Yesterday I linked to a viral ad for Barack Obama on YouTube.
Today there’s a new ad that uses the same Apple “1984″ commercial and turns the tables on Obama. It’s not quite as slick, though and at this point, derivative.
An “unauthorized” anti-Hillary, pro-Obama campaign ad is up on YouTube. It is based on Apple’s famous “1984″ ad. It is very clever and well-done.
Some are wondering if the candidates could lose control of their messages thanks to technology.
Source: Metafilter. (The comments are interesting.)
When Ann Coulter recently referred to John Edwards as a “faggot” in a backhanded way, she set off a firestorm of protests.
She tried to write it off as joke, but that only betrays that she thinks of “faggots” as a joke. The fact is, no matter how you cut it, she used the slur because she knows that homosexuals are looked down on and she wanted to associate John Edwards with a demonized group in the religious-driven conservative culture.
Ironically, she hurled the insult at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) where Cpl. Matt Sanchez was given an award and celebrated as a conservative hero. That was before blogs exposed him a gay porn star and escort known as Rod Majors.
Coulter has gotten rich by being quick-witted, funny and sometimes actually on-point with her comments, but her recent descent into schoolyard bullying is evidence that she’ll take any cheap shot if it will keep the cameras focused on her.
One of my friends referred to her a “political entertainer.”
I’ve think of her as the Paris Hilton of political commentators. As a media whore, she’ll do or say anything to keep the camera focused on her.
She’s the Anna Nicole Smith of right-wing morality. Seduce a rich old man before he’s about to die to get his fortune.
There are a lot smarter conservative political commentators, but they don’t get the air time that the long-legged blond with an acid-tongue does, in the same way that many talented actors don’t get the air time that Anna Nicole Smith got.
Couter Culture has evolved at the same time as America’s fascination with Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton. Americans increasingly want outrageous personalities in the media as a defense against facing the political realities of our times. All three blonds, bleached or not, have made fortunes satisfying that need.
TV politics is like reality TV where contestants compete for the number one spot, often by engaging in exercises that are intended to show just how much they are willing to humiliate and insult themselves or others–think the middle segment of Fear Factor–in their quest to win the big prize.
The emergence of Coulter Culture is a sign of the times and not a good one.
Do I think she should be silenced? Of course not.
I don’t think Coulter should be silenced because freedom and reality are linked, as I discussed in my book. As long as she has the freedom to speak freely, she reveals who she really is as a person and her insensitivity to gays/lesbians. She wouldn’t use the word “nigger” and expect to get away with it as a joke. It would have instantly demolished her career. It’s a much cheaper shot to pick on a smaller, more despised minority. In taking that cheap shot she reveals her character, or lack thereof.
Just as she has free speech, so do those who call for her to be silenced. They also reveal themselves in the debate to be people who think creating the illusion of respect is an acceptable substitute for genuine respect. It’s much better to know who disrespects you than to push their views into the closet.
It is, however, prefectly legitimate for them to contact cable companies, newpapers and advertisers to say I’m not going to buy your product anymore as long as Coulter Culture is the best you have to offer.
The problem is that there seems to be a growing market for Coulter Culture, just as Americans can’t seem to get enough of Paris Hilton or even dead Anna Nicole Smith. And just like her counterparts, Coulter is laughing all the way to the bank.
Recently I wrote about the withering away of the legal principle of Habeas Corpus in the U.S.
Our legal system just took its assault on basic human rights one step further when a federal appeals court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay don’t have the legal right to challenge their indefinite detention.
The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismisses hundreds of cases filed by foreign-born detainees in federal court and also threatens to strip away court access to millions of lawful permanent residents currently in the United States.
It upholds a key provision of the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a Defense Department system to prosecute terrorism suspects. Now, detainees must prove to three-officer military panels that they don’t pose a terror threat.
That means they are guilty until proven innocent, the reverse of everything the American justice system once stood for.
But who cares?
How much coverage did this story get in the media today compared to the continuing saga of Anna Nicole Smith over who the father of her baby is and who gets to determine where her dead body will be buried [NYT, reg. req.]?
And I almost forgot, Britany Spears checked into rehab after shaving her head over the weekend.