Slashdot Mirror
Maker of Anti-Clinton Video Outed, Loses Job
Raul654 writes "Philip de Vellis, the author of the anti-Hilary Clinton viral video was outed yesterday on the Huffington Post. The company he worked for, Blue State Digital — a Democratic Internet strategy company that does work for Barack Obama — has now fired him as a result. Said Vellis: 'I made the "Vote Different" ad because I wanted to express my feelings about the Democratic primary, and because I wanted to show that an individual citizen can affect the process.'"
As Hilary laughs it off saying it was better than her off key rendition of the Star Spangled Banner I imagine her muttering under her breath, "yeah, and the really funny part is that asshole is out of a job and if I have anything to do with it, will never work again."
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I think they fired him because that is what Democrats do
when put into a corner. Sacrifice someone below them.
Take no responsibility.
politics as usual, yawn.
the poor guy should get a raise.
However, by the standards of 21st century political warfare, it was a creampuff. It was funny and didn't take itself too seriously, and was aimed to deflate Hillary, not directly attack her. Compare that to former Edwards campaign staffer Amanda Marcotte calling Catholics "godbags" and talking about how God filled the virgin Mary with "his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit" and it seems like the tiniest of molehills.
About the only person who really has casue to complain about the whole kerfluffle is Steve Jobs...
Crow T. Trollbot
Why isn't Apple's legal department all over this? Much as we love to hate copyright laws on slashdot, I think this is a shining example of the kind of copyright abuse that really should be prosecuted.
That aside, I don't really understand this ad's message. It's a hell of a stretch to compare Hillary Clinton to Big Brother (the current administration, on the other hand...)
oh wait, he didn't have anything to do with this?
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
As far as I have heard, the person didn't come forward and confess his sins all on his own, it was rather because civilian investigators had come very close to track him down. Rather than himself and the company being outed, he resigned. This isn't surprising - resignation is always preferable to outing so long as you are certain that you will be outed if not.
Now, obviously the creator wasn't known before. Through my knowledge of the minds of quite a few people, it wouldn't be very surprising if these _actually_ thought that Obama supporters were NOT behind this - that it rather was a Republican attempt at FUD. I can actually imagine that quite a few of these were over themselves in delight of how the video would be traced to Republican HQ. I know, crazy visions I have sometimes.
The video actually got attention globally. In my home country, the headlines were 'Video attacking Hilary spread - creator is unknown'. Which, together with the aforementioned investigation, implies that the identity of the creator was in some way _important_, and that a lack of identity was _newsworthy_.
The funny part is the contrast. Not only:
* could fifty million people make ten videos each portraying George Bush in negative satirical, negative humourous, negative sadistical, negative surreal, negative scatological, negative bestial, negative noir ways and few people in the media (at least aforementioned newspaper) would raise an eyebrow beyond stifling a laughter, and indeed it would be hailed as 'Internet Activism', 'How Youtube Won the Election', but also;
* any "hunt" for the creator of these, or indeed any _implication_ that the identity of the creator _should be known_ would be hailed as McCarthyism, a witchhunt, a desire by the 'Bushists' and 'Corporatists' for retribution, an attack at the fundamental human rights, freedom of speech and the tenents the country was built on, but:
* if the creator was in the least way disadvantaged on having his identity discovered, the outcry would be monumental.
This is something I find rather hilarious.
After some contemplation of the world, it strikes me that the application of morals is _not_ about which _methods_ are used, but rather about which _goal_ is fought. You could fabricate paedophilic abuse photographs with Donald Rumsfeld and it would be a good and proper act, as it "fights evil", while you could point out that Obama has fifteen unpaid parking tickets, and it would be improper, besides the point, dishonest, irrelevant, as it "fights good". General principles and moral rules is simply a ruse that is employed because there exists some public convention that you cannot attack your target directly, but must coach your attack in generalist terms.
Personally I have, on the basis of this (the observation of morals and principles in general, not this individual case) found that, as generalised principles are in practice dead in favour of attacks, with me being the "evil" party in the eyes of quite a number, the only proper course of action is for me not to apply any form of inhibitions on my counter-fight to destroy and/or and ruin the lives of the ones I see as evil.
A change to the voice over, and switching some faces? The parallel attempted to be drawn between Hilary Clinton and the authoritarian figure of the original advert is weak, gaining strength only from trying to force you to "see" a connection.
The following implication that Barack Obama is somehow fighting for free thought, as the sledgehammer-throwing-runner symbolizes in the original, is fairly ridiculous, and just reinforces my overall impression:A weak showing, and a weaker story
I think the point was to portray Hillary Clinton as a fascist, but I hardly think she qualifies. She is a lot of things, but that isn't one of them. And the ad screamed "pot calling the kettle black", as Obama was also in power during most of the decline of civil liberties that we've seen under Bush Jr., and unlike Hillary, was not a junior senator while most of this was going on. If either Democratic candidate deserves the fascist moniker, it would be Obama, not Clinton.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
- Obama went to a madrasa in Indonesia in his youth. He hid this fact before it was brought to light.
- Though he claimed to be a Christian now, how come no muslim want his head like they did with the Afghan guy who converted out of Islam? He got their support even though the Quran explicitely prohibits apostasy from Islam and prescribes punishments for leaving Islam.
- He claimed to be an Israeli supporter but he said Palestinians are the most oppressed people on Earth (Darfur anyone?)
Call me paranoid, but there is something else going on with this guy. and I am not anti-American to wish him to occupy your White House.
- He did go to a muslim school. In Indonesia, that's called madrasa (not to be confused with Pakistan's madrasa which is like pondok pesantren in Indonesia).
- His father is a muslim. By the law of Islam, that makes him a muslim because no children of muslims can be born non-muslims.
- He said Palestinians were the most oppressed on Earth. That means they are more oppressed than Darfurians who are suffering from the on-going genocide. The US aid to Sudan is irrelevant, but as long as you mention aids, the US has spent billions of dollars on the Palestinians. In fact, the Palestinians are the most aid funded per capita than any other group in the world despite their support of terrorism (not just some radical minority -- Hamas was elected to the office. PLO and Hamas charters both call for the destruction of Israel), unlike the black muslims of Sudan.
Mod this troll down.
Oh wait, somebody just did.
That will teach you to pollute the Slashbot Hive Mind with your heresies.