A day to remember and be thankful.

[guest post by Dana]

Over at the Washington Post, the president’s latest fundraising speech is quoted at length in a post titled, “Obama Slams ‘False Equivalence’ Media”. It’s a great example of how liberals view the world, and especially, Republicans. It’s also troubling to see the lengths our president will go to in order to assign blame and to justify his party’s actions (or inaction).

Here is what President Obama had to say:

“You’ll hear if you watch the nightly news or you read the newspapers that, well, there’s gridlock, Congress is broken, approval ratings for Congress are terrible. And there’s a tendency to say, a plague on both your houses. But the truth of the matter is that the problem in Congress is very specific. We have a group of folks in the Republican Party who have taken over who are so ideologically rigid, who are so committed to an economic theory that says if folks at the top do very well then everybody else is somehow going to do well; who deny the science of climate change; who don’t think making investments in early childhood education makes sense; who have repeatedly blocked raising a minimum wage so if you work full-time in this country you’re not living in poverty; who scoff at the notion that we might have a problem with women not getting paid for doing the same work that men are doing.

“They, so far, at least, have refused to budge on bipartisan legislation to fix our immigration system, despite the fact that every economist who’s looked at it says it’s going to improve our economy, cut our deficits, help spawn entrepreneurship, and alleviate great pain from millions of families all across the country.

“So the problem…is not that the Democrats are overly ideological — because the truth of the matter is, is that the Democrats in Congress have consistently been willing to compromise and reach out to the other side. There are no radical proposals coming out from the left. When we talk about climate change, we talk about how do we incentivize through the market greater investment in clean energy. When we talk about immigration reform there’s no wild-eyed romanticism. We say we’re going to be tough on the borders, but let’s also make sure that the system works to allow families to stay together…

“When we talk about taxes we don’t say we’re going to have rates in the 70 percent or 90 percent when it comes to income like existed here 50, 60 years ago. We say let’s just make sure that those of us who have been incredibly blessed by this country are giving back to kids so that they’re getting a good start in life, so that they get early childhood education…Health care — we didn’t suddenly impose some wild, crazy system. All we said was let’s make sure everybody has insurance. And this made the other side go nuts — the simple idea that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, nobody should go bankrupt because somebody in their family gets sick, working within a private system.

“So when you hear a false equivalence that somehow, well, Congress is just broken, it’s not true. What’s broken right now is a Republican Party that repeatedly says no to proven, time-tested strategies to grow the economy, create more jobs, ensure fairness, open up opportunity to all people.”

Basically, everything that is wrong in our nation is the fault of the Republicans and why can’t they just die already.

There is so much wrong with this and so much to unpack. Thankfully, over at NRO, Ramesh Ponuru starts the ball rolling by linking to several good pieces that refute and challenge the president’s claims. And like all of us, Ponuru knows better.

This president is not interested in these arguments; he would prefer it if reporters did not acknowledge their existence. Many of them will oblige without much prompting, because they see things exactly the same way.

–Dana

Desperate to draw a Larger Lesson from the deadly Santa Barbara shootings? OK; but it should not be about gun control or pick-up artists. How’s this for a Larger Lesson: sometimes the guy who commits a crime like this is simply a horrible and disturbed person.

[guest post by Dana]

Earlier this week, Dallas Maverick’s owner Mark Cuban tried to have that conversation about race (posted about here). Anger, hand-wringing and indignation ensued. In other words, the reactions were predictable and if anything, confirmed that any conversation about race is not going to be a conversation, rather it’s going to be one person daring to step into the public square and honestly express his or her views and feelings about race, fear, and the whole damn thing, and if their views do not line up accordingly, they will instantly become the target of pre-programmed attacks and criticisms by the self-appointed gatekeepers of all things race. Thus, there is no real conversation, no give and take, no exchange of ideas. It’s a one way street where shutting down the individual is the goal. Any real conversation is now a near impossibility.

With regard to Cuban’s comments, what seemed to inflame the most was this particular portion,

“I’ve said this before. If I see a black kid in a hoodie at night on the same side of the street, I’m probably going to walk to other side of the street. If I see a white guy with a shaved head and lots of tattoos, I’m going back to the other side of the street.”

ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith found himself taking heat for defending Cuban and his comments.

Smith emphasized that Cuban mentioned “white folks,” spoke about the “importance of presentation,” and said people were missing the point if they interpreted Cuban’s comments “along racial lines.”

“If you’re going to have a problem with what he said about the black person with the hoodie on then you have to have a problem with the white person he alluded to with tattoos all over his body,” he added. “I don’t think there is any ethnic group in America that should take issue with Cuban’s comments as a personal affront to them or as if he were isolating them.”

Smith commended Cuban for being “honest, forthcoming, and open about” his “fears and prejudices.”
“I applaud his honesty,” he said. “I took absolutely, positively no offense.”

After saying that he believed “every one” of the NBA owners would say the same thing Cuban did, Smith said that people cannot “want people to be honest” and then attack them “when they are honest, especially in measured tones.”

As a result, Smith’s twitter feed feed and email erupted with the inevitable accusations of: “Uncle Tom”, “You making excuses for him [Cuban]”, “You and him [Cuban] both look down on black people”, etc.

Smith, rather than backing down or back pedaling, further drove his point home in this frank and passionate video. Here is a man who is not only willing, but I suspect feels obligated, to step further into the public square and clarify his views, lest there be any confusion. He wants us to understand he does not care who condemns him, who hates him, who turns away from him: This is who he is. One surmises that his own sense of honesty takes precedence over all else, no matter the cost. It is absolutely worth watching.

http://youtu.be/LKXKccyb2e8

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

CNN faces a $60 million dollar discrimination lawsuit filed against them for allegedly firing a technical operator because he’s gay and because he wore bright colors and mariachi outfits to work which were judged to be “too flamboyant”.

Kane, who started working at CNN in 2002, claims nobody at the news network ever informed him of a dress code or complained about the hot pink designer shirt he wore in his employee ID photo. Nor did he get any guff for the bright red track jacket, neon green soccer jersey or yellow track suit, with matching shoes and hat, that he wore at other times.

“It really saddens me,” the 33-year-old Kane said of losing his job as a microphone tech.

“I feel like the Rosa Parks of CNN. Maybe someone else won’t have to suffer the way I have,” he told the Daily News.

Kane’s unique attire was popular with with journalists Christiane Amanpour and Fareed Zakaria, the suit claims. It also claims that CNN anchor Erin Burnett cited him as the “best-dressed man” on her show. Kane, who is married to a Mexican man, would wear mariachi suits to work when they corresponded with current news cycle themes.

The suit alleges that when Kane’s supervisor, John Silva, learned he was gay, a hostile work environment ensued. Also, while at a well known club, the suit further alleges Silva approached Kane and told him not to wear a yellow or black mariachi suit to work “because it was too flamboyant for a male in our department.”

Silva also suggested to Kane that he might be a better fit in an “entertainment or makeup department.”

The “flamboyant” comment smacked of stereotyping to Kane, who thought it was related to disclosing his same-sex engagement.

The suit points out that from 2002 to 2008, the technical operations department where he worked had a tradition of wearing colorful shirts on Thursdays.

At one point, Kane said, a supervisor had offered him a $100 “bribe” to go to a TJ Maxx store if he would change out of his blue track suit — because Piers Morgan complained it was distracting him. Kane said he refused the money but threw a black CNN sweatshirt over the track suit.

The Daily News also notes,

CNN star Anderson Cooper, who is openly gay, witnessed Silva admonishing Kane about wearing a red track suit, according to the complaint.

“Mr. Cooper gave (Kane) his personal company email address and asked plaintiff to email him details of the nature of being bullied by his supervisor,” the suit said.

Kane was fired in 2013. CNN claims they have not yet seen the lawsuit.

–Dana

Yesterday I blogged about how a supporter of L.A. Superior Court judicial candidate Songhai “Sunny” Armstead abused copyright law to get a video removed from YouTube — a video that shows the candidate engaged in a racist appeal to black voters. I told you yesterday that a version of the video remains online, just without my preferred caption: “Judicial candidate: Vote for me because I’m black.”

I was a sucker. The version that remains online has edited out much of the candidate’s most blatant appeal to race.

Reader JWB explains what is going on in this video:

As the video provided by JWB notes, the video that remains online now has a jump at 4:24, which scrubs this quote that I highlighted in my original post on Armstead’s remarks:

Why is that significant? You heard about realignment. You heard about the injustice that happens in our court system already. And you guys have seen who — I’m sure we all know who’s in our jails and who comes before our judges in court, right? It’s people who look a lot like the people in this room. People who look a lot like me.

I’ve been a prosecuting attorney and I’ve seen how things do not work in our system. I see how people who are disenfranchised, do not have appropriate education, or who come from underrepresented communities do not get access to fair justice. And part of the problem is that our judges don’t have the same life experiences that we have. They don’t have the same empathy. They don’t have the same understanding. They cannot relate. They have very narrow experiences. And so when they see a person come before them, they think everyone that comes before them is a horrible gang member or a violent criminal. You know?

Our jails are full of nonviolent people who are either have substance abuse problems, mental health issues, lack of education, or who are foster kids. Those people don’t need to be in jail. [Applause]

You have the power to change that. There are 15 open seats right now. I am the only African American running. There’s only one Chicana running. Can you guess who else is running? Are there people who care about the people in this room? Probably not. I can’t speak before them, but probably not.

So what we have is this: a woman who supports the candidate has taken a video, the copyright of which she appears not to own, and is issuing takedown notices for videos that have the candidate’s full remarks. Meanwhile, she has edited her own video to remove some of the candidate’s most inflammatory statements.

I suspect the above video will be scrubbed by the anti-speech fascists today, so watch it while you can. Reader Sean has more commentary here:

My blogging time is short today, but come Monday, this has my full attention. I am going to find a foolproof way to host the video, on my site if necessary. I do not take kindly to people who try to rewrite history and use thuggish tactics to do so.

For now, I just have one question: is the embed on my original video still working, even though it has been taken down? Please tell me if you are able to view this:

Although the video itself at YouTube is gone, this embed still works for me. Can you see it? Please let me know in the comments.

If you can watch it, jump to 4:20 and see how my version of the video does not skip at 4:24, while the video by copyright thug and Armstead supporter Gail Copeland does.

See what I mean?

Meanwhile, time to contact my tech guy to see how I can go about hosting the full video on my blog.

Remember Songhai “Sunny” Armstead? She is the judicial candidate who told a local black congregation to vote for her because she is black. Not only that, she suggested that people who aren’t black don’t care about people who are:

There are 15 open seats right now. I am the only African American running. There’s only one Chicana running. Can you guess who else is running? Are there people who care about the people in this room? Probably not. I can’t speak before them, but probably not.

In the post I did about Armstead’s disgusting views, I linked the full video of her remarks. When you click on the YouTube URL for that video now, you see this:

Looks like I got someone’s attention, huh?

So who is Gail Copeland, the person who filed the copyright claim? Well, for one thing, she appears to be a supporter of Armstead’s. (Surprise!) This screenshot shows that Copeland has “liked” Armstead’s Facebook page for her campaign:

Copeland also does not appear to be the owner of the copyright in the question. She has her own YouTube channel:

The channel is bursting with videos from City of Refuge, the church where Armstead made her race-obsessed speech. Each of Copeland’s videos bears a “fair use” notice, suggesting that she may not be the actual owner of the copyright. For example, here is Copeland’s video from the service where Armstead spoke:

Let’s take a closer look at that notice:

To file a DMCA takedown, Copeland would have to be the copyright owner. If Copeland is the copyright owner, why would she feel the need to append a “fair use” notice to her own work? (By the way, a “fair use” notice is not necessary for a work to qualify as fair use.) Also interesting is the fact that the copyright notice on the video itself says the copyright is owned by NoelJones.org, not Gail Copeland:

In any event, my video falls squarely within the fair use sections of the Copyright Act. It is political commentary relating to an upcoming election. I have added a title which appears at the top of the video, characterizing Armstead’s comments, thus transforming the work. I uploaded the video to embed it in a post commenting on Armstead’s habit of asking for votes due to the color of her skin. My use of the video to make a political point about Armstead, a candidate for judge, is classic fair use.

Since my video is fair use, I have filed a counternotice to the DMCA claim. But of course, YouTube takes ten business days to put a video back up — meaning that the video will be down through the June 3 election.

My original post now substitutes Copeland’s version of the video, which bears the innocuous title “COR 4-27-14 For Such A Time As This 4.” I prefer my original title: “Judicial candidate: Vote for Me Because I’m Black.” But Gail Copeland’s misuse of copyright laws to squelch political speech, combined with YouTube’s reflexive obeisance to any takedown request, even from non-copyright owners, means that my preferred version of the video, bearing my preferred caption, cannot be published.

What can be done about Gail Copeland her brand of copyright thuggery? Well, the best thing to do is rely on the Army of Davids. Yesterday, a fella calling himself John Doe uploaded an edited version of the video to YouTube.

Don’t bother clicking the link. Gail Copeland works fast. She has already filed a DMCA request on that video as well, and had it taken down.

But if enough of you download her version of the video and transform it — whether simply, by adding an appropriate caption, or ideally in a richer fashion, interspersing your commentary between Armstead’s remarks — free speech will win out over thuggery.

But you have to actually take action for this plan to work. Download the video [but see UPDATE below] and use it to make your own video featuring your own protected free speech. If you can’t upload the video, spread the word. Tell your friends about this post. Send around the link to my original post.

Free speech is not “free.” It takes work and action. Are you willing to take the time to promote it here?

UPDATE: It’s worse than I thought. Copeland’s version actually scrubs Armstead’s most blatant racist remarks from her speech.

I will have much more about this.

[guest post by Dana]

Just a few days before Memorial Day and in the midst of the growing VA scandal, Senate Democrats blocked a bill (VA Management Accountability Act, H.R.4031) that would have made it easier to cut through bureaucratic red tape and fire VA employees, as well as hold the department more accountable.

Take heart, though, because President Obama is madder than hell about the scandal.

In the meantime, the Weekly Standard notes,

The director of the Phoenix VA hospital received an $8,500 pay bonus last month even as allegations of 40 deaths resulting from excessive wait times for care were being investigated. Sharon Helman, the director of the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System, “got an $8,500 bonus last month while there was an open [inspector general] investigation into Phoenix,” Chairman Miller told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview Wednesday.

It had been previously reported that Helman received more than $9,000 in bonus pay in 2013 on top of her annual salary of $169,900. The VA office of inspector general began investigating the Phoenix VA for wrongdoing in December 2013, months before Helman received the additional $8,500 bonus.

And an update:

The VA announced this afternoon: “Secretary Shinseki today exercised his authority to rescind Sharon Helman’s fiscal year 2013 performance award immediately. Previously, Ms. Helman received the performance award due to an administrative error.”

Those darn administrative errors!

For an excellent overview of the left’s idealizing the Socialist Supermodel that is the VA, James Taranto is not to be missed.

In part, he reminds us of Paul Krugman’s words (that have come back to haunt him),

American health care is desperately in need of reform. But what form should change take? Are there any useful examples we can turn to for guidance?

Well, I know about a health care system that has been highly successful in containing costs, yet provides excellent care. And the story of this system’s success provides a helpful corrective to anti-government ideology. For the government doesn’t just pay the bills in this system — it runs the hospitals and clinics.

No, I’m not talking about some faraway country. The system in question is our very own Veterans Health Administration, whose success story is one of the best-kept secrets in the American policy debate.

Here is Krugman again, in 2011:

What Mr. Romney and everyone else should know is that the [Veterans Health Administration] is a huge policy success story, which offers important lessons for future health reform. …

And yes, this is “socialized medicine” — although some private systems, like Kaiser Permanente, share many of the V.H.A.’s virtues. But it works — and suggests what it will take to solve the troubles of U.S. health care more broadly.

I was talking with a colleague yesterday who happens to be a former Marine. At a point in our conversation, he had to quickly dash off to make his appointment at the VA. He commented wryly, “Well, maybe it will be today…”

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

By now, most of us are exhausted from the never-ending circus that is Donald Sterling, his crazy girlfriend/”archivist”/”silly rabbit” and the whole sordid mess. And yet, Mark Cuban, entrepreneur and owner of the Dallas Mavericks, entered the fray during an interview where he discussed his personal views on bigotry.

In this day and age, this country has really come a long way [toward] putting any type of bigotry behind us, regardless of who it’s toward,” Cuban told the magazine. “We’ve come a long way and with that progress comes a price. We’re a lot more vigilant and we’re a lot less tolerant of different views, and it’s not necessarily easy for everybody to adapt or evolve.”

“If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street,” he said. “And if on that side of the street, there’s a guy that has tattoos all over his face — white guy, bald head, tattoos everywhere — I’m walking back to the other side of the street.”

“I know that I’m not perfect,” he adds. “While we all have our prejudices and bigotries, we have to learn that it’s an issue that we have to control, that it’s part of my responsibility as an entrepreneur to try to solve it, not just to kick the problem down the road.”

Cuban said everyone has prejudices “in one way or the other.”

The Los Angeles Times took offense at Cuban’s comments and scolded Cuban for trying to “justify” his remarks in a way that they believe essentially defended the actions of Sterling. So, how did Cuban justify his remarks?

“So in my business, I try not to be hypocritical,” he said. “I know that I’m not perfect. I know that I live in a glass house and it’s not appropriate for me to throw stones.”

The LAT continued to huff and puff,

Judging from his comments, that glass house needs to be shattered.

By acknowledging a fear of a “black kid in a hoodie,’’ Cuban is admitting he is scared of many of his own players and fans, as the hoodie is a common piece of wardrobe for young people of all races. He’s also buying into the sort of fears that led to the 2012 Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida, an incident that sparked national outrage. In fact, players from the Miami Heat even wore hoodies one day in protest of the fatal shooting of the black teenager.

Just because Cuban says he is trying “not to be hypocritical” does not mean that he can be excused for his ignorance. Simply because he praises this country’s fight against bigotry doesn’t give him a pass to sound like a bigot.

Mark Cuban is not Donald Sterling. He doesn’t have Sterling’s racist past. He is considered one of the league’s smartest and most passionate owners.

But after making those comments, Cuban appears to be lot closer to Sterling than anyone ever imagined, and NBA Commissioner Adam Silver needs to deal with the dangers of that proximity.

It should be noted that another public person essentially said the same thing.

There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved…. After all we have been through. Just to think we can’t walk down our own streets, how humiliating. — Jesse Jackson*

After the interview, Cuban tweeted an apology, yet stood by his comments.

P/1: In hindsight I should have used different examples. I didn’t consider the Trayvon Martin family, and I apologize to them for that. P/2: beyond apologizing to the Martin family, I stand by the words and substance of the interview.

*This morning I listened to Bill Handel on KFI who told listeners that during an interview he conducted with Jesse Jackson, Jackson made the same statements as referenced above.

–Dana

[guest post by JVW]

My hometown newspaper, The Daily Breeze, published their endorsements for the June 3 primary today. Who did they judge to be among the best two choices for the state senate in my district? None other than Sandra Fluke.

Seriously, Sandra Fluke.

Here is what they had to say:

Fluke is an attorney and women’s rights activist best known as the woman who radio’s Rush Limbaugh called a slut — he later apologized — after she testified before Congress in favor of birth control. She may be young (she’s 33) and a first-time candidate for public office, but she has the spine and the know-how to take on Sacramento.

Her fast rise to national attention and the way she handled all the buzz was impressive. Even more impressive are her clear and thoughtful ideas on policy. If elected, she said she would focus on issues such as water conservation measures, easing congestion on Los Angeles’ Westside, expanding Hollywood tax credits, and coastal preservation.

So according to the Los Angeles News Group (they are the parent company of the Breeze and they make the endorsements), a woman who rose to fame on the specious yet obnoxious notion that a Catholic university should be forced to pay for birth control for 30-year-old law students is the best choice to represent my district in Sacramento. So hey, you might be saying, perhaps ol’ Sandra has some really good ideas for how to reinvigorate the California economy, create a stable flow of tax revenue that does not depend upon windfalls from the stock market, or address the looming public pension bills which threaten to overwhelm our budget. I will save you having to make a visit to her puerile campaign website, chock full of trendy liberal talking points delivered straight from the hack factory at the DNC, but here are the issues that Sandra specifically calls out:

* affordable health care
* access to a quality education
* LGBTQ rights
* economic justice

In other words, she’s running a 2008 campaign in 2014. Is there anyone with even one iota of sense who thinks that any of the four items above (with the possible exception of education) is a burning issue in 2014? Even if you think that health care and education are important, I doubt if you would be impressed with Ms. Fluke’s proposed solutions. Not to mention the fact that Ms. Fluke’s whole adult life appears to have been spent either as a student or working for some left-wing nonprofit advocacy group, all of which I’m sure will be invaluable in helping to facilitate growth in the private sector.

Oh well, we’ve ruined this state so much that maybe at this point it would just be fun to watch it all crumble down in a spectacular way. Go Sandy!

– JVW