58

Creepy campaign ad of the day


 

Campus Progress Action Calls on Citizens Against Government Wasteto Stop Blocking Our Video and Debate the Issues

Statement of Katie Andriulli, Communications Manager, Campus Progress Action:

“Last Thursday, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) released a lavishly produced video, ‘Chinese Professor’ that seemed to argue that the stimulus bill, health care reform, and other recent policies would bankrupt America and lead to world domination by China.  CAGW announced a national media buy.  Later that day, Campus Progress Action produced a parody video, based on the original, poking fun at the apparently xenophobic tone of the CAGW video and suggesting that the Bush Administration’s fiscal irresponsibility and failure to halt corporate abuses were central to the weakening of the U.S. economy.

Instead of debating these issues on the merits, CAGW demanded that YouTube remove the Campus Progress Action video as a copyright violation.  Following its standard practices, YouTube has suspended the video.  Campus Progress Action has filed a counter-notification asking that its video be reinstated.

Our video is not a copyright violation.  It is a parody, addressing a matter of public policy, and is protected free speech.   Our purpose is to raise awareness on the issues, and to highlight the concern of young people that corporate interests threaten to drown out their voices.  The expensive CAGW video and ad campaign, and CAGW’s subsequent effort to use legal maneuvering to thwart debate, show that those concerns are warranted.

We have reposted our video on Vimeo.com — http://vimeo.com/16107218 — and we will continue to engage young Americans on the issues, and encourage them to speak out and to vote.   We ask CAGW to stop trying to stifle our speech and allow a free market of ideas.”


 
Filed under:

Creepy campaign ad of the day

  1. It's amazing how tea and racism go together.

    Who knew?

    • Lol, I get it now. Emily is really Hedy Frey.

      • Teabaggers and poor spelling also go together.

        • Not much of a free thinker are you Emily? Just insults and slurs.

          • LOL Teabaggers aren't very bright either.

          • Bingo

          • Greg…proving my point….LOL

          • Emily, the Chinese love their tea very, very strong ;) Check out the Dynastic Cycle sometime – you have no idea about China.

          • LOL I do business with China.

    • So depicting China as a rising world power is racism?

      Wow, so we have to take discussing China off the list of acceptable discourse.

      That list is getting mighty short.

      Perhaps our "progressive" friends could just publish an "acceptable topics" list. That would make things easier.

    • Good one Emily !!

  2. I saw the first version on CNN and couldn't belive that something like that could exist in 2010.

    The parody is hilarious and closer to the truth.

    • You couldn't beleive something that could exist in 2010?

  3. That's great. People making commercials for the US should realise that any foreign language dialogue is just begging for a 'Downfall'-esque re-subbing to amuse or to contradict.

  4. The parody was already taken down?!

    • And here I thought satire was a key pillar of free speech.

      I guess the Citizens Against Government Waste don't get the irony of claiming copyright on this eh?

  5. The yellow peril! The yellow peril! Lock up your wives and daughters before the Asian hordes devour us all!

    Oh. Sorry. I got swept up in the moment.

    • heh

  6. What an irrational fear.

    The deficit is only unsustainable when under Bush's watch.

    When it was ONE THIRD the size it is now.

    Now that it has tripled under the Democrats watch,

    worrying about debt sustainability is a "creepy" irrational fear.

    • yawn.

  7. Sort of like saying driving 70 mph is dangerous.

    But worrying about being in a car going 210 mph is "fear mongering".

    How ironic that the critique of that clip is every bit Orwellian as the makers of clip intended to portray.

  8. Also, just to be clear on the politically correct rulebook.

    References to China as a rising world power is now racism?

    Good to know, I'll add that to the list.

    (grabs pen to write next to the last item on the list which reads "cannot criticise B. Obama")

    • No matter how many times you post, chet….you'll notice no one even bothers explaining things to you any more.

      • Please Emily, please liberate me from my state of ignorance. Explain to me why that clip is "racist".

        • Oh I think you know very well why it's racist.

          Imagine it being a room full of blacks talking about 'taking over America'

          • Please educate me more. I am learning.

            The roll of students from China should have been cast by caucasians?

            Are those historical film clips that show Japanese vowing to destroy America in 1942, are those racist too? Perhaps they should be edited and have a mixture of whites, blacks, mid-easterners, so as to be more multiculturally (though factually incorrect) "appropriate"?

            In your example of "a room full of blacks",

            if the creator of the film was trying to make the point that Uganda could economically take over the world (assuming Uganda was in the same position as China economically) would you use white actors to fill the roll?

            I yearn to learn how we can "correctly" express facts, and opinion.

          • Dear chet…next time you copy out the Con brochure, check the spelling.

            Mind you, if it's all spelled….or reasoned….that badly in the brochure, I can't help you. You're all too far gone. LOL

          • I'm too "far gone"?

            You mean I cannot be helped, or "cured"?

            You just leave me with the "room full of blacks" is racist comment and I'm supposed to survive in this politically correct world without you.

            I need to know more. Please. Don't leave me.

            Is the depiction of "a room full of blacks" always racist?

            For instance, I absolutely love the movie "The Color Purple", its one of my favourites, but now that I think of it, it has a lot of scenes with rooms "full of black people". Some times the "black people" are doing good things (the protagonists) but sometimes they're doing bad things (the antagonists).

            Are the scenes with the protagonists OK but the ones with the antagonists racist?

            Should I throw out my copy of The Color Purple?

          • It means you're so blue from soaking in the kool-aid, there's no hope for you.

            You not only have pretzel logic, your pretzels are soggy. LOL

          • Don't laugh. I need help. It's not funny.

            One more question:

            What do I say to others who have been "soaking in the kool aid" who say that by using the "racist" label as a deplorable smear to silence debate, as opposed to highlighting legitimate racism (which racism does still exist in the world today),

            not only serves to reduce discourse and eliminate thoughtful expression of real concerns, but ironically actually DETRACTS from the fight against racism by watering down the very notion so as to be unidentifiable and meaningless. Or in other words, that using the racist label as a smear, actually promotes racism.

            I anxiously await your next smear.

          • You say, 'hi comrade'

          • Chet – I think the difference between this made up film and an historical newscast is somewhat important. You see "made-up" implies that it comes from someones imagination. Historical is real.

            That said, I do not think this is racist. It is just fear-mongering and stupid. DO you not agree that the point of this is to arouse American fears that their power in the world is slipping (true) because of the policies of Obama (not true). What is the best way to do this? China. You may have noticed that right now, US politicians are falling all over themselves to criticise and demonise China (often correctly, but I maintain that this is coincidence).

            In fact, during any period of economic problem, xenophobia increases, so is this a shock? No.

          • The deficit has tripled.

            Tripled. Under Obama.

            This is unlike anything we've seen in our lifetimes and it's not just more than under Bush, but more by an order of several magnitudes.

            And do you know which country has bought most of the US debt?

            Again, it's like saying under Bush, 70 mph was driving at a dangerous speed, but now under Obama worrying that driving 210 mph is dangerously fast is "fear mongering".

            This isn't fear mongering. It's basic math.

          • The US GDP is $14T a year….the US isn't in trouble because of stimulus, healthcare or trying to stablize GM and the banks…..it's because they have been running two wars for years, and have 1000 bases around the world to keep up.

            Imperial overstretch is what does Empires in…every time.

            This occurred under Bush, not Obama….Bush was in charge when the G20 met in DC to try and sort this financial mess out. Obama inherited the problem and is trying to right the situation….but it's hard to do when the bleeding continues in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It has been complicated by Wall St and private companies committing massive fraud regarding land and 'investment funds'. They have sold 'air', not things of real value.

            Japan owns as much US debt as China….plus ME oil countries and places like the UK.have large chunks…but it suits the 'opposition' in the US to promote the idea of the 'evil Chinese'. The Chinese have done nothing wrong.

            Americans always need a villain to keep their narrative going….but actually they did it to themselves.

          • "actually they did it to themselves"

            That was the point of the ad. This wasn't an ad to launch a military attack on China. This was an ad to change domestic policy so countries like China have the power to call in their collective debt.

            As for your description of America being an "imperial" power, we'll put that up there along with your charges of racism.

            Amerca doesn't conquer and expropriate other countries assets. They do so via bilateral or multilateral trade and commerce, which is always beneficial to both.

            No country has been more responsible for international prosperity than the US. This quasi marxist "imperialist" gobbledeegook is the "narrative" that leftists like to keep alive.

            One based on blind ideology and not facts and reason.

          • No, it's an ad to make villians of the Chinese, when it's US war spending that's the culprit.

            Imperialism, as defined by The Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

            The US is an imperialist empire….or it tried to be at least.

            It failed….and in far shorter a time than all the other ones have done.

  9. Parody vid is down : "This video is no longer available..

  10. Funny.. The Chinese have the MOST stimulus spending. All corporations are government owned and controlled. The only thing they don't have is debt, because they artificially lower their currency so they have an always positive inflow of cash (which they must spend by buying, amongst other things, US currency/debt).

    • Hey, if that belief helps you make it through the night…..

      • If what belief – that the ad is stupid because the Chinese would not/could not criticise the US government for over spending on stimulus, introducing health care and "taking over" corporations, because they do all this 10x more?

        I think you are getting paranoid Emily – watch out for those Hollywood starwhackers

        • I don't think you understand either situation, but it's your problem not mine.

          • What are you talking about? Either situation? Do you ever speak clearly? What about the situation don't I understand? It is a fear mongering ad, using an irrational premise. They are using the Chinese – the world leader in government stimulus spending – to criticise US stimulus spending. It is wacko.

            What do I not understand there?

          • The US problem has nothing to do with stimulus spending.

            China is not a 'leader' in stimulus spending.

          • Okay – China has spent the most, in what we would call "stimulus" of any country in the world. Look at the extreme growth of rapid transit in Shanghai, Beijing and a dozen other cities. Look at the spread of high speed rail, highways, housing etc. China is the extreme in terms of government spending to stimulate the economy.

            I agree that the US economic problem has nothing to do with stimulus, except that they did not engage in enough of it. That is why I find the ad so funny. It is so ludicrous that the country that has engaged in the MOST stimulus would criticise the US for doing too much ehn, in fact, they have done too little.

            Fact is, China needs a strong US economy to sell stuff too….

          • China sells more elsewhere, notably to the EU, than it does to the US….and every country pays for roads and the military and fire depts and all manner of other things. It's only called 'stimulus' during a downturn.

  11. The video isn't all that controversial in its predictions: the idea that China will be dominant by 2030 is pretty much the orthodox analysis, isn't it?

    The idea that this has something to do with healthcare or debt is, at worst, a matter of accelerating this eventuality by a few years. This is really about momentum and demographics and since we don't have much control over either, we should be making videos that embrace the Snapple/Avis outlook: we're Number 2! So we work harder!

  12. I find this video offensive because it's an insult to people's intelligence.

    If public finances are the issue, then debate about tax policy.

    If social policy is the issue, then debate about why one choice is better than the other.

    But to go and short-circuit intelligent discussion by raising fear of foreign ownership by stereotyped Chinese people (really, this guy would not be out of place as the villain in a third-rate Hollywood production) is contemptible. Why? I could give a handful (I dislike stereotypes, it's cynically targeted at an irrational fear, etc.) but in this case I'll focus on one: because it's not a valid argument in this context. How so? Because it could be used by both sides: if you don't have enough money, you can spend less OR you could raise more. Failure to do either lands you in debt.

    Still in doubt, try this: change the little "health care" segment to a "letting a few rich people keep all their money for themselves" segment, and you've just turned the tables around. But it wouldn't be any less contemptible.

    • What "stereotype" do you think this ad unfairly portrayed?

      I thought they portrayed the students as bright young inquiring minds like any other we see in our universities (indeed that was the intended effect, so that we could relate to it), except they were Chinese students, not American (again the whole point, the roles have been reversed).

      The reality is that the racists smear is being used to silence debate.

      It's repugnant and there's no place for it in our democratic society.

      Racism is real. And when you see it, you know it. If you have to do gymnastic contortions to eke out some element of racism in an argument you dissaggree with, then chances are you're smearing, not calling out real racism.

      As I stated above. Using racism as a smear actually promotes racism. Which makes the maker of the smear even more repugnant because actual racism isn't really the concern for the charge maker. It's all in the smear. And if that smear actually does a disservice to the fight against racism, who cares?

      • LOL welcome to chet's world….pretzel logic.

      • Hey chet ? I'll let you in on a secret: I didn't speak of racism. You did.

        But hey, feel free to completely miss the point. No skin off my nose.

        • Racism was raised earlier on, and I was responding to that.

          In fact, Emily made the charge, she commented after me and before you on this sub thread.

          You didn't use the word, but you referred to "stereotypes" about Chinese.

          I made a specific inquiry about your charge of using sterotypes.

          I understand why you'd want to avoid that query too, given that it's baseless.

          • Mmm no, my point was about the US trying to find a villain to blame. And in this case they managed to find one people could be racist about too.

            It's a teabagger twofer.

          • Oh good lord. It's a stereotype to portray the Chinese as a) playing the long game while everyone else is playing the short game; b) having an eye on world domination; c) as a uniform group thinking as one. The "professor" at the front of the class is using speech patterns that are stereotypical of the "Hollywood Asian Villain", complete with the knowing look and the well-placed chuckle.

            It's a cartoon version of the Chinese, which makes it stereotypical.

            You know what else it's a cartoon of ? Enlightened democratic debate.

          • "Playing the long game" is stereotypical of Chinese? Really.

            "Having an eye on world domination" I thought that was the stereotype of Americans. And in any event it wasn't "having an eye on" it was a portrayal of that happening after the fact.

            So in other words,

            one cannot raise the issue of Chinese domination.

            Which proves my point. We're not "allowed" to raise it.

            "Progressives" bring out the magnifying glass and tweezers to dissect and then conflate any point being made into charges of bigotry, racism or stereotyping, for one reason and one reason only.

            To shut down debate by deligitimizing the point being made.

            The "progressive" version of "enlightenede democratic debate"

          • See…there's your problem

            You don't want to 'understand' anything, you just want to recite wingnut dogma.

            And you do a lousy job of it at that.

          • Yeah, you're right. This ad was all about engaging in an informed discussion on the strategic value of holding public debt. It presented a balanced assessment of the risks, showed how the United States also holds the public debt of various countries and explained how all of this could play out for the future of international relations. It invited the viewer to consider all options to avoid public debt being owned by a single country, including international agreements, reducing spending and increasing revenues.

            It was not in any way a crass attempt at defeating domestic policies by raising fear of a foreign takeover using the stereotypical Chinese as portrayed in countless Hollywood movies, usually starring Mel Gibson.

            You're absolutely right, chet. Thank you for enlightening me.

  13. This video is going to be amazing for caption contests. They basically invented their own meme (especially awesome considering the current 'Asian Father' meme).

    Anyway, another video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3am6hnuFXnw

  14. It's got 1984 Apple Ad look to it, eh. Also an IPad – what's going on here man!!

Sign in to comment.