Found in my notes - a personal bill of rights

Personal Bill of Rights

I found this personal bill of rights on a folded piece of paper tucked away in my secretary after my move last Fall. The list includes a couple paragraphs about it afterwards which I will include at the end of the list. I figured I would post it here:

MY PERSONAL BILL OF RIGHTS

   1. I have numerous choices in my life beyond mere survival.
   2. I have a right to discover and know myself.
   3. I have a right to follow my own values and standards.
   4. I have a right to recognize and accept my own value system as appropriate.
   5. I have a right to say no to anything when I feel I am not ready, it is unsafe or violates my values.
   6. I have a right to dignity and respect.
   7. I have a right to make decisions.
   8. I have a right to determine and honor my own priorities.
   9. I have a right to have my needs and wants respected by others.
  10. I have the right to terminate conversations with people when it leads me to feel put down and humiliated.
  11. I have the right not to be responsible for others' behavior, actions, feelings or problems.
  12. I have a right to make mistakes and not have to be perfect.
  13. I have a right to expect honesty from others.
  14. I have a right to all of my feelings.
  15. I have a right to be angry at someone I love.
  16. I have a right to be uniquely me, without feeling I'm not good enough.
  17. I have a right to feel scared and to say "I'm afraid."
  18. I have the right to experience and then let go of fear, guilt, and shame.
  19. I have a right to make decisions based on my feelings, my judgement or any reasons that I choose.
  20. I have a right to change my mind at any time.
  21. I have a right to be happy.
  22. I have a right to stability — i.e., "roots" and stable healthy relationships of my choice.
  23. I have the right to my own personal space and time needs.
  24. There is no need to smile when I cry.
  25. It is OK to be relaxed, playful and frivolous.
  26. I have the right to be flexible and be comfortable with doing so.
  27. I have the right to change and grow.
  28. I have the right to be open and to improve communication skills so that I may be understood.
  29. I have a right to make friends and be comfortable around people.
  30. I have a right to be in a non-abusive environment.
  31. I can be healthier than those around me.
  32. I can take care of myself, no matter what.
  33. I have the right to grieve over actual or threatened losses.
  34. I have the right to trust others who earn my trust.
  35. I have the right to forgive others and to forgive myself.

In our recovery process, we begin to discover that we have rights as individual human beings. As children and even as adults we may have ben treated by others as though we had few or no rights. We may have ourselves come to believe that we had no rights. And we may be living our lives now as though we have none.

The above personal bill of rights are taken from a compilation of several groups and may be considered until you have your own personal bill of rights that is a part of your recovery.

Rivercrest Hospital, San Angelo, Texas, 1991

I am not sure where I picked up this list, but know it was at least 10 years ago and probably in some program or other — perhaps at business college in their personal development segment — and it is on a piece of paper that was possibly printed on a word processor rather than a computer printer. Anyhow I think it is worthy of reading through even if you might think it a little "flower child". I won't tell you which one I have checked off on that list in particular, though even after all these years, I remember checking it off.

Later!
~ Darrell

156.

__________
¹ A "secretary" is a small desk in the form of a bookshelf with a leaf that folds down for a writing surface. Mine is a small bookshelf that my Grandfather made for one of my Uncles and was passed down to me when I was in Grade School.

To Be Merry or not To Be Merry...

Happy Holidays!

Would you be offended if I wished you a "Merry Christmas"?

I know that many institutions worry that you might be -- or that it might lead to messy discussions about religion and perhaps politics.

To me holiday greetings like "Merry Christmas" are not attempts at evangelizing, but simply ways to share the joy I might be feeling at the time of an important holiday for me. I'm trying to share my joy. I don't mind if others share holiday greetings for other holidays that I might not celebrate. I don't celebrate Ramadan but would not be offended if someone were to wish me an enlightened one or if someone wished me Solstice Greetings.

I'm really not sure what an appropriate Ramadan greeting might be or if there is such a thing and I hope I do not offend in my not knowing. I'd like to know.

I think it is a good thing to be able to share our positive feelings with each other and perhaps a bit of our heritage and culture and especially to be able to hold onto our cultures. Celebrating Christmas just happens to be a part of my culture as blended as it might be..

Later!
~ Darrell

148.

Hair!

A Hairy Issue - I thought we were beyond this.

I thought this sort of thing was out of the dark ages of modern western civilization. A 5-year-old kindergarten student was apparently punished for his family's religious beliefs¹. In Needville Texas the Needville Independent School District (NISD) have forced an American Indian kindergarten student into "isolated In-School Suspension"¹. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas is saying it is for the student practising his family's religious beliefs and heritage -- and indeed it is -- but it centres around the school dress code and the young boy wanting to keep the long hair that is a part of his American Indian Heritage.

(image to right from American Civil Liberties Union of Texas)

The boy's -- AA² -- Father is of American Indian heritage and follows American Indian religious beliefs and he and his son belive that one's hair should only be cut for "life-changing-occasions, such as the death of a loved one."¹ believing that hair is a sacred symbol of their own lives. The boy's hair has never been cut.

The School District has a dress code which requires boys to have short hair and their response to a successful appeal that the NISD can not force the boy to cut his hair is that he keep it in a single tight braid tucked out of sight down the back of his shirt at all times. He must also re-prove his religious sincerity to NISD officials every school year.

The parents requested exemption from that area of the dress code over 8 months before school and it wasn't until a week before school that it was granted after appealing the initial denial.

I gather that "Independant School District" does not mean the school is a private one or religious one but the normal public school for the area. I might understand that a school that is a religious institution might have some restrictions, but this seems out of place in our day-and-age.

Perhaps it is because I come from a generation when hair length was at the heart of things. When I was in kindergarten many of the boys had brush cuts and others had different short styles. But it was also the time when the Beatles became popular and long hair was made famous or infamous by the "Hippies". Gradually long hair became more and more acceptable and by the time I reached Grade 7 and Junior High School they had changed dress codes to allow for much that wasn't allowed the year before. But this was 1971. That was the first year that jeans were allowed in our school -- of course not any jeans with "rivets". Girls still were not allowed to wear pants in school which was awkward in -30º - -40ºF weather with girls changing in the halls.

But boys by the time I reached grade 12 sometimes had hair that was a foot or more long! That was in 1975-76 when I graduated. I guess there weren't the problems with gangs and such... I have heard that they are trying to combat hairstyle as a distraction in the school system.

(image to left of 6-year-old with Mohawk from USATODAY.com)

Distraction at least is what they are claiming in the case of a boy in Parma, Ohio shown here. The Principal of the school, "Linda Geyer" says that the boy's hairdo was "disrupting the educational program."³There is a school uniform at that school and the boy wears it, but they have given him a third infraction of the school dress code and suspended him from his kindergarten class.

In this case it is a matter of freedom of expression rather than religious freedom, but for some I think they would be very similar. In USATODAY,com there is an article pointing out yet anothr case of a 7-year-old sporting a "Mohawk" -- "a 3-inch spike of hair running down the middle of his scalp."⁴

In another article -- again from USATODAY.com⁵ -- where they describe coveralls for students breaking the dress code to wear, they have a link to the Dress Code for "Gonzales Independent School District"⁶.

Tuesday, 15 July 2008
GONZALES DRESS CODE
The District’s dress code is established to teach grooming and hygiene, prevent disruption, and minimize safety hazards. The district prohibits pictures, emblems, or writings on clothing that are lewd, offensive, vulgar, obscene, that advertise tobacco products, alcoholic beverages of any kind, drugs, or any other substance prohibited under school policy. It prohibits any dress or grooming that, in the principal’s judgment, may reasonably be expected to interfere with normal school operations. The dress code applies anytime a student is on campus during a normal school day and anytime a student is involved in an event or extra-curricular activity that represents Gonzales ISD. Co-Curricular and extra-curricular uniforms will be specified by the sponsors of organizations and approved to meet GISD Standard of Excellency by the campus Principal. Violations of the dress code; see student code of conduct for consequences. Students and parents may determine a student’s personal dress and grooming standards, provided that they comply with the following:
1. No student on school property or at any school activity shall wear, possess, use, distribute, display or sell any clothing, jewelry, emblem, badge, symbols, sign or other things, which are evidence of membership or affiliation in any gang.
2. Hair must be neat and clean. Boys’ hair must not extend below the bottom of the collar of a dress shirt, below the bottom of the ear, or over the eyes.
3. Any hairstyle, which by its appearance causes a disruption of any kind, as determined by a school administrator, is unacceptable.
4. Males must be clean-shaven if facial hair is noticeable. Sideburns cannot extend below the bottom of the ear.
5. Shorts, skorts, dresses, and skirts should be to the knee and appropriate for the school setting. Decency when sitting shall be a prime factor in determining appropriateness for the school setting.
6. Miniskirts, leggins, tight shorts, tights, cut-offs, wind shorts and biker shorts may not be worn; including jean shorts that are tight and rolled up.
7. All shirts will have a collar and sleeves. All shirts will be free of words and/or pictures and may have a logo of not larger than a 2 inch square. NO t-shirts are allowed except for Gonzales Apache spirit shirts which may be worn any day of the week. All shirts worn by males must be tucked in. Shirts worn by females must be tucked in if they are longer than the bottom of the hip.
8. All clothing that shows undergarments is unacceptable, including clothing with conspicuously low necklines and/or low backs.
9. Sagging pants (pants worn below the waist) will not be allowed. Belts will be worn in grades 5-12 for all male students. Pants must be hemmed and not frayed. Nylon, athletic, or wind pants are not acceptable. Boxer or spandex shorts are not acceptable as outer wear and must not be visible.
10. Oversized clothing or coats may not be worn. Sweaters, sweat shirts, and jackets must not fall below the back pockets.
11. Clothing such as undergarments, muscle shirts, halter-tops, cropped shirts, tank tops, spaghetti straps, and clothing that shows a bare midriff or cleavage are not acceptable.
12. Students shall not be permitted to wear hats, caps, sunglasses, sweatbands, or other disrupting apparel in any building on campus during school hours.
13. Garments that have spikes (bracelets, necklaces, belts, etc.) are not permitted.
14. Males may not wear earrings. Females may wear earrings. No other body piercing jewelry of any kind will be accepted.
15. Bare feet and metal taps are not acceptable.
16. Cleats may not be worn in any school building. Shoes with built-in skates or wheels (Healies) are not permitted in any building unless the wheels have been removed.
17. Clothing that displays violence, obscenity, tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, drugs, or any other substance prohibited under policy FNCF (L), is prohibited.
18. Any other attire that disrupts the educational process as determined by a school administrator is prohibited.
19. The school, advisor, or sponsor of any specific activity or function may impose additional guidelines.
20. Additional dress code guidelines are required by S.A.F.E. They may be obtained from the campus principal.
21. Inappropriate tattoos will be covered at all times as determined by school administrator.
22. House shoes, distracting, or unsafe shower shoes (beach type) will not be allowed.
23. No cargo pants allowed.

Perhaps much is understandable and most would agree is reasonable -- though of course coming from a T-shirt and jeans generation... some seems excessive. I would have problems with my own personal T-shirts and cargo pants that I wear and probably the track pants I wear normally while I am losing weight and my waist is changing so much. I have a few pair of pants with belt loops...

I can only imagine what they would do with groups such as the devout Sikh or people of other religious groups who have set religious rules about dress and hair that do not fit this set of rules. I guess they would feel these people belong in separate schools? Perhaps even in their own separate parts of the city or town so as not to disrupt things?

I don't know... I look at the picture of the boy's Mohawk, and I did have a better picture of the boy with the braided Native American hair, and if this is disruptive to the educational program... those must be very poor programs. There had better not be anything controversial in any newspaper the children might read or newscast they might see.

Later!
~ Darrell

144

¹ "ACLU Sues School District For Punishing Kindergarten Student Because of Family's Religious Beliefs" Posted Oct 2, 2008 (updated Oct 9, 2008) American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

² AA will be used to identify the boy in this article.

³ "School suspends kindergarten student over Mohawk haircut" Posted by Mike Carney, (Photo by Peggy Turbett, The Plain Dealer via AP) February 27, 2008; ON DEADLINE -- USATODAY.com.

⁴ "FLA. school boots little boy over Mohawk haircut" Posted by Mike Carney April 24, 2008; ON DEADLINE -- USA TODAY.com.

⁵ "School district will force dress-code violators to wear blue jumpsuits" Posted by Mike Carney July 30, 2008; ON DEADLINE -- USATODAY.com.

⁶ "Gonzales Independent School District -- Dress Code 2008-2009" 15 July 2008; Gonsales Independent School District.

Running Bear in the Subway!

Bear Learns Fast Food is Deadly

I didn't want to get too humorous in my titles here because the reason I am writing it was that it made me very sad.

(image to left from Kitimat Sentinel)²

A "Subway®" restaurant -- sandwich shop-deli -- worker, Rebecca Branton¹, was surprised last Monday morning, Sept 15,2008, at 6:15 am² by a black bear in the restaurant. There is a video of the whole incident hosted by CBC which took place in Kitimat, BC.

The CBC News report of the incident is on YouTube.

The employee was in back when the bear entered the restaurant and she spotted movement on the security camera.³

CBC News:¹

"I was just back there making soup ...but I saw the door open and it was a bear,"

(image to right from CBC News)¹

Branton had the frame of mind to hurry to the washroom with her cellphone and lock herself in and phone for help, calling her parents. She had thought the bear might have used the handicap button to enter -- she had heard the buzzer for the door go off, but saw nothing in the morning dark.

Northern Sentinel:²

“I kept watching the door and then all of a sudden a bear came in and I was like ‘oh my god’.”

She explained, “It stood up on its hind legs and pulled the door open like a person and got down on all fours and the door closed behind it as it walked in.”

(Image to left from CBC news)¹

Branton called her mom first not being sure what to do, but called the police afterwards.² The police arrived quickly and her parents also came down. The 10 minutes or so were terrifying and she felt isolated in the washroom as she heard the bear moving about in the shop. The bear sniffed around and at one point hopped on the counter.

It didn't apparently eat anything before jumping back down and eventually made its way out of the Subway® restaurant. Conservation Officers also arrived and set up a watch at the Dairy Queen® lot -- where the bear had come through to get to the Subway®.²

(image to right from The Guardian)⁴

Sadly this curious young bear -- approximately two-years-old -- was later put down by Conservation officers in the downtown area of Kitmat. They felt there was a danger that this bear would continue to return to the area and coming back being a danger to the public. Some might wonder why they didn't tranquilize the bear. I wondered it, but then considered... in the area around Kitimat, with all the wilderness, black bears might not be considered that special -- sadly.

(image on left from Subway® Restaurants International)

I feel sad for this intelligent creature who was so curious and intelligent. In the video he reminds me somewhat of a curious house cat or dog looking around where he might be caught doing something naughty. There was something to the curiosity and intelligence which struck a chord with me when I heard the handsome creature was destroyed. It often ends poorly for the animal when wildlife and humans interact.

Later!
~ Darrell

143

¹ "B.C. black bear pops in for fast food" CBC News, Oct 1, 2008; CBC.ca.

² "Hairy start to Subway worker's day" Kitimat Sentinel, Published Sept 24, 2008 (Web Page dated: Oct 1, 2008); NorthernSentinel.com.

³ CBC News reports the incident happening last Thursday (Sept 25) while the video shows "2008 09 15". The Northern Sentinel article reports it being "Monday" and considering the article was published September 24 puts credence to the Monday September 15 date for the incident.

⁴ "Black bear checks out sandwich shop" Oct 1, 2008 Charolottetown, The Guardian

Going the Extra Mile - Accessible Often Means Roundabout

The Long Way Around

While sometimes a person might complain when there are no accessible facilities available, it can seem like you are looking a gift horse in the mouth with you complain about the facilities that exist. It can be rough to miss a connection on a bus because you were taking the extra fifty or even hundred metres required to reach an elevator or ramp.

True, a person might say "you should have started out earlier" which might have some truth to it --  but when connecting from one service to the next, you only have a certain amount of time to travel from one mode to another whether it be from bus to train or train to bus or even bus to bus or train to train. When service is every 3-5 minutes it is not so bad, but when service is less frequent than every 15 minutes it can make a large difference.

When you can't run for a bus it can be very frustrating for one to leave when you are so very close at hand -- travelling from one place to another within the station or terminal.

Some places just aren't designed well for people who aren't travelling well on foot. It is like the designers don't actually have a clue what it is to use these facilities if you need the accessible facilities. Perhaps this is just the case. Perhaps they really do need people who use the facilities to be a part of the design and not just part of town hall meetings and open houses on getting building permits approved.

(image to right from Wikipedia)

I know that there is the issue of keeping wheelchair friendly ramps at a slope that is safe and without too long straight lengths and such forth. But sometimes thing should be planned out better. I hope that things are getting better. I also hope that there is planning included for (in no particular order and not inclusive) people with babies in strollers and carriages; people with other impairments such as visual; people with luggage; people with small children; and so many other situations other than a business person on the way to work with a brief case and maybe an umbrella... for that matter... rainy days can sure be a problem with people not having a thing they can do with a wet umbrella.

An example of bad design is a "Skytrain" station built in the late 80's or early 90's which straddles a major highway interchange and bridge entrance ramp system. The station does have escalators and an elevator to take people up to the elevated track level -- but -- the elevator is on the side of the highway interchange the "Park & Ride" is on while the Transit Loop for catching buses is on the far side. The work-around is to call for a "Handi-dart" bus to come and transfer you from one side of the interchange to the other. Handi-dart is the part of the local transit system that picks up disabled people who are typically unable to ride normal public transit.

The station should have had an elevator designed into both sides. It is not a matter of there not being room. It might have meant a couple fewer parking stalls in the design of the "Park & Ride". I guess nobody on the design team considered that a person who would require the elevator might be taking the bus to continue their journey? It is good that the stations can be built elevated so that they can be above roads and thus make a smaller footprint on the urban groundspace -- But the disabled are often the folk on the low incomes that use the transit system most... perhaps not in a wheelchair, but sometimes a person who gets around with a cane or walking stick has problems with stairs and escalators?

We need more than work-arounds!

Later!
~ Darrell

142.

Thunder in the Distance - It wasn't Zeus on Mt Olympus

Freedoms of Expressions Clash at Official Start of Olympic Spirit Train

It was mostly cloud Sunday afternoon -- September 21st, 2008 -- and though the Sun only showed occasionally, it wasn't rainy and it was very pleasantly warm for the assemblage who turned out for the launch of the "Olympic Spirit Train"¹. (image to left of 2010 Winter Olympic Locomotive -- image from Canadian Pacific) I didn't go to the event at the Port Moody West Coast Express Station, but I sure ended up experiencing it²

I was a bit buried in some work -- I have other projects on the go -- and hadn't realized that the Olympic Spirit Train was launching from just blocks away from The Gnomestead.³ I began to hear the sound of "tom toms" in the distance and at first thought the Air Cadet band had come to practise at the local schoolyard. The music continued and got louder and I realized that it must be coming from some sort of celebration which I figured was at the local Rocky Point Park -- they have an outdoor stage there. The music started to expand to include other cultures than Aboriginal American and was okay in the background and I sort of enjoyed the ethnic diversity we have here. But then I heard a different sort of chant and drum. That chanting and ranting that we have begun to hear again and again with all sorts of gathering where protesters have gathered -- whatever the protest or statement being made.

(Spirit Train Landscape -- Image from Canadian Pacific)

I must admit that the forms the chants take became boring to me years ago regardless of the words they put to them, but I recognize that the pattern and chanting helps to unify the protesters into a cohesive group. That is something important -- especially if you expect opposition of some sort.

I couldn't make out the words, but with the music sounding like there was some sort of "cultural mosaic" celebration I could only guess that the celebration was being protested by "Right-To-Life" people or perhaps it was a group protesting for or against gay rights. They seem to use the same sounding chants.

The chants being loud enough for me to hear from blocks away -- between 3 and 6 depending on where the event was -- became very annoying. Isn't it interesting how sound can be more annoying depending on content? Music you like at one volume in the distance is okay but music or chanting you don't like is annoying. The volume of the music began to increase too. It started to actually be louder than the music I had playing at the Gnomestead so I had to shut my windows for the remainder of the afternoon.

(Protest banners blocking CP Spirit Train Stage - image to right from No2010.com)⁷.

I found out later, on the 5-o'clock news, that it was the Olympic 'Spirit Train' send off celebration and that there was a fracas there with Anti 2010 Olympic protesters trying to interrupt the proceedings.

The protesters were protesting the Olympic Games' impact on the environment, the homeless, and on aboriginal rights.² There were around 3 dozen protesters.² Police arrested two people in connection with the protest. PM Police Sgt Phil Reid said he experted the protesters would be charged with assault.⁴ From the reports they say that the protesters where shouting "Homes, not Games!"⁴ and shouting down the scheduled entertainment for more than an hour. The performers turned up the volume but were unable to proceed.⁴

According to one of the protester's shouts:

The Province⁴

"I think the idea is to make some f---in' noise here," shouted Garth Mullins, a fixture at anti-Olympic protests. "They're trying to drown us out, so let's drown them out."

(image to left taken by Dawn Paley of protesters from The Dominion)⁸

The protesters positioned two large banners so it was difficult for the audience to see the show and tempers flared when spectators tried to see the entertainment despite the banners and protesters. Colin Hansen, BC minister responsible for the Olympics; federal minister James Moore and four other guest speakers cancelled their speeches.⁴ One of the acts which was interfered with that was performing on stage was an aboriginal band. Cree musician Dallas Arcand sang and beat on a drum while his music was drowned out by screaming and banging on pots by the protesters.⁵

The protest did move from in front of the stage to the Canadian Pacific corporate tent next to a table where families were collecting autographed postcards.⁴ Eventually the protesters moved on to the Port Moody police station where the arrested protesters had been taken. The Globe and Mail⁶ reported 40 protesters were present.⁶  The Dominion's Dawn Paley⁸ puts the number of protesters at 50 while the No2010.com website places the number at up to 75 protesters. With the Canadian Press estimate of around 36 and from what it looked like on TV I would personally say that the number was between 36 and 50.

(image to right taken by Dawn Paley of protesters being arrested from The Dominion)⁸

There are a number of different sides to the whole episode. There is the side of the Olympic promoters and the people who were putting on the whole send off for the Olympic Spirit Train. There is the side of the Protesters who very much want their message to be heard on the injustices they see being done to the homeless or those who might become homeless and the aboriginal people, and the damage that they see being done to the environment. There is the side of the politician who does not want to see discord in the community. There is the side of the police who are there to keep the peace and the law... hopefully the two coincide. There is the side of the public who have come to be entertained at a family event and celebration open to the public. There is the side of the entertainers who are their to express themselves in their art. There is the side of the people in the neighbourhood who expect to live in a peaceful community and the businesses in the neighbourhood who expect the same.

It is not peaceful to sit at my desk in my room and listen to this protest war. The argument with the volume control over who can be loudest is not confined to those for or against the Olympics. While the protesters were heard to say that the protests did not bother or scare their children that they brought -- their children were brought to the event expecting to be taking part in their parent's protest. The children at the event were there with their parents expecting to be entertained at a show and they were -- from what I saw on camera and what parents and reporters said -- scared, afraid, or at least bothered by what was going on.

(No 2010 banner from no2010.com)

Perhaps the protesters nearly outnumbered the spectators? (Gord hill speaking on behalf of the "Olympics Resistance Network")⁸ Perhaps the police presence was too much with three separate police contingents? Regardless, there was too much something.

The event was attended by uniformed and undercover officers from:⁸ the Canadian Pacific Police Service, the Port Moody Police Department, and the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Police Service. The Dominion Paper⁸ also reported a large group of private security guards from Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security. While I am not sure of numbers, I do note that the train is on CP property and their train and thus responsibility of their CP Police Service; the venue for the event being the Port Moody West Coast Express Station Park and Ride lot means that Translink is also responsible and thus the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Police Service; and the whole station is in the City of Port Moody so it is fairly obvious that the Port Moody Police Department be there.

(image to left, Spirit Train - image from Canadian Pacific)

I am sure that a quiet protest at the entrance to the event with the banners and placards would have announced to everyone the issue without problem. But I am also sure that there was a desire for confrontation that would be enough to make news headlines and national television news coverage on the part of protesters. It was pointed out that a number of the faces among the protesters are regulars at many different sorts of protests and seem to be keys in organizing them. I recognize the faces without them being pointed out.

I do believe in freedom of expression -- which I believe is a part of freedom of speech -- but I think that there is a problem where what people are considering a "freedom of expression" is instead infringing on other's freedom of expression, and on other's rights to peacefully appreciate that freedom of expression.

People do have a right to peacefully protest and make their voice heard -- but stretching things just a slight bit farther to illustrate a point -- would they have the right to disrupt a movie in a theatre or a show on stage to make their point?

(image to right of Vancouver 2010 Mascot Wallpaper from Vancouver 2010)

I agree with some of the points of the protesters, but not the protest. I agree that there are also many benefits that come with hosting the Olympics as well. I do think that we could be getting greater benefit from the games and we could be creating fewer problems with them as well. But I don't think the protesters are helping with the way they are protesting.

I think that the protesters of the games lost much credibility before with some of their protests -- I think they may have lost a lot of support with their "demonstration" on the 21st.

Later!
~ Darrell

139

__________
¹ "Vancouver 2010 Mascots Sumi, Quatchi and Miga join the CP Spirit Train Experience" Breanne Geigel Sept 8, 2008; Canada Pacific

² "Departure of Olympic 'Spirit Train' met with protesters in B.C." Sep 21, 2008; The Canadian Press

³ If you hadn't gathered, "The Gnomestead" is the location from which I write and live.

⁴ "Protest mars Olympics fun" Ian Austin Sept 22, 2008; The Province

⁵ "Spirit Train spreads Games excitement" Allison Cross Sept 21, 2008; The Vancouver Sun

⁶ "Olympic spirit train makes debut in B.C." In Brief Sept 22, 2008; The Globe and Mail

⁷ "Banners Blocking CP Spirit Train Stage" No 2010 Olympics on Stolen Native Land -- Resist The 2010 Corporate Circus no2010.com

⁸ "Protesters Disrupt "Spirit Train" Sendoff" Dawn Paley Sept 21, 2008; The Dominion Paper.

Mile i Pod

Watching What You Want to Watch Where You Want to When You Want to

Alright here is something perhaps new for you... Where do your rights start when it comes to where you can watch or surf something on the privacy of your own PED (Personal Electronic Device -- Notebook or Laptop computer; iPod; Portable DVD player; mp4 player; personal video player...)?

American Airlines has an in-flight Wi-Fi service now for passengers which started on some flights August 20th¹ and there are concerns voiced by flight attendants and passengers about people using the service to access porn sites while on flights. An article on Bloomberg.com mentions that there were "a lot of complaints"¹and that the Association of Professional Flight Attendants has brought up the issue with management  They recommend that American filter its Wi-Fi service -- blocking black-listed sites -- in order to block offensive content² as I believe there are plans to screen VoIP service as well³. VoIP is Voice over Internet Protocol which basically is the primary way of making telephone calls by way of your Internet connection. (image to left* from Image*After)

There are a number of issues involved. There are the worries that passengers will complain that their neighbouring passengers are watching objectionable material on their PED. Of course there are also worries that passengers might be disturbed that their ability to access any site they could from home would be blocked in a form of censorship. More seem to be accepting of this in the case of the VoIP¹. Perhaps they can see that is in direct competition with the telephone service the airlines already charge for on flights?

Flight Attendants in addition to not wanting to get an eyeful of something they'd rather not see on someone's PED also do not want to become "moral policemen"¹ and have one more area where they might have to lay down the law. They have their hands full with other aspects of the job and likely don't want to have to settle disputes between passengers -- which might be either "they've got something objectionable on their screen" or "the person behind me keeps looking over my shoulder". Another aspect is people doing lewd things while watching explicit content.

(image to right from Image*After)

This is not something that came up just with the introduction of WiFi and Internet connectivity on airliners. This issue also comes up with whether an airline can prohibit what sorts of DVD or other content a passenger is viewing on their PED. A person can have a DVD with nearly any sort of content imaginable and pop it into a player -- whether computer or not -- and play it with no Internet involved at all. Likewise for video podcasts or even audio ones -- remember the "faked orgasm scene" from "When Harry Met Sally".

Of course these things did not appear with digital electronics. The same problems can be said about explicit magazines. Anyone could flip open the magazine of their choice on the airplane and start "reading the articles". Things like this have been a part of life for quite a while and are not really new.

Anyone who is offering the service of an Internet hookup probably has the right to say what they want to provide or block -- perhaps other than the actual providers? If  coffee shop provides WiFi connection to its customers, they probably can block access to some sites with blocking programs. I know when I go to places that provide such services the first thing I get when I try to access the Web is a screen asking if I accept the limits and risks imposed on me and that I might be exposed to by connecting to the Internet there. I can just imagine someone suing a coffee shop for a virus they picked up on their computer when the were downloading pirated game software.

(Image to left from Image*After)

I am not sure if it is a "non-problem" really. I don't know that it has been a problem with people sitting in coffee shops drinking Latte and watching XXX. For the most part regular people behave themselves in public. The times they don't seem to tend to be the times when they are getting intoxicated or high... and that is an issue on its own whether on land, "see" or airline. Control the booze and you likely won't have to worry  about controlling the people.

(image to right from Notebook Review¹¹)

Of course if you control porn sites, then you'll want to control pirate software sites too. You'll want to screen out any site that would have illegal activity on it. But what about violent video games? ...music with violent lyrics? ...content that might be deemed offensive for racial, religious, or other sexual reasons? What if someone is watching news content from an enemy country? ...or news from a country that has opposing views to your own country? What if one person is offended that the person next to them is watching religious programming?

I think that often the answer given by peace officers is "then don't look" -- though sometimes it is hard when it is presented nearly on your own lap. Luckily nearly everyone has the decency to use headphones or earphones. I think that rather than blocking things, it perhaps should all be taken care of on a case by case basis.

I was remembering back when I was in university and calculators were a novel thing still, but becoming commonplace. There were worries about people cheating by seeing the numbers on someone else's calculator. I think that manufacturers foresaw this because it wasn't very long before calculators -- at least scientific and engineering calculators -- had recessed numbers so that you could only read the display from where you were using it. If you were to the side at all you couldn't read the numbers.

Anti-glare shields that came out for early computer monitors (image to left - image from Ergo in Demand) also had this function and it was considered to be a feature for offices where you wouldn't want confidential information seen by people nearby. With some older laptops it was difficult to see the screen unless you were in front of them. But because many people want to share what they show on their laptop screen, many consider it a bonus to have the screen viewable from a broad range of angles -- otherwise there would be less problem with neighbours seeing what you see.

But there are purposes for such a product for notebooks especially and perhaps there are such products out already... Yup There is a 3M PF14.1 - notebook privacy filter! (image to right - image from CDW Canada)

Perhaps though there might be a market for disposable/resusable "blinders" for computers? Perhaps the airlines might offer them for safe viewing? They could also double as glare shields from the cabin lighting.

Protection provided for your viewing pleasure.

Later!
~ Darrell

135

__________
¹ "American Air Attendants Urge Fiters to Bar Web Porn (Update3)" Mary Schlangenstein, Sept. 10, 2008; Bloomberg.com: News.

² "Porn on a plane: Flight attendants fret over inappropriate Web surfing" David Carnoy, Sept. 12, 2008; Crave, the gadget bog -- CNET, news.cnet.com.

³ "Airlines planning to filter, censor in-flight 'Net access" Jacqui Cheng, Dec. 24, 2007; From the News Desk -- ars technica.
"Porn on a plane! Concerns raised over naughty in-flight WiFi" Jacqui Cheng, Sept. 12 2008; From the News Desk -- ars technica.

¹¹ "Coffee Shop Laptop Zombies" Andrew, May 23, 2007; Notebook Forums and Laptop Discussion - Notebook Review

* Images of airliners not intended to represent American Airlines or specific airline

My Speech is Freer than Your Speech!

Does One Person's Right to Speak Supersede Another's Right to Hear?

I do believe in the right to free speech, though I am not American and my rights come from different roots than the American Constitution. Still I have started wondering at the expression of the right to be heard as used by some groups in our society.

I might disagree with some policies put forward by government or by crown corporations. I might dislike fare increases by public transit. On the other hand, I might agree with some of them. I do know that when I go to a public hearing to hear what the politicians and other groups have to say, I want to actually hear what they have to say and watch their presentation. I want to know what the various politicians have to say and what the assorted boards which are making policy are up to. I want to see their arguments to defend their positions.

But, now at civic meetings and such I see protesters coming in as organized hecklers -- shouting over the speakers and everyone else with every intent to disrupt the meeting it seems. It seems for the simple reason that they disagree and they want their message to be heard. They are asserting their right to free speech... but I think perhaps this is not what is meant by freedom of speech.

I think that the protesters have every right to speak out and every right to protest, but I somehow think there is something wrong with their preventing others from speaking out whether board member or simple citizen.

I am seeing more and more of this sort of thing. There are too many times when the protests are outshouting the presentation and I do not think the fault is that of the organizers for not providing louder sound systems. I am sure that protesting voices are heard even if at organized protests. We are allowed to do that here. There are other places where they don't have the freedom to organize a protest event.

I might not agree with what someone is saying at a presentation, but I do agree they have the right to say it -- say it and be heard.

Later!
~ Darrell

123.

Function Creep - Set Tasers on Stun!

Good Ideas That Can Go Bad

When I first took martial arts -- traditional Kung-fu -- one of the earliest pieces of information I recall is that it is very difficult to try to incapacitate a person by hitting them and trying to "knock them out" without actually endangering their life. The discussion about this got on to things like gas grenades and shooting to wound as well. Even breaking limbs has dangers though there are pressure points that can render a person incapacitated in many situations. Grappling and binding is probably the best option... that is if negotiation and discussion fail of course.

It made sense to me. But something that seemed a bit irrational was hearing that while most police -- while they had mandatory fire arms re-testing and practised regularly on the firing range -- were not constantly practising and upgrading their hand-to-hand skills. Those are the skills that would allow them to subdue a felon without resorting to baton or gun or...

Well the Taser (image to right -- image from TASER International) had just come onto the scene -- or at least into the public eye -- with first the cattle-prod sort and then with the stun-gun sort which fires wires. It sounded like a great idea -- a way to incapacitate a violent and out of control subject in a way with little danger to the subject or the person trying to subdue them. There were some risks to the target, but less than being pummelled with a billy club or being kicked or punched and definitely less than being shot. (I guess they smile in fire arms catalogues and gun magazines too...)

The Tasers were only supposed to be used in special situations. At that time there were groups who said that gradually they would be used in more and more situations until they began to replace negotiation or hand-to-hand subduing of the subject. Because the Taser was "nonlethal force" law enforcement officers would be more likely to use it because no permanent damage would be done. (My own opinion) (image to the left from TASER InternationaLaw Enforcement Overview)

Still there are dangers and there are many circumstances where the targets have health issues that compromise them for being safely Tasered -- or at least I am lead to believe that chronic use of a number of drugs can lead to cardiac issues and a good jolt could be bad or fatal.

I wonder if I were to be hypoglycemic and irrational, whether I might be at risk? It would be one condition under which I might find myself facing law enforcement officers while not in my right mind. My own heart is strong, but many diabetics have heart conditions.

I can see that there are many areas that the Tasers are very usefully important. (image to the right US military version, the M-26 Taser - from Wikipedia) But I think that there needs to be constant diligence in training with them -- not just firing range sorts of point and shoot or "here is what it feels like to get hit". I think that there needs to be constant training and upgrading which includes hand-to-hand, Taser, and firearms along side negotiation. Also other new weapons that might come down the line.

I can well imagine the military having valid use for these sorts of "nonlethal" weapons.

There are other "nonlethal" weapons coming down the pipe. The Tera Hertz frequency Active Denial weapons are one of them which can create a burning sensation that leaves little or no mark on the target, but few if any can stand for more than a few seconds. Vehicle mounted ones are in operation (image to left - image from Wikipedia) and more portable ones are coming as new technology allows. (image to right - image from Wikipedia) This might be a very important tool -- but what happens if it might be used for something other than the "crowd control" and keeping terrorists away from sensitive areas? There is potential for using it as a torture device. This is not something I came up with but rather something that the same people who worried about abuse with the Taser came up with.

The safety of the ADS (Active Denial System) has been stated with regards to people not being able to stay within the active beam of the device for longer than a second or two. It only penetrates to 0.4 mm (1/64 of an inch) -- a depth at which nerve endings are located. This is because of the 95 GHz frequency chosen which is absorbed greatly by water and hence can't penetrate deeper. Little mention is of the effect on a subject who cannot flee the effect of the ADS or the effect of the 95 GHz radiation on the cornea or other thin tissues of the body.

I am sure in the case where the ADS is used as it is intended the argument can be made that the person should not be there and the ADS is less dangerous than other means. But, what if it starts to be used in broader ranges and scopes of purpose? What about dispersing crowds at sporting events? What if people do not disperse quite as quickly as Law Enforcement prefer from the scene of an accident or fire? Someone who is a bit of a radical mentions the scenario of police using them for raids where the ADS is used to chase the targets out of a residence to take them into custody. This would use other Tera Hertz tools to locate the targets in the building as well.

What of privacy...

There are THz scanners that essentially can see through anything other than flesh and metal. So that you would stand before them only covered by the zipper on your trousers and change in your pockets... and keys, jewellery, buckles.... but you would be bald er than the day you were born in the image and though in black and white, not looking like an X-ray photo. (image to left - image from BBC News) Now such scanning is optional to avoid longer hand pat downs... also invasive. (image to right - image from BBC News) But perhaps they might be required in more and more places and if you don't submit... well if you are law abiding, what do you have to hide? (image to left - image from Italy Magazine Forums)

I believe the two images are actually using X-ray back scatter technique and do not show quite as graphic detail as the actual T-ray units would show. I also believe that there has been a bit of airbrushing to reduce embarrassment. Somehow I wonder if there are reasons why it is harder to find images of the actual images from the T-ray units? I can only speculate.

Another technology is that of the tracking chip. People might know about the RFD tracking chips that have been implanted beneath the skin of pets for a number of years. They are also used for keeping track of wild animals like crocodiles in Florida or sharks or other animals. You catch an animal or get close to it and swipe a wand over it and record the number of its implanted chip via radio signal generated when the wand passes by and you can then look up information on that animal and record information such as where you swiped it.

The same would happen for people. It could be used as a form of ID. Your ID information would be encoded on the chip -- or at least a code number that could be accessed from a database on a network -- and read with an appropriate device. I believe there have been some trials with people using such implanted chips for Charge Cards and for security in their home and office.

RFD tracking chip from VeriChip. (image to right - image from BBC News)

It is an interesting idea, but... it might be used in more and more situations until people will nearly insist that you use it to use certain facilities. Consider how hard it can be to function without a credit card or a bank debit card. Consider that readers could be easily mounted at entrances to all banks, subway station entrances, airports, or anyplace sensitive. You could be tracked as easily as they can track where you make credit card purchases or cell phone calls... easier in fact.

What if someone has a scanner and gets your code? Can't they code a chip and simply have it on their person and then be treated as if they were you?

If you won't get a chip implanted... why not? Do you have something to hide?

I guess the same goes for surveillance cameras. How they are used and who gets access to them makes a big difference. How the regulation on who gets to change the rules on who gets to access them is just as important. I can understand the concept that the cameras are placed to look at places where you might be seen by a casual passerby. So what you do could be seen by a police officer who is not in uniform as well as that security camera. But it could get a bit creepy if access might be granted to folk you might not think should gain access.

I am not sure I would want a chip implanted... I don't mind the downtown video surveillance cameras or the ones in public places like malls and universities.... Tasers are okay if they actually start training the officers with them... I think there need to be some sort of safe guards before things like the ADS are used outside of war zones. I know of a few other "nonlethal" systems as well...

...what about the stuff we don't know about? Sometimes you have to worry about who they are using for watchdogs on the new technologies or what directions current technologies are taking.

Personally I am not against all of this technology, I am just pointing out the potential of sliding down some very slippery slopes with it.

Later!
~ Darrell

116.