My New Anthem: "F the CC" By Steve Earle. Enjoy!

My new Anthem.

Only Complaint? Steve Earle didn't include "F**k the NSA!".

Enjoy!

"F the CC" - By Steve Earle

"I used to listen to the radio.  I don't guess they're listenin' to me no more.  And they talk too much but that's okay.  I don't understand a single word they say.  They piss and moan about the immigrants.  Don't say nothin' about the President.  A democracy don't work that way. I can say anything I wanna say.  So f**k the F.C.C..  F**k the F.B.I..  F**k the C.I.A.  Livin' in the motherf**kin' U.S.A...."

Strange Bedfellows: Militias Exercise Their 2nd Amendment Rights To Protect Occupy Phoenix!

Now I'm Stepping Into The 'Twilight Zone'...

Dateline: Phoenix, Arizona...
*Now hold on, just give me a moment, here. Don't start rolling those eyes just yet...

This is Truly Awesome:

"The whole point of the militia movement was to defend the People against gross violations by the Government of the Peoples’ Constitutional Rights.  For instance: suppressing Peoples’ 1st Amendment Right to Peacefully Protest with pepper spray, beatings, tear gas and flash-bang grenades."

And (Believe It Or Not) in the great city of Phoenix, Arizona, armed militias are doing just that!
The militia members are exercising their Constitutional 2nd Amendment Right To Bear Arms...
Solely In Order To Protect The First Amendment Rights Of Occupy Phoenix Protesters!
(*Regardless of whether they agree with the protesters or not.)

... Like I said, "This is Awesome!".

Here's the Link to this truly remarkable story by Justin Rosario at AddictingInfo.org:

Strange Bedfellows: Militias Exercise Their 2nd Amendment Rights To Protect Occupy Phoenix!

Truth In Political Advertising? There Ought To Be A Law - Or Not. (Meanwhile, may I suggest FactChecker.org)

From: The "Sad But True" File:

Believe It Or Not ~ Despite The Fact That The Federal Government Instituted/Enforces Laws Meant To Protect Consumers From Being Duped By False Advertising Of Products... There aren't any federal laws which protect Americans from being duped by false advertising about political candidates.

One might, reasonably, think that creating/enforcing laws meant to protect American citizens from from being duped - via political ads which are chock full o' lies, half-truths and misrepresentations - into voting for those candidates whom are far from the best man/woman for the job... would be more important than protecting them from self-proclaimed "psychics" or dolls that don't do what is claimed in ads.

The concept is a "no-brainer"... or is it?

Turns out, the single reason there aren't any federally-instituted laws against false political ads and the few state-issued ones have been difficult to enforce is the First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution: - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -

As I discovered on the political fact-finding site, FactChecker.org: TV stations are permitted to refuse ads from political groups for any reason. The same is not true of candidates - unless stations refuse ads from all of the candidates for a specific office. Accepting an ad from one candidate means that, legally, they must accept the ads from that candidates opponents. The only exceptions: for technical issues (too long or too brief to fit into commercial break-slots, or unacceptable recording quality) or for content considered "obscene." That a candidate’s ad is false is simply not a legally-protected justification for rejecting it.

"The very idea of self-government rests on the idea that voters — given enough uncensored information — can best decide who should be in power and who should not. So, free speech applies first and foremost to candidates. So, states have found it hard to enact laws against false political advertising — and even harder to make them work."

What does this mean to you, me and every other American voter? That, at least legally, it’s up to each of us to figure out who’s lying and who’s telling the Truth in the 2010 campaign and in every political campaign.

"Nobody said Democracy was supposed to be easy."

Helping Americans with this task is one of the primary duties of trustworthy news organizations. (Thankfully, our First Amendment guarantees a Free Press as well as Free Speech.)

FactCheck.org is one of those news organizations that works hard to help.  They seek out, uncover and reveal for all to see what is True and what is False in political ads, emails and in statements made by politicians - irrespective of political party.

They take an in-depth look at the truth-in-political-advertising issue (including several court cases) in "False Ads: There Oughta Be A Law!... Or Maybe Not.".

Enjoy!

L.

US Judge Rules Don't Ask Don't Tell Unconstitutional; DADT; Gays In Foreign Militaries

And Justice For All...

Well... it's, at the least, another step in an enlightened and just direction.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips granted a request for an injunction halting the U.S. military's DADT ("Don't Ask. Don't Tell") policy on Thursday.

Judge Phillips "... said the law did not help military readiness, but had a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services.

The Obama administration has promised to introduce legislation repealing it.

That said...

The Obama Administration "has also announced that the repeal would not be
implemented until after the Pentagon completed a review of its impact on
the armed forces."

That last bit means that - both tragically and in the meanwhile - the U.S. military will be continuing to pursue its practice of forced expulsion of some of its best and brightest members.

This is unfair and unfortunate for not only everyone concerned, but for all of us, as a nation.

Here's the link to the full bbc.co.uk article...

US Judge Rules Military Ban On Gays 'Unconstitutional'

If you're interested in seeing the published results (in summary or whole) of a very recent independent survey (carried out by The Palm Center) of other nations whose military forces have transitioned into openly allowing gay and lesbian citizens to serve - a very enlightening report, to say the least - click on the link below...

Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010
February 23, 2010
Dr. Nathaniel Frank with Dr. Victoria Basham, Geo!rey Bateman, Dr. Aaron Belkin, Dr. Margot Canaday, Dr. Alan Okros, and Denise Scott

Enjoy!

Cordoba Islamic Cultural Center (w/mosque) Becomes Ground Zero For Religious Intolerance and Bigotry

In case you have missed the wildfire-like development of what has become America's Latest & Greatest National Issue.

It began about two weeks ago.

I'd been trying to ignore the issue.

To me, it was just another case of up-for-election Republicans and other right-wing, conservative, agitating panic-button pushers, well... you know..pushing certain people's "panic buttons".

I was confident then and I am confident now that the U.S. Constitution will win out over irrationality, various forms of bigotry and that ugly "Us(Americans) V. Them(Americans)" mentality.

Still, things would occasionally pop-up on my radar...

One evening, a late night news program I had been watching - it was on more for noise than for my actual visual attention - made the unfortunate decision to shine a light on a Tweet sent out by Twit(terer) Sarah Palin:

"Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate."

*First: It is Not a "Ground Zero Mosque". The project is for the Cordoba Islamic Cultural Center - kind of like the YMCA. (It includes a Mosque but, so what? The structure - it was a Burlington Coat Factory until 9/11- is one which Muslims currently use for prayers.) The construction site is located at least two blocks away from the former WTC.
Second: "Peaceful Muslims"?
Third: "Refudiate" is not a word.

That was followed by tweet #2:

"Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real"

(* Refute: "To prove wrong.")

Third time's the charm?

"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing"

What's with the "Peace-seeking Muslims..."? Why the qualifier?
"Peace-seeking"? As opposed to... what?
"77 Virgin-obsessed, terror baby cell-making, freedom-hating Muslims, maybe?

As with most blatant examples of religious bigotry and/or xenophobia... much hilarity ensued and before long, all three Tweets became "Deletes".

Much ado was made of the trio of tweets and of the responses of various people to the former and failed Vice Presidential candidate's intolerance-inciting tweets.

Finally, after she'd gotten it all off of her chest, she tried for funny:

Palin tweeted the following:
“English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!”

Yes, it's living and in a constant state of siege.
As for "Shakespeare" ~ Ms. Palin, May I present to you An Irrefutable Truth:
The sum total of all that you and William Shakespeare have in common is only surpassed by one thing: The sum total of all that George W. Bush and The Bard have in common.
Now, I promise to Celebrate, if you will go hibernate.

Currently...

Last night (Monday), from the moment that I first became aware of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's official statement on the Islamic Cultural Center Issue...

I was surprised. I was angry. I simply couldn't ignore it no longer.

(Statement made by Reid's spokesman):

"The First Amendment (of The US Constitution) protects freedom of religion."
"Senator Reid respects that but thinks the mosque should be built someplace else."

Really, Senator Reid?

Here's what I think:

First of all... Senator Reid, you live in Nevada. M.Y.O.B.

If you're really bored or have too much free time... Take that excess energy and go hold fundraisers and campaign against the nuttiest little fruitcake in Nevada: Ms. Sharron Angle, your Republican opponent in the upcoming election.

Regarding your above statement: I think that, one phrase in the second sentence of your statement - starting from the "but" (5th word) and ending with the "else" (13th)...

Well, that phrase pretty much invalidates, nulls and voids both the first sentence of your statement and the first four words of the second sentence ("Senator Reid respects that...").

If you respect our U.S Constitutionally-Protected Right To Freedom of Religion, as you claim... Then your alleged "respect" must apply in each/every/all cases involving freedom of religion and equal protection under the law.

Or, are you trying to "have your cake and eat it, too... Hmm?

I also think that - if you are - that you should stop cowing to irrational, illogical people. Are worried that they out number the rational and logical ones? How about if, instead of cowing to their delusions, try explaining the Truth to them in a way that they understand. And, if necessary, suggest they take a class which delves into our Constitution, Bill of Rights and Constitutional Amendments.

And, finally, Senator Reid: If you are the person who actually put the above-mentioned statement together... And, if you actually believe that those two distinct ideas... Religious Freedom and Religious Bigotry - two complete polar opposites - can exist simultaneously in the same space/time...

Well, then, perhaps you should look into finding a worthy Democratic candidate as a replacement and then retire to seek medical attention.

The thoughtful and insightful article below explains the issue at hand much more poetically than I am able to at the moment. I'm still somewhat shocked that Mr. Reid said that.

Enjoy!

L.

From: God's Politics: a blog by Jim Wallis & friends

By: Julie Clawson

"I’ve become used to seeing images of protests on the news recently. While a few years ago these were displayed as sure signs of anti-American sentiments, they are now a mainstay on the nightly news. Hardly a day goes by without seeing some sign calling Obama a Muslim socialist or demanding that the government not take away Medicare in order to pay for socialized heath care. But it was seriously disturbing to see the images from New York City yesterday of the protest of the Muslim center going in two blocks from the site of Ground Zero. The planned center is being built in an old Burlington Coat Factory building and will include a fitness center, community meeting rooms, and a mosque. Basically it’s the neighborhood YMCA with that weird contemporary church plant meeting in the yoga room on Saturday nights. But it’s Muslim and therefore has drawn out the haters.

The organization Stop Islamization of America, a self-proclaimed human rights group, organized the protest on Sunday. This group’s mission is to ensure the preservation of freedom of speech against Islamic supremacist intimidation and attempts to make the United States compliant with Shari’a [Islamic law]. After reading about this group and seeing some of the photos Samir Selmanovic posted from the event as he stood in solidarity with Muslims (including the one here), I couldn’t help but reflect on the tendency in this country for us to fear and hate the other.

It is an odd balance, American’s strike between forgiveness and hate.

On one hand we become obsessed with stories of extreme forgiveness.

The Amish women who chose to forgive and love the families of the man who killed their children so captured our attention the story was even turned into a movie. We prize such extreme acts of love almost to the point of fetishizing them, and yet when the offenders are too different from us we cling to our hatred.

I remember listening to my grandfather’s tales of World War II and first realizing this strange tension between forgiveness and prejudice. He fought on the German front as a naval officer, he was part of the D-Day invasion, ferried Patton across the Rhine River, and had his best friend blown away in the foxhole next to him. Year later, as a man of German descent himself, he had easily forgiven the Germans for the war and yet still spoke with extreme contempt about the Japanese.

Forgiving those like us is easy; extending mercy to those who are other is where our fear often strangles our compassion.

This fear of the other prevents us from seeing the world clearly.

Our belief in our own rightness clouds how we see the other.

During my time at Wheaton College there was much debate about changing the school’s mascot from that of Crusader. While it was eventually changed to the Wheaton Thunder, many people could not understand why there was any reason to change it at all. They thought it was preposterous that any person (especially Muslims and Jews) would be offended by the image or judge modern day Christians by the past actions of historical Crusaders.

Yet, even in the church we daily judge Muslims by the actions of a few of its members.

So, while we applaud the Amish women for their acts of forgiveness, the fear and hatred sparked by the events of 9/11 still inform the average American’s opinion of Muslims. So to the protesters, the building of a Muslim center and mosque so near the site of Ground Zero is just another act of violence — a threat to American supremacy.

There is no forgiveness of the terrorists and the grudge against them is extended to all Muslims.

I, like many of the Muslims involved, understand the need to tread carefully here. Even in working for peace and reconciliation one has to be aware of how one’s actions might offend people who have been previously hurt. This is why Wheaton eventually did change its mascot, out of a desire to promote love and healing instead of reopening old wounds. But it is pure fear of the other that is sparking some to say just having Muslims near Ground Zero is offensive.

It is heartbreaking knowing that many of the protesters are there claiming to represent Jesus while they scream their message of hate. This isn’t just about protesting political ideas but a demonstration of our bondage to sin. The images of the protest hurt as they mock everything the faith I follow claims to uphold.

As I wait to see how this current drama unfolds, I can’t help but wonder what it will take for American Christians to move from just fetishizing forgiveness to actually letting mercy and compassion for all rule our hearts."

Julie Clawson is the author of Everyday Justice: The Global Impact of Our Daily Choices (IVP 2009). She blogs at julieclawson.com and emergingwomen.us.

The Inexplicably Underreported Assassination of Public Access TV (See: 1st Amendment)

I happened to have ABC's Nightline on my TV tonight (Friday) as I was sitting in front of my computer...
(I usually watch David Letterman but, when I heard Dave mention "the holidays", I knew it was a repeat and flipped the channel.)

I wasn't paying too much attention to Nightline either... that is, until I heard them talking about the uncensored and eclectic utopia that is Public Access TV and a recent (2006) California law that has - I sincerely hope it can and will be repealed - been allowed to - for all intents and purposes - Destroy It... and do so as completely and totally as a bomb would a building.

For those who may not know, Public Access Television is (was) a TV Station that's made available to you, me and everyone who might just be inspired to create a TV show and send it over the airwaves to thousands or millions of homes.

Public Access wasn't a BYO-equipment and everything else, we'll give you a space deal... Public Access TV meant a fully-loaded TV Station and included the studio space, all the equipment to get shows 'on the air' as well as a capable staff.

Until the 2006 California law (DIVCA, or the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act), your local Cable TV Companies - in exchange for the widespread digging and extensive cable-laying they were doing (not to mention, the ever-increasing prices they would be charging) - were required to make one or more channels available for public access (including the staff and equipment).
The best part was that the cable monopolies... I mean companies, couldn't control nor censor the content of shows broadcast on public access TV.

Tragically, this uniquely-American platform - the broadcast embodiment of our Beloved First Amendment: Freedom of Speech has been silently slain... No one heard a thing.

I didn't. Did You?

Even though I don't have cable, I was quite familiar with the Public Access TV program. But, I never heard a single word about any pending legislation that would take the Public out of the Access. Nor did I hear of it passing. That was in 2006. Here, in 2009, the first I hear of it is a brief spot on Nightline. Now, I'm grateful that ABC did the segment... I just wish that they and other networks would have done stories about it in 2006!

When I Googled various versions of phrases about "threats to Public Access TV" and "CA law Public Access TV"... Not a single Network Television reference appeared in the results. And, with the lone exception of the L.A. Times, there weren't any major or minor newspaper references. Nor Time, nor Newsweek, nor any other magazine. Not entirely surprising, though... as Time-Warner is one of the companies that is reaping the benefits of the Free Speech-Obliterating legislation. Apparently, the law was designed to help telecoms (Companies like AT&T Inc., Verizon and Qwest campaigned across the country for the legislation) expand into the profitable cable market. With DIVCA killing corporate Public Access TV obligations, these companies can now save millions of dollars... money that they will undoubtedly - instead - now spend on self-promoting billboard, magazine and radio ads, in endless junk mailings and for commercials on TV.

Wait a minute.... Haven't all of these same cable tv, international media-monopolizing and telecom companies already made many millions of dollars, if not billions, in profits?
Why are these profitable corporations getting what amounts to many millions of dollars in subsidies, while they campaign to expand their influence and increase their profits...
Whilst We, The People Get... Gaffled?

Peace... And Public Access!
L.

(From: articles.latimes.com

Cable Flips Channel On Public Access TV
A new California law allows Time Warner to close 12 studios that provided community programming in Los Angeles.
Critics say a valuable 1st Amendment platform is lost.

By Reed Johnson
January 05, 2009

For decades, public access programming on cable television has provided a virtually free forum for community activists and aspiring entertainers, for preening star wannabes as well as serious-minded political watchdogs.

But in Los Angeles and across California that forum began crumbling last week, a development that advocates say will strip ordinary citizens of a valuable 1st Amendment platform.

A provision of a law passed by the Legislature in 2006, which took effect Thursday, allows cable television providers the option of dropping their long-standing obligation of providing free studios, equipment and training to the public. In return, providers must pay a substantial annual fee and continue to provide a minimal number of public education and government channels.

The new law is designed to make it easier for phone companies to enter into the lucrative cable market by relieving them of certain money-draining contractual obligations.

In Los Angeles, 12 public access studios that provided programming for 11 community channels have been closed by Time Warner Cable Inc. That means much of the city’s diverse, neighborhood-specific public access shows may disappear.

If that happens, Los Angeles cable subscribers would be losing an outlet for their particular communities’ programming, said David Hernandez, president of the Los Angeles Public Access Coalition.

“It’s the regional broadcasting capability that’s lost,” he said.

Thirty other states, including Texas, Nevada, Florida, Illinois and Michigan, have enacted legislation similar to California’s Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act, or DIVCA, according to the nonprofit Alliance for Community Media. In several of those states, the loss of production studios was bitterly fought by opposition groups to little avail.

But the waning of public access programming in California would carry special significance for the nation, said Ron Cooper, a public access advocate and regional treasurer of the Alliance for Community Media in Sacramento.

“The rest of the country is watching,” Cooper said. “And not because it’s a good example – quite the opposite.”

In Los Angeles, public access covers an array of citizen-produced shows, including “Soul & Sound of Watts,” “East L.A. After Dark” and a late-night program by sexologist Dr. Susan Block. Between 30% and 35% of all programming is religion-oriented.

Although public access television often is mocked as a showcase for eccentric narcissists and sensationalistic provocateurs – what Cooper referred to as “naked Nazis” – he said only a small proportion of its content fits this bill.

“For the city of Los Angeles, the City of Angels, the media capital of the world to say there is no room for public” access, Cooper said, “I don’t even know how to describe it.”

Time-Warner says it is only complying with the provisions of the new law, which still requires a limited number of public, government and education channels funded by a fee calculated by 1% of gross annual revenue. In Los Angeles, that fee for Time-Warner amounts to about $5 million, which is in addition to a $25-million annual franchise fee.

“The spirit of DIVCA was to create a level playing field for all competitors,” said Patricia Fregoso-Cox, vice president of communications for Time-Warner Cable for the western region.

Fregoso-Cox said the company would continue to reserve four area cable channels for so-called PEG (public, education and government) content and that it had no plans to convert those to commercial programming. One city-run public access studio, in Boyle Heights, will remain open, at least for now.

As for the 12 studio closings, she said: “We have an exit strategy. Some of the buildings we own, some of the buildings we lease. Some of the buildings will be repositioned for other programming.”

In Los Angeles, the cavalcade of characters, gadflies and watchdogs that populate the public access channels aren’t going away without a fight. Hernandez has written to City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and California Attorney General Jerry Brown to ask for injunctive relief against the studio closings.

“It’s a two-pronged immorality,” said Leslie Dutton, executive producer and host of the Full Disclosure Network, an Emmy-winning public access news broadcast.

“It’s immoral for the city to do nothing to replace the assets that are being taken from the public with the millions of dollars that are still coming to them, and No. 2, for preventing Time-Warner from closing the channels down.”

Dutton and others say there is no guarantee that any of the four PEG channels will be used for public access programming. They also say that neither Time-Warner nor the city gave adequate public notice of the studio closings.

“There wasn’t a flier or a handout or anything telling what this was,” said Rob Baker, producer of “The John Kerwin Show,” a celebrity-oriented talk program that taped what could be its last episode Dec. 17. “Nobody knew that public access is hearing its death knell.”

On the contrary, Fregoso-Cox said, “this isn’t something that hasn’t been communicated, that people aren’t aware of.”

The closing of the city’s studios is only one consequence of a nationwide campaign by phone companies – including AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Qwest Communications International Inc. – to move into the cable market.

Many cable providers, meanwhile, are trying to compete in the phone market by bundling services (cable, phone, Internet), resulting in an escalating turf battle among powerful multimedia companies seeking control over a growing universe of information-delivery systems.

California’s legislation, drafted by then-Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, a Los Angeles Democrat, was signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2006. Nuñez said the law would increase competition and lower cable subscribers’ rates, a contention challenged by consumer groups.

Public access advocates acknowledge that YouTube and other Internet-based platforms have given new outlets for citizen expression. But, they point out, YouTube doesn’t provide free professional studios, equipment and training, nor does it pay for the staff to run the facilities.

Furthermore, Hernandez said, because public access television “is a public asset already, why should the public give up something that belongs to them?”

Public access advocates in Los Angeles and other California cities won’t have an easy time getting back in the studio. Cities are broke, and Los Angeles officials question whether the funds exist to help offset the studio closings.

A city report estimates that the annual cost of staffing and operating a 12-studio system would be $2.7 million, plus a one-time $4.5-million equipping cost, excluding rent.

“We’re looking at a year in which we’re looking at a $400-million deficit,” said Jose Cornejo, chief of staff for Councilman Tony Cardenas.

Cornejo said Cardenas and other City Council members had been scrutinizing the effect of the new law for many months and concluded that their hands were tied by the state.

The council therefore decided to adopt the recommendations of a report by the Board of Information Technology Commissioners. The report said the city should consolidate its control over the four remaining channels so they wouldn’t revert back to Time-Warner’s management, as would be possible under the new law, Cornejo said.

“Time-Warner is saying, ‘I now can do this. Go fly a kite, council,’ ” Cornejo said. “They usurped our jurisdiction with DIVCA.”

Councilman Bill Rosendahl, a former cable executive, said he supported public access as a 1st Amendment right and “an electronic soapbox.”

He favors studying whether it would be possible for the city to dedicate more funding toward it. But he said the city must address many pressing financial needs.

“We’re in this spot not because the city of Los Angeles created it but because the Legislature did,” he said.

reed.johnson@latimes.com