Have you seen the cloying and annoying video produced by Google called “Google Chrome: Coffee”? It tells the tale of a man using the Internet to get back in the good graces of his estranged girlfriend.
It ends with him asking her to join him for a cup of coffee and concludes with the tagline, “The web is what you make of it.”
Naturally the man uses the Internet giant’s browser Chrome to access the web and the full range of Google products from Gmail, to maps, to Picasa, to docs, to YouTube as he remembers the past, apologizes and asks her to join him for coffee.
It’s just sooooo cute.
The problem is that Google doesn’t tell you that while you’re using Chrome and its other products it is amassing a huge digital dossier on your activities so you can be marketed to advertisers. That’s where 98 percent of Google’ revenue comes from: advertising. You’re not Google’s customer; you’re its product.
Just to remind folks of the reality, a technologist has produced his own little video called “Google Radar: Coffee.” It overlays on the original Google video all the information that is sent back to Google for possible inclusion in digital dossiers as the the hero of the tale makes his plea for reconciliation.
Google should really change tag line. It ought to read, “The web is what we make of you.”
The technologist sent me a link. Check the video out below.
There is a little food shop down the street from where I live that seems to know more about using technology than the $6 billion dollar organization where I work.
I work at San Francisco City Hall.
The shop in the Sunset District in San Francisco was having some challenges. People complained on Yelp. The shop owner was kind of mad at first, but then he figured it out. The response was actually helping him understand how to get better. And when he fixed the problems, the neighbors came back.
If we can use technology to make a small business more responsive to the neighborhood, why can’t we use it to make our government better?
The answer is we can.
That’s why I have a pretty simple idea to help make my City Hall more effective and responsive. And I would like to ask for your help in making it a reality.
My idea is to allow more people to talk back to government by being able to make their voices heard at City Hall by submitting YouTube videos that would be heard just like other public testimony.
If you have ever been down to your own City Hall to testify or if you have watched this process on TV you know the problem. What happens now is most of the testimony seems to come from about the same people who either work for government, are lobbyists or work for people who have city contracts or want city contracts.
There is nothing wrong at all with these people making their voices heard. And most of them here in San Francisco are pretty knowledgeable and committed to a better city. The problem is that not enough people can be heard. And a government decision is only going to be as good as the information it was based on.
Right now almost every single Board and Commission, including our Board of Supervisors, meets during the day. So what about the people who work or go to school or just can’t make it to City Hall on a few days notice? What about virtually everyone else?
So here’s a pretty simple – and absolutely free – way of making government better right now.
Let’s ask our government boards and agencies to accept ten minutes of testimony via YouTube, and hear that testimony on equal footing with the lobbyists and activists who can make it to City Hall.
We could make it social. So if more than five videos were submitted, only those with the most “likes” would be shown.
This may seem like a small idea. But it is based on a pretty radical concept – democracy works. The more people can be heard, the better our government will be. And when we open up government to more people, not just the usual suspects, the decisions will be more representative of the rest of us.
A couple of months ago, I wrote a blog about how we can reset local government. My idea was that one of the most progressive things we can do right now is to make government better.
Pride at Work’s latest stunt infiltrating the Westin St. Francis is now a YouTube sensation, generating over 35,000 hits yesterday. It was featured on two local evening news shows, the progressive webzine Common Dreams, and the LGBT blog Towleroad – and on countless Facebook pages. But besides being a fun video, it deftly shows how activists can adapt to new ways of getting their message out. Mass rallies are much less effective today than they were in the Sixties, but too often progressives want to re-live this era by using the same tools and expecting a different result. People don’t get their news from just a few channels anymore, so it’s possible to have a march with thousands of people with little effect. Today, ideas catch fire and take hold through online social networks. “Caught in a Bad Hotel” was not the first YouTube flashmob, but it was the first one with a political purpose. And hopefully, it won’t be the last.
In Taking On the System, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas made a point that I’ve been thinking a lot over the past two years. Whatever era they live in, activists must adapt to the most effective medium to get their message across. In the 1920’s and 30’s, Gandhi used newsreels to show how the British were exploiting his people. Martin Luther King used television to cover civil rights marches, and to capture the hateful response from Southern law enforcement. But today, people get their news in a far more fragmented way – on the Internet, through their friends, on Facebook and in silly YouTube videos.
I argued this point yesterday on (where else?) my Facebook page, but not everyone was convinced. The video was fun, but how do we know it will be effective at getting people to boycott the Westin St. Francis?
A friend responded with this point: “It will be seen by a lot more people than your average – ‘what do we want and when do we want it’ protest – because as much as I am pro union and will support boycotts, I don’t forward info on every single boycott because seriously, nobody would read my reports if I did. I saw the YouTube video and then saw that the Palace Hotel was part of the boycott list and canceled my reservations for tea at the Garden Room. I probably would not have found out about the boycott if it wasn’t entertaining enough to go viral, and I definitely wouldn’t have posted it in my [Facebook] status and then five of my friends probably wouldn’t have posted in theirs …”
In the 21st Century, people spend a lot of time online – and a huge amount on Facebook, talking to their friends and procrastinating. A fun YouTube video can go viral, because you’re reaching people where they’re at – and it’s easy for them to post it on their page.
As far as getting “bang for your buck,” Pride at Work hit a home run. They didn’t have to mobilize a huge number of people, the whole action took 5 minutes and nobody got arrested. How many times can you say that – and get that amount of media coverage?
Could Pride at Work have done a similar direct action without YouTube or Facebook? Of course, but no one would have seen it – unless they happened to be in the Westin St. Francis at the time, or activists were lucky to get reporters present – never a sure thing.
And while onlookers in the hotel appeared supportive (activists handed out flyers during the flashmob about the hotel boycott), it can be difficult convincing an apolitical tourist who already paid for their room to check out of the hotel in solidarity. By broadcasting it on YouTube and generating a viral campaign, more will hear about it and not stay there.
We won’t know how effective “Caught in a Bad Hotel” will be until Gay Pride weekend, when thousands of LGBT tourists come into town. The Westin St. Francis was targeted in part because a lot of them stay there that weekend. Pride at Work used the Lady Gaga theme to let them know they are welcome in San Francisco, but don’t stay at a “bad hotel.” Getting a plug yesterday in Towleroad was very helpful, because the popular blog on gay politics and culture is based in New York.
“Caught in a Bad Hotel” didn’t just make me happy because it’s a fun video. It made me hopeful that creative activists can use this medium to more effectively get their message out.
Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.
Remember all those experts who were scared of appearing on YouTube? Well, I don’t know if they knew this when they were lining up to be deposed, but depositions become part of the public record, and fortunately for us, we have said depositions. And even more helpfully, we have clips on YouTube of Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, you know the people who believe that men are constantly and subtly being discriminated against.
Anyway, these folks go around doing expert testimony for social conservative causes. Apparently hiding their faces while doing so. Perhaps Paul Nathanson should have hidden more than his face during the Iowa same-sex marriage, Varnum V. Brien, and just gone mute. It would have done more benefit for the opponents of marriage equality. Nathanson’s testimony Varnum was so ridiculous that the court struck it from the record stating that his testimony was “not based on observation supported by scientific methodology or . . . on empirical research in any sense.”
Forgetting my legal training, and just looking at a quick behavioral and textual reading of this testimony, it is clear that neither of these two witnesses would have done a lick of good for the Prop 8 defense. As we go through these clips, you’ll know exactly what I mean. Let’s start with Paul Nathanson (transcript here):
Q – Let’s try to break that down into two parts. First, you recognize that gay couples are today raising children, correct?
A – Yes.
Q – And you believe that enabling those gay couples to marry would enhance their ability to be good parents to the chi-
A – Yes.
Basically, this guy admits something that David Blankenhorn ended up admitting on the stand: lack of marriage equality harms children being raised by LGBT parents. While the defense completely failed to prove that there was any damage whatsoever from marriage equality on the children of straight parents, over and over again, event the defense’s own witnesses acknowledged that there was real and serious harm done to not only LGBT couples, but their families. Meanwhile, Nathanson is looking unhappy and snippy. All in all, he was just another Blankenhorn debacle waiting to happen. And, I think even the defense would privately admit that could have gone better.
And Katherine Young would not have been much better. See the thing is that with these scientists, they’ve actually read these studies, and understand the background. This is where Boies picked apart Prof. Miller. Miller had to eventually admit that his position was contrary to the great bulk of research in the field. And Miller’s testimony, at its best, could only go to a small portion of what they were trying to show. Young wound up admitting a gold mine’s worth in her deposition. It’s almost hard to pick out selections from the transcript of Young’s deposition.
Q – My question is, is it your view that because something was the norm in the past, it should be continued in the future? …
A – Just because something is a norm, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is an appropriate norm, and it has to then be reassessed in the contemporary context to see if t norm should remain.
***
Q – And you believe that allowing gay couples to marry will increase the durability of those gay couples relationships, correct?
A – Okay. I’ll say yes.
***
Q – Okay. And increasing the durability of those relationships is beneficial to the children that they’re raising, correct?
A – On that one factor, yes.
While Young does come across looking annoyed, she doesn’t seem quite so smug as Blankenhorn and Nathanson, so point for her on that. However, the factual admissions she makes were just too much for the Prop 8 defense to consider putting her on the stand.
At any rate, both Nathanson and Young hardly look fearful of appearing either on YouTube or on the witness stand. This was a purely tactical decision masquerading as something else. After all, they have written several books together about how men are an oppressed minority, they are hardly afraid of spouting controversial opinions in public. The reason these two didn’t testify has nothing to do with being scared, and everything to do with the fact that they were simply bad witnesses.
In the first day A.M. (After Marriage), amazingly enough not every couple in California spontaneously divorced as a result of city clerks handing out licenses with “Party 1” and “Party 2”. There actually are still married people out there, and now they’ve been joined by thousands of LGBT couples. And here are some of the highlights from today:
• It seems like every couple has an accompanying news article chronicling their wedding, but I think it’s a good thing for now (though I long for the day when this is unexceptional and not a news event). Putting a human face on what can often be an abstract discussion about legal rights seems to me to be vital. There’s a great series of videos featuring couples in the LA area at this link.
• There are of course detractors, although most of them are staying quiet for now. One group who isn’t is the LA Archdiocese, which posted a statement denouncing “redefining marriage, which has a unique place in God’s creation.” Maybe this is just me, but after the events of the last decade, I don’t think the Catholic church should be making any statements about sexuality whatsoever.
• True Majority and The Human Rights Campaign are but two of the organizations delivering petitions in support of marriage equality. I expect many more.
• In Bakersfield, where Kern County clerk Ann Barnett has halted her office from officiating all weddings, an under-the-radar recall campaign has commenced. By the way, there’s nothing new about such actions; historian and author of “Nixonland” (which you all need to read) Rick Perlstein reminds us that this is exactly what school districts in the South did after the Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka decision, shutting down entire school systems rather than integrating them. They called it Massive Resistance.
Of course, the people who thought like that then-here’s an excellent article on one of them, Lester Maddox-are now looked upon as history’s losers, as monsters, as embarrassments, and have no defenders. Now, every conservative claims to have always been on the opposite side of the Lester Maddoxes of the day. The people who think like this now will look just as bad to history as Maddox did then. I try to mention this every time I speak to a conservative audience: that I pity them. They should take care to stay off the record when they oppose basic human rights, because it will eventually come back to bite them on the ass.
But ultimately, I’m not worried about them (though if I were a Christian, I’d worry for their immortal souls), because, twenty years down the road, most will successfully maintain they were for marriage equality all along. Moral relativism has its advantages.
SEIU RNs throughout California and the nation have seen the light and had enough. They have been signing up by the thousands to join their RN colleagues in the CNA/NNOC.
Last December, RNs at Saint Mary’s in Reno voted overwhelmingly for CNA/NNOC representation, rejecting SEIU’s last minute attempt to derail the election. RNs at the St. Rose Dominican Hospitals in Las Vegas are voting in May to switch from SEIU to CNA.
Check out this video about how SEIU really operates as Las Vegas RNs and service employees speak from their hearts. (SEIU members appearing in this video are not actors and were not paid or coaxed.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
This is not at all surprising. RNs and RN issues have received even less support from SEIU since the SEIU reorganization last year. Imagine this: LA County is SEIU’s largest RN unit in the nation, but only one LA County RN was chosen to be a delegate to the SEIU convention! even though many LA County RNs ran for delegate positions!
SEIU claims to represent 1.9 million members, of which actual RN membership is less than 2%. CNA/NNOC/AFL-CIO is the largest professional RN union in the country, with over 80,000 RN members in all 50 states. Our Board of Directors and convention are 100% RNs, directly elected by our all-RN membership.
The heart of the matter lies in the fact that SEIU International has created a harmful company union structure where the “union” partners with management to the detriment of their members. This is especially dangerous and harmful when they represent health care workers who work in unsafe conditions and with contract clauses that cause nurses to go against their ethical and legal obligations to be the patient’s advocate.
The unfortunate outcomes harm patients as well as caregivers as detailed in a recent SF Weekly article. The article is a must read from start to finish, but I have to quote here the alarming part about the tragic death of Mary Hochman, a night nurse and SEIU member who worked at Beverley La Cumbre, a Santa Barbara nursing home:
According to news accounts, Hochman walked onto a beach and shot herself in the heart after a months-long dispute with her employer. Her problems began when she tried to report that a nurse’s aide had hit an 81-year-old man with dementia. According to Contra Costa Times reporter Carolyn McMillan, Hochman said in a sworn affidavit that she was told to cover up the information. Cover it up!
“If a nurse cannot protect her patients, I do not want to be a nurse,” Hochman wrote in her suicide note. “This has taken all hope away from me.”
Hochman’s note, along with a journal detailing instances where she was told to cover up incidents of abuse and neglect, helped spur a federal raid on the nursing home. A subsequent investigation revealed patients suffering beatings and maggot-infested bedsores, culminating in a $2 million settlement against Beverly relating to preventable deaths. The investigation also spawned a dozen civil suits, according to press reports.
SEIU had lobbied to ensure that a bill before the California legislature didn’t include provisions supported by patients’ rights groups that would have set standards guaranteeing high-quality care. The union added hundreds of nursing home workers to its ranks. But the labor contracts that resulted included a scandalous, horrifying detail: The union was discouraged from informing regulators, or the press, in cases of bad patient care.
CNA/NNOC is proud of our record in fighting for RNs and safe patient care; from winning the first-in-the nation RN-to-patient ratios, to fighting Governor Schwarzenegger’s attacks on our ratios as well as his attacks on the Board of Registered Nurses, to building a national nurse’s movement, to fighting for the highest standards nationally for RNs and patients.
Building a national nurses movement isn’t always going to be easy, but it will all be worth it when we change the face of health care in this country.
Visit our website www.calnurses.org for more information.
Please also visit www.ServingEmployersInsteadofUs.org to hear how SEIU is serving employers rather than their nurses and other members.
Just over a month ago, on a $2 budget, David Dayen created A Message from the California Yachting Association and unveiled it here at Calitics, mocking the California Republican Party’s transformation into the Yacht Party. It was an instant smash.
That ad inspired the Courage Campaign to create another Yacht Party ad, this one taking it to the floor of the Legislature and defining the Republicans as the party that protects tax loopholes while watching schools and health care collapse:
Last week’s fundraising campaign was so successful – bringing in over $11,000 in just a few days – that we’ve been able to get this ad onto Sacramento cable TV Wednesday night, on CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Show and the Colbert Report.
Perhaps just as significantly, the successful campaign has brought in new allies on the Yacht Party project. If Courage Campaign can raise $5,000 in the next 48 hours, both Speaker Fabian Núñez and SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West have promised to each match that with $5,000 of their own. That would enable another ad buy not just in Sacramento, but in the home districts of some of the most obstinate Republicans.
This is a significant pledge. It represents the coming together of the netroots, of organized labor, and one of the most powerful Democratic politicians in our state in a shared effort to take the fight to the Republicans, and help stop their efforts to destroy our public services just so rich folks can get a tax break.
I’ve been in the netroots a long time, and have been an observer of California politics for even longer. And I’ve always hoped that such coalitions could be built – progressive coalitions to take back our state from the radicals who have governed it into the ground. These groups haven’t always seen eye to eye, but they also recognize the importance of the budget fight, and the need for common action.
Even if you don’t donate – though I hope you will – I think it’s worth reflecting on just how significant a moment this is.
Over the flip is the fundraising email we sent out to Courage Campaign members today. And pay attention to the “P.S.” at the end – if you like these Yacht Party ads, perhaps you can help us create the next one.
Wow. We’ve got some wonderful news for you.
On Thursday, we asked you to help us raise $10,000 by noon today to get our 30-second “Yacht Party” TV ad on the air in Sacramento, taking the budget fight to head-in-the-sand Republicans in Sacramento. With California facing a massive $16 billion deficit and teachers being laid off by the thousands, Republicans are supporting a shocking tax loophole for, get this: yacht purchases.
Californians have had enough. That’s why our TV ad compelled 335 donors to raise $11,023 combined on ActBlue and our web site, surpassing our first goal. Now, because of your generosity, we just bought time on Sacramento cable to air “Yacht Party” this Wednesday on CNN, MSNBC, the Daily Show and Colbert Report — an action that has attracted media attention across California.
The good news gets even better:
Your people-powered response to our re-framing of the Republicans has inspired our good friends — United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez — to get on board.
What will it mean for our community to meet this $5,000 match by SEIU-UHW and Speaker Núñez? It means extending our ad buy in Sacramento to Thursday AND expanding it to air the ad in specific districts where California Republican “Yacht Party” Assembly members are most vulnerable.
It also means moving one step closer to making 2008 a new era for progressive politics in California. It’s so exciting to see progressives working together in common cause, from the netroots and the Courage Campaign to our friends in organized labor and the Assembly.
If you can help us make this $5,000 match, we can make history. Together.
Will you take 30 seconds to watch “Yacht Party” and then contribute $25, $50, $75, $100, $150 or more on ActBlue to match Speaker Nunez and SEIU-UHW’s challenge before Thursday’s deadline?
We can’t afford to close this disastrous deficit with devastating cuts. Common sense dictates that California bring in new revenue by ending these unbelievable tax loopholes for the rich. The sooner you take action either by contributing or forwarding this message to your friends, the sooner we can pressure the Republicans to stop destroying our social safety net.
Together, we helped kill the GOP’s electoral college “dirty trick,” count the “double bubble” votes in Los Angeles County, and block Blackwater’s base on the California border. And now, SEIU-UHW and Speaker Núñez are joining you to re-frame the Republicans and end this appalling yacht tax loophole for the super-wealthy.
With 30 seconds of your time and a few dollars, we can change the conversation inside Sacramento, help fix our gaping $16 billion state budget deficit, and rebuild the California dream.
Please watch “Yacht Party” and help us make the $5,000 match before Thursday:
And yes, thank you again for making this amazing news possible.
Rick Jacobs
Chair
P.S. Do you own a yacht? Or do you know someone who does? This campaign has gone so well, we want to film another “Yacht Party” TV ad. But this time we need an actual yacht, not just an animated version. If you know someone, preferably in Southern California, who wouldn’t mind having the Courage Campaign film a commercial on their yacht, please email us at “[email protected]”. Thanks!
Dave’s video a few weeks ago on the yacht tax loophole inspired the Courage Campaign to create this TV ad, which with your help we will get up on MSNBC, CNN, The Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Please contribute using our ActBlue page to place it on the air.
The goal is simple: frame the Republicans as the Yacht Party and draw more attention to their refusal to close the loophole.
Check the flip for the email we sent out to Courage Campaign members a few minutes ago, which gives a h/t to Dave, Robert and Calitics, plus quotes from Mark Leno’s blog post here.
Dear Julia,
It’s shocking and unbelievable.
California is in crisis, facing a $16 billion budget deficit. Social services are being slashed to the bone. Teachers and education professionals are being laid off by the thousands (up to 20,000, according to California Department of Education). Tuition and fees at state universities and colleges are being raised through the roof.
And California Republican Assembly members are unanimously supporting an appalling loophole in our state’s tax code that allows the super-rich to avoid paying sales taxes on…
Yachts.
Still blinking in disbelief? You read that right: Tax loopholes for yacht owners.
While you are wondering if your child’s school is going to be shut down because of the brutal cuts proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, his California Republican “Yacht Party” colleagues in the state legislature are protecting the lavish lifestyles of the super-wealthy.
With the budget crisis approaching catastrophe, it’s time to change the conversation inside our state capital. Inspired by California netroots activists like David Dayen and Robert Cruickshank, the Courage Campaign asked our friends at Agit Pop Communications to create a memorable ad to air on cable news programs watched by Republicans in Sacramento (OK, we also want to air it on “fake news” shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, but not fake news like the Fox News Channel).
The 30-second ad is called “Yacht Party” and you can watch it by clicking here. To air this ad Wednesday on CNN and MSNBC, plus the Daily Show and Colbert Report, we have to raise $10,000 by Tuesday from members like you.
That means we need 250 generous donors contributing an average of $40 per person ASAP. Will you chip in $25, $50 or $75 or more on ActBlue to fund our “Yacht Party” ad campaign no later than Tuesday at 12 p.m.?
Yacht purchases aren’t the only tax loophole California Republicans are blowing open for the fat-cat donors who paved their path to power in Sacramento.
Get this: Private jets are tax-free as well.
The only catch? Richie Rich must stash his yacht or private jet outside of California for at least 90 days.
So, if you’re wealthy enough to not only own a yacht but spend a sizable chunk of time vacationing on it (or sneakily ship it elsewhere for a few months), you don’t have to pay one dime of sales tax on your ultra-luxurious extravagance. Meanwhile, people like us pay sales tax on essential needs, from clothing to school supplies. And the Republicans in the state legislature march in lockstep, calling for draconian cuts that will destroy California’s social safety net.
It’s time for someone to tell the truth inside Sacramento: instead of serving the people of California, Republicans are serving their yacht-owning paymasters.
Will you help us raise $10,000 to air this “Yacht Party” ad on the Daily Show, Colbert Report, CNN and MSNBC? If you can contribute $25, $50, or $75 or more on ActBlue by noon on Tuesday, we can air this ad Wednesday on the huge flat-panel TV’s of Republicans across Sacramento:
We don’t have much time. But if 250 generous supporters of the Courage Campaign contribute an average of $40 per person before Tuesday at 12 p.m., we can raise the stakes in Sacramento, change the conversation, and maybe even embarrass Republicans into doing the right thing.
Can’t contribute? Then please forward this email to your friends who can ASAP.
Your activism is making 2008 a new era for progressive politics in California. Together, we helped kill the GOP’s electoral college “dirty trick,” count the “double bubble” votes in Los Angeles County, and block Blackwater’s base on the California border.
Now, with 30 seconds of your time and a few dollars, we can change the conversation in Sacramento.
Rick Jacobs
Chair
P.S. On Monday, Democratic Assemblymember Mark Leno blogged the details behind this outrageous “yacht tax” loophole on Calitics (a community blog for Californians):
“In February, the legislature considered closing the loophole that gives the wealthiest in the state a tax exemption for their extravagant toys. The proposal was simply to adjust this loophole in the tax law and increase the waiting period to a year–an action that is estimated would have netted the state $26 million. No-brainer, right? Well, not to the Republicans in the legislature.
Because Republicans in both houses voted against the bill, it failed to garner the two-thirds majority needed for passage. Republicans in the legislature have taken a pledge to never, under any circumstances, consider tax increases, even during budget deficits like the $16 billion one we currently face…
… (Governor Schwarzenegger) is now proposing that we cut more than $4.5 billion from K-12 education; decimate our AIDS Drug Assistance Program; further reduce reimbursement rates for health care providers; put the children of mothers on state assistance at risk of homelessness; deny the blind, the elderly, and the disabled even a minimal cost-of-living adjustment; slash funding for our court system; virtually close down our state parks system; and continue to under-fund our higher education systems.”
Enough is enough. Please watch the “Yacht Party” ad. Contribute what you can afford on ActBlue by Tuesday at noon. And spread the word by forwarding this email to your friends across California as soon as possible:
“Veterans commit fraud.” (John Campbell’s [R, Ca-48]) Listen to the story, told by the veterans to whom he made the statement.
John Campbell [R Ca-48] says “Veterans Commit Fraud.”
Steve Young stands behind our veterans.
I want to reach every veteran in the country to let them know how Campbell feels about veterans. Three veterans heard Campbell’s macaca statement. I made a commercial to tell the truth, and to demand that Campbell apologize to veterans.
$25 pays for one airing of this commercial in my District. How many times would you like to see this commercial play?
Go to Actblue: https://secure.actbl… (and contribute) to tell George Bush and John Campbell, “Stop posing in front of soldiers, and start standing behind our veterans.”
Look at my website at www.SteveYoungforCongress.com.
Do you want to know why I am so committed to the veterans and their benefits? I took the time to put it on tape so you can hear it from the horse’s mouth:
If I am the kind of man you want in Washington, then I need help: 1. Please contribute to my campaign at ActBlue: https://secure.actbl… 2. Hit the “recommend” button to keep this message visible. 3. Send a link to this post to everyone you know who cares about veterans and their issues, no matter where they live.
Thank you,
Steve
I published this today for Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily.
About a month ago, I was on a radio talk show (KALW-91.7 FM) to discuss the 2008 Presidential primary – when a caller predicted that this would be the “YouTube election.” Now that any web-savvy citizen can post a video online (or even create a mash-up video that satirizes a presidential candidate), elections will be decided less through conventional media buys – and more through the grassroots actions of political activists who may have no affiliation with a campaign. With this week’s release of the anonymous YouTube video lampooning Hillary Clinton as “Big Brother,” we know that the caller’s prediction was right. It’s a brave new world, and campaigns must learn to adapt.
For those who haven’t seen it yet, the video is a brilliant parody of Apple’s famous commercial from January 1984 – which introduced Macintosh computers to the world. I was six years old at the time, and a few months later my father bought us a Mac, which was our family’s first home computer. In the new video, Hillary Clinton is the “Big Brother” from the old commercial – while a woman with a Barack Obama t-shirt runs toward the large video screen, hurling a hammer at the last second to break the monotony.
The Obama campaign insists that they had nothing to do with it, and the author’s anonymity has only fueled more interest about the video. As for Hillary’s reaction, she replied to a group of bloggers that she’s “pleased” that the video is “taking attention away from what used to be on YouTube and getting a lot of hits – namely me singing `The Star Spangled Banner.’ Everybody in the world now knows I can’t carry a tune.”
Back in January, over a million viewers on YouTube watched Hillary Clinton sing the national anthem at a campaign event, and believe me – it’s painful to listen. While the clip was initially broadcast on television, it only picked up steam because average users could then just take the video and re-broadcast it on YouTube. Otherwise, we would have had to depend on large TV networks to decide which political gaffe is newsworthy.
The clues that this would happen were evident last year. Republican Senator George Allen would probably have been re-elected – if he hadn’t been so stupid as to call an Indian-American “macaca” while on tape. The filmmaker then posted the video on YouTube, and it soon became the butt of jokes on late-night comedy. The “macaca” moment allowed journalists to start snooping about Allen’s racist tendencies, and we soon learned what a twisted jerk he really is. If not for YouTube, we may never have had a Senator Jim Webb – and the Republicans would still control the Senate today.
The Internet has been around for over a decade, and in the last four years bloggers have made serious strides in how the media covers politics. But YouTube has taken the online medium to a new level. Blogs are good for political junkies who want to read the “inside” story, but there’s something about an online video that attracts more attention. Our society is more accustomed to watching the news than reading it, so YouTube is to the blogosphere as television is to newspapers.
Of course, there’s a difference between the “macaca” video that sunk George Allen’s career and the 1984 parody that reinforces what many people – fairly or not – think about Hillary Clinton. The lesson from “macaca” is that politicians must be careful what they say, which everyone can agree is a good thing. But the Hillary episode shows that even your statements or likeness can be manipulated to make a hilarious video. Unlike “macaca,” that’s something that a candidate can’t control.
And Hillary is only the latest victim of this phenomenon. John Edwards has Southern charm, but his vanity was displayed on YouTube in a less flattering light. Back in November, somebody put up a video of Edwards on YouTube where he combs his hair and looks in the mirror – probably in preparation for a TV interview. But the creator also added the song “I Feel Pretty” from the musical “West Side Story” in the background – to devastating effect.
Remember Howard Dean’s Iowa “scream” that killed his presidential campaign? While the television media was to blame for blowing it way out of proportion, Internet enthusiasts also played a hand. YouTube did not exist at the time, but a website called “Dean Goes Nuts” was created – where bloggers remixed Howard Dean’s speech with “Welcome to the Jungle” by Guns `N Roses, “Throw it Up” by Lil John, and even “Kokomo” by the Beach Boys.
But remixing and distorting someone’s statements or videos for political gain is nothing new. For decades, candidates have taken videos of their opponents and added music in the background for a powerful TV commercial. In 2004, for example, the Bush campaign took footage of John Kerry windsurfing to make a negative ad about him being a “flip-flopper.” The YouTube parody of Hillary Clinton as “Big Brother” or John Edwards and “I Feel Pretty” is just the latest incarnation of a very long tradition.
What YouTube does is allow any person who knows how to put up a video online to play the game – and get wide exposure. In the old days, only well-paid political consultants and the campaigns who hired them could do this – and they had to pay ungodly amounts of money to put such commercials on television. YouTube democratizes the political system, by letting grassroots activists drive the debate about how candidates get covered.
Although I don’t like Hillary Clinton and am a big fan of the latest YouTube video, I am very uncomfortable that it is anonymous. But there’s no question that the creator’s anonymity (and the fact that it was obviously not an amateur) has sparked more interest in it. I also believe the Obama campaign when they say that the creator is unaffiliated with their operation, and that they’re as clueless as we are as to who did it.
But anonymous hit-pieces – even if done artfully well – are not a good thing. If the 1984 parody had been displayed on television, campaign finance law would have required the creator to disclose its identity so that they can be held accountable. For now, the clip is probably harmless fun – but will it spawn more attacks on YouTube from sources who refuse to let the world know who they are?
It’s too soon to tell, but there’s one thing that we know for sure. The YouTube election has arrived.
