Re: url.

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Letters to the Editor (Show AUG 14th!!)
To: Letters to the Editor
Date: Jul 3, 2009 1:18 AM
Subject: url


Hey guys, can you change your URL so we can have it?

If you dont we will report you and your account will be deleted and we really dont wanna do that honestly.

Thanks,

-Letters to the Editor

* * * * *

Dear Letters to the Editor,

Thank you for naming your band after us. We had no idea that we would have such a lasting impact on modern music --- frankly, we thought we were only recognized locally. I guess that's the power of the internet in this day and age, huh? It's a wonderful thing.

As for your request for an interview, I'm sorry to say that we can not oblige. We can't just divulge our musical secrets for success to anyone that asks for them (unless, I must note, there will be a considerable interview fee involved).

Finally, I'm also sorry to note that, despite your polite request, we were unable to set up a show for you in our area. I checked with a few club owners around, and they explicitly wrote back that they were looking for bands with talent that EXCEEDED (not just met) the level of The Jonas Brothers.

Good luck in all of your endeavors.

Sincerely,

Letters to the Editor

* * * * *

Edit/Update:




[I couldn't even send the reply to their MySpace message or post on their page because they restricted communications to friends only. I wonder why they haven't had our account deleted yet...]

[Also: Letters to the Editor SUCK in Letters to the Editor SUCK Brentwood, Letters to the Editor SUCK Los Angeles, Letters to the Editor SUCK California and on Letters to the Editor SUCK MySpace, Letters to the Editor SUCK rock/alternative/indie, Letters to the Editor SUCK everything.]

[I will be surprised {but also delighted} if the above attempt to get the attention of the Google search bots actually works.]

Re: Forced H1N1 Vaccination.

PREAMBLE

What follows is my response to an email I received this morning from a good friend of mine. The topic? The possibility of U.S. Government-enforced vaccination procedures on its citizens. If you live in Florida and simply want to know whether someone can legally force you into getting a vaccine, you may want to jump down to where I list parts of the Florida Code near the end. If you're in a different state and worried about this, you may want to search through your state statutes or consult someone who could do that for you. (Perhaps a public legal librarian? They might do it for free. I don't know if those even exist.)

Note: Normally I wouldn't post a personal email without the expressed written consent of the Friends of Justin League, but the only thing in the original email was a section of Wikipedia.

Second note: I've posted this in the standard Arial of Gmail's formatting in order to accurately represent (as closely as possible) the environment and substance of the original exhange, so please excuse this font if it comes as a shock to some of my legion of loyal readers. (Additionally, I will post any follow-up comments/exchanges from my friend or myself upon obtaining the aforementioned expressed written consent...)

ORIGINAL EMAIL

<<<<<
The U.S. government currently has the power to enforce vaccinations in an epidemic or pandemic flu breakout, or even the threat of such, by a measure provided within the Patriot Act. In addition, there is The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, which will have federal funding for each state that adopts a similar model, so far adopted by 38 states and the District of Columbia. States will be allowed to "enforce vaccinations with absolute police power, which includes detention and seizure of private property."
>>>>>

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic_vaccine#Political_issues ]

MY RESPONSE

This seems like a conflicting report and is generally misleading. If the U.S. government has "the power to enforce vaccinations," then why would states need to adopt their own form of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act that would allow them to do the same? Doesn't a national law trump a state law? I suppose that if you need to have state workers enforcing things, maybe you'll want to have a state law... I don't know.

What I do know:

I haven't been able to find the appropriate section of the Patriot Act mentioned here (if it does, in fact, exist). The article that is listed as a "source" for this passage in Wikipedia comes from "Paul Fassa, citizen journalist" at: http://www.naturalnews.com/026434_vaccines_vaccination_vaccinations.html.

This doesn't mean he's all wrong. But it does cast doubt because he does not list the pertinent section of the Patriot Act. (His other topics include research programs for delivering vaccinations via mosquitoes and fruit, which were pretty interesting but sort of tangential to this.) I searched around through Google and within the Patriot Act itself and could not find any mentions of forced vaccinations (although, if you look at the PA, it is nearly unreadable. It just mentions other codes and tells how the PA alters them --- e.g., SEC. 502, "Section 36 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act... is amended --- (1) in subsection (b) --- ... (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting ", including by dismantling an organization in whole or significant part; or"; and..."). I am interested in hearing about it, though, so if you do see the actual place where this is mentioned in the PA, please let me know: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf.

The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, however, does have some merit. You can look at the proposed Act here: http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dph/improving/turningpoint/PDFs/MSPHAweb.pdf.

Section 5-109, entitled "Vaccination" seems to be of interest here.

[a] In General. State and local public health agencies may require vaccination of any individual within their jurisdictions to prevent the introduction or spread of an infectious disease or other condition of public health importance.

[b] Requirements for Conducting Vaccination Programs. In administering any vaccine or vaccination program, the state or local public health agency shall adhere to the following requirements:

(1) Informed consent. No vaccine or vaccination program shall be administered without the prior informed consent of the individual (or legal representative) to whom the vaccine is being administered, except as otherwise provided in this Section;

And so it is basically saying that you have the right to consent to vaccinations... unless they feel like enacting section [a]... in which case you would be subject to vaccinations against your will.

But, this is not the exact legislation that some states have adopted. It was merely a model given by the national government as a guide to writing state laws. To wit:

To date, thirty-three (33) states have introduced a total of one-hundred and thirty-three

(133) legislative bills or resolutions that are based upon or feature provisions related to the

Articles or sections of the Turning Point Act. Forty-eight (48) of these bills or resolutions have

passed.

[emphasis/emboldening is mine throughout all quoted materials]

(http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Resources/ResourcesPDFs/MSPHA%20LegisTrack.pdf)

So the real question comes down to what Florida adopted from the MSEHPA about vaccinations. It looks like the revelant place is Section 381.00315 of the Florida Code... which states:

(1) (b) The State Health Officer, upon declaration of a public health emergency, may take actions that are necessary to protect the public health. Such actions include, but are not limited to: ... [They also define "public health emergency" in this section. -JPD]

4. Ordering an individual to be examined, tested, vaccinated, treated, or quarantined for communicable diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and present a severe danger to public health. Individuals who are unable or unwilling to be examined, tested, vaccinated, or treated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience may be subjected to quarantine.

a. Examination, testing, vaccination, or treatment may be performed by any qualified person authorized by the State Health Officer.

b. If the individual poses a danger to the public health, the State Health Officer may subject the individual to quarantine. If there is no practical method to quarantine the individual, the State Health Officer may use any means necessary to vaccinate or treat the individual.

...

So, I guess we have the right to refuse examinations, tests, and vaccines in Florida... in which case we would be quarantined... unless there is no suitable way to quarantine us... in which case they could give us a vaccine.

***Related "research" not used in this response:

1) A report from what looks to be a fanatical conspiracy theorist who claims that the World Health Organization has the ability to force the countries who are part of it (the WHO) to vaccinate their (the respective countries') citizens against their (the citizens' and, I guess, possibly the countries') will: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14475.

2) A post that tries to make a Washington Post article seem to say that there's a government conspiracy afoot. It emboldens such innocuous lines as "be first in line for the vaccine" and concludes "Make NO Mistake, Your Children WILL get the flu vaccine" (there is no actual commentary --- just snippets from the article. But that is the title of the post.): http://vactruth.com/2009/07/10/make-no-mistake-your-children-will-get-the-flu-vaccine/.

3) And, perhaps the most absurd thing I saw about this:

MICHAEL JACKSON MAY HAVE BEEN MURDERED, and LA Police are treating his death as a potential homicide. Was he murdered to protect the government's plan to enforce experimental H1N1 vaccine on the world's population? Michael would have denounced enforced vaccines during his tour and expose his belief that the vaccine may be a genocide plot by the New World Order.

(http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/michael-jackson-murdered-protect-h1n1-vaccine-genocide-plot)

So, this isn't to say that there shouldn't be a concern. I just don't think anyone in Florida will bend you over and stab a needle in your tukis.

Recent call about my domain registration. (An Email Sent To info@web.com)

To Whom It May Concern:

I am not particularly happy with a recent call I received from one of your telemarketers offering website services to me simply because I recently purchased a domain. I am well aware of the workings of search engines and websites and the Google Machine and how to (or not to, depending) appear in such-and-such a site's search results, and thus I do not require any of your tutelage (however profound it might be) in these areas.

This call was placed at my normally hectic yet efficient workplace today, Tuesday June 16 around 11:20 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (USA) by one "Leo Fernandez." I would rather not bother with such telemarketers while I'm at my professional workplace for the state government. (I realize that telemarketers are also in a professional workplace, and I realize they also have a job to do, but I believe I have a right to do my job "quod erat demonstrandum" without the interruption of phone calls from telemarketers.) It's a particularly busy period now, too, with many reports to do and phone calls to make and emails to write and receive and messages, messages, messages to take and deliver (exacerbated by the abscence of one of my co-workers for the next two weeks while she is out of the office and out of town).

I realize that domain registration is public information. Mr. Fernandez told me that he could not locate my website via searches. But he was obviously able to locate my domain registration and work phone number via searches. (It's quite easy to find my work phone number via a search, actually, since it is located on a public website for my department. It's also easy to find other websites with my information on them: yet another indication that I do not require your web services. But I don't believe my work phone number should be tied to my domain registration information [if I did happen to list it that way, which is entirely possible, that's my bad]).

I'd like to ask that you please remove my name and phone number from your records and call lists. If calls persist, I will be forced to report these to the appropriate authorities.

Thank you,

Justin de la Cruz, B.S., B.A.
Webmaster / Purveyor, http://justindelacruz.com
Work Phone Number: [REDACTED]

P.S. I am only supplying my phone number and website URL so you can remove them from your records (as you obviously already have them in your records). Please do not call me about removing my number from your lists. (You may visit my website if you'd like, although, as I indicated to Mr. Fernandez on the phone, I have not begun to develop it.) If you need to communicate with me, you may reply to this email.

P.P.S. I took time out of my precious lunch break to compose this email, in case you were wondering about the validity/veracity of the aforementioned reports about my busy workplace.

Letter of complaint to Comcast.

Mr. Germano,

I will send this complaint to my local office as well. I had a bundle package of cable and internet installed at my home yesterday, Saturday August 2, 2008. The installers acted very unprofessionally, taking personal phone calls while they were installing my equipment, tracking dirt into my home. They never introduced themselves, they never showed me how to use the internet or cable services, even though I told them I've never used digital cable before, and after they left I had to take additional steps to set up the internet connection. I had to figure out this setup process on my own and it was not obvious. About an hour after they left, one of the installers returned to disturb me at home by asking about an expensive piece of testing equipment he had left behind. He said it was worth about $1400, and I was able to locate it under the desk they had been working on for my internet connection.

But all of the above pales in comparison to what arose tonight (Sunday evening the day after installation). The cable and internet have been working properly, but out of nowhere tonight, the cable box started sending a message that all of the channels that had been available were now "not authorized". Apparently, the installers never reported the box number that they installed to the main office here, so it was never registered and is not on my account. They did something strange when they were here, too -- they installed one cable box and left it running for about 10 minutes. Then they decided to use a different cable box, even though the current one was working fine. I don't know what that was about at all.

I just got done with a 40-minute call to customer service and the person I talked to was very nice and helpful. (Actually, the first person I talked to tried to transfer me to someone else, and I ended up back in the holding queue...) The person on the phone sent word to the local office and set up a service call for tomorrow evening, which I thought was very prompt and professional. It was the at the very opposite spectrum of behavior from the people who installed my Comcast services, who were very unprofessional.

I thought I would send word about this, since Comcast has a virtual monopoly on the market here in Tallahassee, Florida, and it is the cheapest outlet for obtaining both internet and cable service in one monthly bill. However, I am not hesitant to seek out other local providers (no matter the cost) if I do not receive proper customer service with Comcast. I am modestly requesting a reimbursement of my installation fee for these services for the egregious grievances listed above, which have caused me a significant amount of inconvenience. I am available via telephone and email (justindlc@yahoo.com) if further discussion or an even more detailed account of this matter is required.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Justin de la Cruz

Email.

To: communications@umusic.com
Subject: Complaint - Be Your Own Pet Censoring.
Date: 27 March 2008

To Whom It May Concern,

I recently read a news update involving punk band Be Your Own Pet from Nashville, TN, a group that is distributed by Universal through its U.S. label, Ecstatic Peace. The news update (found here: pitchforkmedia) concerned a last-minute censorship of the band's recent album release "Get Awkward" by Universal through the exclusion of three songs ("Black Hole," "Becky," and "Blow Yr Mind") from its Stateside release.

I received an advance copy of the U.K. version of "Get Awkward" for review purposes, and I found no sentiment worthy of censoring in these songs in particular. Although Universal, as the distributor, may hold equal say about what gets released in the agreement with Ecstatic Peace (I have no way of knowing the details), this seems like a very odd, and very unprofessional way of handling business, an issue I addressed in my written review of the album.

Even if that were a way of conducting professional business, it seems that these songs were arbitrarily targeted. I understand what the offending lyrics may be in each song, but I don't understand why Universal censored this artist -- if you will notice, whatever 'violent' implications certain lyrics may hold are immediately offset by other, inoffensive, even jocular lyrics. For example, "We'll wait with knives after class" on "Becky" is offset by cutesy couplets like "I don't regret what I've done / 'cause in the end it was fun" and the whole chanting section of "We don't like Becky anymore". Anyone who takes these lyrics seriously shouldn't be listening to the song or album in the first place -- the rest of the album is laden with curses and weird statements that parents should be in charge of monitoring.

Parents, not labels, should filter music and media through to their children. Useless censorship like this (especially in the era of the Internet, where this news story will break big and just inspire everyone to download these omissions anyway) is downright asinine.

Sincerely,

Justin de la Cruz