In the PMA's April 15th newsletter, Executive Director Elizabeth Anderson's column represents an oblique response to my March email calling into question the rerouting of a non-profit PMA asset through the for-profit website of the cyber sponsor. In Elizabeth's column, she goes beyond the references cited and sets out an expanded definition of unprofessional behavior and through that expanded definition, qualifies my March email as unprofessional.
In this video, I break down the points made on both sides of this issue and provide examples using the May 2nd Facebook and blog post of a well-known, research-based political analyst AND an April 25th Opinion Page article from the New York Times, both of which identically mirror the type of analysis I set forth in my March email and neither of which are considered, in the real world, to be unprofessional.
Unless and until an organization can fund itself beyond the influence of its own bedmates, the FAA, our government and the PMA will be subject to the biases of its wealthiest supporters.
The link at the end of the video to Elizabeth's column is too blurry to use so here it is: pilatesmethodalliance.org/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageID=3439
Here's the link to the NYT piece: nytimes.com/2013/04/26/opinion/a-back-seat-for-safety-at-the-faa.html?_r=0
Seat belts, please.
Loading more stuff…
Hmm…it looks like things are taking a while to load. Try again?