I’d like to make a suggestion for those of you wishing to honor all veterans - regardless of when they served, where they served, if you agreed or disagreed with with their reason for serving, or even for what country they served:

Treat Veteran’s Day as the day of rememberance it’s intended to be.

There is a reason we create national holidays: to remind us not to forget! To remind us there are people, events and actions more important than ourselves, who have, in some small or large way, contributed to our having if not a better life then at least having the opportunity for a better life than those who came before us. We’re supposed to spend that time with our loved ones, many of whom are undoubtedly veterans, enjoying their company, thanking them for what they’ve done, hearing the stories of their time in service (and that just never gets old), laughing with them and sometimes crying with them, going to the parades and parks and beaches having events that do honor them - not showing up at Macy’s at 5am for another holiday sale.

And yet, every year, I see fewer and fewer businesses honor Veteran’s Day by closing their offices. Yes, banks close (most of them, anyway), the post office closes, state and federal offices close - but few others do. Personally, it angers me no end. It angers me all the more considering WE’RE AT WAR! Could we possibly show less thanks, admiration and respect for our troops right now than by not even being able to take one day out of our lives for them? After all, they’ve taken several years, and in far too many cases - all their years - out of their life for us.

Thanks for listening.

and we seem to be reveling in it.  How horribly sad…and revolting. The blogs, news comment sections, tv pundits, and water-cooler conversations have lit up with gleeful disdain of yet another public figure being ‘caught’ in an affair.  I won’t even get into the Republican vs. Democrat - based glee; it’s more disgusting than I want to know.

First of all - his private life is not the public’s business.  Yeah, yeah, I know…he’s a public figure.  And?!!  We have been beating the crap out of people with that excuse for-ev-er, and mostly to satisfy our own perverse voyeurism and/or so we can feel superior in some bizarre manner.  Enough already - time for the (American) public to grow up a little, stop demanding politicians live their lives on the pedestals on which we place them, so we can throw stones at them until they invariably fall off…at which point we vilify them for not being agile enough to dodge said stones and stay on our pedestals.  I think I just made my head hurt!

We elect people to do a job - not be saints.  At least, that’s what we should be doing.  Now, while everyone might not  agree on how well he’s done that job, obviously a lot of people in South Carolina thought he did them (Congress, as well as Gov) pretty well, since he was re-elected several times, not to mention pushed for a presidential run in 2012. 

It would be such a nice change of pace (snark) if we could manage not to make candidates/politicians feel they had to become some creation of flawless morality in order to get elected.  We have fostered this demand that our public servants must have none of the foibles we possess, and they keep trying to fulfill it…often with personally disasterous consequenses.  How about we knock it off?  Hmm? Few, if any, can live like that, and maintain their sanity for very long.

What happend to Governor Sanford can, and has, happened to millions, and will likely happen to millions more every day.  And too many are ready to crucify him, or demand he resign, or make him the punchline to a bad joke, for what?  For falling in love?  Or for not living up to something others wanted him to be, or decided he should be, in their own definition of what a leader, what a public servant, must be.  Let’s be fair for a second, there’s a big difference between stepping outside of one’s marriage to get laid, and falling in love, and all the gradations inbetween.

There are all sorts of things about what transpired, what caused the affair, who was involved, who was to blame, etc., the public will never know - I hope.  It’s none of our business.  It’s between him, his estranged wife, and his lover.  Period. 

The only part of this that belongs in the public eye, is relative to how Governor Sanford handled the details and procedures of leaving the state - not why he left town, not where he was, and not with whom he spent time. If he was derelict in his responsibility to the safety of the state and its people (and I seriously question the idea no one could get hold of him - obviously they could leave him phone messages, and did.  His not returning a message doesn’t mean he didn’t get it. That’s why we all have voicemail!) then punish him for that, if you feel it’s warranted - but not because he had the effrontery to be human. 

As for my part - I can only say this:

Governor Sanford - 

While I admire your willingness to take full responsibility for the actions of not only yourself, but of everyone remotely involved, I deeply regret the public demand you (or any other public figure) fall on your sword for something that was never the public’s right, nor need, to know in the first place.

I have seen few human beings look so utterly lost and desolate as you did today.  You have some difficult choices and decisions ahead of you.  Remember, life is all too short.  Choose to be the man you want to be, not what others demand.  Choose the life you think will bring you happiness and joy - as this will likely bring the same to those you love - not the life others want you to have or think you should, or must, pursue to fulfill a dream that may not be your own.

I wish you a long and happy life.

Here’s a hint:  Rove lost

General Wesley Clark, Karl Rove faceoff at Univ. of Buffalo (Video)

Debate date: September 26, 2008 | Transcript by RegNYC

Article excerpts from The Buffalo News | Jay Rey | NEWS STAFF REPORTER

It wasn’t Obama-McCain, but Western New York had a pretty good debate of its own Friday night at the University at Buffalo. On one side was Karl Rove, Republican strategist and former White House deputy chief of staff.

On the other side was retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who had sought the Democratic Party’s nomination in 2004.

The two launched this year’s Distinguished Speakers Series in Alumni Arena with a bang, by debating some of the same contentious issues the presidential candidates faced, such as the economy, a $700 billion government bailout, health care and the war in Iraq.

Each started with five minutes for opening comments on his party’s slant.

“We are blessed to be citizens of this country,” Rove said. “There is something called the American Dream and people around the world want to share in it. Never lose sight this is the greatest country in the history of the world.”

“We’re a nation in trouble,” Clark said. “We need new ideas, and we need new leadership for America.”

For Links to the Video of the Debate click the “read more” link below, then scroll to the bottom of that page.  Well worth watching!

read more

This is a truly inspired idea by Phyl!  Please show Wes some love and support by going to the blog post below (click on the headline of the post) , contributing any amount, and posting your contributions to the blog.  If you don’t have a CCN account, or don’t know how to post it, just send me your Transaction ID#, the date, Time, Payment amount (you can use “$xx.xx” instead of the amount if you want), and your first name/fullname/blogname, and I’ll happily post it for you : 

Wes’s week from Hell Fundraiser

Submitted by Phyl on July 3, 2008 - 4:47pm.
Wesley Clark It’s time to let General Clark know how much
we appreciate his dawn to dusk work this week,
using straight talk to draw attention to National Security issues, and to counter the attempts to “swiftboat” his words. Thank you Wes for speaking up, speaking out and not giving up. Let’s all give a little something as we can for the continuation of WesPAC and keeping Wes’s voice out there.

Thank General Clark for His Straight Talk, Tell Him To Not Back Down

You can sign it here: http://ga3.org/campaign/petitionclark

These are the issues that are important, damn it.  If we sacrifice what’s right, and doing what’s right, for what we want - we will end up with neither.

You really do want to read this diary over at the Orange place, by Eric Massa.  And Eric?  THANK YOU FOR STANDING UP  FOR WES!

by Eric Massa [Subscribe]

Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:13:33 AM PDT

I was recently asked whether I support the comments made by General Wes Clark, regarding Senator John McCain’s qualifications to be Commander in Chief.  I know General Wes Clark, having served directly for him for many years both in and out of uniform. In some ways I feel that I know him better than many; therefore, I am compelled to speak out on behalf of the integrity, honesty and just plain old fashioned smarts that he has consistently shown throughout his tenure as a military leader and into his civilian life.  Let me be as clear as possible.  Speaking as a veteran, both General Clark and I, not only respect but, revere the service given to our country by John McCain, including his years spent as a prisoner of war; however, this is not about Lieutenant John McCain the war hero.  Make no mistake about it, Lieutenant McCain is a genuine American hero, but the issue at hand is about the judgment of Senator John McCain the politician.

Please go read the rest at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/2/11101/80948/786/545337 .  Then recommend it while you’re there and let Eric know you appreciate what he said by leaving a comment and telling those you know about what he’s said here today.

DM

General Clark DID NOT impune Senator McCain’s service in any way, shape, or form. In fact - he said Mccain was one of his heros, as well as a hero to millions, for his service. What he did say was simple logic - that McCain’s specific military service does not make him automatically qualified to be commander-in-chief anymore than being able to drive a car qualifies one to race at NASCAR.Furthermore - I ‘ve no doubt he would have made his comments no matter who the presumptive Dem nominee was. The comments have nothing to do with Obama.  And - considering they have nothing to do with Obama, I’m saddened and, frankly, disgusted, that an Obama campaign spokesman would denounce General Clark’s remarks.

There is nothing to denounce. Doing so smacks of political cowardice on the part of the Obama spoksman who issued the statement, at the very least.”

(am officially a fan of cell ophones thatt type!)

First - and I apologize for the length - but I’m going to post the full article (with the author’s permission) by Mark Simon, from last month’s Animation World Magazine.

This legislation would devastate artists of all stripes, and potentially cause havoc for every business with a logo, corporate identity, personal photo, sketch, song, painting, sculpture…and every body who has ever posted any image or written word online - ever.  It would potentially legalize fraud on a massive scale never before seen.

Here you go - it’s long, and there are additional links at the bottom - including to the pdf versions of both the house and senate bills - but it’s vitally important to everyone -so please read it and notify your congress people NOT to pass this!

Mind Your Business: You Will Lose All The Rights to Your Own Art

Mark Simon is mad as hell and, in this month’s “Mind Your Business,” he tells you why you should be too.

April 10, 2008
By Mark Simon

Printable Version

Mark Simon.

As you know, I usually handle the subjects in my articles with a sense of humor. That is not the case this month. I find nothing funny about the new Orphan Works legislation that is before Congress.

In fact, it PISSES ME OFF!

As an artist, you have to read this article or you could lose everything you’ve ever created!

An Orphaned Work is any creative work of art where the artist or copyright owner has released their copyright, whether on purpose, by passage of time, or by lack of proper registration. In the same way that an orphaned child loses the protection of his or her parents, your creative work can become an orphan for others to use without your permission.

If you don’t like to read long articles, you will miss incredibly important information that will affect the rest of your career as an artist. You should at least skip to the end to find the link for a fantastic interview with the Illustrators’ Partnership about how you are about to lose ownership of your own artwork.

Currently, you don’t have to register your artwork to own the copyright. You own a copyright as soon as you create something. International law also supports this. Right now, registration allows you to sue for damages, in addition to fair value.

What makes me so MAD about this new legislation is that it legalizes THEFT! The only people who benefit from this are those who want to make use of our creative works without paying for them and large companies who will run the new private copyright registries.

These registries are companies that you would be forced to pay in order to register every single image, photo, sketch or creative work. It is currently against international law to coerce people to register their work for copyright because there are so many inherent problems with it. But because big business can push through laws in the United States, our country is about to break with the rest of the world, again, and take your rights away.With the tens of millions of photos and pieces of artwork created each year, the bounty for forcing everyone to pay a registration fee would be enormous. We lose our rights and our creations, and someone else makes money at our expense.This includes every sketch, painting, photo, sculpture, drawing, video, song and every other type of creative endeavor. All of it is at risk!

Orphan Works

Or, How You May Lose All the Rights to Every Piece of Art You Have Ever Created!

The Shawn Bently Orphan Works Act has been released to Congress. Below you will find more information, articles and interviews so you know what is going on and what you can do about it.

Audio Interview About Orphan Works Act
On April 5th, 2008, I interviewed Brad Holland of the Illustrator’s Partnership about the Orphan Works bill and how it affects every artist and photographer in the world.

YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO THIS because you are about to lose your copyright protection. Every one of you needs to stand up and be heard in order to protect what we have all created.

Please forward this information to every creative person and group you know. I give permission for this audio file to be copied and transferred and replayed so that everyone may learn about what is going on.

CLICK HERE to DOWNLOAD the MP3 of this interview. E-mail it to others or put it on your iPod.

IT’S HERE!
The 2008 Orphan Works Act has been released to Congress
Click HERE to download the Senate version of the bill,
S 2913 The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008

Click HERE to download the House version of the bill.
The_Orphan_Works_Act_of_2008.pdf

Orphan Update E-mail Lists
Brad Holland
Illustrator’s Partnership
www.IllustratorsPartnership.org
ipa@twcny.rr.com to get on the Orphan Works e-mail list

IPA Orphan Works Resource page for more info:
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185

Govt. Contacts
Contact your Senators, Representatives, Governors and State Legislators:
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Sample Letter You Can Send
CLICK HERE to download a template (MS Word document) you can customize and fax, mail or e-mail (fax is best) to your Senator, Representative, Governor and State legislator.

Do NOT threaten or curse in any response you send to legislators or supporters of the bill. That will only hurt the cause! Once the bill is back on the floor, we will post information here on when it will be the best time to write letters.

How This Affects Other Artists
Interview with Alex Saviuk, famed Spider-Man comic artist about the Orphan Works bill.
CLICK HERE to download and listen to Alex’s interview.

On May 1, 2008, I posted a new article about the specifics of the Orphan Works Act of 2008.
I give permission for this article to be copied, sent and re-printed. Please help us spread the word.

Don’t Lose The Rights to Your Artistic Creations
Mark Simon
Artist Advocate

Press Release.
Others have said it couldn’t happen. They said Congress and the Senate would never enact a bill that would endanger the rights to our creative works. THEY WERE WRONG!

If you don’t register every photo and work of art in government certified private databases, you are about to give the legal right for anyone to infringe on your copyright.

“The Orphan Works Act of 2008”, (H.R. 5889) and the “Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008” (S.2913), were released to the House of Representatives and the Senate recently. While at first glance the law seems to be a ‘last resort’ for a search for the owner of any photograph, artwork or sculpture, the devil, as they say, is in the details.

An “orphan”, as it relates to this legislation, is an original creative work such as a photograph, graphic image, or sculpture, which is still protected by its term of copyright, but the copyright holder can’t be found. Actually, this bill makes it easy for searchers to pretend it’s hard not to find copyright holders!

REGISTRIES WILL REMOVE YOUR COPYRIGHT PROTECTION!

We cannot just sit back and let this Orphan Works bill pass! As it is written, if it passes we would have to register all of our creative works in all the upcoming private sector registries (those certified by the Copyright office) or risk orphaning all of our work. This means all past, current and future work could be legally used without your permission.

The problem lies in relying on the use of online electronic databases, or registries, to search for the owners of copyrighted works. The registries will employ new softwares to match an image to be searched with the images that are registered and if found will supply the searcher with the artist’s name and contact information.

Having online registries to search for copyright owners is great. Using these registries as a basis for legally orphaning a work is TERRIBLE.

What makes me think the registries will be used to orphan works of art? Three reasons.

One. Page 2 of the Senate Orphan Bill states “sources of copyright ownership information reasonably available to users, including private databases.”

Two. The effective date of this Bill will take effect either (a )on the date at least two private registries are available online or (b) by January 1, 2011, whichever is first. They are tying the bill to when these registries are available online.

Three. People who want to use your work for free now only have to perform a search for you using these registries, which will be ineffective at best, to qualify your work of art as orphaned, giving them FREE use of your art or photo. The private registries will likely be easy and quick, just not very complete.

All someone has to do is search a couple of these registries and if your work doesn’t show as a match (and remember these software aren’t perfect, so you may have registered your work and still not have it show up in the results) it may be considered orphaned and they can use it for free.

REGISTRY ENTRIES WILL BE LIMITED AT BEST

The problem is that very few of the billions of copyrighted images will ever be registered on any of these registries, much less all of them. No artist I know has the time to pull out every work of art, sketch and photo they have ever produced and register them with every upcoming electronic database. Add to that any studio/artist expenses involved, assistants and assumed registration fees, and it’s even less likely much work will make its way into the registries.

EVEN FAMOUS ARTWORK CAN BE STOLEN!

Even famous works of art could be orphaned, making it legal to infringe on copyrighted works. Art is already illegally used all the time, but this new orphan bill will empower and legalize even more infringed use of copyrighted works.

Religious painter Gary Lessord created a painting in 1979 called “The Crucifixion”. According to Lessord, this same piece was used, without permission, by Mel Gibson as the major source of the graphic imagery in his “Passion of the Christ”.

[Figure 02, The Crucifixion by Gary Lessord. Copyright 1979. All Rights Reserved.]

Lessord’s painting was shown internationally in a show sponsored by the Catholic Church. It was exhibited in museums around the country and was featured on the cover of the book “The Many Faces of Christ”, featuring an introduction by Pope John Paul II. In other words, this is a work of art that is known by hundreds of thousands of people and being the ONLY work of art showing Christ wounded in such a way, it should be easy to track down Lessord as the copyright owner.

Under the current copyright laws, if found guilty Gibson and his production company are liable for the infringement.

If the new Orphan Bill passes, all they would have had to do is search two of the registries and if the image doesn’t show up, consider it an orphan and use the work. It won’t matter how popular the piece is if Lessord doesn’t register it in the same digital databases used in their search.

The new Orphan Works Act will orphan even internationally known works of art such as Lessord’s.

Artist Mark McCandlish understands the importance of stopping this legislation. He has had to go after a number of entertainment production companies, such as Lions Gate Productions and the company behind the show JAG, for using his work without his permission. Current copyright law has allowed him to sue and successfully collect large damages from the infringing companies.

“This has GOT TO STOP,” says McCandlish. “It will only get worse—much worse if the Orphan Works legislation passes.”

[Figure 03, Tomcats by Mark McCandlish. Copyright 1991. All Rights Reserved.]

THERE WILL BE NO PENALTY FOR STEALING!

In the new legislation, McCandlish would not have the same ability to sue for statutory damages. The new law will “limit remedies”, thereby removing the expensive penalty for stealing your work. Sure, you will still be able to sue, but you will be limited to the amount. This only empowers those who want to steal our creative works!

This means the most an infringer would have to pay IS WHAT THE INFRINGER FEELS HE SHOULD HAVE PAID IN THE FIRST PLACE! You, the artist, will no longer be entitled to any monetary recovery from the infringement damage, costs or attorney fees, which would often be more than what they could collect. Any betting man wanting to use your art would take these odds and steal your work.

If you don’t think this applies to you, think again. Have you ever taken a photo that is on the internet? Maybe you have photos on a photo sharing service like Flickr, Shutterfly or Snapfish.

Just imagine one of your photos was used by someone else on their site. That happens all the time, but if there is no commercial benefit to them, it’s no big deal. Right? Wrong!

If a designer finds your photo on someone else’s site (making it harder to find you, the true owner) and you haven’t registered it in the online databases, an unsuccessful search on a certified registry will orphan your photo, allowing its use without your permission. You could end up seeing your photo in a national ad campaign, possibly for a product you don’t want to be associated with.

THEY CAN CHANGE YOUR WORK AND COPYRIGHT IT FOR THEMSELVES!

The current copyright law states that only the original artist can create and copyright derivative works (creative work based on an existing image) of their own creation. The new Orphan Works Act will allow anyone to make changes to your work and copyright it under their own name!

Do you want to see what lewd things people can do to your work LEGALLY? You would have no recourse but to watch your creations be altered, sold and potentially ruin the reputation of your work.

Proponents of this Bill say they are protecting the rights of the people to make use of existing creative works if they can’t find the owner. WHAT RIGHTS? Just because you can’t find me, doesn’t give you the right to use my work!

If you were walking down the street and found a car without license plates, would you feel it was your right to steal it, just because it was hard to find the owner? Maybe someone else took off the license plates. That happens to our creative work all the time. People eliminate or crop out our copyright notices. In fact, many of our clients insist we don’t include that information in the first place.

Sure, we can also put digital watermarks on scanned images, but not every piece of art or photograph is only in digital form. Plus, there is an easy work-around to remove digital watermarks as well. (If you don’t know it, I’M not going to tell you!)

You must make yourself heard NOW. This bill must not be allowed to pass!

Any single clause or amendment to a bill can cause an otherwise well-intended law to become devastating to a segment or segments of the population. According to Dan Nichols, who has worked on a number of political campaigns, it can take an average of 7 bills to reverse the total impact of a single bill one it is passed. This means 7 times the effort and money to reverse a bad law - even though it is recognized as a bad law - because there will be many different groups wanting to hold on to the parts of the law that benefit them. It is nearly impossible to completely reverse the effects of a law once it passes. This should make apathy the enemy of anyone who has something to lose by any aspect of a pending bill.

DON’T BE BULLIED INTO GOING ALONG WITH A BAD LAW!

CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR:
Go to http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml to quickly find the phone number, address, e-mail of every U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, Governor and State Legislator. Please be polite. Threats only work against us artists. We need to make a professional impression to be taken seriously.

Make yourself be heard. Protect your creations. Every voice counts and so does your right to control your own creations. YOU NEED TO WRITE LETTERS NOW!

We only have a few days to make ourselves heard, as the Senate and House will only allow a short time for comments. Call them, send e-mails and fax letters.

If you don’t prove you care about your work, the Congressmen and Senators who WORK FOR US won’t care either. Show them you care!

For additional info - please go here.

April 18^th, 2008  

Dear Super Delegates,

In a few months, you will be asked to make a final and immensely difficult choice that will likely decide the Democratic nominee for president.  Unfortunately, that choice is not between Senator Obama or Senator Clinton – for everyone’s sake, I wish it were that simple.   The choice you must make is really much more personal – it’s the type of choice all of us must make at some point in our lives, and it’s never easy.   It’s the choice between what we personally want and hope will work vs. what we know is probably the greater good and best for others.  OK, that’s the kindest way I can put it.   The more blunt way is this: it’s the choice between doing what is best for yourself vs. doing what is best for everyone else, even and especially when it isn’t  what you personally want.

Over the last several months, and right up until the day of the national convention, you will continue to be wooed from all sides; the candidates want you to do what’s best for them, the party wants you to do what’s best for it, and the voters of your area want your vote to reflect their preference.  The pressure will only get worse, and no matter which way you go, you’re probably going to make someone unhappy.  That’s OK.   I’m guessing no where in the “Super Delegate Handbook” does it say one of your responsibilities is to make people happy. Hang on to that thought.  It’s one of two you’re going to need to remember most when you make your final decision on the convention floor. 

So – how are you to make this decision?   Let’s be honest – many of you will never have so much power to shape history, nor your own personal future, as you will have with this vote.  And it’s that last bit – the personal future part – where this starts to get complicated.   At some point in this process, don’t be surprised if someone suggests to you something along the lines of “if you play your cards right and vote for so-and-so, you can write your own ticket,” or “stick with me and I’ll make sure you have a seat at the table”’ or “so-and-so is who we want, and you don’t want to be on the wrong side of this when the day’s over”’ or, my personal favorite, the short and sweet, “you owe me”’ or some other version of a carrot or stick arm twist.   The less power you currently enjoy, the greater the pressure you’re likely to feel to do what someone with more power wants you to do.   This isn’t meant to be an indictment or condemnation of anyone.   It’s just what happens, so there’s no point in telling ourselves it doesn’t.

I’m not sending this out in order to tell you who I think you should vote for.   My state had its say on Super Tuesday.  I’m here to give you slightly different advice – presumptuous of me, I know – but it’s advice I don’t hear anyone else out there giving you.   So here goes…

Because you will cast the last votes in this contest, you have an incredible advantage over the general public voters; the advantage of time.  You will have had at least two months’ more time to examine each candidate than every other voter – for the nearly half of the country who voted by Super Tuesday, that’s six and a half months’ more information you’ve gained than we had when we voted.  That’s huge!  Consider how much more we’ve learned about the candidates in the last few months than in the previous year.  What more will we learn in the coming months?  I don’t know, but the longer the battle goes on, the better the odds we’ll get a clearer picture of the true mettle of these two people and the more informed your vote can be. 

A second advantage you have is that you’re party insiders.  You are privy to information, gossip, rumor, history and facts most of us will never know.  Those of you who are sitting politicians especially – you know how the game is played – you know the difference between sponsoring bills, co-sponsoring bills, and writing bills and what kind of leadership and talent is evidenced by each.  You know the difference between sitting on committees and working on them.  You know why these candidates have cast their senate votes as they have in detail we  will never hear, which of the hundreds of votes were critical, which weren’t and who showed up for each.  You know the kind of stress and pressure you and your colleagues face every day – and how much more intense it is for a president – and you’ve likely witnessed how each of these two candidates bears up under those stresses and pressures.  You know, better than any of the rest of us, the full breadth and depth of the problems the next president will have to face.   Rip through this information without mercy, but with every ounce of objectivity you can muster.   Close your ears to the charismatic cadence of campaign speeches and promises.  Ignore the polls – you know most of them are bullshit.  Forget who you like or hate.   Remember who gets the jobs done and who gets problems solved.  Those of us general public voters have the luxury of ‘falling in love’ with a candidate – you don’t.  You have to be smarter than us.  And don’t seek the counsel of others in the party – you’re on your own this time and you’ve got to suck it up and trust your own instincts and brains.   Let me repeat that: trust only your own instinct and brains.  This time our future really does depend on your ability to do just that.

It is because of these two advantages, your votes carry the power to essentially save us from ourselves.   In all likelihood, that’s precisely what you may have to do.   You must not falter.  Earlier, I told you it wasn’t your responsibility to make people happy, and to hold on to that thought as it was one of two you would most need to remember.   Here’s the second one: in this vote, your responsibility isn’t to choose the best person for the party – but to choose the best, strongest, most capable person to lead the country.  They may not be one and the same, and this is why Party must never come before Country.  Forgetting this dooms us all.

I know what I’m asking of each of you is far from easy, and I’m sorry for that.   I do understand the political risks you face should your choice go against the wishes of allies and friends. 

Good luck, God speed, and thank you,

K.A. Flinn

 What was that phrase again?? Something about repeating the same actions in hopes of getting a different result…now, tell me again…was that the definition of insanity, or stupidity?

If you haven’t had the opportunity to read this bill, which uselessly passed the House last night by a vote of 218 to 203, and will either fail to pass the Senate entirely, or fail to pass it in a veto-proof manner, here it is: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h4156ih.txt.pdf

Why do Congressional Dems keep doing this? Haven’t they figured out yet that as long as Bush is in office, no bill using troop withdrawl as a condition will get passed? Or, gee, are they more interested in looking like they really tried to hold the Bush admin’s feet to the fire come election day? It’s beginning to look a lot like the latter rather than the former. How sad for the institution. How disgusting, unethical and reprehensible for the harm it causes everyone - including them - and especially the military!

In my unqualified opinion - this is a badly conceived bill. If it had been the first such bill the House Dem majority had floated, it would only be a less lousy bill. Unfortunately, this is just the latest in a series of failed efforts to force this administration to end the war and bring the troops home before the end of the Bush term. This particular leverage doesn’t work. Stop using it. You are wasting time, and quite probably, lives, dear Congress.

Why not try writing a bill that will actually accomplish much of what we want, and that actually has a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting passed by both houses and not vetoed for a change? Baby steps…

For instance - give him the $50 Billion, with three provisions: one tied to the last provision in the bill…

(g) Not later than February 15, 2008, the President shall submit to the Congress in classified and unclassified form a comprehensive regional stability plan for the Middle East, which shall include a military, diplomatic, political and economic strategy that provides for the national security interests of the United States in the region and for the engagement of targeted counterterrorism oper ations. The plan shall include a detailed description of the projected United States military force presence in and around the Middle East region for the 5-year period beginning on October 1, 2008.

one tied to diplomacy: Bush has to form and send, by March 1st, 2008, a bi-partisan diplomatic team to work the region, including Iran, along the lines of the Dayton Accord group,

one tied to some specific, significant, goals the Iraqi Parliament must complete, by, say, October 31st, 2008. If either fails to complete their end of the bargain, no more money.

This possibly accomplishes a few of things :

Over the past week or so, I’ve run into a number of people very upset about Wes’ campaign to get Rush Limbaugh dumped from Armed Forces Radio. Most are Clark supporters, and most are upset enough about this to consider no longer supporting Wes because of it. I’ve probably had this debate with about 20 people so far, and there is a common, understandable, theme. Their objection to this campaign is that, however much they detest Limbaugh and what he’s doing, going to Congress to have him removed amounts to a breech of Limbaugh’s first amendment rights/freedom of the press and censorship. So, it seemed like a good idea to write a blog about this, and try to add some points unique to this particular issue because it involves members of the armed forces and Armed Forces Radio Service, that many who are upset about this may not be taking into consideration. Here goes…

Actually, firing Rush Limbaugh (no matter who does it) violates neither his first amendment, nor does it constitute censorship, because he’s isn’t protected by that when he commits libel and defamation. Calling members of the armed services “phony soldiers” because they disagree with him constitutes libel and defamation. I’m also not too sure one can be a victim of censorship for being removed from one, of many, networks, in part, for openly censoring members of his audience on the network removing him. That would be a little like saying convicting me of murder is a violation of my first amendment rights. I was engaging in my right to freedom of expression when I went on my killing spree.(ok - yeah, that’s a little extremem, but you get the idea.)

As I read, and re-read Wes’ emails asking us to send a letter to Congress to ask them to remove Limbaugh, this is how I interpret what he’s asking, what he wants, and perhaps why he wants it and why he’s the one spearheading it. This is my opinion/interpretation, of course. So, Wes? If i’m wrong on any of this - jump in and correct it please!

I can’t see where Wes is advocating Limbaugh be removed from the airwaves, unilateraly. He’s advocating he be fired (removed) - as one of the two conservative radio talk show hosts broadcast as representative of the conservative part of the American population. Sean Hannity is the other. There are also two liberal radio talk show hosts who are broadcast as counterpoints: Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes.

The idea behind airing two conservative and two liberal political talk radio shows is, obviously, to give service members and their families as balanced a ‘touch of home’ as possible, in that particular arena.

However, when talk radio moves from open debate between a show’s host and its callers, to a host doing little more than spouting his specific viewpoint, then berating, insulting and libeling anyone who disagrees with his viewpoint in any degree, then that host no longer fulfills the purpose for which he/she was chosen to be broadcast and should be replaced by someone who does.

Wes isn’t asking Congress to stifle free speech, quite the contrary - he’s asking them to remove a host who stifle’s free speech under the guise of patriotism, and insults and disrespects the very people whose morale he’s supposed to help lift.

Below are a couple of quotes from the FAQ’s of AFN, and the History:

1. Q: Why does AFN air political-talk radio programs?

A: AFN has an obligation, backed by Congressional mandate, to provide our audience access to the same variety and diversity of programming that they would enjoy if they were back in the States. Because political talk radio is among the most popular stateside radion formats, AFN currently offers four political radio talk shows on our AFN radio schedule: Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity represent the conservative viewpoint and Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes represent the liberal viewpoint. We make our choices based on popularity with the American audience. We don’t censor programs. We strive to provide our overseas audience with a choice and let them decide for themselves what they want to see and hear. There is no requirement for our audience to listen to anything they personally disagree with. To review the balance we strive to achieve via the totality of our radio and TV schedules, please visit http://www.myafn.net. 2. History: On May 26, 1942, the War Department officially established AFRS with the mission of providing programming, shortwave service and broadcast equipment for U.S. military locations overseas. AFRS was to give servicemembers a “touch of home” and combat “Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose.”

Now, granted, as stated above, the AFN makes their choices based on popularity. So, yes, it would be great if his popularity could be reduced to the point he lost his show but that’s unlikely to happen if the measurement is how popular he is throughout the US, versus throughout the military and foreign service.

Limbaugh has crossed a major line by calling soldiers, whether active or veteran, “phony” for disagreeing with him primarily. But, he crossed an even bigger line by calling anyone “phony soldier” who has served, and/or are now serving during wartime. For someone who has never served in the Armed Forces, and who weilds the political clout he does, to be allowed to consider himself the arbiter of what makes a soldier “real” or “phoney” is the height of insult to anyone who serves or has served, and their loved ones.

Allowing Limbaugh to call service members “phony” is little different than allowing him to call them cowards. And that’s exactly what he’s doing. Which brings up point 2. above - one of the primary reasons for the creation of the AFRS (Armed Forces Radio Service), which was to do all possible to counteract the demoralizing influences of Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally. It was to rebuild the morale of troops far from home, not to insult them and call them phony or fake or cowardly if they dared to question or even disagree with the reasons they were fighting.

No one has a greater right to voice dissent than those charged with protecting that right with their very lives - and especially when they already must take care in how they voice that dissent. However, those on active duty are not afforded the same rights they protect and defend for the rest of us. Active duty personel can’t openly voice disagreement to their Commander in Chief, “(attack) the war aims of the United States”, etc (see Article 134 - Disloyal Statements of the UCMJ. and I might be quoting the wrong article, so if Fred or Jai are reading this hopefully they’ll post the correct article.) - to do so can be a court-martialable offense.

So - how do active duty personel get redress for Limbaugh’s statements? They can’t exactly call in to the show, announce their name and rank, tell Rush they are on active duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, then tell him they think we need to start leaving Iraq, and that he’s an asshole for calling them ‘”phony soldiers” for believing we should start leaving. We civilians can do that. But soldiers can’t.

How can active duty personel even petition to have him removed for what he’s saying, without possibly being labeled as openly dissenting the war aims of the U.S.? It’s a real tightrope, and falling off it costs people their careers and possibly their freedom for a while.

What about getting a lot of retired military and vets to lobby the DoD to have him removed? Ok - that might work, but there probably aren’t enough to make it happen.

What if we civilians lobby the DoD? Probably won’t work. The DoD is subject to Civilian Authority - that’s big “C”, big “A”, as in Congress and the President, not little “c” as in us. So for us to exert our will on the DoD, we must first exert it on our Congress members to do the right thing, and get them to tell the DoD to fire Rush. Probably this would be in the form of a congressional resolution, probably non-binding but with enough pressure to get the job done. It is not the same as passing a law to remove Rush from the air. It’s firing him for failing to perform the primamry function of his job, as it applies to AFRS - provide a ‘touch of home’ as a means to inform and lift morale, and for libeling and defaming members of the Armed Forces.

Wes isn’t asking Congress to remove Limbaugh’s right to free speech - he is heard on thousands of radio stations across the planet and has every right to his opinion. But he does not have the right to libel anyone for any reason, least of all because they might dare disagree with him. For that, he should be fired, and Wes is right to ask that, and we are right to help him ask that.