PINK Dear Mr. President w/lyrics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGNdkue6yC8&feature=related

Uniquely American (GW)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIjo-dWE1Jg

I'm Not Ready to Make Nice (Dixie Chicks)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHH8bfPhusM&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Petty
Excerpt:
In 1987, Petty sued tire company B.F. Goodrich for $1 million for using a song very similar to his song "Mary's New Car" in a TV commercial. The ad agency that produced the commercial had previously sought permission to use Petty's song but was refused. A judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting further use of the ad and the suit was later settled out of court.^[25]

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/tom-petty-teaches-lesson-about-standing.html
Excerpt:

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Tom Petty Teaches A Lesson About Standing Up To Bullies

We long have been fans of Tom Petty and his music. For our money, Petty and his band the Heartbreakers have consistently turned out some of the most finely crafted albums of the rock and roll era. But we recently discovered a new reason to admire Petty--and it has little to do with music.

For years, we've thought "I Won't Back Down" was just another outstanding tune in the Petty catalog, one that became a major hit back in 1989. It wasn't until we read a recent profile of Petty in Rolling Stone, that we learned about the story behind "I Won't Back Down."

It turns out that Tom Petty doesn't much care for it when people try to cheat him. And he likes it even less when people try to bully him, apparently over legal matters. Petty, we learned, has a strong sense of justice--and that makes us like him even more.

"I Won't Back Down" was inspired by a courtroom battle and a near-fatal threat Petty received in the aftermath.

(For extra credit, here is a Legal Schnauzer trivia question: Who taught Tom Petty to play the guitar? Answer at the end of this post.)

In 1987, Petty sued the tire company B.F. Goodrich for $1 million for using a song very similar to his "Mary's New Car" in a TV commercial. An advertising agency for Goodrich had tried to buy the rights to "Mary's New Car," and Petty refused--so the company made a thinly veiled effort to steal the song.

According to a newspaper article dated March 6, 1987, a judge ordered Goodrich to stop using the commercial. A spokesman for the ad agency said the move would cost the tire maker hundreds of thousands of dollars.

On March 17, 1987, 11 days after the judge's order, someone set fire to Petty's home in Encino, California. Petty, his wife, one of their two daughters, and a housekeeper were home at the time. They managed to escape unharmed, but almost everything in the house was destroyed. Officials quickly determined that the fire was caused by arson.

What was it like to be the victim of arson? Petty described it in an article by Reuters:

"We were shaken for years by it," says Petty, adding that he could not bring himself to use the word "fire" in a song. "It's sort of like being raped, I would imagine. It really took a long time. And it was 10 times as bad, because you knew that somebody just went and did it. Somebody tried to off you."

The arson case has never been solved. And it never officially has been tied to the B.F. Goodrich lawsuit. But the timing was, shall we say, curious.

How did Petty respond? He wrote a classic song. And for good measure, he rebuilt his house out of fire-resistant materials.

Petty's raw anger came pouring out in "I Won't Back Down." Here are the lyrics:

I Won't Back DownMusic and Lyrics by Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne

Well I won't back down
No I won't back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won't back down
No I'll stand my ground, won't be turned around
And I'll keep this world from draggin me down
gonna stand my ground
... and I won't back down

Chorus:
(I won't back down...)
Hey baby, there ain't no easy way out
(and I won't back down...)
hey I will stand my ground
and I won't back down

Well I know what's right, I got just one life
in a world that keeps on pushin me around
but I'll stand my ground
...and I won't back down

(I won't back down...)
Hey baby, there ain't no easy way out
(and I won't back down...)
hey I will stand my ground
(I won't back down)
and I won't back down...

(I won't back down...)
Hey baby, there ain't no easy way out
(I won't back down)
hey I won't back down
(and I won't back down)
hey baby, there ain't no easy way out
(and I won't back down)
hey I will stand my ground
(I won't back down)
No I won't back down...

As for our trivia question, former Eagle Don Felder taught Tom Petty to play the guitar. They grew up near each other in Gainesville, Florida. Felder went on to peform on some of the Eagles biggest albums and wrote the music for "Hotel California." He also played the classic guitar solo on "One of These Nights" and co-wrote "Victim of Love," one of the finest rockers in the Eagles catalog.

Petty learned those guitar lessons well. And he went on to play with some of the giants of music, including George Harrison, Ringo Starr, Bob Dylan, and Roy Orbison. Here is a live performance of "I Won't Back Down." Enjoy.

Labels: arson, B.F. Goodrich, Bob Dylan, George Harrison, I Won't Back Down, Ringo Starr, Tom Petty

http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/70/BF-Goodrich.aspx
Adapted from material by the Department of Philosophy and Department of Mechanical Engineering
Texas A&M University
NSF Grant Number DIR-9012252

Introduction to the Case
On June 18, 1967, the B.F. Goodrich Wheel and Brake Plant in Troy, Ohio, received a contract to supply wheels and brakes for the new Air Force light attack aircraft. Goodrich won the contract based on their competitive bid and, more importantly, their innovative technical design, featuring a lightweight four-rotor brake1. Before the Air Force could accept the brake, B.F. Goodrich had to present a report showing that the brake passed specified qualifying tests. The last two weeks of June 1968 were set aside for flight-testing the brake, giving Goodrich almost a full year for design and testing.
Following brake failure at the June 1968 flight tests, and the ensuing accusations by a former B.F. Goodrich employee, Kermit Vandivier, regarding qualification test report falsification and ethical misconduct on the part of specific B.F. Goodrich personnel, Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisconsin) requested a governmental inquiry into the brake qualification testing performed by the B.F. Goodrich Troy Plant. On August 13, 1969, a four-hour Congressional hearing2, chaired by Senator Proxmire, was held to investigate the Air Force A7D Aircraft Brake Problem.
In 1972, Vandivier wrote a well-crafted article, "Why Should My Conscience Bother Me,"3 which depicted his version of the Goodrich incident. Consequently, his article formed the basis of what is now known in professional business and engineering ethics circles and in the literature of whistle-blowing as "The Aircraft Brake Scandal." As one of the most famous whistle-blowing cases in the literature, The Aircraft Brake Scandal has been hailed as a paradigm case of the courageous individual challenging an unscrupulous corporation.4 Whistle-blower Vandivier is treated as a hero, a man who lost his job for doing the right thing.
Unfortunately, life is more cluttered, more ambiguous than Vandivier presents. Reexamination shows that the The Aircraft Brake Scandal case is, precisely because of the ambiguous nature of life inside corporate America. The case shows that whistle-blowing was merely a symptom of larger ethical problems within both Goodrich and the aircraft brake industry as a whole, from engineering responsibility regarding rationalizing ineptitude and failed innovation to the case actors' accountability for deficiencies in communications to governmental and industry culpability in allowing erroneous qualification testing procedures to continue.
The case shows how engineers can be responsible for failed innovation, how easy it is for events to escalate (in this case, to a formal Congressional hearing) when people fail to communicate and get their facts straight, and how innovative design often makes testing procedures obsolete, or worse yet, shows that they were in fact erroneous.
Notes
1. The rotor is a rotating metal disc interspersed with stators, which are stationary metal discs carrying brake lining material. The rotor and stator discs, when compressed, perform the braking action.
2. Air Force A7-D Brake Problem: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, Ninety-First Congress, First Session, August 13, 1969. LC card 72-606996. Hereinafter referred to as "Goodrich Hearing."
3. Vandivier, Kermit. "Why Should My Conscience Bother Me?" in Heilbroner, Robert L., et al., In The Name Of Profit, Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1972, pp. 3–31. See also the reprint of this article, "The Aircraft Brake Scandal," in Harpers Magazine, 244 (April 1972), pp. 45–52.
4. Fielder, John H. "Give Goodrich a Break,'' Business and Professional Ethics Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Spring 1988), p. 21.

Organizations and People Involved
Several sets of characters played important roles in both the events that eventually resulted in whistle-blowing, and the 1969 Congressional Hearing.
Central Characters
Kermit Vandivier, technical writer. As whistle-blower, Vandivier claimed that he and Searle Lawson were ordered to falsify the qualification report. Went to work as a reporter for the Troy Daily News following his resignation from Goodrich.
Searle Lawson, young design engineer (with a certificate in aircraft design technology and an undergraduate degree in aeronautical and astronautical engineering) on the A7D brake. Partially corroborated Vandivier's accusations against Goodrich personnel. Went to work for LTV following his resignation from Goodrich.
Richard Gloor, laboratory test engineer. First to confirm Vandivier's suspicions regarding falsified testing.
Ralph Gretzinger, test lab supervisor. Gretzinger initially opposed data falsification but bowed to pressure from his immediate supervisor in the Technical Services section, Russell Line.
Russell Line, manager, Technical Services section. Ordered Vandivier to write falsified qualification report.
Russell Van Horn, Robert Sink's, John Warren's and Searle Lawson's immediate supervisor, and manager of the Aircraft Wheel and Brake Design section, with ultimate responsibility for the A7D proposal and project. Van Horn ordered Lawson to qualify the final brake test, "no matter what."
Robert L. Sink, non-degreed A7D project manager. Sink, along with Van Horn, ordered Lawson to qualify the final brake test, "no matter what."
John Warren, design engineer on the A7D attack aircraft brake.
H.C. (Bud) Sunderman, chief engineer for the B.F. Goodrich Wheel and Brake Plant, Troy, Ohio. Sunderman initially offered to have someone in the engineering department write the qualification report when Vandivier refused to do so.
Peripheral Characters
Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisconsin), chaired the four-hour Congressional Hearing on August 13, 1969. Proxmire had just made a name for himself with his investigation into cost overruns of the Air Force's C5A contracts with Lockheed Aircraft Corp. and General Electric Co. by the GAO and the Congressional Joint Economic Committee. As someone known as the "quality assurance" senator, for his tough stand on government waste, Proxmire's investigations of the C5A and A7D merely set the stage for his later, now notorious "Golden Fleece Awards," handed out monthly from 1975-1980 to federal government agencies deemed most wasteful, nay reckless in their disbursement of the taxpayers' dollars. Proxmire was committed to hunting down what he dubbed legalized thefts, and exposing them to public scrutiny. Thus, Vandivier gave Proxmire an opportunity to unmask yet another possible government procurement rip off.
Joseph Hathaway, FBI agent. Vandivier and Lawson met with Agent Hathaway at the recommendation of Vandivier's attorney.
Robert L. Hartman, Chief Systems Engineer, United States Air Force.
Bruce Tremblay, Systems Group Leader, Headquarters, Aeronautical Systems Division (AFSC), Wright Patterson Air Force Base.
General Accounting Office (GAO) investigators Richard W. Gutmann, Guy A. Best, Stanley R. Eibetz, Jerome P. Pederson, and Steven Haycock. The GAO is the auditing arm of Congress, and thus investigated the allegations against the B.F. Goodrich Company, and documented their findings in GAO Report B167023, "Review of the Qualification Testing of Brakes For the A7D Aircraft."
R.G. Jeter, vice-president and general counsel, and secretary of the B.F. Goodrich Co., Akron, Ohio. Testified on behalf of Goodrich headquarters at the August 13, 1969 Congressional Hearing.
Key Dates

1967
June 18 - Goodrich receives Purchase Order P-237138 (for $69,417) from LTV Aerospace Corporation. LTV orders 202 four-rotor brake assemblies from B.F. Goodrich for the new Air Force A7D light attack aircraft LTV is contracted to build for the Air Force.
LTV sets the last two weeks of June 1968 aside for flight testing of the B.F. Goodrich brake assemblies. Goodrich must qualify the brake for testing prior to flight test commencement.
June - B.F. Goodrich engineer, Searle Lawson, builds and tests braking prototypes. All tests fail crucial temperature tests.
1968
April 4 - Thirteenth attempt to qualify the four-rotor brake begins. No longer any pretense of qualifying the brake to military specifications. The brake is "nursed" through the required 50 simulated stops, with fans set up to provide special cooling for the brake.
April 11 - Vandivier gets involved. Vandivier, in looking over raw data from the A7D brake tests, observes that many irregularities in testing methods were noted in the test logs. Vandivier queries Lawson and discovers that Lawson was instructed to deliberately miscalibrate tests, thereby ensuring the four-rotor brake qualifies to the letter of the government specification.
May 2 - Fourteenth and final attempt to qualify the brake begins. Lawson is told by his superiors, Robert L. Sink and Russell Van Horn, to qualify the brake, "no matter what."
late May - Vandivier refuses to write a falsified qualification report, and is backed up by his immediate supervisor, Ralph Gretzinger.
Despite protests, graphic portion of Qualification Report Q6031 is completed by Vandivier and Lawson (taking approximately one month).
Chief Engineer Bud Sunderman informs Gretzinger that the engineering section has no time to write the qualification report, so the Technical Services section must. Vandivier is ordered to write the report. He does so, despite the fact that he knows it is a falsified report.
late May - A few days later Lawson returns from a conference in Dallas with LTV and the Air Force, where the Air Force officials rescind their approval of Qualification Report Q-6031 and demand to see the raw data from the B.F. Goodrich testing laboratory. Vandivier tells Lawson that his attorney has advised him that both he and Lawson are guilty of conspiracy. Lawson asks Vandivier to see his attorney, and one week later Lawson is introduced to FBI agent Hathaway.
June 5 - Qualification Report Q-6031 officially published by B.F. Goodrich and delivered to LTV and the Air Force.
June 12 - Flight tests begin at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Lawson is present at the tests, and returns two weeks later with reports on testing incidents caused by failure of the Goodrich brake.
late June - On hearing Lawson's story about danger to the pilot resulting from the faulty brake, Vandivier sees his attorney, who advises Vandivier that both he and Lawson might be considered part of a conspiracy to defraud the government.
early July - Vandivier's attorney takes him to Dayton, Ohio to meet with FBI agent Joseph Hathaway, who advises Vandivier not to discuss his story, and assures Vandivier that he will forward the information to his superiors in Washington.
July 27 - Saturday morning conference held between Vandivier, Lawson, Sink, and Warren to discuss strategies for telling LTV about the differences in "engineering" interpretation of the test results found in Qualification Report Q-6031. Sink cautions Vandivier that this is not lying; rather, it is a case of engineering "rationalization," or judgment. During the meeting, 43 discrepancies were noted. Sink deems only 3 of these worth mentioning to LTV.
August - Visits between LTV and B.F. Goodrich engineering personnel.
September - Unbeknownst to Vandivier, a five-rotor brake was being designed and tested, at no additional cost to either LTV or the Air Force, as a replacement to the faulty four-rotor brake.
October 11: - Lawson resigns his position at Goodrich, securing employment at LTV.
October 18 - Vandivier resigns from Goodrich, making his effective date November 1. His letter contains numerous accusations of ethical misconduct at the Troy Plant over the past six months.
October 25 - Sunderman calls Vandivier in and dismisses him immediately for disloyalty to Goodrich. Sunderman asks Vandivier if he will take further action. Vandivier says, "Yes." Sunderman responds, "Suit yourself."
October 27 - B.F. Goodrich recalls Qualification Report Q-6031 and the four-rotor brake, and announces it will replace the brake with a new, improved, five-rotor brake, at no cost to LTV.
1969
May 13 - Senator Proxmire requests GAO to investigate B.F. Goodrich's Qualification Report Q-6031 testing procedures.
August 13 - Four-hour Congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Proxmire, held before the Subcommittee on Economy in Government to determine: (1) the accuracy of B.F. Goodrich's reported qualification test results; (2) the effect the defective brakes had on the test pilot's safety; (3) the identification of additional costs, if any, incurred by the Government to obtain an acceptable brake; and (4) the responsibilities of the Government, including Air Force actions, in the qualification testing.
August 14 - Department of Defense announces changes in inspection, testing, and reporting procedures.
Ethical Issues of the Case
1) Was this a clear-cut case of ethical wrongdoing? If so, what were the wrong(s), and did they justify whistle-blowing? What are the responsibilities of the whistle-blower?
2) How did events escalate such that the only recourse was whistle-blowing? What causal forces spurred Vandivier to action? What personal, social, economic, and political considerations were involved at the time? What roles did failed technological innovation, poor communications and erroneous qualification testing procedures play? And could whistle-blowing have been avoided?
3) What procedures can individuals/engineering societies/businesses/government put in place to ensure whistle-blowing is not the end result?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944500,00.html
Excerpt:

ETHICS: The Whistle Blowers

Monday, Apr. 17, 1972

THAT homespun homily by the turn-of-the-century soap manufacturer turned essayist hangs framed in countless offices and factories. It has long been accepted by both employers and employees as an accurate description of their relationship: loyalty in return for wages—love the company or leave it. But what if an employee has inside information about products that have hidden defects, factories that pollute, false advertising claims, price fixing, cost overruns or kickbacks? A growing number of workers are answering such questions by blowing the whistle on corporate misdeeds.
An as yet unidentified ITT employee slipped Columnist Jack Anderson the famous Dita Beard and Chile memos, and Anderson says that someone at ITT still feeds him information. Last week Anderson wrote that a high-level employee at Pfizer Inc. tipped him that the drug company's managers were urging workers to write their Congressmen to express opposition to a bill that would set up a federal consumer-protection agency; a worker at Ford apparently put Anderson on to safety defects in the company's "sexy" Capri compact. This month in Harper's, Kermit Vandivier, a former B.F. Goodrich data analyst, discloses that he told the FBI about fraudulent test reports on airplane brakes that he says he had been ordered to write; after the FBI started a Government investigation, Goodrich replaced $70,000 worth of ill-designed brakes for the A-7D Air Force attack plane. Recently Robert Rowen, a former nuclear control technician at Pacific Gas & Electric Co., filed 49 charges against the utility with the Atomic Energy Commission; he alleged that P.G. & E. deliberately violated Government safety regulations in handling radioactive waste. The AEC later sustained two of the charges and rebuked the company on several more.
Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader has formed an organization for corporate tattletales called the Clearing House for Professional Responsibility. The group will publish a book this summer about whistle blowers. It is hiring a full-time employment counselor to help them find new jobs if they are fired, and even has a special mail drop to receive anonymous tips: P.O. Box 486, Benjamin Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044. In an obvious reference to people like Nader, General Motors' former chairman James M. Roche said in a speech last year: "Some of the enemies of business now encourage an employee to be disloyal to the enterprise. They want to create suspicion and disharmony. However this is labeled—industrial espionage, whistle blowing or professional responsibility—it is another tactic for spreading disunity and creating conflict."