Mark Zuckerberg's sister had a truly unfortunate experience on Alaska Airlines.

Feeling disgusted & degraded after an @AlaskaAir flight where the passenger next to me made repeated lewd sexual remarks. The flight attendants told me he was a frequent flier, brushed off his behavior & kept giving him drinks. I guess his $ means more than our safety? My letter: pic.twitter.com/xOkDpb0dYU

— Randi Zuckerberg (@randizuckerberg) November 30, 2017

Here is more from Fortune Magazine:  

Randi Zuckerberg said on Twitter Wednesday night that Alaska Airlines workers allowed a man to continue making lewd comments to her during a flight from Los Angeles to Mazatlán, Mexico. 

The founder and CEO of Zuckerberg Media, and whose brother is Mark Zuckerberg, posted a screenshot of a letter to Alaska Airlines executives and CEO. 

“He started talking to me about touching himself, kept asking me if I fantasized about the female business colleague I was traveling with, rated and commented on the women’s bodies boarding the aircraft as they walked by us, and many more equally horrifying and offensive comments,” Zuckerberg wrote in the letter.

As an Alaskan this is somewhat troubling as Alaska Airlines actually has a very good reputation for service.

I have flown on the airline numerous times and it has always been as pleasant of an experience as somebody who truly hates to fly can have while cramped together in a metal tube with a hundred or so smelly, sweat stained passengers. (Oh, and that one crying baby who has been accompanying me on flights for the last twenty years or so.)

I don't know why people drink as much as they do on these flights, but I do know that a lot of the problems that people have while in the air are alcohol related.

Personally I would be all for making flights alcohol free, just like they are now free of the cigarette smoke that used to choke me to death decades ago.

Zuckerberg also posted this tweet which shows that Alaska Airlines heard her complaint and took appropriate action.

UPDATE: I just got off the phone with two executives from @AlaskaAir who informed me that they are conducting an investigation and have temporarily suspended this passenger’s travel privileges. Thank you for taking this seriously.

— Randi Zuckerberg (@randizuckerberg) November 30, 2017

Perhaps they can also train their staff that the next time some belligerent drunk is harassing passengers on a flight that he should be cut off immediate and only served black coffee until he reaches his destination.

However at least Alaska Airlines is dem

Scorpion bite? A danger of flying Alaska Airlines that I don't think anybody ever anticipated.

Courtesy of ABC News:  

A woman was stung by a scorpion while on a plane waiting to take off from Los Angeles International Airport, an airline spokesman said today. 

Alaska Airlines Flight 567, bound for Portland, Oregon, was taxi-ing for takeoff Saturday night when the woman was stung on the hand, Alaska Airlines spokesman Cole Cosgrove told ABC News today. 

"We don't know exactly how the scorpion made it on the plane," Cosgrove said, but added that the flight originated in Los Cabos, Mexico.

I have to admit that I refused to fly on Alaska Airlines for years, after having a airplane mechanic tell me that their planes were unsafe. (Though to be fair they are now rated as one of the safest airlines in the world, and their one and only fatal crash was in 2000.)

However never in my wildest imagination did I ever consider that one might be in danger of being stung by a scorpion.

Which I have to say is especially concerning, because like a lot of Alaskans I am somewhat leery of bugs. Especially bugs that can bite, sting, and poison you.

I lived in Hawaii for a year while attending college and one of their cane spiders crawled across my chest while I was in bed and I almost crapped myself. 

Needless to say that arachnid died a brutal and possibly unnecessarily violent death.

In short I kind of feel about scorpions on planes the way that Samuel L. Jackson felt about snakes on planes.

Word.

Another reason I NEVER fly on Alaska Airlines.

Yes you read that right. It says "We Know About This." Comforting don't you think?

First they refuse to admit that the Governor of their state did NOT appear to be pregnant while flying with them on her way to fake the baby's birth, then they write notes on their planes telling us to ignore the damage that we can plainly see with our very own eyes.

Fuck that I'd rather walk.

Well at least they got rid of those ridiculous prayer cards. Though to be honest perhaps their passengers would feel safer if they put them back if this is the extent of their attention to plane maintenance.

You can read more about this over at Reddit.

The famous "Wild Ride" interview revisited, and analyzed. Let's see what we might learn, shall we? Update!

A while back a reader sent me this rather interesting e-mail which included the original interview with Palin concerning her "wild ride" accompanied by an analysis of her words. I found it rather interesting and thought I would share it with all of you today. .

Here it is in full (With the e-mailer's name removed, of course.) 

Hello Gryphen. I know you've covered the wild ride a hundred times, but I took part of Sarah's interview and applied statement analysis to it. I hope you can use it. Statement Analysis is the most accurate way of determining if a person is lying in a verbal or written statement. A person cannot give a lengthy deceptive statement without revealing that it is a lie. This is because people will always word their statement based on all their knowledge. Therefore, their statement may contain information they did not intend to share. This is the transcript from the Wild Ride interview with Sarah Palin. The statement analysis is in italics and the sensitivity indicators are highlighted red.

(Since I tend to put everything that I don't personally write in italics I decided to use quotation marks to identify the analysis instead.)


Transcript of Palin Interview 

Reporter: I was hoping you could walk us through a little bit about kind of what happened because he came earlier that you thought and not when and where. 

Palin: And, uh, he wasn’t due for 4 or 5 weeks later and um, while I was at the energy conference. I felt perfectly fine but uh, had thought maybe a few things were starting to progress a little bit that perhaps there was an idea there that he might come early. So I called my doctor at about uh four in the morning in Texas and um I said ya know I’m gonna stay for the day here at the energy conference - have a speech that I was determined to give at one o’clock that afternoon and, um, had Todd check on a couple of flights that were earlier than we had scheduled. I decided it would be ok to, um, skip the reception that night that we’d already by that time have taken care of our meetings and my speech. So Todd checked on flights. A flight allowed us to get out a little earlier than we had planned. 

" Her use of the word "I"-- I was at the energy conference. I felt fine. I called my doctor. I said I'm gonna stay. I was determined. I decided. This is distancing between her and her husband and leads an analyst to wonder if Todd was present with her during those times she described. When she changes the pronoun from "I" to "we" it indicates when they were actually together (after the meetings and speech). By repeating twice that Todd was checking on early flights, she shows us this topic is sensitive to her, which indicates deception. Sarah says, "I was at the energy conference, I felt perfectly fine." These are true statements; there are no unnecessary words added in and no effort made by the subject to clarify them as she feels the need to do with Todd checking on flights. Reader: note that she uses "he" to refer to Trig. She does not use his name or any kind of pet name or nickname, which suggests that she is not at this time close to Trig on an emotional level."

Skipped the reception and, um, called my doctor before I got on the plane to say, ‘Yea, we think that we will come home a few hours early,’ and, uh, she said ‘OK call when you land and I’ll check you out.’ But none of my babies had been early and being my fifth child I know what labor feels like (laughing) and if I had felt at all that I was really engaged in uh, labor activities I would not have desired to fly and, um, get back uh, to deliver in Alaska. But anyway, so no real huge labor signs. Landed in, uh, in Anchorage at about10:30. Got out to the valley at 11:30 and she met us at the hospital, checked me out and said, ‘Um, Yea you look, you may have it um tonight or in the morning.’ And it was smooth, it was relatively easy, in fact it was very easy, the easiest of all of them because he was so tiny. And, um, it’s just been absolutely wonderful. It was all, it just all seemed meant to be… the logistics and everything else just worked out so perfectly and to us he’s absolutely perfect, too. 

"Note that her narration changed from her deciding, her coming home has changed to "we." Also note the missing pronoun for "skipped the reception and called my doctor." This indicates deception because she has skipped a large chunk of time. She is not being led by questions, she is free-editing her own story and for some reason decides to go straight from Todd checking on flights to skipping the reception and getting on the plane. Judging from her use of pronouns, we can determine that she was not alone when she arrived at the hospital. However, she gives no indicators as to who she was with."

"She refers to her other children as"my babies," not "our babies, which is very telling. She then refers to Trig as her "fifth child." For those well-versed in Statement Analysis, when someone uses the word "child," it is associated with risk, danger, harm, and abuse. It is not called baby abuse/kid abuse, it is called child abuse. Trig is not her baby like her other children have been, he is simply her fifth child. She starts out by describing her labor as relatively easy, and then corrects herself by saying it was not just easy, not just very easy, but very very easy. When the subject uses these qualifiers, she is telling us she wants us to believe them. From this sentence we can say that his birth was not very easy." 

Reporter: Of course you’re back to work already today and actually signed a bill that day, right? 

Palin: That day, yeah, staff came out to the hospital and I signed a bill there so I could uh make sure we transmitted that in time and then uh here today also yeah, we have some energy updates I didn’t want to miss so that was good. Look at him he’s just doing so well and it’s been easy and relaxing and again it all seems just meant to be this way. 

"Please note that any use of "so, since, therefore, because" shows a reason why something did or did not take place. This indicates sensitivity. She had no reason to explain why she signed the bill but offers us a lengthy response as to why she did. Again, Trig is mentioned using only he/him pronouns. He has not yet been mentioned with a name/term of endearment/nickname by his mother. "Meant to be" indicates that God is controlling the situation (freeing her from all guilt) and that God is the only person who can judge her alleged actions." 

Reporter: You said you felt some signs of labor, what were those signs? 

Palin: Well not contractions so much because I had Braxton Hicks contractions for months as every pregnant woman does, and nothing real painful but just knowing that, um, it was feeling like, I may not um, be able to be pregnant a whole another four or five weeks knowing that it would be not a bother to call our doctor and let her know. 

"And um she’s delivered how many babies over the year did she say? Extra words in describing that not just she, but all pregnant women have Braxton Hicks for months. This indicates sensitivity concerning her labor. She says she was not in pain and not having contractions which would have alerted her. She goes on to say knowing that she may not be able to be pregnant and corrects herself halfway through by saying it was feeling like she may not be able to be pregnant for much longer. Her first response indicates that she knew Trig was close to being delivered. She gives no indication as to what alerted her to this. This is also the first time that "my doctor" has been referred to as "our doctor," why the change? Sarah then asks how many babies CBJ has delivered over the year; it is a specific time frame (the year) that she changes to a couple of decades in her next breath. 

Todd: Lots 

Palin: A lot. It’s been a couple of decades of her delivering babies. We knew to call her and just get her advice and, um, from there we again decided to skip the energy conference reception and come on home and get checked out. 

"She says "we knew to call her" but in her first paragraph she said that she called the doctor herself. Usually the person dialing the phone makes the statement that they were the one who called. In her whole paragraph she indicated she was alone when she called to talk to her doctor. Was the decision-making in reference to phoning the doctor made over text messaging? She also says "we again decided to skip the energy conference." Who is "we?" In her first paragraph, she describes herself as making the initial decision, indicating that Todd had nothing to do with the decision. Her priorities are also telegraphed by her saying "come home and get checked out." Getting back home was paramount to her getting checked out." 

Reporter: So did your water break? 

"Readers note that this is a very straightforward question. It is a yes/no answer. The strongest statement Palin could make to answer this truthfully would be to say "Yes, my water broke" or "No, my water did not break." She does neither of these." 

Palin: Well, if you must know more of those type of details, but, um… 

Reporter: Well, your dad said that and I saw him say it so that’s why I asked. 

Palin: Well that was again if, if I must get personal, technical about this at the same time, um, it was one, it was a sign that I knew, um, could lead to uh, labor being uh kind of kicked in there was any kind of, um, amniotic leaking, amniotic fluid leaking, so when, when that happened we decided OK let’s call her. 

"This response is incredibly sensitive to Palin. She telegraphs this by repeating words: if if, personal technical it was one it was a sign, amniotic leaking amniotic fluid leaking, so when when that happened. This shows she does not want to answer the question and indicates deception. Her use of synonyms with regards to "personal, technical" also indicates sensitivity. Is the question personal or is it technical? One implies she shouldn't have to answer it and the other implies it's too difficult to answer it. She was asked, did your water break and answered that "I knew [amniotic leaking] could lead to labor being kicked in. When that happened we decided OK let's call [the doctor]." She again states that "we decided" to call CBJ, although she does not indicate that anyone was with her when she called, only that there was another person who helped her make the decision to call. 

Todd: There’s a lot of new doctors out there on the streets in the last couple of days. 

"This is a sarcastic remark. It would seem to be aimed at the interviewer, since she was asking personal/technical questions." 

Palin: Yeah, that’s significant too. Todd said, uh, after getting a couple of comments he said that he said wow everybody’s a doctor, Everybody’s going to tell us what we could have should have done and even though these folks - especially the critics- they’re not doctors. They didn’t know the situation. They don’t know the situation. They, they certainly don’t know our doctor and the consultations that we’ve had with her. So we did nothing to put our child nor anyone else in danger, uh, going through this five times I know what labor is and, uh, I am not a glutton for pain and punishment. I would have never, um, wanted to travel if I had been fully engaged in labor. 

"That's significant too, she says. What is it significant to, especially since it was a facetious remark and not intended to be serious? The timing of this remark in this interview suggests that the doctor comment was significant to what she was just talking bout: her water breaking. This implies that she does not think discussion of her whether or not her water broke is significant. She states that "they didn't know the situation, they don't know the situation;" there is only one situation being questioned which is her labor. She indicates that there is not just a past situation, but also a present situation that people are unaware of. Presumably because they are not doctors, don't know CBJ, and were not present during consults. Consultations is plural, meaning they had more than one need to consult her. A consultation is not a prenatal appointment or testing." 

"Conclusion: there is marked deception indicated multiple times throughout her story. She does not refer to her newborn as her baby, a baby, by a nickname-- only as her "fifth child" or "child." She uses pausing fillers like "um, uh, yeah" more than thirty times in this section of the interview, this indicates she is not recalling an actual memory but has to think of what she's going to say. Her ums and uhs stop entirely when she gets defensive and angry about people acting like doctors. She is genuinely upset. They start up again as soon as she mentions that they did nothing to put their child in danger. Does this interview give proof that Sarah Palin did not give birth to Trig Palin? Sadly, no. It does indicate that she is lying throughout the entire interview concerning the Wild Ride, however. Does it give proof that Sarah has a poor relationship with her husband and her fifth child by using distancing language? (Skeptics please remember that if Trig was adopted, he's legally a Palin) Yes. I know that many mothers, nurses, doctors, and Trig Truthers have already decided that the Wild Ride was a load of Palin crap. But hopefully this analysis gives us a few more clues as to certain nuances in the Palin clan."

Now I did not conduct this analysis myself, so I a cannot vouch for its accuracy, but in my opinion it makes some rather striking points that I thought would be interesting to discuss.

So what did you think?

P.S. Here is a video of the interview courtesy of Palingates for you to use for reference.

Update: Apparently this analysis has already been posted at Sarah's Scandals a couple of weeks ago. I apologize for not providing a link, or giving them credit, but I was not aware of that fact when I posted this. This does happen from time to time, and since I don't get the chance to visit everybody's blog I really have no idea.

Anyhow it certainly cannot hurt to have something like this show up more than one place.

Palin once again fails to understand what religious tolerance REALLY means.

"What? Alaska Airlines removed those prayer cards that insult every other religion but my own? How dare they!"

Recently Alaska Airlines decided to end a 30 year tradition and stop providing little prayer cards along with meals in first class:

Airline spokeswoman Bobbie Egan said the airline heard from customers who preferred not to mix religion with transportation. 

The decision reflects respect for the diverse religious beliefs and cultural attitudes of Alaska Airlines' customers and employees, the company said in announcing the change. "Some customers were comforted by the cards and some didn't feel religion was appropriate on the plane and preferred not to receive one," she said.

Seems pretty cut and dried doesn't it? The airlines is FINALLY recognizing that not everybody wants to have a religious faith they may, or may not, adhere to thrust in their face while traveling.

It seems like an obvious choice, not to mention one that probably should have taken place decades ago.  Who could possibly find fault with it?

Oh that's right, HER!

It seems astonishing that someone would be offended by a simple prayer card placed on an airline’s meal tray, ( Because I lack the imagination to understand how non-Christians might feel about finding these cards attached to their meals.) but I guess that’s the politically correct world we live in now. A few days ago, Rev. Franklin Graham ( Of course!) gave me a heads up that Alaska Airlines may discontinue its nice, decades-long Alaskan tradition of including a little prayer card on flight meal trays. Rev. Graham is a frequent flyer to Alaska on Alaska Airlines because of his missionary work. Of course, as an Alaskan I’m also a frequent flyer on this airlines, which always seems to provide superb service. When I heard from Rev. Graham, I immediately sent the following letter to the CEO and President of Alaska Airlines. 

It feels so odd that some may be offended by a little card with an encouraging non-denominational verse from the Psalms, (But not nearly as odd as hearing somebody so completely lacking in religious sensitivity saying how odd it feels.) but how often do we hear complaints about tawdry ads or billboard images flashing at us everywhere we turn? (Uh, all the time?) People of faith and common decency just shrug and move on from the constant assault on their sensibilities; we don’t call for censorship – at least I don’t. (That part made me laugh so hard I choked a little.) So, why in this day and age must every reference to faith in God be censored from the public square? Why must a private company buckle under pressure from a handful of people who find a little card saying “the Lord is my shepherd” offensive? I’m sure there are many more people who appreciate the cards, or at least are ambivalent about them. 


That is the problem with people who grow up completely saturated in the teachings from one narrow version of religion, they simply do not understand why EVERYBODY does not want to be exposed to their belief system.  I can only imagine how completely insane Palin would suddenly get if, on her next flight, she opened her food tray and instead of finding one of these..

...found one of these in its place.

Somehow I think that Palin's desire to be "ambivalent about them" would disappear in a white hot flash of outrage.

For your amusement here is the letter that Palin had ghostwritten for her to send.