked, “If I turn this inside out, may I have the crew’s names?” To which the captain replied coarsely,“You’re not getting anything! Now change it or turn it inside out or get off.” He was noticeably agitated and was fumbling with something at his belt as he threw glances back and forth between me in my seat and a gathering group of people at the front of the plane. I looked around at shocked passengers’ faces wondering what to do and one flight attendant said,pointing at the captain, “It’s his flight and he calls the shots.” I thought briefly and decided not to push the issue at that time. I had been accosted by a noticeably agitated captain in plain public sight and wanted nothing more than to end the humiliation I was feeling. I humbly turned my shirt inside out. A few minutes later a woman approached my seat identifying herself as some form of customer service representative. She informed me, again in the form of a public scolding, that my shirt was considered “inappropriate” and that I was to keep it inside out the entire duration of the flight. After the crew had dispersed from my seat, a fellow passenger leaned over the seat behind me and asked jokingly, “So does that mean we’re all safer now that your shirt is insideout?”
I am a decorated veteran of the US Army. I gave nine years of my life and served my country proudly so that men could not do to other men what was done to me on that flight. I was forced to choose between my principles and going home to see my family. I was publicly accosted and made to hide my stated opinion because your flight attendant and captain did not agree with my view. The fact that I was sitting on that plane was proof that I had gone through airport security and found to pose no threat to the safety of any person and yet your crew used the tragedy of September 11th as a public excuse to force me into compliance with their personal opinions. I was publicly humiliated, scolded and threatened for words printed on a t-shirt. The crew claimed safety as the reason for their action and yet I would ask how much safer everyone was with my shirt inside out? Ludicrous.
I cannot express to you the complete and utter humiliation I felt at this incident. I am absolutely appalled that this happened, period, much less on a Southwest Airlines flight. I have flown Southwest for many years now because you have always been the most friendly, had the best service and offered the best fares. Now after this humiliation at your crew’s hands I am faced with never wanting to fly your airline again. I cannot adequately express the shame, disgrace and embarrassment of being so rudely confronted in my seat on a full aircraft! Aside from their blatant disregard of my constitutional rights, your crew did not even have the professionalism to take me aside or in any way attempt to keep the matter discreet. Even still as I type this letter my stomach is in knots thinking about this incident. I am furious at the treatment I received at the hands of your crew. It just wasn’t right, no matter how you try to look at it. I demand a personal apology, not from Southwest Airlines, but from the Captain and the flight attendant responsible. I hope that this incident will be reflected on that captain and flight attendant’s records; else they continue to freely exercise such poor judgment and unprofessional behavior towards others. Further, I hope that you would issue a written apology to every passenger on that plane for having forced them to witness such blatantly un-American and unprofessional treatment of a fellow human being, much less a paying customer. If behavior like this is tolerated by such a reputable business as Southwest Airlines then where does it stop? I am in the process of obtaining legal advice and wait to hear from you as to how Southwest will handle this egregious violation of my civil rights.
I thank you kindly for your immediate attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Parker
[I'm kidding about going missing, by the way...I hope]
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Customer ServiceSouthwest Airlines
P.O. Box 36647-1CR
Dallas, TX 75235-1647
Attn: Colleen Barrett, President
Ms. Barrett:
On June 6th 2007 I boarded Southwest Airlines flight 1917 from Phoenix, Arizona to San Diego, California at approximately 3:30 local time. As I boarded, a flight attendant (who would later reluctantly identify herself only as “Donna”) saw that I was wearing a T-shirt that bears a stylized picture of George W.Bush and the words, “International Terrorist.” She looked at me in disbelief and exclaimed, “I can’t believe you are wearing that shirt!” to which I replied, of course I am. I always wear this shirt when I fly.” As I seated myself in the exit row she continued her comments, saying, “And I’ve got you sitting there? I don’t think so!” and stormed off towards the back of the plane saying something further I could not understand. She returned momentarily and asked, “Is that George Bush on your t-shirt?” to which I replied, “Yes, ma’am, it is.” She left in a furor saying, “Yeah, I thought so,” and signaling franticly to someone in the rear of the plane. After another few moments the captain of the flight (who refused to reveal his name) came to my seat along with 2 flight attendants and spoke over the gentleman in the aisleseat to say to me gruffly, “Sir, you need to change that shirt or de-board the plane.” I responded politely, “I don’t think you can do that, sir,” and he said, “We can and we’re getting ready to take you off the plane.” He thrust his finger at my shirt, “That has the word terrorist on it and it offends the crew and makes people uncomfortable, especially since 9-1-1. Now take it off or turn it inside out.” I asked, “Free speech doesn’t count on airplanes?” and the captain replied, “Not on my plane. Change it or we’ll take you off this plane.” Shocked, I thought it better to deal with this later in writing and so asked, “If I turn this inside out, may I have the crew’s names?” To which the captain replied coarsely,“You’re not getting anything! Now change it or turn it inside out or get off.” He was noticeably agitated and was fumbling with something at his belt as he threw glances back and forth between me in my seat and a gathering group of people at the front of the plane. I looked around at shocked passengers’ faces wondering what to do and one flight attendant said,pointing at the captain, “It’s his flight and he calls the shots.” I thought briefly and decided not to push the issue at that time. I had been accosted by a noticeably agitated captain in plain public sight and wanted nothing more than to end the humiliation I was feeling. I humbly turned my shirt inside out. A few minutes later a woman approached my seat identifying herself as some form of customer service representative. She informed me, again in the form of a public scolding, that my shirt was considered “inappropriate” and that I was to keep it inside out the entire duration of the flight. After the crew had dispersed from my seat, a fellow passenger leaned over the seat behind me and asked jokingly, “So does that mean we’re all safer now that your shirt is insideout?”
I am a decorated veteran of the US Army. I gave nine years of my life and served my country proudly so that men could not do to other men what was done to me on that flight. I was forced to choose between my principles and going home to see my family. I was publicly accosted and made to hide my stated opinion because your flight attendant and captain did not agree with my view. The fact that I was sitting on that plane was proof that I had gone through airport security and found to pose no threat to the safety of any person and yet your crew used the tragedy of September 11th as a public excuse to force me into compliance with their personal opinions. I was publicly humiliated, scolded and threatened for words printed on a t-shirt. The crew claimed safety as the reason for their action and yet I would ask how much safer everyone was with my shirt inside out? Ludicrous.
I cannot express to you the complete and utter humiliation I felt at this incident. I am absolutely appalled that this happened, period, much less on a Southwest Airlines flight. I have flown Southwest for many years now because you have always been the most friendly, had the best service and offered the best fares. Now after this humiliation at your crew’s hands I am faced with never wanting to fly your airline again. I cannot adequately express the shame, disgrace and embarrassment of being so rudely confronted in my seat on a full aircraft! Aside from their blatant disregard of my constitutional rights, your crew did not even have the professionalism to take me aside or in any way attempt to keep the matter discreet. Even still as I type this letter my stomach is in knots thinking about this incident. I am furious at the treatment I received at the hands of your crew. It just wasn’t right, no matter how you try to look at it. I demand a personal apology, not from Southwest Airlines, but from the Captain and the flight attendant responsible. I hope that this incident will be reflected on that captain and flight attendant’s records; else they continue to freely exercise such poor judgment and unprofessional behavior towards others. Further, I hope that you would issue a written apology to every passenger on that plane for having forced them to witness such blatantly un-American and unprofessional treatment of a fellow human being, much less a paying customer. If behavior like this is tolerated by such a reputable business as Southwest Airlines then where does it stop? I am in the process of obtaining legal advice and wait to hear from you as to how Southwest will handle this egregious violation of my civil rights.
I thank you kindly for your immediate attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Parker
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Two months... where has he been?
I'm alive. I'm in San Diego. I'm sorry it's been so long.
So here I sit having almost caught everything up and I finally get the chance to sit down and write for a short bit. Life has been hectic but not altogether unpleasant. I finished the school year strong and am excited to start my thesis in september. I've been doing a bit of piddling here and there in a notebook and it's giving me a nice running start. I'm working the same job as last summer and enjoying it just as much. I'm staying with my mom again this summer. It's alot better than last because she lives downtown now... much more to be around. In fact, I'll tag some videos and pictures at the end of this that I took in her neighborhood. Ok, going to bed now. Talk to you next time... which hopefully won't be that long from now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
