Has Jethro Tull Cancelled Their Aug 7-8 Israel Concerts?

Have they cancelled the two concerts?

(Update below, the simple answer being NO Jethro Tull has not cancelled their concerts, and has made a statement on why he is playing Israel which can be read HERE)

This WAS the schedule:

AUG7Saturday 7 August 2010
Jethro Tull	Caesarea… Caesarea, Israel	36 people attending 3 shouts
AUG8Sunday 8 August 2010
Jethro Tull	Binyeney Ha'Uma Jerusalem, Israel	8 people attending Add shout

This is the updated as of June 21 official schedule off of Jethro Tull's website. (notice that no where on the schedule which is through November 24, 2010 does any Israeli concert appear):

AUG
11	Zofingen, Switzerland	Heiteren Festival
18	Bergen	Grieghallen
20	Kristiansand, Norway	Ravnedalen
21	Gvarv, Norway	Kartfestivalen, Farstadparken
22	Oslo, Norway	Sentrum Scene, Arbeidersamfunnets Plass
28	Bahrenfeld, Hamburg, Germany	Classic Rock Festival, Trab Arena Front page of his website, left upper corner, no where is Israel mentioned

Hmmmmmmm, this article from Haaretz dated June 22, one day after the update on the official Jethro Tull Website it reads as follows.

The British rock band Jethro Tull is to perform three concerts in Israel in August: On August 7 at the Ra'anana Park Amphitheater, on August 8 at the Shuni Fortress in Binyamina and on August 9 at Jerusalem's International Convention Center. The band, which has performed in Israel five times, was last here three years ago. Jethro Tull, founded in 1967, is known for its blending of blues, jazz and classical tones. (Noya Kohavi )

So someone tell me or find out, according to Haaretz a concert has been ADDED and according to the official website there is nothing scheduled in Israel. Interesting,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

some fans”

Just found this forum where in there is an email from David Coursey the webmaster for the Jethro Tull web site posted on June 19 which puts the concerts still up in the air at that time. Read that entire thread HERE THIS blogger claims to have sent off an email to the same webmaster of Jethro Tull's website on June 9th and gotten an entirely different reply. UPDATE with info concerning Ian Anderson: People expected much too much of Ian Anderson. His musical lyrics have never matched his actions. In interview after interview he tells people he will not get into politics, he will only tell people to VOTE. http://www.cliffordmeth.com/ianandersononwarreligionan.htm Anderson: My music is not going to address issues in a direct political way. You wouldn’t find me on stage in the last run at the election joining Bruce Springsteen and calling for the mobilization of civilian troops, as it were, to place their vote in the box next to the name Kerry. I wouldn’t be up in the stage doing that. But you would get me on the stage campaigning very simply with the word VOTE. That I’m very much dedicated towards. I wouldn’t be partisan. I would certainly encourage people to vote and in my small way I did try to do that when I was last doing concerts before I went on tour because I do think it’s very important from a moral point of view, as well as a political one, to take advantage of that democracy that I’m afraid so many Americans and British take for granted. Politically, I’m an angry man. But the answer isn’t “pull the troops out.” We’re stuck with this now. We can’t abandon these people. We’ve brought notions of democracy to a country where they’ve been used to, at best, a patriarchal and tribal leadership. In Iraq, they were used to the tyrant dictator, but nonetheless, it was a stable country, for the most part throughout most its very complicated length and breadth, with all of its tribal and religious divisions. And when you go blundering in there as a Western Democracy with tanks and guns, you’re taking the lid off the hornet’s nest. And that’s unfortunately what seems to have escaped both Bush and Blair and their rather dodgy crew of advisors. It just seemed so patently obvious from the word go that this was just going to result in a lot of tears that it’s beyond me that they could have done it. I mean, it just seems so incredibly naïve, if you give them the benefit of the doubt, to have gone in their guns blazing thinking all you do is take out the government, replace it with a friendly military force for a few months, then get them all to go to elections. How could they ever believe that given the complexities that existed in Iraq? And this was pointed out in countless articles by countless learned journalists from all over the world reporting from Iraq for the last ten years. It was pointed out time and again that the result of removing Sadam Husein would not be a simple one. That is what is so extraordinary! However, we don’t want to waste the entire interview talking about that, but yes, I’ve got my opinion, and the answer is that it’s far too late to pull out—far too late for people like me to be putting in music or in song any clear cut political message. The job I do as a musician is to travel— not to Iraq, thus far, but to certain other places where we have seen the suicide bombers and the tragedy of war in the last 30 or 40 years. I go to places like Israel; I go to Turkey, to India, to places where people do blow each other up. But as a musician, I’m allowed to cross those boundaries in the worlds of art and entertainment; I cross boundaries that politicians can’t–even if they want to. So I think I’m rather happy to keep my message a generally uplifting one of music and song. If there’s a political or religious comment being made, I do so with a degree of, I hope, subtlety and artistry, which I hope does not make me appear partisan and does not allow for misunderstanding, although I’ve been at the end of misunderstanding before, choosing words in my lyrics perhaps not so carefully as I might have done back in 1971. *********************** There you go, Ian Anderson the civics teacher, VOTE, but he won’t be caught being political because in his own small way he can do what politicians cannot do, play music wherever he wants to and then look magnanimous in donating to “peaceful causes” I gave at the office. Kum-ba-yah. Yet another interview: http://www.jambands.com/features/2008/09/23/ian-anderson-this-was-and-always-will-be ““I’m an American taxpayer but not a voting citizen of the United States. So I have to leave it up to you guys, just as the Germans, French and the Italians do. It’s interesting times and the world is watching. My message to the American people isn’t to vote for John McCain or for Barack Obama or even for Hillary Clinton next time since it looks like she’ll take another crack at it. My message is simply – vote because you can’t afford to be one of the 40% of the people who sit on their behinds and can’t be bothered to go to the polls. Democracy is what young men and women have fought and died for in Afghanistan and Iraq. If anything we owe it to them to use our democratic right to show the rest of world how democracies work. That’s my message. Hanging chads notwithstanding,” he adds with a laugh. **************************** There you go, our young men and women have fought for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn’t that pretty much say it all to this man’s level of understanding? I say expose him for what he is and that this is the very type of person that plays Israel, someone who is an AIRHEAD when it comes to having any spine whatsoever. Oh and last but not least, his hobbies are growing chili peppers and saving endangered cats! Watch this interview, he talks about his US tour when things were unpleasant here along political lines and the audience messed with his music!! Oh those darn hippies that made it hard for him to perform! It was all so damn unpleasant. Enjoy the concert Israel, Ian Anderson the school marm civics teacher will be "giving at the office", to who he will be "giving" he's not even willing to announce at this time! So, I decided many months ago not to profit from my work in this troubled region and hope that interested parties on all sides will understand and respect my decision and resolve. The details of recipients of my charitable donation will be posted for the benefit of the doubters, as usual, on this website later in the year. No backbone WHATSOEVER.

Zionist Occupier Dances Around Handcuffed, Blindfolded Palestinian Woman

Carolyn Glick's Lunatic Chutzpa Concerning "We Con the World"

Continuing from my last post concerning the vile video, "We Con the World" and the so called "apology" issued by the government of Israel, it seems that Youtube has pulled the video dueto copyright infringement per Warner Music's request.

Linking to the video gets you the following message:

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Warner/ Chappell Music, Inc. .

Yet Carolyn Glick is ranting on on her blog boasting that friends of her's have uploaded the video on other video hosting sites and urges all to continue to spread it! She claims that the video was pulled as part of an orchestrated anti-Israel campaign that Youtube has cooperated with. But never fear, the intrepid Glick chimes, "If someone is in fact trying to silence our voices, they will soon discover that they are messing with the wrong Jews". Post on she urges! We will not be silenced!

In confrontational manner to the take down Glick had her webmaster upload it elsewhere on another video hosting site with her next post containing full instructions of how to get around the evil anti-Israel forces trying to silence Latma!

It's fair use Glick claims! Her "attorneys" told her so!

Wait a minute here Carolyn, do you have any clue what you are talking about when you claim the song is "fair use" as parody? Ben Sheffner, Senior Council for NBC Television Group disagrees with you. Read what he has to say about your claims HERE.

Ms. Glick claims parody. What is the legal definition of parody?

A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original.

Let's go through the facts on the song "We are the World". The copyright to the song belongs to the Michael Jackson Estate and Lionel Richie, not Warner. Warner is Lionel Richie's agent entrusted with protecting the copyright of their client.

The song "We are the World" was recently remade to raise funds Haiti. A non-profit foundation has been established, the We Are The World Foundation. Lionel Richie sits on the board of that foundation, as does Quincy Jones. the song "We are the World" as it has been remade with the permission of the copyright holders, the Michael Jackson Estate and Lionel Richie is being used as it was originally intended, to raise funds for a cause. The foundation as formed did not get permission from Warner to remake the song, they got the permission from the estate of Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie: (watch the remake HERE)

On January 12, 2010, Haiti was struck by a magnitude 7.0 M_w earthquake. It was the country's most severe earthquake in over 200 years and caused widespread damage.^[2] The epicenter of the quake was just outside the Haitian capital Port-au-Prince.^[3] It has been estimated that the death toll could reach 200,000.^[4] Before the earthquake, Jones and Richie had planned to organize a re-recording of "We Are the World" on January 28, 2010 — the 25th anniversary of the original recording of the song.^[5] Randy Phillips, who was a key figure in the song being re-issued, said that "We Are The World" producer Ken Kragen had suggested to re-cut "We Are the World" and title it "Live 25".^[6] However, Lionel Richie and Jones were "very lukewarm" about the idea.^[6] Phillips commented that,

"[They felt] that what happened 25 years ago was iconic and they did everything they could for Africa at that time, and they didn't feel re-cutting the song really made any sense. Basically, Lionel didn't really want to do it, and we kind of let it die by not issuing the publishing license, because Lionel owns the copyright along with Michael Jackson's estate. That was in November/December [2009]. They had gotten Visa on board as an underwriter of that effort, and I think they were going to try and premiere it at the World Cup."^[6]

However, because of the devastation caused in Haiti, these plans were postponed.^[5] Phillips said that Jones had called Lionel and said, "this is what this song is written for, as a fundraising vehicle for causes, tragedies, catastrophes like this. Why don't we take over the process, call our friends, and actually do this?"^[6] Lionel understood the urgency of Haiti, and in January 2010, it was agreed that "We Are the World" would be re-recorded to help benefit Haiti, similar to how the original recording helped famine relief in Africa.^[5] Richie commented, "Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a hit record to make someone decide to save a life. I want this song to be the battle cry again. Every once in a while, you have to wake the world up. We slept right through Katrina. If we are not a socially aware culture, we're going to fail."^{[7] (source)}

Many of the reviews of the remake were negative. In a true parody of the remake Saturday Night Live made a skit about it as seen HERE. Note that in the beginning of the skit the actor is "Quincy Jones" saying that the remake was a disaster, so he has gathered together a group to undo the "disaster".

That is a parody Ms. Glick. What you have created is not. What you have done is vilely parodied the Free Gaza movement which resulted in the death of nine individuals with six still missing using the VEHICLE of a copyrighted song.

That is unless you and your boss Frank Gaffney want to claim you were parodying the song itself and intent for which it was written to raise funds for Africa and then remade to raise funds for Haiti. If that was Latma's intention, you don't get to pull in a third party which has nothing whatsoever to do with the song.

Let's look at a case that was won on the grounds of fair use/parody, Abilene Music vs Sony:

In 2003 a New York federal court also upheld the fair use doctrine by dismissing a lawsuit against Sony Music Entertainment and rappers Ghostface Killah, Raekwon and the Alchemist, for copyright infringement. The plaintiff, Abilene Music, accused the rappers and Sony – who released the album – of infringing its copyright in the well-known song "What a Wonderful World." The infraction allegedly occurred when the trio made slang references to marijuana in a rap that began with a variation on the first three lines of the song popularized by Louis Armstrong. The defendants successfully argued that, while the song's lyrics were adapted from "What a Wonderful World" they were protected as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Act.

In granting a summary judgment for Sony and the rappers, Judge Gerard Lynch said the rap was clearly a parody, intended to criticize and ridicule the cheerful perspective of the original song. The judge also noted the rap made key changes to the lyrics and overall effect of the lines, and was not an imitation of the original. The Judge held that, whereas the first three lines of "Wonderful World" describe the beauty of nature, the rap version read more like an invitation to “get high” with the singer. The slang reference to marijuana and the dark nature of the rap tune were in stark contrast to the mood of beauty in the original song. (SOURCE)

Did you read there Ms. Glick? The song was not an IMITATION of the original copyrighted song "What a Wonderful World".

Again I ask, is it the song "We are the World" you are parodying? Really Ms. Glick, is that really what you want to claim?

Because if that is the case you are directly challenging Lionel Richie and the Michael Jackson Estate who own that copyright, not Warner whose CEO is Edgar Bronfman or Youtube which now is owned by Sergei Brin and Larry Page.

I noticed you are soliciting funds to challenge the take down. I take it your boss at Latma, Frank Gaffney is up to this and wants in on record as to whose copyright and the purpose for which the song was written he is challenging, because indeed Ms. Glick, the intent of the copyrighted material is taken into consideration on infringement as well.

For the record, I have left a total of four comments on Ms. Glick's blog which have not been published there.

A little more: Lawrence Auster gives three examples of parodies of "We are the World" which have not been pulled from Youtube over copyright infringement in his attempt to support Glick and Latma. Let's look at his examples:

The Saturday Night Live skit, as covered above, true parody which parodies the song itself.

In Living Color: "Career Aid", We are the World parody: Again a true parody of the song itself knocking artists who use their art to do charity.

Weird Al Yankovitch: Wierd Al always asks permission to use songs. Read his response to his recording of James Blunt with Atlantic Records refusing to allow him to use the song.

So there you go, Lawrence Astor, you don't know what you are talking about either. Warner manages the licensing for the song, but at the end of the day Lionel Richie and the Michael Jackson Estate could agree to have the song used in this manner because THEY hold the copyright. But it is Warner's job to protect the COPYRIGHTED song which again does not meet the legal standards of parody.

From the Warner Music website:

I want to use a song by a Warner Music Group artist in my project. How do I obtain the necessary rights?

A:
If you are interested in using the actual sound recording by an artist on a WMG record label, a good place to start is by calling our licensing division at Rhino Entertainment (818) 238-6100. If you are interested in using a musical composition that is published or administered by our music publishing company, Warner/Chappell Music, you should visit the Warner/Chappell web site where you will find a useful song search tool as well as tools to request mechanical and print license

what is a musical composition?

The music itself-the notes

Going there…………..what is a copyright?

What is copyright?
As stated on the U.S. Library of Congress website ( http://www.copyright.gov/):

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;

BNGO: what is a derivative work?

A derivative work pertaining to copyright law, is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work.

Who holds the rights to all derivative works?

Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre- pare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author.

Anyone interested in a work who does not know the copyright owner can search the records of the Copyright Office or ask the Office to conduct a search for an hourly fee.

Now, for the lyrics comparison which can be found HERE which Ms. Glick is claiming are a parody, remember, a parody is a work that ridicules another well known work. Can Latma who by the way has defiantly re-uploaded the video in question to their website despite Warner's DMCA notification to youtube in all true conviction say that the lyrics in Latma's song were meant to PARODY the ORIGINAL work?

I don't think so!

More CHUTZPA from Latma's white knight to the rescue: wejew.com who left Ms. Glick a comment to let her know that they have SAVED the video and are being DILIGENT because offering the video on their video hosting site has opened them up for hackers! Hello Shlomo Wollins, you also are flying in the face of a COPYRIGHT takedown. Do you have ANY clue that no one but the copyright holder or their agent can request a DMCA take down? That would be Warner Music whose CEO is Edgar Bronfman! This is the same Shlomo Wollins who wrote as a comment on his own website over the rescued Latma video:

WeJew (3 days ago)
WeJew Founder Note: Youtube has BANNED this video for copyright infringement - which stretches their editorial credibility beyond belief - feel free to spread this link - as the critical video has become one of Israel's best PR responses to the flotilla.

Shlomo, you didn't get the memo did you, your government press office's "apology" said the video doesn't represent the government of Israel, it was sent out by them by MISTAKE and it had not been vetted. No apologies from you however as you violate COPYRIGHT law. Have you thought to contact Warner? Have you thought to contact Lionel Richie or the Michael Jackson Estate? Youtube did not "stretch their editorial ability!" Oh pa-leeze-there is a way to respond to Youtube to send a counter notice. Did Latma OR you think to do that? Why not Ms. Glick? Why not Shlomo the White Knight?

http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

Counter-Notification
If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions.

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability. Please also be advised that we enforce a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers who are repeat infringers.

I double dare you all. Send in your counter-notifications!

***Comment left on Ms. Glick's blog at 4:20 pm PST Tuesday June 15-let's see if it get's published there. (she published it HERE)

Let me help you out here Ms, Glick, the LEGAL way should you decide to choose that path

http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

Note, if Warner sent out the DMCA misrepresenting that the material was infringed, Latma and anyone else whose youtube has been removed can sue Warner! Yes you can Ms. Glick, You can also appeal the removal. Did anyone do that Ms. Glick? The LEGAL way since you said you have attorneys telling you it is fair use?

Please note that under Section 512(f) any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages. Don't make false claims!

Please also note that the information provided in this legal notice may be forwarded to the person who provided the allegedly infringing content.

Claimant information will be published on the YouTube site in place of disabled content.

Counter-Notification
If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions.

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability. Please also be advised that we enforce a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers who are repeat infringers.
***********************************

I suggest you call up that lawyer who told you this was fair use and I'm sure he will take care of this matter for you.

CIAO!

************************************

UPDATE: An important court ruling was issued Monday concerning Chuck Devore's use of Don Henley's songs which changed the lyrics completely for his campaign. Guess what, DeVore LOST.

CNN Blatantly Gives Cover for "Israeli Apology" (update,then changed the title)

Just a short while ago, CNN published an article on their website titled "Israeli government office apologizes for flotilla video"

UPDATE::::: Woo Hoo, CNN changed the name of the article, link to it and the article is now titled "Israeli government office links to video mocking flotilla" I wonder how many people complained about the title because I did. I tweeted Octavia Nasr where I picked it up from her twitter http://twitter.com/octavianasrCNN

In part: the Government Press Office of Israel issued a statement to media outlets reading (although CNN does not say whether or not this is the complete statement released by Israel)

"It was not intended for general release," the statement said. "The contents of the video in no way represent the official policy of either the Government Press Office or of the State of Israel."

The video, titled "We Con the World" -- set to the tune of the 1985 hit, "We are the World"-- was put together by Caroline Glick, a former member of the Israel Defense Forces and columnist for the Jerusalem Post.

Now, since CNN is certainly supposed to title their articles in non-deceptive manner, why is it that at the end of the article Marc Regev (who currently serves as spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Washington) states the following:

"I called my kids in to watch it because I thought it was funny," he said. "It is what Israelis feel. But the government has nothing to do with it. The GPO distributes non-government items, things that we think that show our side of the story."

I guess Marc Regev didn't get the memo. Israel "apologized" for the release of the video on their website. They did NOT apologize for the content-but they said it isn't a government video. If you read the statement as published by CNN and furthermore Regev thought it is "funny" and "it is what Israelis feel"

Which Israelis Mr. Regev? Since you are the SPOKESMAN for Israel here in the United States then I suggest you explain yourself. Either YOU represent your government or you don't.

Just utterly disgusting. In case you haven't viewed this despicable video in which Carolyn Glick herself of JPost appears, view it HERE.

LatmaTV is who produced this video. Let's see who their domain is registered to:

domain: latma.co.il
descr: Center for Security Policy RA
descr: 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 201
descr: Washington, DC
descr: 20006
descr: USA
phone: +001 202 8359077
e-mail: info AT centerforsecuritypolicy.org
admin-c: LD-SB12052-IL
tech-c: LD-SB12052-IL
zone-c: LD-SB12052-IL
nserver: dns.netvision.net.il
nserver: nypop.elron.net
validity: 09-09-2010
status: Transfer Locked
changed: domain-registrar AT isoc.org.il 20080909 (Assigned)
changed: domain-registrar AT isoc.org.il 20081013 (Changed)
changed: domain-registrar AT isoc.org.il 20081013 (Changed)

person: Shlomo Blass
address: Halamed He 17B
address: Jerusalem
address: 93661
address: Israel
phone: +972 2 5665383
e-mail: seblass AT yahoo.com
nic-hdl: LD-SB12052-IL
changed: Managing Registrar 20080824

registrar name: LiveDns Ltd
registrar info: http://domains.livedns.co.il

NOW: who is the Center for Secure Policy? Well, Frank Gaffney is the President and look at all the people in our own government who have signed his letters to Congress HERE

Frank Gaffney at Wiki

From Carolyn Glick's blog:

Latma is the initiative of the Center for Security Policy's Middle East media project that I run in my capacity as the CSP's senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs. Our work is financed completely from donations by private citizens. If you are interested in supporting our work, please contact the CSP here. The mailing address is:

The Center for Security Policy

1901 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 201

Washington, DC 20006

And who is Shlomo Blass? He's an Israeli film producer who on his Facebook likes and Netanyahu and Sheldon Adelson. Ah, Sheldon Adelson, Shlomo "likes" people in high places.

So there you have it. According to CNN Israel's press office "apologized" for this video being put up on their website, it does "not represent government policy" and you have Marc Regev telling us "it is how Israelis feel" and he thought the video was "funny"

Way to go CNN!!!! I've never quite seen an "apology" like this before.

As updated above, CNN changed the title of the article.

UPDATE: June 20, 2010 Surprise Surprise, Latma changed their domain registry to PRIVATE

Who are you guys wanting to hide from? Carolyn wrote on her blog Aug. 28, 2009:

By the way, Latma is fully funded through generous donations from philanthropists to the Washington DC-based Center for Security Policy's Middle East media program which I run in my capacity as the CSP's Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs.

And again on June 12, 2010

Latma is not a business. We're a public service, educational initiative funded from tax exempt donations through the Center for Security Policy in Washington where I serve as senior fellow for Middle East affairs.

We could use all the help we can get.

To contribute to our efforts, please click on this link. It takes you to Network for Good's dedicated page for online contributions to the Center for Security Policy.

To make sure your contribution goes to Latma, in the box marked "designation" please write "Latma."

Thanks very much. Together we will make sure that the voice of truth is heard.

June 19 Screening of "Lt. Watada" in Little Tokyo, LA

GO HERE TO PURCHASE TICKETS VIA PAYPAL

For Immediate Release May 24, 2010-05-24

Special Screening of Academy Award- Winning Director Frieda Mock’s New Documentary “Lt Watada”

The Nikkei for Civil Rights & Redress (NCRR) and the Asian American Vietnam Veterans Organization (AAVVO) will screen Freida Mock’s documentary, “Lt. Watada” on June 19, 2010 at the David Henry Hwang Theatre at 7:00 PM. “Lt. Watada” is an in-depth look a the case of Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq on the grounds that the war was illegal and immoral. He was inspired to join the army after 9/11 and in preparing to lead his soldiers to fight in Iraq, he was encouraged by his battalion commander to learn everything he could about Iraq and the war. His research led him to the conclusion that the U.S. invasion was an act of aggression based on lies. Watada believed that, as an officer, it was his duty to uphold the Constitution and that he could not obey an order he knew to be illegal. In June 2006, Lt Watada refused the order to deploy to Iraq. He was charged with “missing a movement” and “conduct unbecoming an officer,” and faced up to eight years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.

Freida Mock is an Academy and Emmy Award-winning filmmaker, credited with producing films about a wide variety of historical and contemporary subjects. She is a co-founder of the American Film Foundation with her husband, Terry Sanders.Mock's diverse production credits include "Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision", "Sing!" (about a Los Angeles community children's choir), "Rose Kennedy: A Life to Remember", "To Live or Let Die", and "Return with Honor", presented by Tom Hanks. (wikipedia) . Both “Sing” and “Lt. Watada” were recently screened at the Los Angeles Asian Pacific Film Festival. (quote from Freida) Mock’s “Lt Watada” charts Watada’s emergence as a public speaker and activist and chronicles the tense days of his court martial trial in February 2007 which ended in a mistrial. This thoughtful and incisive documentary is both an inspirational portrait of one man’s act of conscience and a powerful investigation into questions that threaten to unravel the government’s justification for the Iraq war.

Watada’s actions helped educate people nationwide and created dialogue in the Asian American community about the illegality of the war in Iraq. In October 2006, NCRR and AAVVO sponsored a speaking tour with Bob Watada and Rosa Sakanishi, Ehren’s father and stepmother. Before the court martial in February 2007, the two organizations organized a march and rally in Little Tokyo led by Carolyn Ho, Ehren’s mother. Bob Watada and Rosa Sakanishi as well as Carolyn Ho will answer questions at the screening along with filmmaker Freida Mock. They will all be available at the reception following the screening.

General admission for the screening is $15/ Seniors and Students: $10. The VIP ticket for $100 (tax-deductible) includes admission, reserved seating and a special pre-release copy of the “Lt Watada” DVD signed by the filmmaker Freida Mock and the Watada Family. To order tickets: visit www.NCRR-LA.org For more information about the event or to order tickets by phone, call (213) 284-0336.

Hebrew University Sues GM over Einstein Image: How is Bill Gates Involved?

The story hit the news wires today that Hebrew University has filed a lawsuit over what has been termed in the media as the unauthorized use of Einstein's photo on top of a buff body in an ad placed last November in People Magazine, "The Sexiest Men" issue.

Upon reading the lawsuit filed though, it is clear that Hebrew University is claiming something different also. That by use of the photo it appears that Einstein is endorsing the GM Terrain and since Hebrew University hold the rights to most of Einstein's images, it brings a loss to them because they do not endorse the Terrain vehicle. That's what it's about, Hebrew University's business interests. Read the full lawsuit HERE (you have to read it page by page and click again to enlarge-note that Greenlight is named in the suit)

In an email to Crains, it is learned that GM uses Leo Burnett for its' advertising, who "launched today's visual assault on the senses by proving that images, not words, were the nuclear power of advertising"

“At the end of the day, it's our ad. But the mechanics of creating the ad, including purchasing images from stock photo houses that guarantee they have proper usage rights, fall to the agency; in this case, Leo Burnett,” wrote Ryndee Carney, GM's manager of dealer and advertising communications, in an e-mail toCrain's.

“There was no negligence in this case. It's something that's done virtually every day in the advertising business and the stock photo house that was used is well-known and highly reputable.”

The stock photo house? That would be Greenlightrights which is also named in Hebrew University's lawsuit (though is not a party to the lawsuit)

And who owns Greenlight?

Bill Gates (He owns Corbis which rebranded its' Rights Services Division as Greenlightrights in 2008)

So there you have it folks. Hebrew University is stating in their lawsuit that it looks like Einstein (who is dead) is endorsing a GM product.

Hebrew University is claiming that the use of the photo as used in the GM ad was not authorized by them and that the use has somehow brought loss to the university.

Who screwed up? Greenlightrights owned by Bill Gates or Leo Burnett? The case has not been tried yet but it is General Motors left holding the lawsuit bag.

Who are all the players involved in this lawsuit?

Hebrew University who makes millions every year off of selling Einstein's image for commercial use.

Our very own downtrodden American auto manufacturer, General Motors. (the entity named)

Leo Burnett, listed in 1998 as the ninth largest advertising firm in the world. (not being sued)

Greenlightrights which is owned by Bill Gates. (not being sued)

Oh, and don't forget Einstein, dead since 1955 who Hebrew University claims the ad makes it look like he is endorsing a car made NOW.

http://library.ias.edu/hs/einsteininfo.php

Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 USA (609) 734-8000

Corbis
The Corbis (previously Roger Richman Agency) represents Hebrew University in the United States for granting licensing for the use of Einstein's image in print, television and film. Anyone seeking permission to use images of Einstein, other than for scholarly publication, should be referred to this agency. Corbis/Roger Richman website
Roger Richman Agency 9777 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
phone: (310) 276-7000 - fax: (310) 276-8023

Corbis is owned by Bill Gates. In 2008 they restructured to name their Rights Services Division Greenlightrights. Greenlight is named in the lawsuit as who the picture was purchased from.

http://einstein.biz/photos

GreenLight LLC and its affiliates exclusively represent publicity, trademark, and related rights of Albert Einstein on behalf of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "Albert Einstein" and "Einstein" are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

So, my question, did GM legally purchase the photo of his head from Greenlight as they say they did through Burnett as it was and then Burnett tweeked it to be on top of a buff body? Did Burnett not ask what the stipulations for use of the photo were, or did Greenlight not tell them? Because GM stated clearly to Crains that the photo was purchased and Hebrew University is not claiming in their lawsuit that they were not paid for it as some media outlets have stated. They are claiming that the use of it was not authorized by them.

MUST READ: Einstein Inc.

2009: "Einstein" website taken down, same law firm as this case against GM, Arent-Fox

Please write to the president of Pratt who is hosting "Moo-Ham-Mud" exhibition

Today I came across an article concerning an art exhibit that is being hosted at the Steuban Gallery at Pratt Institute in Brooklyn. Read the article HERE about the "Moo-Ham-Mud" exhibit which is beginning next week.

I called the office of the president at Pratt to voice my concerns. His name is President Schutte.

He was not available but I spoke to the receptionist. I told him that I was calling from Los Angeles and as someone who works in interfaith peace and justice I wished to voice my absolute disdain that their institute would be hosting an exhibit such as this. I informed him I am NOT anti-free speech, I am voicing my concern over the nature and the NAME of this exhibit and that I am NOT a Muslim. He asked me to write to the office of the president at Pratt. This is President Schutti's email presoff@pratt.edu

I wrote the following:

Dear President Schutti,

Today I came across an article stating that an exhibit named "Moo-Ham-Mud" by Joseph Stulman will be hosted next week in a gallery at your institution

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/33/21/24_prattartist_2010_05_21_bk.html?comm=1

Allow me to state to you that I am not Muslim myself, I am Catholic. Let me state furthermore that I work in interfaith groups in the Los Angeles areas. Let me state also that I have many Muslim friends and family, none of whom have ever supported any sort of violence against past Mohammed cartoons. Violence in action is not why I am writing you. Violence in word and art using the guise of free speech is why I am contacting you. Being a very liberal person myself, I do not wish to stifle free speech. I do however speak out when I see hate speech.

Joseph Stulman's exhibit which Pratt is hosting next week titled "Moo-Ham-Mud" is hate speech. While Congress has failed to pass federal laws concerning hate speech and religion,

any reasonable person seeing the prophet Mohammed's name PBIH distorted in such manner would label the name of this exhibit hateful towards an entire religion, Islam.

Interestingly while doing research prior to writing to you, I found an article penned by Pratt's

chair of the Religious Affairs Committee, Rabbi Simcha Weinstein concerning the recent South Park episode concerning Islam. I found this sentence of the rabbi's very interesting,

Like Islam, Jewish tradition also prohibits the making of graven images. (That’s the Second Commandment, so it’s pretty important.) This explains why synagogues have no pictures of any kind on display.

However, Judaism doesn’t extend that prohibition to non-Jews, or threaten and intimidate those who create images we might find disturbing. Given our contributions to, and reverence for, literature and the arts throughout the ages, and our own rich tradition of satire, that would be a very “un-Jewish” thing to do.

I am now after reading the rabbi's article not inclined to ask you to censor this exhibit due to hate speech. I am inclined to appeal to you on sheer decency. While growing up my mother taught me one thing, the only person you can control is yourself. In your case President Schutte, the buck stops with you as to what is allowed at Pratt Institute. This exhibit titled "Moo-Ham-Mud" is simply indecent. It is inflammatory when inflaming hatred against Muslims is so far reaching in our country. By hosting this exhibit President Schutte you are allowing an endorsement of this and adding in your own contribution.

Again sir, I am not Muslim. I am Catholic and work in interfaith work in my community. While realizing that art is often inflammatory and is not censored, many art institutes in our country have done just that when it concerns banning exhibits because they did not reflect what they wanted to reflect for their own public image. Or, they censored under outside pressure.

My request is for decency on the part of your institution to not host this exhibit next week. Should you not decide to censor, I ask for your own opinion on the merit, the MERIT President Schutti, of an exhibit titled in such manner.

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you prior to the scheduled opening of the exhibit next week.

****************************

More, Joshua Stulman has been censored before at Penn State. He stated then, "It's not about hate. I don't hate Muslims. This is not about Islam"

That is why Joshua has shown such respect for the prophet Mohammed PBUH in titling this exhibit, "How to paint Moo-Ham-Mud" I take it.

That decision was overturned by the president of Penn State and his exhibit went forward.

PRATT'S OWN POLICY ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND GRIEVANCES PAMPLET

Pratt Institute’s community is one of diversity, which is a hallmark of an urban academic environment. The Institute is committed to the recognition and preservation of each individual’s human rights and does not discriminate or tolerate harassment on the basis of gender, race, color, religion or creed, marital status, age, sexual orientation, status as a veteran, political beliefs, disability, citizenship, genetic information, and national or ethnic origin with respect to the rights, privileges, programs, and activities generally accorded or made available to all members of its academic community.

*******************************

Now, there it is in writing, their own policy does not tolerate harassment on the basis of religion. Yet this exhibit titled. "How to Paint Moo-Ham-Mud" is going to open next week.

From what I found, there is a Muslim Student Association at Pratt.

**********************

Oh now, here's something really interesting. Joshua Stulman wrote a term paper on narcissism in art

"Narcissism exists in art in the form of arrogance and the characteristic of craving attention."

SO, Joshua SUED Penn State

OOOOH BOY, Joshua has been an active little critter over on a forum I found where he has been posting. First I found THIS where he invites people to his exhibit and still hasn't come back to answer my question (as Holly Tree) to his statement, "So to make a remark that the exhibit is anti-Muslim makes no sense whatsoever"

But lets go looking for what ELSE Joshua has written in this forum concerning Islam (there are several posts there) He wrote in a thread concerning the painting of Mohammed

"Thanks for the comments. FYI if anyone wants to know where NOT to be, don't be in Brooklyn in May or anywhere near the Pratt Institute"

Regards-Joshua

OH, here's some really interesting posting by Joshua. He got really hot when someone said something crude concerning Jews controlling Hollywood. Just go ahead and read this thread to see Joshua's reaction. "Clam" was the one who wrote the remark and then claimed it was a joke. Well THEN Joshua wrote: (His screen name is

Flounnderr

Clam,

Just don't make the joke, it's not funny and quite tasteless.
I have no need to quarrel with you over this anymore, i just hope you will pay more attention to what you write. This is a community and not a private conversation.

BTW I haven't seen the Joe movie and i'm a big time joe collector because it looked like a waste (same as TF2), if i see it at one of those supermarket 1.00 rentals, then maybe.

regards
joshua

OH REALLY JOSHUA!!!! And what is titling your "exhibit" "How to Paint Moo-Ham-Mud" and then writing in this forum to people where NOT to be when your exhibit is showing, anywhere near the Pratt Institute.

And IF the administration says anything to you about this, what are you going to do? Sue them?

Joshua Stulman, you are nothing but a little twirp hiding behind your "free speech" rights to provoke, by your own term paper, a NARCISSIST. Twirp Joshua, a racist provocative TWIRP!

And now Pratt Institute, he's YOURS.

OOH Joshua is conversing with me over HERE

On the Commemoration of the 62nd Nakba

I Come From There

Mahmoud Darwish

I come from there and I have memories

Born as mortals are, I have a mother

And a house with many windows,

I have brothers, friends,

And a prison cell with a cold window.

Mine is the wave, snatched by sea-gulls,

I have my own view,

And an extra blade of grass.

Mine is the moon at the far edge of the words,

And the bounty of birds,

And the immortal olive tree.

I walked this land before the swords

Turned its living body into a laden table.

***

I come from there. I render the sky unto her mother

When the sky weeps for her mother.

And I weep to make myself known

To a returning cloud.

I learnt all the words worthy of the court of blood

So that I could break the rule.

I learnt all the words and broke them up

To make a single word: Homeland.....

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

HRW 113 pg Report: "“I Lost Everything” Israel's Unlawful Destruction of Property during Operation Cast Lead"

To read full 113 page report LINK

Israel unlawfully destroyed Gaza property, says report

THE ISRAELI army wantonly destroyed civilian property during its 22-day offensive against Gaza, Human Rights Watch has reported.

The human rights group says Israeli forces targeted buildings and other facilities that had no “no military significance” in “grave” breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

In a 116-page document, entitled I Lost Everything: Israel’s Unlawful Destruction of Property in the Gaza Conflict , the report documents the complete destruction of orchards and farms as well as 189 buildings. These included 11 factories, eight warehouses and 170 residential buildings, rendering 971 people homeless during Operation Cast Lead which began on December 27th, 2008 and ended on January 18th, 2009.

The report said that a dozen specific targetings documented in the report account for only 5 per cent of the homes, warehouses and factories destroyed during the conflict. The report stated: “These cases describe instances in which Israeli forces caused extensive destruction of homes, factories, farms and greenhouses in areas under [Israeli] control without any evident military purpose”.

Read further>>>>>>>>