Thersites

A Hasty Response to the Predictable Arguments of Gun Nuts

Every time something like this happens, we get the same arguments against gun control from the same gun-rights nitwits. Rather than keep explaining repeatedly why those excuses are wrong, here's my quick-and-dirty short list of rebuttals to the NRA line:    

1. "Guns don't kill people; PEOPLE kill people!"  

No. In most cases, it's people WITH GUNS who kill people. For gun deaths to occur, two things are needed: a triggerman AND a trigger.   Here's the thing: if we want to limit the number of people who kill people with guns, we have to reduce either triggers or triggermen.

Reducing the number of triggermen means substantially increasing funding for mental health care, substantially increasing the incidence of involuntary commitment for borderline mental health problems, and increased incarceration of violent people. The first of these (an adjunct of increased funding for health care) is opposed by most conservatives as "socialism"; the second is opposed by most small-l libertarians of all stripes; the third is unworkable given that the U.S. already has the highest percentage of its population in jail of any modern nation (and our violent crime rate hasn't decreased accordingly).  

So if we can't/won't reduce the number of triggermen, we need to reduce  potential shooters' access to weapons. And reducing access to weaponry is MORE libertarian -- more Freedomy! -- than reducing people's liberty in general. (Plus, it helps protect kids from getting their hands on them by accident.)  

2. "The NRA didn't shoot those kids; why blame them?"  

It's funny: Attorney General Eric Holder didn't shoot federal agents in Mexico; Mexican drug lords did. Yet conservatives are rabid about holding Holder responsible for "Fast & Furious," the program that loosened rules against gun exports and allowed guns to fall into dangerous hands. If they can blame Holder for Fast & Furious, I can blame the NRA for fighting to allow more, and more dangerous,  weapons into dangerous hands.  

3. "We need guns for hunting."

Not military-style semi-automatic large-clip guns, you don't. Generations of sportsmen enjoyed hunting large game with Winchester 30.06 lever-action rifles, birds with double-barreled shotguns of various bores, and varmints and small game with single-shot .22s. Aren't you man enough to bring home the meat with the same weapon your grandpa used, especially since doing so will save innocent lives?

The truth is, military-style guns like AR-15s are designed for one thing: the efficient, long-distance killing of human-sized animals. The popularity of AR-15s among deer hunters proves only that deer and humans are about the same size. The fact remains that the weapons were designed for – and excel at – killing humans.

4. "We need guns for self-defense."  

Proactively killing something is an inherently offensive, not defensive, act. Guns project death over distances; that's their purpose. Can they be used to return fire? Sure. But guns are not inherently defensive weapons. Brick walls are inherently defensive weapons.   Of course, this only goes so far. It makes sense for police officers to carry guns, to be used in defense of themselves or others. But the population in general? Nah. When I see a gun nut wearing a bulletproof vest every day, I'll believe he cares about self-protection. Until then, I'll continue to assume it has more to do with penis size.  

5.  “If crazies couldn’t have guns, they’d kill some other way.”  

Riiiight. If killing is just as easy with, say, a crossbow or a knife, then it will be no inconvenience whatsoever to you if we ban all guns, because you can hunt just as effectively with a crossbow or a knife. Right?  

Sheesh.

The reality is that firearms are much more popular than crossbows, and there are many more murders by gun than by knife. Why? For the same reason that most hunters use them: they are much, much more efficient killing machines.  

6. "Obama and/or the U.N. are going to seize all our guns like in Red Dawn and institute a Kenyan-Marxist-fascist Sharia totalitarian welfare state that denies me my Medicare!"  

Two responses:  

a) Take your Prozac. Really. I know you THINK you're better off without it, but you're not.   Trust me on this.

b) If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to overthrow the government by force, then the Second Amendment is a dead letter. The government has F-117s, tactical nukes, and more firepower on one aircraft carrier than all NRA members combined. To resist it effectively by force, every citizen would need the right to possess his/her own RPGs, weaponized anthrax, and tactical nukes. Is that your position?  

Here’s the truth: if the evil Blue Helmets take over our nation as you fear, we're not going to fight them with stockpiled AR-15s. Rather, like all other guerrilla movements we're going to fight them with stolen ordnance, fertilizer bombs and IEDs. Until then? Calm down and let the grown-ups reduce the number of children murdered by nutjobs.  

I'll update/expand this when I have time. Prayers to the people of Clackamas County and Connecticut.

Exclusive Video: Boehner/Obama Meeting on Fiscal Cliff

 

Because this is how games of chicken are played, people. (Obama, by the way, is played by the guy in the red jacket, not the other guy.) 

The "Help America Vote Act" I'd Like to See

Voter impersonation fraud is nearly nonexistent. Election fraud, on the other hand, is rampant. Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, scattered incidents nationwide today (see, e.g., this example this morning in Pennsylvania); election fraud is becoming endemic -- which is not acceptable in a democracy.

As @ixh wrote on Twitter: "If we can land @MarsCuriosity a 2000 pound robot on Mars, don't you think we can make voting easier, accessible & fair?"

To advance the discussion, I offer the following (tongue-in-cheek... mostly) model for new federal voting rights legislation:

The Help America Vote Act, ver. 2.0:

1) Every citizen not incarcerated in a state or federal penitentiary on Election Day has the inalienable right to vote in every federal election.

2) Election Day is declared a federal holiday. Every state receiving federal money for any purpose shall allow at least two (2) full weeks of early voting, including at least 36 hours of early voting on the weekend immediately preceding the election.

3) Every state receiving federal money for any purpose shall ensure that in every federal election, there is at least one working voting machine per 100 voters in each voting precinct. Specific machines shall be distributed statewide on the basis of a lottery conducted publicly.

4) The Secretary of State in any state receiving federal money for any purpose shall be a full-time professional public servant holding at a minimum a graduate degree in public administration, and shall be appointed (not elected) by a bipartisan panel. All subordinate elections officials shall be nonpartisan, and no person who in the previous five (5) years has served in political office, is immediately related to any person who has served in political office, or who has worked for pay for a political campaign may serve as an election official at any level.

5) Vote tallying may be done electronically, but all ballots shall be on paper. All software and firmware used in any federal election must be published publicly at least six (6) months prior to the election, and no subsequent patches are allowed. If software flaws make the vote tallying unreliable without patching, then vote tallying will be done manually and the software maker fined $5,000,000 or the actual cost of such manual tallying, whichever is greater. All recounts shall be done by visual inspection of the paper ballots themselves, in a public place, on live television, without recourse to tallying software.

6) Altering or tampering with other citizens' votes, election machines, voting software, or vote tallies (collectively "election fraud") is an act of treason. Persons indicted for such crimes  shall be detained at Guantanamo Bay. Election fraud shall be triable in a military tribunal and punishable in all cases by public execution during daylight hours in the center of the World War II Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.

There, was that so hard?

Could Romney's Refusal to Disclose Tax Returns Really Be This Simple?

    Could it be this simple?

    Mitt Romney has produced only two of his personal tax returns (an actual copy of his 2010 return, and an "in process" draft of his not-yet-filed 2011). That's many fewer than any Presidential candidate has disclosed in decades, setting up the hearsay accusation disseminated joyfully by Harry Reid (who may or may not actually believe it) that Romney is afraid to tell voters that he sometimes pays no taxes at all.

    Meanwhile, Romney appears to have escaped relatively unsinged from the apparently unrelated revelation that he may have committed voter fraud  in January 2010, when -- despite not owning a house in Massachusetts and having given every appearance of having moved to California -- he registered and voted in the Massachusetts special election to replace the deceased Sen. Ted Kennedy. Given the GOP's ongoing use of the "voter fraud" fable  to justify modern Jim Crow laws and its highly-publicized persecution of the voter registration group ACORN, an actual case of felony voter fraud committed by the Republican nominee could have been a big story -- but Romney was able to tamp down the flames by claiming, not credibly but also not disprovably, that he and Ann actually were living in their son Tagg's Belmont, MA basement in 2010. Without proof that Romney lied about where he lived, there's no felony -- and no big national story.

    Many (many, many, many, many, many) theories have been advanced to explain why Romney keeps refusing to produce any returns prior to 2010, ranging from "voters might learn he's wealthy" (which voters already know) to "he underpaid his church tithe" (doubtful). None of them is really satisfactory, because none of them posits Romney concealing any facts more harmful than the blowback he is getting for not producing more returns. The problem may be that all of the prominent theories assume Romney is trying to conceal facts about his finances. Like the purloined letter pinned prominently in plain sight, what Romney's really hiding might be something more mundane: the home address written on the top of the tax form. That address that might reveal a connection between the "tax returns" brouhaha and the "voter fraud" fizzle -- which may be the strongest explanation of all. 

    Here's why:

    Tax returns require taxpayers to state their residence address, and the Romney returns already produced, although partially redacted, state clearly that they lived in “Belmont, MA 02478” in  2012 (tax year 2011) (.pdf) and 2011 (tax year 2010) (.pdf):

    But the Romneys, arbitrarily, refuse to disclose a copy of the returns they filed in 2010 or 2009 (for tax years 2009 and 2008) -- which, perhaps not coincidentally, bracket the time period when Romney allegedly committed fraud by voting in Massachusetts when he actually resided in California. Here's the question: did Romney put his son's basement's address on the returns he filed in 2009 and 2010? Or did he truthfully use his real (non-Massachusetts) address, thus implicating himself in voter fraud?

    This may seem like overmeticulous wonkishness, but the address given on tax returns is a big deal when it comes to proving voter fraud. As Hans von Spakovsky (senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, former Federal Election Commission member, and former DOJ voting-issue attorney, and himself an advocate of the GOP's restrictive voter ID requirements) explained to The Daily Caller: "Election officials will also look at tax returns as crucial evidence in residency disputes. Where an individual declares himself to be a resident for tax purposes, thus subjecting himself to applicable state income taxes, is usually decisive on this issue."

    With that in mind, let's run through the dates, keeping in mind that tax returns are filed the year after the tax year in question (and that Romney's returns, which are exceptionally complicated, likely are filed toward the end of that year; e.g., his 2010 return was filed in Oct. 2011):

•     In April 2009, Romney sold his longtime Massachusetts home at 171 Marsh Street  and appeared to move to La Jolla, California. He did not own a home in Massachusetts again until July 2010. (All of the Massachusetts addresses discussed here end with "Belmont, MA 02478," though one might amuse oneself surmising which address is underneath the Sharpie by the length of the redaction.)

•     Sometime in 2009, probably late in the year, Romney filed his 2008 tax return, identifying the address where he lived at the time of filing. He has refused to disclose a copy of that return.

•     Sometime in or shortly before January 2010 -- i.e., not long after he filed his 2008 return -- Romney registered to vote in Massachusetts, stating on his voter registration form that he lived in his son Tagg's basement at 18 Greensbrook Way.  In January 2010, Romney voted in Massachusetts' special election, which would be a felony if he was not a Massachusetts resident at the time.

•     In July 2010, Romney once again became a Massachusetts property owner when he bought a new townhouse at 10 S. Cottage Road Unit 3. However, as the owner of several other houses, he still could have resided elsewhere for voter registration purposes.
  

•     Sometime (probably late) in 2010, Romney filed his 2009 tax return. If that return was filed before July and he really was living in Tagg's basement, it should give a Belmont address. If it was filed after July, and Romney truly considered Massachusetts his home, it should give the Cottage Road address. He has refused to disclose a copy of that return.

•     On October 15, 2011, Romney's accountant filed his 2010 return, giving a redacted Belmont address (presumably the Cottage Road townhouse) as his residence.

    If Romney's 2008 return (filed in 2009, shortly before the Jan. 2010 special election) didn't give Tagg's basement as his address, then Romney clearly didn't consider Massachusetts his home in that year. If Romney's 2009 return (filed in 2010) gives a non-Massachusetts address despite the fact that he claimed to be a Massachusetts resident earlier that year and had bought a house in Massachusetts in July, then Romney clearly didn't consider Massachusetts his home in that year either. If Democrats hit the daily double -- i.e., if Romney declared La Jolla, California to be his home in both years -- then Massachusetts prosecutors likely will have no choice but to take a hard second look at their ex-governor.

    A felony voter fraud charge could expose Romney to fines and/or imprisonment, jeopardize Romney's standing with the Michigan State Bar, and -- worst of all in the political sense -- would be a mortal embarrassment on the campaign trail both to himself and to downticket Republicans (especially Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), who won the special election in question but is locked in a tight, highly-publicized race against the popular Elizabeth Warren to retain his seat).

    So far, none of the reasons advanced for Romney's refusal to produce tax returns seems good enough to justify the political heat his campaign is taking. But if those returns give a non-Massachusetts address, then Romney can't afford to produce them, no matter how much political fallout his campaign faces as a result.

    Could it really be this simple? Occam's Razor suggests it might just be.

What Romney's Mormon Tithes May Say About U.S. Tax Policy

    As Harry Reid keeps turning the screws on Mitt Romney, some are speculating that Mitt Romney is refusing to release his tax returns because they would reveal he has not been tithing a full ten percent of his income to his church as his faith instructs him to do. (As AlterNet's Joshua Holland put it, "perhaps he doesn’t want to piss off Mormons.")

    That theory might be correct, but it has its problems: there's no independent reason to believe it's true, which makes it seem a little like an anti-Mormon dogwhistle; it's not particularly relevant politically (most voters will care more about the dollar amount Romney gives, which will be large in any event, than about the percentage); and, most importantly, it's inconsistent with what we know about Romney, which is that he appears to be deeply sincere about his faith and its obligations.

    But Romney's very religious sincerity raises one possibility that hasn't been considered: what if Romney's tax returns show, not that he underpaid his tithe, but that he substantially overpaid it? 

    The Romneys' tithing commitment is precise: 10%, no more, no less. Mitt: "I made a commitment to my church a long, long time ago that I would give 10 percent of my income to the church, and I’ve followed through on that commitment." Ann: “[w]e give ten percent of our income to our church every year.” A Romney spokesman has explained that the Romneys even pay extra in one year if their estimate was low the year before, to come as close as possible to that 10% target, and that they keep their other charitable contributions separate. Thus, multiplying their tithe by ten gives a good indication of how much income the Romneys received in any given year.

    Even more specifically, as Kai Petainen has thoughtfully explained, in the two returns the Romneys have produced, they appear to have calculated their tithe as a percentage of their taxable income. That fact gives rise to the question I find politically interesting: what if, through tax loopholes and offshore banking, the Romneys managed in some years to drop their nominal taxable income to a figure so low that, in good conscience, they can't bring themselves to base their tithe on it?

    If their accountants tweaked and offshored their 1040, line 37 down to zero, but the Romneys continued to live their usual $25 million/year lifestyle, would they tithe nothing? Or, as Mormon doctrine instructs, would they “decide[] for themselves what 'one tenth of their increase' means... and ... pay it”?

    God's tax code doesn't have as many loopholes as the Internal Revenue Service's. And my guess is that in the event of a discrepancy between the two, the Romneys would base their tithe on God's tax law, not man's.

    Which, of course, would be to the Romneys' credit personally. Paying more than the minimum to charitable causes unquestionably qualifies as a Good Thing. But here's the rub: citizens have civic obligations, too, and Mitt is running to be Citizen in Chief (and an anti-tax C-I-C to boot), and tax-paying voters might catch a whiff of hypocrisy if Romney's hidden tax returns reveal that he based his tithe on a larger income than he admitted to the IRS.

    The issue here isn't legality; Romney has the best accountants money can buy, and his returns unquestionably will comply with every jot and tittle of the tax code. We're talking morality. Romney decries the tax code as too burdensome on millionaires like him, and is fighting to retain the Bush-era tax cuts on the richest Americans. That argument would crumble if he were forced to admit that his actual taxes (his “tithe” to his nation) are based on an “income” that is so patently false, so artificially (albeit lawfully) low, that he was ashamed, before God if not before voters, to pretend it was accurate, and based his church tithe on a higher, more truthful amount to mollify his conscience.

     If the candidate does produce the missing tax returns, we should pay close attention to whether his tithe is consistent with his stated income. If his tithe is higher than his stated income would suggest, Romney should be asked to explain to voters why millionaires like him should be allowed to pretend they're overburdened paupers who already contribute mightily to our nation's coffers -- when, at least before their God, they themselves have to admit they're not doing enough.

The First Gay Superhero (1971)

It's helpful that DC Comics will soon reveal that one of its classic cartoon superheroes is gay, even if it's not going to be Batman. Anything that helps our immature culture get over its moral/political obsession with sexual orientation qualifies as a Good Thing, for reasons ranging from individual civil rights to the mental health of closeted adolscents to national politics (don't we have some actually important problems to solve instead?).

But DC is not the first: Marvel's character Northstar "came out" back in 1992 (and now they're planning the first gay superhero wedding). Nor was Marvel first.

In this, as in pretty much everything, the tragic comedian Lenny Bruce was decades ahead of the curve, creating the first Gay Superhero, "Mask Man," way back in 1971:

Let's hope the townspeople's response this summer is a little more constructive than it was back then.

The "Ben Kenobi" Clause That Might Have Been

File this under "wishful thinking":

I wish the Affordable Care Act ("ACA") had had what corporate M&A types call a "poison pill" but I'll name a "Ben Kenobi clause":

A "Ben Kenobi clause" in the context of healthcare reform would be a clause that provided, simply, that if the individual mandate (which is what makes the ACA fiscally sound) were struck down as unconstitutional, then an unquestionably-constitutional Public Option automatically would go into effect, and if the entire ACA were struck down, then the unquestionably-constitutional alternative of Medicare-for-All automatically would go into effect.

Legally, such a clause would have acknowledged the Constitutional precariousness of the individual mandate and the stronger constitutional basis for socialized medicine. (Congress clearly has the power to tax the People and spend the resulting money on their healthcare. That's why Medicare exists: it's an appropriate exercise of the taxing and spending power. Not even Scalia or Thomas can argue with that.) 

But more important are the pragmatics of such an approach: a "Ben Kenobi" clause would have presented the Supreme Court with a stark choice: either uphold the ACA as-is, thus allowing private businesses to continue providing most of America's healthcare services (which is what conservatives want), or be the speed bumps that jolted America onto a new track, the track to socialized medicine (which is what conservatives don't want).

In fact, the Administration is arguing before the Court that obligating people to purchase their own insurance amounts to the same thing as taxing them directly. If the ACA survives, it will be precisely because Justice Kennedy buys that argument and understands that the individual mandate is nothing more or less than an attempt to make a healthcare tax palatable. But I doubt he'll do it; it's much more likely that he, and the more conservative members of the Court, will kill some or all of the law, and trust that conservative obstructionism will prevent a constitutional alternative from becoming reality for at least another generation.

Which is why I wish the law made the choice more immediate and more clear. The only clearly constitutional national healthcare plan is one that taxes the People and then provides them with care -- the more paternalistic, socialistic alternative. Making that alternative automatic might have opened some Justices' eyes and prompted them to uphold the more moderate law currently before them.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to second-guess Barack Obama. The healthcare reform fight was as complex a piece of public policy sausagemaking as there's ever been, and I'm aware that winning such a clause would have been tough sledding (though the key cloture votes, Lieberman and paleoDems like Nelson and Lincoln, might have accepted such a clause as a quid-pro-quo for killing the public option.)  I certainly don't mean to undercut Obama's signature accomplishment in a critical election year. Although I floated this concept elsewhere during the healthcare battle, mentioning it now amounts to legislative "fan fiction."

Nevertheless, I mention it now for three reasons: First, it helps explain the central issue currently before the Supreme Court (the power to regulate commerce versus the power to tax and spend). Second, if SCOTUS strikes down the heart or the whole of the ACA, a Ben Kenobi clause might be an idea to tuck in our back pocket and pull out the next time a president renews the battle for national healthcare, because such an approach might be the only way to pry paleoAmerica into doing the right thing.

Third, like all writers of fan fiction (or imagining what I'll do with the money when I win the lottery) I find it pretty to think of Scalia and Thomas fuming about such an inescapable and distasteful choice instead of gloating in their power to kill progress, which is what I'm pretty sure they're doing right now. If things go poorly when the Court announces its decision in June, as I suspect they will, I'm afraid that pretty imaginings of what might have been will be all we have left.

Emails Quoting Rush Limbaugh Too Offensive for Department of Defense Email Servers

The United States Department of Defense email server's automatic spam filter may have higher standards for decency than top military officials do.

The U.S. military operates several television and radio networks, both for domestic troops and for servicemembers and their families deployed at sea and abroad. In accordance with the Department of Defense's laudible free-speech policy, a broad spectrum of views are represented, including liberal commentators Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes and conservative pundits Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. 

In the last few days, however, Limbaugh has come under fire, not for his conservative political views, but for a torrent of personal, sexualized attacks against a Georgetown law student, Sandra Fluke, who had testified at a Congressional hearing in support of insurance coverage for contraceptives (citing, among other things, the need for such care to treat medical conditions like ovarian cysts).

Limbaugh's attacks on Fluke were so virulent that over 30 of his advertisers have withdrawn support from his show, and a groundswell of citizen objections to Limbaugh's inclusion on Armed Forces broadcast networks has arisen. Among those complaining are female Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans (who, among other things, may be concerned about the impact Limbaugh's misogynism may have on servicewomen's unwillingness to report cases of rape and sexual harassment). Nevertheless, the Department of Defense has affirmed its support for including Limbaugh in its lineup, stating that it "does not censor content and [does] not seek to protect the overseas Department of Defense audience from hearing views with which they may disagree."

Apparently in response to mistargeted complaints, one of the military's broadcast arms, the Armed Forces Radio Network ("AFRN"), posted a message on its website saying, "PLEASE NOTE: AFRN does not air Rush Limbaugh. He is on AFN [American Forces Network] - EUROPE which is operated by AFRTS [American Forces Radio & Television Service], email them afrtops1@hq.afis.osd.mil."

On March 6, acting as a citizen and not as a writer, I attempted to email the American Forces Network at the email address provided. My email (copy viewable here) quoted some of Limbaugh's slurs against Ms. Fluke, in case its recipients did not know precisely what kinds of things had been said on military-sponsored, taxpayer-subsidized airwaves. Those quotations included the following:

"[She] says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute."

 [People like Ms. Fluke] "want to have sex any time, as many times and as often as they want, with as many partners as they want."

 "She and her co-ed classmates are having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently these deadbeat boyfriends or random hookups that these babes are encountering here, having sex with nearly three times a day.”

“Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal: If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

 [Ms. Fluke] “is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her-life woman.”

 "She wants all the sex in the world, whenever she wants it, all the time.”

But my email was rejected by the Pentagon's email server. Why? Because it contained "Banned Words":

"The error that the other server returned was: 554 554 5.7.1 Message refused by BannedWord check. This email has been rejected."

I rewrote and resent my email, replacing the word "sex" with "s_x," "slut" as "sl_t," etc. -- and it appears to have gone through with no problem.

Of course, the algorithm of a spam filter and the censorship policy of a government agency are different things -- but it's still intriguing: if words are so offensive that they make the Pentagon's "Banned Words" list and cause a citizen's email to be rejected, shouldn't the military re-examine the propriety of providing a taxpayer-funded, worldwide, privileged platform to the man who originally said them?

The issue, of course, is not "liberal vs. conservative." It's "civility vs. abuse." There are many outspoken, conservative commentators who would be ecstatic to have Limbaugh's slot on American Forces Radio -- but who would use that platform to discuss issues, not to slander individual citizens, or reinforce (mission-damaging) sexist stereotypes, as Limbaugh regularly does.

So the question for both civilian and military leaders like Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Douglas B. Wilson (who oversees AFTRS) remains a valid one: why does the military insist on spending taxpayer money to broadcast words that the Department of Defense's own email system considers too offensive to even be read?

 

Call to Arms: Do Your Part to Take Rush Limbaugh Off American Forces Radio

(Updated twice thrice four times: to add fax # for the Department of Defense office in charge of AFN, to add a .pdf of the letter I faxed to them, to add a link to VoteVets' petition to pull Rush off AFN, and now to add a link to the AFN website feedback page. Please read to the end for more things you can do to help!)

WHAT THIS POST IS:

A one-stop-shop for how to lobby to have Rush Limbaugh removed from so-called "Armed Forces Radio," including petitions, talking points, and (most important) direct contact info for the decision-makers involved, who will respond if we flood them with citizen input.

THE ISSUE:

 America's military personnel are not obligated to be politically neutral; they have every right to listen to the myriad, sometimes conflicting political viewpoints that inform a healthy, diverse democracy, and to form, discuss and vote their own opinions. They should be free to listen to liberal, conservative, progressive, Libertarian, and other voices; to read editorials on all sides of pressing issues, without political censorship. They are the front-line defenders of our freedoms; they deserve the liberties of speech and press at least as much as anyone else.

That's why the Armed Forces Radio & Television Service ("AFRTS") and the American Forces Network ("AFN") are absolutely right to air a variety of programming for our troops and their families overseas, ranging from conservative Sean Hannity to liberal Ed Schultz and everyone in between. When it comes to political viewpoints, AFN is correct to adopt a policy stating that it "does not censor content and they do not seek to protect the overseas Department of Defense audience from hearing views with which they may disagree." https://kb.defense.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/718

We respect AFN's desire not to censor political content. We respect AFN's care in ensuring that voices across the political spectrum are available to deployed personnel. But we also know that America's sailors, airmen and Marines and their families are honorable men and women, who presumably would never want to be party to bullying, dishonesty, or lawbreaking. They exemplify the best of America, not the worst, and they are the protectors of our citizens, not in league with those who, for the sake of ratings and profits, would gleefully harm them.

 Rush Limbaugh, whose show is carried live on the Armed Forces Network - Europe, spent nine hours over three days, not discussing politics or ideas, but slandering one particular Georgetown college student, whose only "crime" was to testify, at the request of her Congressional representative, in favor of including contraception coverage in basic insurance plans offered by her university.

Mr. Limbaugh had every right to disagree with the student, Sandra Fluke, on the issues -- but he went much, much further, calling her a "slut" and "prostitute" and indulging in numerous personal, sexual attacks. Among other things, Mr. Limbaugh said the following about this American citizen:

 "[She] says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute."

 [People like Ms. Fluke] "want to have sex any time, as many times and as often as they want, with as many partners as they want."

 "Now, what does that make her? She wants us to buy her sex."

 "She and her co-ed classmates are having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently these deadbeat boyfriends or random hookups that these babes are encountering here, having sex with nearly three times a day.”

 “Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal: If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

 "We want something in return, Ms. Fluke: And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we are getting for our money.”

 “Here this babe goes before Congress and wants thousands of dollars to pay for her sex.”

 [Ms. Fluke is] “a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her-life woman.”

 “She wants all the sex in the world, whenever she wants it, all the time.”

( Much, much more here.)

 Further, after issuing a tepid apology to Ms. Fluke, Mr. Limbaugh then continued to criticize her by name to his millions of listeners, suggesting that he in fact is not apologetic at all.

 AFN is correct to refuse to censor real free speech, but it is absolutely wrong to pretend that Mr. Limbaugh's behavior falls into that category. Personal abuse of American citizens has nothing to do with the marketplace of ideas, and should never be supported by the U.S. military. And, worse, demeaning women in this way increases the risk of sexual assault on U.S. servicewomen (which is why female Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans are among those calling for Mr. Limbaugh to be pulled off U.S. military airwaves).

To date, at least ten of Mr. Limbaugh's advertisers, and at least one of his local affiliates, have publicly withdrawn their support from Mr. Limbaugh's radio show. Is the U.S. military more tolerant of bullies like Mr. Limbaugh, and less supportive of citizens like Ms. Fluke, than ProFlowers or AOL?

 To send a moral message about what is and is not acceptable behavior by people privileged to use America's airwaves, and to protect Ms. Fluke from further abuse, AFTRS and AFN have a moral obligation to stop broadcasting the Rush Limbaugh Show to our servicemen and servicewomen, and to replace him with someone who -- whether "liberal" or "conservative" -- accepts that his or her first duties are to be fair, truthful and respectful of the citizens our military serves. Anything less is dishonorable and contrary to the traditions and purpose of the military.

 THE PLAN:

 If you agree, please restate something similar to the above in your own words, and forward it by emails, fax and telephone to the following people. IMPORTANT: our leaders respond to public outcry more than to organized media; listen more carefully to individual citizens than they do to advocacy groups; respond better to telephone calls and faxes than they do to online petitions; and weigh calls to their local (home state) offices more highly than they do to their D.C. offices. For those reasons, it is imperative that each of us make several contacts from the list below,preferably by telephone and fax, and that we keep up the pressure, ideally even filling up their D.C. and local-office voicemails every night and leaving piles of fax paper strewn on their floors.

 Please leave any helpful info on how these contacts go -- names of better people to lobby, positive/negative responses, etc. -- in the comments below.

WHO TO CONTACT:

At all times, be constructive and polite!

 AFTRS Plans & Policies Office: afrtops1@hq.afis.osd.mil , telephone 301-222-6496

American Forces Network feedback website: http://myafn.dodmedia.osd.mil/email.aspx

Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense: (703) 692-7100 (explain you're a citizen and want to leave a message for Secretary Panetta on a policy matter).

Petitions to Secretary Panetta: from Daily Kos  WhiteHouse.gov and (NEW!) VoteVets

Douglas B. Wilson, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (in charge of AFTRS):   (703) 692-7100 (ask to be transferred to his office). UPDATE: DOD PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE FAX NUMBER:  703-695-4299

Navy Captain John Kirby, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations (serves under Mr. Wilson):  (703) 692-7100 (ask to be transferred to his office).

U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee main office: telephone 202-224-3871, fax 202-228-0036

Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee: Carl Levin (D-MI): http://www.levin.senate.gov/contact/offices/

Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee: John McCain (R-AZ): http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.OfficeLocations

U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee main office: Phone: (202) 225-4151
Fax: (202) 225-0858

Chairman, House Armed Services Committee: Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R, CA-25), Washington D.C. telephone (202) 225-1956, fax (202) 226-0683 (Also consider contacting his Santa Clarita, Calif. and Palmdale, Calif. local offices by telephone or fax; info here.)

Ranking member, House Armed Services Committee: Rep. Adam Smith (D, WA-09), Phone (202) 225-8901 Fax (202) 225-5893

FINALLY: Please check back here periodically for more information and suggestions. We'll keep gathering contact information and steering you toward the correct decision-makers; your job is to keep the pressure on until Mr. Limbaugh no longer is allowed on the publicly-owned signal beamed worldwide to fighting men and women who deserve better than him.