Just posted a mix of Alex Mercier's "Breakdown". Great song!!!

So to appease my "not so pop side" I decided several years ago to create a side project that would feature various artists that I work with on a more commercial level. I didn't have a personal interest in performing these songs in a live scenario, but felt it might just be a fun thing to do with some cool people. If they wanna play them live then so be it. So the resulting endeavor is called The Majestic Twelve. No they're aren't twelve of us. I just thought it was a cool name. (Look up MJ-12 or Majestic Twelve)

Many of these songs will pop up from time to time. This is a tune called "Carte Blanche". I originally wrote it in 2004, but never felt compelled to pursue it further until a couple of years ago. Alex Mercier took a liking to the song. He and I collaborated on the lyrics and voila!! A song! Alex cut the vocals pretty quickly. It was really quite painless and pretty fun. 

This project is probably "hit/miss", but you never know until you "run it up the flagpole and see who salutes". 

(and I say "bitch" in the most endearing way)

Love her!

It's an amazing thing to be able to make music for a living. However, I find it pretty ironic that a simple non-disclosure agreement can prevent my sharing cool things with the rest of the world. But hey, could be worse, right?!!

Nonetheless, I am working on some really great music at the moment and when it's time I suppose you'll know. If I reveal anymore I will have to kill you. Haha!!

Go get it!!!

There I said it!

If anyone should celebrate it should be our soldiers and their families. They're the ones who really deserve a day off. If it were not for them I wouldn't be able to maintain the lifestyle and freedom that I've come to expect.

They have made it possible for me to possess this belief or ideology and unabashedly post it hear on Myspace.

This is a day for me to reflect and realize just how much I have to be thankful for. Hell, I get to make music for a living. How cool is that? I'm not out dodging bullets to ensure the safety of my country. I sit in a cushy recording studio. I mean, come on...I'm incredibly fortunate. This is a day for me to appreciate that and not allow myself to become jaded.

To those who have made these freedoms possible I appreciate and proudly salute you. Thank you very much!

Go get it !!!!!



Check him out here on Myspace as well.

http://www.myspace.com/mercier7

California's Top Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

SAN FRANCISCO - California's Supreme Court declared that gay couples in the nation's biggest state can marry — a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

ADVERTISEMENT

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after — religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: "We're going to get married. No Tupperware, please."

A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, long the center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment," he said.

By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. In West Hollywood, supporters planned to serve "wedding cake" at an evening celebration.

James Dobson — chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, which has spent thousands of dollars to get the measure on the ballot — called the ruling an outrage.

"It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny," he said in an e-mailed statement.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Massachusetts in 2004 became the first, and so far only, state to legalize gay marriage; more than 9,500 couples have taken advantage of the law. But the California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state's size — 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million — and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.

"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

Unlike Massachusetts, California has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning gays nationwide are likely to flock to the state to be wed, said Jennifer Pizer, an attorney who worked on the case.

The ultimate reach of the ruling could be limited, however, since most states do not recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Nor does the federal government.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund said it would ask the justices for a stay of the decision until after the fall election in hopes of adding California to the list of 26 states that have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision. The remedy is a constitutional amendment. The constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the organization.

Opponents of gay marriage could also ask the high court to reconsider. If the court rejects such a request, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final.

Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office had argued to uphold the ban, said Brown will work with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state agencies to implement the ruling.

The case was set in motion in 2004 when the mayor of San Francisco — the unofficial capital of gay America — threw City Hall open to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four thousand wed before the Supreme Court put a halt to the practice after a month.

Two dozen gay couples then sued, along with the city and gay rights organizations.

Thursday's ruling could alter the dynamics of the presidential race, as well as state and congressional contests in California and beyond, by causing a backlash among conservatives and drawing them to the polls in large numbers.

A spokesman for Republican John McCain, who opposes gay marriage, said the Arizona senator "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions." The campaigns of Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said they believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

Ten states now offer some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples — in most cases, domestic partnerships or civil unions. In the past few years, the courts in New York, New Jersey and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage.

Outside the San Francisco courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news of the decision spread. Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners many of the legal rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved law that passed with 61 percent in 2000.

The chief justice was joined by Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdegar, all three of whom were appointed by Republican governors, and Justice Carlos Moreno, the only member of the court appointed by a Democrat.

In a dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said that the court overstepped its authority and that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to put the amendment on the ballot.

Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

___

CRB Denies DiMA Legal Question Request
February 05, 2008 - Digital and Mobile | Publishing

By Susan Butler, N.Y.

The Copyright Royalty Board today rejected a request by the Digital Media Assn. to have the Register of Copyrights decide whether interactive streams should fall under a compulsory license, Billboard.biz has learned.

The order came during the initial trial phase of the hearing process, which began in 2006, to set rates for mechanical and digital deliveries of compositions that fall under section 115 of the Copyright Act, known as the compulsory mechanical license provision. Parties to the proceeding include DiMA, the National Music Publishers' Assn. and the RIAA.

Among rates expected to be set by the three Copyright Royalty Judges in Washington, D.C., are mechanical royalties for physical units (such as CDs and enhanced CD singles that include more than an audio-only version of a recorded song) as well as digital phonorecord delivery (DPD) royalties for permanent downloads, limited downloads and streams that may involve reproduction and performance rights.

It's this latter form of distribution -- streams -- that prompted DiMA to request the CRB last month to refer a "novel question of law" to Register Marybeth Peters to decide whether or not they should be part of a compulsory license. Specifically, DiMA asked whether an interactive stream is a DPD under section 115.

In rejecting the request today, the judges wrote that there is no definition of "interactive" in the Copyright Act, and the parties did not all agree to its meaning. As a result, whether a transmission is interactive is a factual question to be decided by judges rather than a legal question to be decided by the Register.

This decision is a victory for publishers, many of whom believed that DiMA-member companies were, by this request, trying to renege on old contractual commitments to pay publishers a royalty for the right to reproduce compositions via streams.

The trial is expected to continue through May. A final decision is unlikely to come before October.

The girls are performing on the CBS 9th Annual Home For the Holidays Special, Friday, Dec. 21 (8:00-9:00 PM, ET/PT).

Check 'em out. They are the real deal and sing like angels. I absolutely adore these ladies and cherish having worked with them.

They are the only new artist to be featured on the special and are among an all-star cast of performers.

Karmina.com

CBS Special Blurb