A Collection of Beatles

 Some of my favorites from The Beatles. All night on Deltamusic

Broadcasters to make case against radio performance tax at hearing

Broadcasters against radio performance tax at hearing.

The House Judiciary Committee's hearing on the controversial Performance Rights Act (H.R. 848), set for March 10 at 10 a.m., will include testimony from Smasking Pumpkins vocalist and lead guitarist Billy Corgan, according to an agenda released by the committee on Friday evening (March 6).

NAB Radio Board Chairman Steve Newberry and Patrick Communications President Larry Patrick will be making broadcast's case against a proposed performance fee, at a hearing by a House panel scheduled for Tuesday. Meanwhile, NABOB is urging the Congressional Black Caucus to oppose the new royalty, saying it could dampen minority ownership. "By making stations even more unaffordable, this legislation would put the dream of ownership further out of the reach for African-American entrepreneurs trying to enter the radio industry," NABOB Executive Director and General Counsel Jim Winston wrote in a letter to the caucus. Radio & Records (3/9) , Radio Online (3/6)

Also expected to testify during the Capitol Hill event are Mitch Bainwol, chairman/CEO of the RIAA; Paul Almeida, president of the Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO; Stan Liebowitz, Ph.D., Ashbel Smith distinguished professor of managerial economics, University of Texas at Dallas; Larry Patrick, president, Patrick Communications; and Steve Newberry, chairman of the NAB Radio Board.

Oval Office Watch – Monday, February 23 - Rush Limbaugh letter to President Obama

Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free

Rush Limbaugh, Online WSJ.com

Dear President Obama:

I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?

As a former law professor, surely you understand the Bill of Rights.

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.

As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.

After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that "This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee."

Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.

Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.

I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.

The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.

We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.

Would the Founding Fathers support the "Fairness Doctrine"

When I think of the "Fairness Doctrine" being restored I tend to get scared. I took a walk the other day in my small Mississippi town of Louisville and asked people their views on the "Fairness Doctrine" I was not surprised when most of them had no view because they did not know what it was. They all were aware of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. That was a relief as I was starting to feel I was in a foreign country where people have to be careful about what they say about the government.
Let me remind you of Jefferson's famous words

"All men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these
are life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

There is a theme among great leaders and visionaries that we are not to settle for a life lived by default but we are to strive to live our Dreams. I believe we all need to be reminded from time to time, and sometimes more often, to shake things up and go after the life we want. Later that night I received an interesting email and video from someone out of the blue with this to say...

"A Google search on "unalienable rights" led me to your blog. Please forgive my writing you unsolicited. Last year I set to music a few lines from the Declaration of Independence, recorded them with my family's help, added some images, and posted the result.

My hope is that it might help kids learn a little of the Declaration"

Daddy, did Al Gore invent the Internet?

"Daddy, where did the Internet come from?"


History of the Internet from PICOL on Vimeo.

This video should clear Al Gore from taking the credit.

Wikipedia tells us 'the Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that interchange data by packet switching using the standardized Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP).'

If you ever wondered what the heck that means, here's a crisp tutorial. The vignette is a sterling example of how video can explain complex ideas more clearly than text alone"

Ministries fear restrictions under Obama administration

Kelly Shackelford, president of the Liberty Legal Institute, says Congress could move quickly to outlaw discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation, even if a school or ministry teaches that homosexuality is sinful. He says ministries also fear that a federal hate crimes law could be used against preachers, and that re-imposition of the "Fairness Doctrine" could require Christian broadcasters to air anti-Christian views.

"The impact [the Fairness Doctrine] would have on religious radio is huge," Shackelford contends. "To tell a religious radio station that they have to present the opposite view of theirs on their radio station would create an incredible conflict with religious liberty."

Cafferty Slams ‘Gasbag’ Limbaugh, Reads E-mail Comparing Rush & Hannity to KKK

By Brad Wilmouth (Bio Archive)

On Friday’s The Situation Room on CNN, Jack Cafferty used his regular "Cafferty File" segment to attack Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives, citing Colin Powell’s recent words criticizing Limbaugh’s role in speaking for Republicans. After he quoted Powell’s remarks, Cafferty clarified that Powell was "talking about that gasbag Limbaugh," and posed the question for viewers: "Should Republicans stop listening to Rush Limbaugh?" Later in the program, all the viewer emails he read were harshly critical of Limbaugh, with one even comparing him and Sean Hannity to the Ku Klux Klan. Cafferty, reading email: "Connie in Chicago: ‘Yes! Limbaugh is a far-right agitator of the worst sort with a 1950's mentality of what values 21st century America should reflect. I expect him and other like-minded Sean Hannitys of the world to step out of their closet and display their white sheets and dunce caps. Limbaugh is a bad joke.’"

A transcript of relevant portions from the Broadcast can be found at NewsBusters

Will The Fairness Doctrine Silence The Conservative Voice?

Stop the Push to Silence Free Speech

Will 2009 usher in a fanatical push to re-instate the so-called "Fairness Doctrine"? Such a move would effectively silence the conservative voice and remove the last conservative stronghold against a fast-moving liberal agenda.

One need only read the words of Dianne Feinstein to see the true threat to conservative speech that is brewing on the horizon!

"Talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information ... I'm looking at the [Fairness Doctrine]... Unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way."

Recognizing this threat, the Media Research Center has created the Free Speech Alliance which is a coalition of organizations and citizens strongly opposed to any such move to limit or undermine our Free Speech Rights!

If the liberal voice in America has their way, the Fairness Doctrine will end conservative talk--including Rush, Sean,Laura, Lan, Mark, and a host of others. Please take a moment right now to join the hundreds of thousands of Americans who oppose the Fairness Doctrine and all that it stands for by clicking the link below. Take action today by adding your name to the petition.

MRC Petition Against The Fairness Doctrine

Seton Motley, communications director of the Media Research Center, appeared on Fox News' "Your World" to discuss the possible return of the "censorship doctrine," which liberals spin as the "fairness doctrine."