I'm thinking about turning in mine. After all, she did have a Palin bumper sticker on her car during the 2008 campaign, and her cannas keep coming up in my yard. Plus, I think the White House is giving away toaster ovens this month!
If you haven't heard about it already, I'm talking about flag@whitehouse.gov, that email address that has conservatives hollering that we're turning into a police state or, at the very least, a land of snitches. I guess two terms worth of warrantless wiretaps weren't quite enough to peg the old outrage meter.
From what I understand there was a blog published on the White House's Briefing Room website, called "Facts Are Stubborn Things", which stated, "Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions."
But, the real trouble begins with this statement:
- There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
Now, I can understand that this would raise some flags, no pun intended. For the record, I think this is kind of a stupid idea. I'm sure there are lots of staffers and interns around the White House who would have the time to surf the net every day and find this stuff on their own. It's not like it's underground or anything. Just go to Free Republic, if you can stand it, or read the letters that get written to Salon. There you'll find just about every bit of disinformation and fear-mongering on proud display. If that's too difficult, just watch Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. They seem to be on the cutting edge here as far as making stuff up.
I certainly have no interest in sending anything to flag@whitehouse.gov. And no one is forcing me to do so. So, while it is a heavy-handed approach, as well as unnecessarily playing into the hands of the more paranoid among us, I don't think it goes as far as curtailing our civil liberties or infringing on our right to free speech.
But don't take my word for it. How about this, from SmallGovTimes.com, a website which bills itself as "among the first to address potential privacy breaches at the hands of our increasingly powerful and overshadowing federal government...". Their take on it is that this is "much ado about nothing". From their article:
- In truth, the administration is purely at the mercy of whoever forwards emails and links to online resources to the administration’s email address. If they include names, then yes, names will exist in the email’s inbox. If names are omitted, then they do have “just the arguments” that they want to rebut. Added, names are only as reliable as the computer user who types them into their email application. Emailers can just as easily assume the name “Snoopy” as they can “Sam Smith”.
- While we are certainly sensitive regarding the privacy and security of the American people, it seems like a stretch to link this particular issue to somehow violating the Constitutional rights of the American people to express themselves. The administration is not preventing anyone from voicing his or her concerns over health care.
- If they were, this web site would have been shut down quite some time ago.
- And similarly, there are no credible allegations of the administration investigating individuals who happen to disagree with their stance on health care. If these allegations become credible in the future, then the SmallGovTimes.com will be at the forefront in publicizing the issue. But until then, the establishment of this email address is diverting attention away from truly frightening invasions of the privacy of the American people within the National Security Agency and other domestic intelligence groups that need to be further investigated.
And besides, I'm willing to bet that the number of hostile emails going to the White House far outnumber those of people who fancy themselves as tipsters. I predict that the email address will soon become non-operational.
So my neighbor is safe for the time being. At least until they start giving away Neckline Slimmers.
UPDATE: Just for fun...
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Stellaa
TheBarkingLot4
Sankofa
Tom Cordle
neilpaul
Kathy Riordan
Salon.com
Comments
Phaedo, ??.
Good post.
Obama singled out the media for distorting things and said there is no intention to make an enemies list. This address will be used to respond to questions raised.
Obama presumes that people might send information to the address and so his administration can let the public know if such information is true. It's communication with the public and I understand why it might be frightening ---Bush & Cheney only communicated with the public when they were up for election otherwise they couldn't care less what the public thought.
Isn't this whole fuss over an email address and what Obama wants the public to do with it a sideshow? And doesn't this posting perpetuate this side show which provides more fodder for the right wing?
Okay, I'll give you that liberals and conservatives are right to be weary about ideas that further develop government into Big Brother. But, this is not some Big Brother scheme and putting focus on this ignores the real issue --- health care reform.
It ignores the real issue ---what insurance industry operatives are doing to prevent the public option from being in the health care reform bill that Congress passes.
It ignores the fact that the status quo cannot continue and all attention must be put on those who are using right wing extremism to maintain the status quo.
However, I still don't think that the "flag" concept is the best way to go. It doesn't necessarily encourage dialogue, does it? It simply asks for information.
This is one of the few things about the Obama administration that I have ever criticized, and I'll stand by that criticism. I do agree that it is a distraction, though.
Anyone who's run any kind of political effort in the age of the Net knows that's something you do. You ask your supporters to keep you advised on the other side's new propaganda as they hear about it so you can prepare responses.
If the White House were encouraging that people foward the contact info along with or instead of the misinformation then you would kind of have a point. But they are not.
You complain in a later comment that this is not about communicating - it is drawing information. Again, wrong- they are drawing that information for the express purpose of creating a dialogue and understanding what is being said out there so they can respond to the lies and rumors that make people uneasy.
Maybe to placate the loonies they ought to have made clear that people should scrub the email addresses from the forwards they submit. But on the other hand the purpose is communicating and the loonies will never be placated.
I am sure your post was a sign of your inherent fairness but believing that those who disseminate false information about the health care bill need any "playing into the hands" seems to be just whishful thinking.
As Kevin pointed this out in his comment, the other side is organized by the industry that sees its profits at risk and will do everything (fair and unfair) to mislead the public to prevent this from happening.
If you have any doubt please check out the the blog at this link and take a look at the comment where I posted the real text excerpts of the draft health care bill vis a vie the definite lies:
http://open.salon.com/blog/ronp01/2009/08/08/republican_e-mail_on_a_proposed_health_care_reform_bill
Thanks for the blog. I didn't really ever think you would snitch me out.
But just remember two things about White House communications:
1: They cannot delete any email whatsoever. Period. It's in a vault.
2: They are prohibited by law from compiling a list of people solely on the basis of exercising their 1st amendment rights.
So when the White House says the aren't keeping names of the people being reported, it's a lie. They have to keep those names in perpituity.
But, the criticisms have made me realize that perhaps I need to be clearer when I write, especially when I attempt to be humorous with a "hot button" political issue. In all honesty, I never ever thought this thing would end up on the cover. Blogs that I have slaved over have been virtually ignored! This was kind of a quickie.
Thanks all.
I'm sorry, but you think wrong. Eventually, yes, it all comes out. When is the big thing. The difference between getting the other side's new talking point now and getting it after a few days that its been percolating in forums and emails - is huge in terms of response team. If you can get hold of your opponent's new BS before a critical mass of people have already heard it and internalized it as "fact", and have your people ready to smack it down the minute it hits mass media, rather than after it's gained traction and been repeated enough to become "truth"... I can't tell you how invaluable that is in the game.
As you may have guessed, I know a thing or two about running a response team, and am not just arguing with you for the hell of it.
As for ammo for the nutjobs, when you have people portraying end-of-life counseling that is mandatory only for the provider as "state-forced euthanasia", I think it's time to stop worrying what the crazies will do. They are gonna do their thing regardless, and any expression containing more than one sentence, a compound sentence of any sort or words with more than two syllables can be "twisted" by people with a negative value respect for truth or facts.
Will this particular action be worth it? Remains to be seen. But the Internet-PR thinking behind it is both solid and rather basic. That's how you harness the power of your millions of supporters. That's how campaign '08 was won.
And no, WH staff cannot scour "Little Green Footballs" and "World Net Daily" all day.
Fred, a blog about the specifics of the bill from someone who has read it would be much appreciated, I'm sure.
Camille Paglia, front page Salon.
This whole thing was taken completely out of context as anyone who read the original can attest. The only mistake the Obama people made was being transparent. They sure as fuck did not tell people to turn in their neighbours -- the issue was about inflammatory email's for fuck's sake.
On a more cheerful note, big congrats on the cover!!
Asking a citizen (which is a real role in Government additional to the three branches) to send along something that they hear that sounds misleading on health care isn't an odd request.
What is odd is that this post and some of the replies have immediately jumped on the Marxist bandwagon. After watching people re-elect a guy that attacked a country to bring about biblical events, hoping that the End Times would make him the last president nothing should be surprising.
On health care my opinion in simple, citizens need to take responsibility for their health, and the data showing over 60% of Americans have BMI's over 25 means that isn't happening.
There are 4 simple things that eliminate 80% of heart and circulatory problems and most Americans ignore them completely unless they are watching the Biggest Loser.
The four items, Eat good food, don't ever smoke cigarettes, don't get fat and find a way to increase your heart rate by 50% at least 3.5 hours per week.
Those of us who follow these are a little tired of paying for the puffing loads that I encounter at airports and stores these days, isn't there any sense of shame that you are counting on people you don't know to forgive your sins and pay for your salvation?
Again, for those who might have missed it, here are the two main points of my post:
(1) There is nothing nefarious about flag@whitehouse.gov.
(2) But in this climate, with all of the hysteria out there, it is, as Silkstone points out, politically dumb. I'm not sure the payoff is worth the fallout.
I commented with your previous comments in mind. And, I wasn't entirely sure this was satirical.
Now it's obvious especially because of the YouTube video you added. That was not there when I commented.
So, my remarks are no longer specifically to you but for those who read this and took you seriously.
Unfortunately, if one cannot detect that you are trying to be humorous or satirical, your post just creates more noise that drowns out the real debate.
I do feel that the way this appears on the cover is a bit misleading. "The White House Wants You To Turn In Your Neighbors" has quite a different feel than my actual title, "Have You Turned In Your Neighbor Yet?". But, it looks like it's about to drop off the cover here in just a bit, which is probably a good thing!