Its not often that I actually ride to an event. I'm usually attending with someone else and two-up on the CBR is a bit uncomfortable. But this past Saturday I was heading into Los Angeles for the Kings' game against Edmonton, and since I had no one to attend with me, and it was a day game, and the rain had actually stopped, and I was leaving a bit later than I wanted to and thought I could make-up some time by lane splitting, I decided to ride the bike. Everything was fine - the ride down was good and not much lane splitting necessary - until I got downtown and was choosing where to park.

When I drive to a hockey game, I'm normally in the car with a passenger and have a parking lot that I frequent. I little, private lot a couple of blocks away that only cost $8 to park in. The walk its nothing excessive, and its much cheaper than parking in the closest lots. Since I was on the bike though, and wanted to leave my jacket and helmet on it while I was in the game, I decided I'd pay the extra money and park in the covered parking underneath the LA Live center. Didn't expect any drama though.

If you haven't been to LA Live, its the newest entertainment center downtown directly across the street from the Staples Center. Its home to the Nokia Theater, Club Nokia, a Yardhouse k restaurant, ESPN zone, a Lucky Strike bowling alley, and much more. Beneath all that is a multi-level underground parking facility. Unfortunately, like too many parking structures of that type there is no thought or consideration for motorcycle parking.

As I was pulling into the facility there was an attendant ahead of the ticket dispenser. I don't know what his actual job description is, nor what he is actually supposed to do while standing there. I do know he doesn't pass out the parking tickets (there's a machine for that), nor take money (there's another machine for that), nor tell people where to park (lots of signage covers that tasks, though there may be some people that don't understand a sign that reads "PARK" with an arrow directing you). No, apparently his only duty was to stand there, wait for me to show up and advise me "you can't park in here."

Obviously, the young man was mistaken. I was able to see many empty parking spaces, and I was well aware of my ability to put down the kickstand and gently lean the bike over onto it, thus "parking" it. The combination of apparent space availability and my skills ensured that I would be able to park there. Perhaps he was just unaware of my skills (and believed that I had never gotten off the vehicle), or thought there was no room. I attempted to learn his reasons.

"Why not?" I inquired.

"Because they don't let motorcycles park in here."

I looked around in vain at the ticket machine, the gate arm, everywhere, but saw nothing that would indicate "no motorcycles". (I know what the signs look like; they use them at the parking structure at my work.) I let him know that "I don't see anywhere that says 'no motorcycles'."

"Well, they don't like motorcycles parking in here."

Sensing a case of vehicle discrimination, I now understood that he wasn't mistaken, he was simply following orders. "Why don't they like motorcycles parking in here." I asked, certain that I would be able to rebuke any "logic" behind the argument.

"Because we don't have a cashier today and when we don't have one they don't pay."

"Who doesn't pay?"

"Motorcycles. They come in and leave without paying. They ride around the gate or over the curb. So they don't like [motorcycles] parking in here."

"So, you're telling me that I can't park in here because other people on motorcycles have parked in here and ended up not paying?"

"Yeah"

"But," I responded, having found the chink in his logic, "I'm going to pay."

He stood looking at me blankly for a couple of seconds, not knowing how to respond. Without another word, I pulled forward the 20 or so yards to the ticket machine, took my ticket, and found a convenient parking spot. Locked my helmet and jacket to the bike, and went to enjoy the game.

After the game I paid at the automated payment machine, returned to the bike, and slipped my now paid ticket into the machine at the exit gate on my way out. I guess motorcycle riders do pay.

Now the $20 to park is, in my opinion, excessive. Its the main reason I park the car elsewhere. But I was willing to pay it since it was my choice to park there that day and to reap the benefit of not letting my gear get wet if it rained during the game, or not having to lug it into Staples Center with me, and feeling a little better about where it was parked. I believe that AEG/LA Live parking needs to do a couple of things to improve this situation:

• 
  
• Make sure their attendants don't say "no" to anyone wanting to park.
  
• Make an area specifically for motorcycles to park in (that way we're not taking up a full space each)
  
• Charge less for motorcycle parking
  

Understandably, the last point may be hard to do if they don't have any way to determine if a particular vehicle is indeed a bike, but the first two certain are feasible. It may even be reasonable to have a limited area for motorcycles and simply not charge at all. I'm pretty sure that the review generated from where ever those riders are going would more than cover a few spots in otherwise unused space.

(Also at Bikeslut.com)

On Veterans Day we pay tribute to those who have fought for our country from its earliest days to the present. This day reminds us of how important it is that the men and women who wear this country's uniform know how grateful their fellow Americans are for that service.

The holiday's birthplace is my home state of Kansas. Over half a century ago, a shoe store owner in Emporia named Al King promoted the idea of changing what had been Armistice Day - honoring veterans of the First World War - into a celebration of veterans of every conflict, and every era.

What started in Emporia went national in 1954, when Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed a bill making the November 11 holiday the one we know today.

As important as it is to publicly recognize the service of our troops returned from the battlefield, it is more important - indeed a sacred obligation - that we make sure they receive the care, benefits, and compensation they've so courageously earned. This is one of the preeminent challenges facing our nation. Aside from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have had no higher leadership priority.

-Robert M. Gates
   Secretary of Defense
   Excerpt from his 2008 Veterans Day message

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=51846

---

It is the soldier, not the reporter,
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier,
Who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.

Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC

Normally, when election time comes around I sit down with a cup of coffee and thoroughly read through the actual language in all the propositions. I didn't do that this time. I glanced through things in general and subsequent thoughts and discussions were focused on Proposition 8. (California if you're out of state.) Perhaps, if I had taken the time to look closer at things I would have seen it sooner, or if I had done an absentee ballot. But I did neither, and thus didn't see these words until this morning at the polling place:

Eliminate the right...

I knew what prop 8 was about, and my mind was already made up on which way to vote on it (NO), but actually seeing that language was a shock. I cannot think of a single right that persons have that should ever be eliminated. And worse, this is being put to a majority vote!! A group of people have the ability to take away another group's rights???

I said in my previous post on this subject that a YES on 8 was a slippery slope. This language reenforces that in my mind. What right...WHOSE rights...will someone attempt to eliminate next?

I originally wrote the following in response to comments on someone else's journal post. The other person that commented was taking the position that if prop 8 did not pass it would be bad for society as a whole. Specifically, it would create more criminals since most male inmates have no father present in their home. I believe you can figure out the rest of what he said from my words, even though it was a 2:00 am post and I was more than a bit tired.

I won’t try to discredit your statistics, but I would ask that you think about expanding on the data. Its simple enough to find the statistic showing 90% of male inmates come from a home with no father. But, why did those home haves no father present? Were the fathers sent to jail, in which case does it make it a matter of genetics or trying to be like dad? More likely, did dad just take off and abandon the family, or maybe mom never told dad about the child in the first place?

I believe it is more significant to point out that the same statistic indicates that 90% of male inmates are from single-parent homes? Who can say what would have happened with two parents in the home regardless of sex. Since the majority of inmates currently in the system were raised during a period that same-sex couples were not as prevalent, especially same-sex couples with children, I truly don’t believe there is sufficient data to support what will happen to children of such families today. If you do want to use your position of “the specific lack of a father […] is a clear detriment to society”, then does that mean that a child of two homosexual males is twice as less likely to commit a crime? Again, insufficient data to support, but I doubt it.

I do believe that even if prop 8 does pass, it will not ‘fix’ the issue you’re concerned about; children being raised without a father. What you will have are children being raised by two parents that care about each other as much as any other couple does. The significant difference is these couples are not entitled to the same benefits as others. You may very well be preventing that child from receiving medical coverage under one of his ‘parents’ plans from work because that parent is not recognized as that child’s mother/father since the ‘parents’ aren’t married.

Update: RicoSuave2006 accurately commented "Under domestic partnership laws, same-sex partners are granted equal access to each other's employer provided medical plans, among many other rights." While this is true in California and few other states, Domestic Partnerships are not recognized across state lines as is Marriage. It should be noted though that same-sex marriages may not be recognized in other states (due to their own state constitutions) and those relationships may only be recognized as a Domestic Partnership if applicable in those locales.)

Prop 8 will not accomplish the actual goal that its supporters are trying to achieve; eliminating homosexual couples entirely. (This is of course only my 2:00 am posting opinion, not fact.) The couples will still exist. They will still raise children. But society as a whole will indeed suffer, because those couples and their children will not be treated the same as other families [1].

While thinking long about prop 8, the poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) came to mind:
——————————
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
  because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
  because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
  because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
  because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
  and there was no one left to speak out for me.
——————————

Prop 8 takes away freedom and right of a group of people. I truly believe that allowing prop 8 to pass will set us on the beginning of a slippery slope which will eventually see the rights of all people infringed upon.

-Snuff

[1] Family: a group consisting of parents and children living together in a household. a group of people related to one another by blood or marriage