YouTube & MSM Once Again Helping Republicans Cover Their "Privately Owned" Tracks

Thanks for visiting my blog! So glad you could make it...
Really... because who knows how long it will be available...

The entire internet could shut down at any given moment should we wake the sleeping giant...

Or that giant could simply take me down a peg or two... in your search results.

It doesn't surprise me at all when I see "unavailable" or "terminated" YouTube videos with "third-party" copyright claim notices like the one above... but it does sadden me. A capitalist "free market" and corporate, advertising-based media are practicing their secret handshake while consumers and voters are asleep at the wheel.

Here's how you notice it and why it should bother you as much as it bothers me:

I was busy promoting the Obama Campaign's Website En Español (just put /es after the .com) on my facebook page when I remembered to tell everyone that Republicans frequently tell lies in their spanish-version advertisements and to keep an eye out for that this year - especially in Florida. When they're not lying, they omit certain facts or give some irrelevant aspects of their campaign undue importance for spanish-speaking Americans.

Of course, I'm always called upon to prove these accusations when I make them, so I went to a few sites that I remembered having discussed the problem with Meg Whitman's English/Spanish propaganda and falsehoods campaign.

The Meg Whitman (picture a woman whose face just has "gringo" written all over it) Spanish Language Ads were probably the most egregious example from 2010... She might as well have said "I love you" in Spanish and "I hate those hispanics" in English. It was almost that stark in contrast between messages.

This kind of racist translation-exploitation and audacious hypocrisy, while standard fare for Republicans these days, is the kind of thing that will ensure Republicans take Florida... even if the Goldman Sachs-funded Marco Rubio isn't "coincidentally chosen" as Goldman Sachs-funded Mitt Romney's VP running mate. (That deal has already been sealed, by the way... you heard it here first.)

Not so much to my surprise, the videos associated with the "naughty meg's video" scandal have all been removed.

This is certainly NOT the first time this has happened, either.

The problem with this is two-fold:

1) YouTube is soooo popular that people don't even think to host their videos anywhere else. YouTube is able to censor videos en masse and delete anything it wants out of existence permanently... Their technology only takes mere seconds to scan their entire network of uploads and find every instance of a clip, image, scene, song, movie, or commercial... It's totally arbitrary whether or not YouTube and the mainstream media choose to delete or keep so-called "infringements of copyright" that appear on the video site. This has a propagandizing effect on the United States and other countries because people don't really think about what they're NOT seeing... They will simply scroll over to the next video by Lady Gaga and forget about the video that would have told them that their milk is poisoned.

2) It's actually ILLEGAL for YouTube to do this, but nobody is calling them on it... Our legislators are paid shills, so who is going to call them on it if not me? ... If not you?
The reason it's illegal (I see you rolling your eyes like you don't believe me), is that these types of videos (political campaign ads and controversial or "newsworthy renderings") fall under a category of materials called "fair use". All media events, whether copyrighted or not that can be deemed newsworthy or relevant enough to warrant illustration and dissemination are good candidates for "fair use" reproduction... This is so reporters, bloggers, artists, satirists, pundits, writers, researchers, teachers, students and pretty much everyone else can go about their daily business without having to ask permission from some corporation before every little move they make.

This is how they get away with it:

1) Most people don't notice because they don't do it on things that they know everyone is looking for at that moment. They do it incrementally. The Meg Whitman scandal has been out of the drive-by media's loop now... Therefore if you're one of the very few Americans who intends on remembering such details, you won't be able to prove anything and your facts suddenly become "assertations".

2) It's us versus them and "them" has all the power. Just try to stick up for your shoddy little YouTube video... but you better have the support of the ACLU or you're going to have to take out a 2nd mortgage for the legal fees.

3) YouTube will just "blame the government" since 70 percent of their takedown "requests" come from Government agencies anyway... Here's the thing to consider: Those "government agencies" are Republicans and Police. But by simply saying "the government told us to take them down", who do you think that benefits? Of course, only one party capitalizes on scary stories, half-truths and innuendo regarding a horrifically huge, all-powerful American Federal Government that won't allow them their "free speech".

My blog is mostly about politics - therefore, if I get a copy of the Meg Whitman campaign ads with translations in "mashup" format, it's FAIR USE and I will be posting them here on Google/Blogger/YouTube and if they dare try to take them down, I'll sue Google... and move my blog elsewhere, and stop using Chrome (even though I am starting to like it). These corporations want you to believe that they are "too big to fail" (and therefore we're supposed to let them write their own laws and them give million dollar bonuses just for screwing us)... But if Democrats win this next round, we'll be ready to remind them otherwise.

Unless Google has already taken over our nation's government websites and starts selling them on Ebay by November...

Ok, that last line was a bit of sarcastic hyperbole... It sounds as obtuse and imaginary as a Republican billionaire robber baron becoming Governor of a swing state and then being allowed to hand-pick only true believers of "Tea Party Economic Dominionism" to teach Economics classes at State Universities and Colleges.

Peace!

P.S. - After looking at the translated Obama site, the only element of possible pandering or clash of messaging that I noticed is that the campaign chooses to focus on the Dream Act instead of the fact that ICE deportations have dramatically increased under the Obama Administration... While that's not exactly an isolated fact that would score Obama the Hispanic vote, it is indeed something that might make moderates and libertarians consider his merit. Still, I think Obama should address the increase in deportations directly with Hispanic voters just to be clear and upfront.

Why Celebrities Need Privacy in Dealing with their Addictions

Some people have found the stance in my editorial about Whitney Houston to be "peculiar" or "surprising" coming from me. The idea is that I am a muckraker who once blogged about Rick Scott's hypocrisy in demanding that Florida State employees submit to regular and random urinalysis for possible drug use.

Let me clarify - Politicians who demand sobriety from the rest of us (and thereby a breach of privacy) are in the wrong... especially when they exempt themselves and those closest to them. It is in the spirit of democracy that I try to bring them down a notch or two. The only thing I apologize for there, is invoking Charlie Sheen in the subheader... He (like everyone else) deserves to be known for his achievements and not just his struggles.

With entertainers, artists and celebrities I feel that our tendency toward supermarket tabloid journalism has gone a bit too far and we actually prevent these struggling people from acheiving the one thing that we seemingly demand of them... sober perfection.

One only needs to peruse this list of 16 celebrities who have died from overdoses to see how this strange phenomenon has held a grip on our most beloved. The list stops short of including Heath Ledger, Whitney Houston, Amy Winehouse or Michael Jackson but does list Brittany Murphy (all of whom died with legally prescribed medications found in their rooms or in their toxicology reports).

12 step programs (also known as the "anonymous" programs) advocate that their members keep a low profile for their own good. This is across the board - not just for celebrities. The reasons are numerous and practical. An addict will most frequently "relapse" to their drug of choice as a response to stress. A sinking career and horribly unflattering photos in supermarket tabloids are most certainly stress-inducing. They would be hard for anyone to deal with, let alone those whose careers depend on a positive public image.

If I could tell struggling celebrities only one thing, it would be that "You are NEVER alone." Many of your peers deal with the same issues even if they are unwilling to discuss the matter. Another thing that they might need to hear is that fans are fickle... They might turn on you today but come back with flowers in hand tomorrow. A bad hair day or a rough interview with Diane Sawyer is not the end of your world.

One person that I admire in this department is a supermodel who fought back against the tidal wave of nasty paparazzi who made every sober day a challenge for her... The story of Naomi Campbell's groundbreaking lawsuit against the Daily Mirror made the UK recognize a virtual "right to privacy" that celebrities previously didn't have. The lawsuit dealt with photos of the supermodel leaving a building known to house Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous and other 12 step meetings.

Perhaps we should also mention here that the street goes both ways. Certain entertainers have also been a bit too forthcoming with their "recovery" in the media and made attempts to capitalize on newfound respect for their courage in the face of struggle. Although 12 step programs are not the "authority" on addiction recovery, many PIO's (public information officers) within the 12-step programs warn against this too. Anonymity is the foundation of these programs for a reason - the realization that addiction (in the disease model) strikes without prejudice for class or social status.

A former PIO in "CMA" (Crystal Meth Anonymous) tells me that he has frequently warned his sponsees and other program members not to seek media attention during the recovery process by appearing on television shows like "Intervention". The problem, he says, is that "when you're new to recovery, you get excited about your new possibilities and want to share them with the whole world. But what you don't realize is that there are hidden challenges that surface later and the group has not selected you, specifically, to represent all of us to the world. Your recovery is private and personal - you might relapse and if you do, it will be easier to hop back on the wagon if you haven't already portrayed yourself as a know-it-all."

"Also," says my source, "a lot of addicts find that excessive controlling behavior from their friends, family and coworkers are a source of many of their problems. They lose their sense of personal identity and these reality shows feed into that process."

Why the Impending Nomination of Romney Is a Special Gift to Social Democrats

Newt Gingrich did what he does best last week. He launched an attack video against Mitt Romney that calls into question his business ethics at this time of high unemployment.

Mitt Romney will be forever tied to the aptly named Bain Capital where he presided over the massive outsourcing of American industrial jobs to foreign nations. The fat-cats over at Bain Capital raked in the dough while American jobs were shipped overseas or dropped altogether.

The only asterisk after this criticism is the idea that Mitt Romney left his CEO position for a short time in order to chair, of all things, the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City. Of course, he still profited from the jobs-killing Bain Capital during his winter vacation - to the tune of millions - but he was not "on the board" at the time that Newt Gingrich and others have chosen to highlight. Serendipitously, this brief hiatus serves as reminder to the American people of both Romney's "Multi-national" nature and his religion - another sore spot for Romney within his party.

(Can somebody please queue the videos of Mormon overseas adoption scandals?)

Until just now, the word "outsourcing" has been on the no-no list of American political rhetoric. The corporate media, being in cahoots with their advertisers, have agreed to refrain from explaining to the public why the jobs just aren't showing up. Even on MSNBC, you'll rarely hear Rachel Maddow go off any tangents about child labor exploitation in the Eastern Hemisphere.

Liberals have been shouting into a vacuum about the evils of outsourcing for quite some time. Terms like "multinational conglomerate" are dog whistles to the far left. We complain bitterly to our facebook friends about the astronomical cost of our defense operations and blame most of it on the ubiquitous "military industrial complex". It presents a rhetorical question that earns Social Democrats a lot of traction: How can we justify denying people unemployment insurance when we are spending so much money on defense? Furthermore, why is our defense money going overseas? Shouldn't our military or American civilians have those jobs?

The questions raised when the topic of outsourcing is mentioned are ones that Republicans - and some Blue Dog Democrats - find troubling to answer. The unrestrained capitalist process of moving jobs around from nation to nation is great if you are a foreign dictator who needs money for guns and bombs and have plenty of child-age workers to exploit. It's also great if you are a Wall Street tycoon who only cares about the bottom line.

But outsourcing is not so great for the average American worker. Can the Republican Party win an election without working class Americans? They didn't have to answer that question in years past because "jobs" was not nearly the buzz word that it has become in this economy.

2012 is going to be a very different sort of terrain for Republicans. They must now answer to their economic principles or lack thereof. Just a few short years ago, the Tea Party did a fine job of obfuscating these issues by promising an economic solution and then delivering a radical conservative social agenda. That kind of thing doesn't work twice and Mitt Romney is the perfect candidate to clarify that.

Romney is the 'Picture of Dorian Gray' for Republicans. He reminds them that they can encourage their party to follow Ayn Rand's economic mythology and Laissez-faire Capitalism or they can encourage Christian Morality but the two concepts cannot be reconciled without a lot of hypocrisy and disenchantment.

The very best thing that might come of a Mitt Romney nomination by Republicans is the election of a Democratically controlled congress which could easily persuade President Obama to put a legislative cap on the outsourcing of American jobs in his 2nd term.