The Other McCain : Page 2132 : "One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up."

The piracy of my video and the smearing of Michele Bachmann continue, despite my having done two posts — here and here — explaining the true story. Here is a screen-cap from Perez Hilton’s site, showing that he downloaded and re-uploaded the pirated/edited “Who likes white people?” video, imprinting it with his own watermark:

Look closely, and you’ll see that Perez’s re-pirated version had already gotten more than 30,000 views (the screen-cap was done at about 8 p.m. ET today) which is of course in addition to the many thousands who had viewed the first ripoff/smear version at the “On Knees” anti-Christian blog. But wait — it gets better:

Yeah — Michelle Castillo of CBS News (!!) made this smear job the No. 1 selection in “Top 5 Viral Videos of the Week.” You can skip ahead to about the 40-second mark of the video:

Castillo writes:

Everything that comes out of Michele Bachmann’s mouth is gold. A new video has her asking a crowd of people, “Who likes white people?” It doesn’t make any sense, so many explanations are surfacing from “White People Soul Power” being the band that played before, to the fact it was raining and Bachmann is asking about “wet” people.

What about the explanation “surfacing” from the guy who was there with the video camera, huh? But never mind that now. Before I continue excoriating Castillo and CBS News specifically, let me say that I have no earthly idea who originated this bizarre supposition that Bachmann was referring to the name of a band. She actually said, “Who likes wet people?” — a joking reference to the fact that it had been raining all day at the Aug. 5 Christian music festival — and there was no band performing with “White” in its name.

Because here is the weird thing: The lineup for the entire concert is online! Bachmann had been scheduled to be there about 6 p.m. but ran late, and so she didn’t speak until after 8 p.m., following Tim Cooper & Friends on the main stage. I know this because I was at the festival to cover Bachmann’s appearance, but it doesn’t take Woodward and Bernstein investigative reporting skills to discover, on the Spirit Midwest Ministries site, under a tab labeled “news,” that their media contact person is Julie Barnes, whose phone number is 515-577-8035.

So any reporter who had seen that silliness about the “White People Soul Power Band” — c’mon, really? I mean, really? — could have spent less than five minutes online, learned that there was no such band at that festival, and called the festival’s promoters to ask them the blindingly obvious question: “Did Michelle Bachmann actually say that stuff about ‘white people’?”

Evidently, however, Michelle Castillo of CBS News doesn’t know how to do a Google search, or browse a Web site, or pick up a fucking phone — what a brilliant journalistic innovation that would be — and call Bachmann campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart (whose contact information is not top secret) and ask her what this is all about.

No, not at all. But please notice this curious fact:

Yeah, the time-stamp: “6:44 p.m. Aug. 30,” by which time Chris Moody’s accurate post at Yahoo News — identifying my video as the source from which the pirated/edited smear video was stolen — had been a top item at Memeorandum for more than 24 hours!

But wait, it gets better, because here are my two posts on this topic:

Monday Aug. 29, 9:10 p.m. — MY VIDEO of Michele Bachmann’s Christian Testimony Used in SMEAR JOB
Tuesday, Aug. 30, 10:58 a.m. — Lowlife Who Pirated My Video Apologizes for Smearing Michele Bachmann

If Michelle Castillo has the advanced journalistic skills necessary to click that second link, she will discover that, when informed that his copyright infringement was the subject of contemplated legal action, the video pirate had published an apology and deleted the video from his YouTube channel early this morning, more than 12 hours before Castillo included his piracy as the No. 1 selection in the CBS News “Top 5 Viral Videos of the Week.”

As a veteran of 25 years in the news business, I promise you that if I were Michelle Castillo’s boss, I’d have several choice words to say to her, the mildest of which would be, “YOU’RE FIRED!”

And I’ll have a few more things to say about the egregious incompetence being practiced by the mainstream media in regard to this story, but first I’ve got to call my lawyer. CBS is going to be getting a letter from my lawyer P.D.Q., and if Michelle Castillo is not instantly terminated for this astonishingly shoddy excuse for journalism, I’d be greatly surprised.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! As for the Professor’s remark about funding my retirement, it may take years of expensive litigation to force the thievish scoundrels to pay up, and in the meantime I’ve got bills to pay, so please hit the freaking tip jar.

UPDATE II: Linked by Bob Belevedere at The Camp of the Saints — thanks!

Just got off the phone with my lawyer, who was finishing up the demand letter to Perez Hilton, whose site has a statement about their willingness to protect the intellectual property of others, with contact information for complaining about copyright violation.

In such letters, it is customary to demand that a retraction/apology be published with the same prominence as the original item about which complaint is made. But having included pirated video in their “Top 5 Viral Videos” round-up, what will CBS News do?

Besides firing Michelle Castillo, I mean . . .

UPDATE III: Thanks to Dana Loesch at Big Journalism for this link to a corrective video by our friends at the Media Research Center:

See? That’s what’s called “fair use” — employing a brief clip from my video in pursuit of truth, as opposed to recycling the pirated ripoff smear video in pursuit of a lie, which is what CBS News has done without even the slightest suggestion of effort toward what lawyers call “due diligence.” (Take notes, kids, this could be on the final exam.)

Meanwhile, our fellow fedora-wearer Ed Driscoll takes a walk down Memory Lane, to that long-ago era when Ken Layne was interested in truth.

UPDATE IV: Maetenloch at Ace of Spades HQ:

Even though it wasn’t what she said and made no sense in context, Ken Layne of Wonkette ran with it proclaiming Bachmann to be a crazy racist. But when it was shown to be a blatant hoax (with the original poster apologizing) he refused to make any corrections and has doubled down on the snark.

Now, I think some people may be misunderstanding my end of this situation. Bachmann is the one with the case for defamation, and that’s her business. My lawyer is pursuing action for copyright infringement, and you see how — with the pirated/edited video having been re-uploaded by Perez Hilton and recycled by CBS News — the original pirate set in motion a chain of events that is now beyond his control.

Already, I’ve seen at least two other versions of the pirate’s ripoff version re-uploaded to other YouTube accounts. (My lawyer is sending takedown notices as quickly as time permits.) Evidently, people do this kind of stuff — re-uploading ripoff videos — all the time, seeking to gain extra views to their YouTube accounts through online thievery.

The YouTube pirates may be doing this in ignorance of copyright law. Ignorance of the law is no defense, of course, but in most cases the original copyright owner is a big commercial enertainment outfit — Time/Warner for example — and once the pirated video is deleted from YouTube, their interest in the pirate ends.

In my particular case? Not so much.

“Good Lord these people are stupid.” You can say that again, brother. This left-wing anti-Christian jackwagon ripped me off and dishonestly edited my video to create a false smear against Michelle Bachmann, an honorable member of Congress, deserving of admiration and respect. The pirated smear video was then posted at numerous Web sites, recycled by other pirates, and included as the top item in a “viral video” roundup by a major news organization.

Dude.

I rattled the tip jar to get enough money to travel to Iowa to cover the campaign leading up to the Ames Straw Poll. I stood in the rain and mud at that festival to get video of Bachmann’s Christian testimony. And you’re going to take my hard work, funded through contributions from my loyal readers, hijack it and pervert it into a vicious smear?

Don’t you see what an overwhelming incentive I have to extract the maximum legal penalty from your sorry ass? And don’t you know that there are many thousands of people — including some very shrewd lawyers — who have been waiting many years for just such an opportunity as this, with some anonymous blog-pest like you caught red-handed in undeniable wrongdoing?

You had better pray God will have mercy on you.

Because my lawyers sure as hell won’t.

UPDATE V: Linked by Donald Douglas at American Power — thanks!

UPDATE VI: Mike at Cold Fury mentions the “fake but accurate” standard that CBS made infamous.

Jane Jamison, R.I.P.

Posted on August 30, 2011August 31, 2011Comments

Dell Hill from Uncoverage.net called today to tell me that the blog’s founder, Jane Jamison, died Saturday. Dell told me — I hadn’t previously known — that her name wasn’t actually Jane Jamison, but that this was a pseudonym she used to keep her life as a political commentator separate from the liberal world in which she might actually need to apply for a job.

She lived in the San Francisco Bay area, and was regular a radio guest on Jaz McKay’s popular afternoon program on KNZR 1560 AM in Bakersfield. She once got me onto Jaz’s show as a guest, which was pretty cool. Jane was also a contributor at Right Wing News, where John Hawkins has a brief remembrance.

Dell explained to me something else I hadn’t realized, that he became a blogger at Uncoverage.net after reaching Jane’s site through a link here. He said he noticed she seemed very busy, putting up lots of posts every day, and offered to contribute. She accepted his offer and now, it appears, Dell will keep Uncoverage.net going online after Jane’s death.

Ironically, Dell never actually met Jane in person. He lives in the Northeast, while she lived in California. I met Jane when she attended CPAC. She will be missed. Our sympathies to all her friends and family.

UPDATE: Yid With Lid has a photo of the lovely Jane. Linked by The Lonely Conservative and by Fleming and Hayes — thanks! — and now a Memeorandum thread.

Consumer Confidence Sags; Fed Wants More Stimulus; Gold Gains $38 an Ounce

Posted on August 30, 2011Comments

The relationship between these factors is not entirely coincidental:

Gold prices soared Tuesday as Chicago Federal Reserve Bank President Charles Evans called for further monetary easing. The rally continued in after-hours trading after the Fed’s latest minutes from the Federal Open Market Committee meeting in August showed a growing number of presidents calling for more stimulus.
Gold for December delivery surged $38.20 to settle at $1,829.80 an ounce at the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange.

The FOMC report is online here. It’s worth noting that gold is still below the record price near $1,900 it set Aug. 22, but the talk of more “easing” (Fed-speak for deliberate inflation) suggests that predictions of gold prices reaching $2,500 within the next few months are not unrealistic. My point is that rising gold prices cannot be dismissed as a mere speculative “bubble” so long as inflation undermines the dollar, bad fiscal policy undermines treasuries, and gloomy economic prospects undermine stocks.

The stock market nowadays is kind of a perverse measurement, as the talk of more stimulus from the Fed was cited as the cause for Tuesday’s $20 gain in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. In other word (a) the economy sucks, so (b) the Fed will do more stimulus, which means (c) cheap money for major financial institutions, so (d) buy, buy, buy!

If such dubious Wall Street logic worries you, you’re not alone:

Confidence among U.S. consumers plunged to the lowest level in more than two years as Americans’ outlooks for employment and incomes soured.
The Conference Board’s index slumped to 44.5, the weakest since April 2009, from a revised 59.2 reading in July, figures from the New York-based research group showed today. It was the biggest point drop since October 2008. A separate report showed home prices declined for a ninth month.

Let me point out something curious: Even though unemployment is around 9%, it’s been more or less stable at that rate for the past year. If the unemployment rate is not getting worse, then why is consumer confidence trending downward?

Simple answer: Inflation.

People get a lingering sense of unease when inflation silently erodes their earnings, even if they don’t have any reason to fear losing their jobs. And the biggest single asset that most people own is their homes, the value of which has actually been declining all year long. So they’re paying higher prices for consumer goods and services, even while the value of their homes decline, and it is thus hardly surprising that consumer confidence is down.

Think about what all this means: The housing market in the tank, consumer confidence down, Fed officials calling for “QE3.” As I’ve said before, “None Dare Call It Stagflation” — i.e., a return to the economic swamp into which Keynesian policy led us in the 1970s. And if this analysis is correct, gold is actually a bargain at $1,830.

However, because I don’t want to accused of hyping a “bubble,” here’s a video in which Alix Jones of TheStreet.com interviews market strategist Phil Streible, who is bearish on gold:

Streible may be right and I may be wrong. What do you think?

Against Radical Egalitarianism

Posted on August 30, 2011Comments

A friend responded to my earlier post about the so-called “gender gap” with an e-mail pointing out several other statistical problems in that feminist argument. Replying to my friend’s e-mail, I found myself elaborating an argument that eventually reached nearly 1,200 words. Because it explains a lot of the fundamental principles involved in my political orientation, I thought I’d share the e-mail with readers:

Good points all, Adrienne. The real key here is understanding that the “gap” is about average differences between groups of people. This involves a sort of social-science artifact that, when reported sloppily (as is too often the case), creates illusions of widespread unfair discrimination.
It’s like aggregated test scores as a measure of school performance. We are often led to think that if School A reports that its 5th-graders average 93 on the standardized test while School B’s 5th-graders score 83 on average, then School A is “better” than School B. Yet you can come back and check test scores five years later and find that, while neither the personnel nor the curricula have undergone any significant change at either school, School B’s average will have increased to 89 while School A has declined to 87.
What happened? Well, a low-income apartment complex was built in the School A district, while a new upscale development of McMansions was built in School B’s district. So what was previously the clearly “better” school now has a larger number of 5th-graders from a lower socioeconomic background (and standardized test scores tend to reflect such factors), while the previously inferior school now has a few more 5th-graders from privileged backgrounds.
This kind of statistical perception problem occurs whenever we aggregate people into categorical groups — sex, race, whatever — and then make the differences between group averages the basis for a policy aimed at bringing about equality between these groups. But such policies almost never achieve their stated goals, and in the process usually have harmful unintended consequences, not the least of which is the fostering of unnecessary resentments between members of the groups which become playthings in these social enginering experiments. Continue reading Against Radical Egalitarianism →

What Accounts for the ‘Gender Gap’ in Pay? Statistics Prove: It’s Lazy Women

Posted on August 30, 2011August 30, 2011Comments

OK, the statistics don’t actually prove the assertion in the headline — although it sure got your attention, didn’t it, ladies? — and neither do statistics “prove” the common feminist claim that discrimination explains the so-called “gender gap.” But if we examine the number of hours worked per week, two highly relevant statistics emerge:

Men are more likely to hold full-time jobs — According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), about 60 million men were employed full-time in 2007, compared to about 42 million women. Men were thus 42% more likely than women to be working full-time.
Men work more hours — “Full-time” is defined as working 35 hours per week or more. The BLS reports that among the 21.8 million people working more than 40 hours per week, 15.3 million are men (70%) and 6.5 million are women (30%).

So the feminist assertion that women are paid 75 cents on the dollar (or 87 cents or whatever other number is used) compared to men is an absurdity, based on invalid apples-to-oranges comparisons that don’t take account of average differences in the actual working experiences of men and women.

Kay Hymowitz explains this in an article at City Journal called, “Why the Gender Gap Won’t Go Away. Ever.” Hymowitz makes the point that many women choose what has been called “the Mommy Track” in occupational specialties, so that feminist ax-grinders who constantly grumble about the “gender gap” are, in fact, arguing against women’s own choices.

One final point: Being a mother is hard work in its own right. For several years, my wife stayed home with our six children. She would sometimes encounter people — usually other women — who, when they learned of her “just a mom” status would say, “Oh, you don’t work? That must be nice.” As if being the mother of six children wasn’t harder work than is done by most full-time employed people (including her husband).

To understand feminism as a war against stay-at-home motherhood, read Carolyn Graglia’s excellent book, Domestic Tranquility. Being “just a mom” is a choice that feminists don’t want women to have.

P.S.: When I include Amazon Associates book links at the end of an item like this, it is not merely because I get a 4% commission on sales, although I make no apologies for being a shameless capitalist blogger. But I include the links because as Ronald Reagan said, it’s not that our liberal friends are ignorant, rather that they know so many things that aren’t true. I want to provide liberals an opportunity to discover how many “facts” they have been indoctrinated to believe are actually lies, and I also want conservatives to acquaint themselves with facts and logic that debunk common liberal misconceptions.

Vice President Marco Rubio?

Posted on August 30, 2011August 30, 2011Comments

by Smitty

That’s Krauthammer’s take:

He checks all the boxes. We saw his charm. He’s got the right ideology. He’s well spoken. And he’s got a great story, second generation immigrant. I mean, he gives a story of hope and restoration, which would be I think his theme. I think he’s prohibitively the favorite for number two. And at the very least he’ll be the keynote speaker if he’s not going to be number two.

I don’t know. The GOP ?/Rubio ticket is going to have tough sledding against the Democrat’s Wasserman-Schultz/Schumer ticket. Just sayin’.

Lowlife Who Pirated My Video Apologizes for Smearing Michele Bachmann

Posted on August 30, 2011August 30, 2011Comments

Nothing like an attorney’s letter to produce contrition:

I want to apologize for misusing Stacey Robert McCain’s original video . . . I was angry so I decided to take Mrs. Bachmann’s line out of context to make her seem more overtly racist in light of her recent signing of that Iowa marriage pledge that said black children were better off under slavery than in Obama’s America. Whether or not I dislike Michele Bachmann, it wasn’t right to deliver a dishonest blow like that. I wanted to apologize to Mr. McCain and all of you directly. . . .
I have removed the video from my Youtube channel.

My attorney is considering what further action will be necessary, and I have contacted the Bachmann campaign. There are two injured parties, you see. This “On Knees” blogger’s claim that his misleading distortion of Bachmann’s speech was retaliation for her having signed the Iowa marriage pledge is rather interesting in terms of demonstrating malice. But Bachmann’s potential claim for libelous defamation is irrelevant to my potential claim of copyright infringement in having my video pirated for such a purpose.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!