YouTube, Stop Use Of The N-Word - A Follow-Up

Earlier today I posted a blog entry asking YouTube to disallow use of the N-word, and made this video to explain as well:



Over at the YouTube Partner Forum, someone named ugleeee wrote:

Words are only as powerful as people allow them to be. The problem with the N-word is that black people (or so it seems) are not exactly united on a front to stamp out the word. You have a good portion of them that have attempted to 'take the word back' and change it's connotation. I think you'd have more luck with this if there were a more widely spread movement among blacks to stop use of the word.

I don't care if the comedian Chris Rock uses it. I don't care if "black people (or so it seems) are not exactly united on a front to stamp out the word," I don't want it used on my YouTube channel.

Moreover, regardless of how one turns it, being called the N-word makes the hair stand on your skin, one way or another.

What's really crazy about this, and perhaps speaks to how some of us (or perhaps most of us) as African Americans, seem to embrace a second-class status, is that the NBA makes a commercial asking the public not to use the F-word in reference to Gays, but I've never seen a commercial asking the public not to do the same with respect to blacks.

Something's wrong here.

But regardless of what's wrong, or what other black folks think, I don't want the N-word on my YouTube channel.

YouTube, Stop Use Of The N-Word, For Brand's Sake

The YouTube Partner Program was started in 2007 as a way to reward it's most popular video bloggers and encourage them to make even more video content.

The idea of the YouTube Partner Program, or what I will refer to as YTP on occasion here, is to match relevant ads with the video subject matter.

YTP is a great win-win for advertisers seeking space to place ads on YouTube pages; YouTube, which wants to make money from the content, and the YouTuber, like me, who makes the content.

Thanks to YouTube's now famous (and, one would guess, rich) News and Politics Editor Steve Grove, I was invited to become a YouTube Partner that same year, which arguably makes me one of YouTube's first partners.

Being a YouTube Partner is great in every way, except one: the allowed, unblocked use of the n-word in the comments' section on video pages. It's a problem YouTube must end, first, because I can't imagine any brand wanting to have it's name associated with any channel video page that's littered with such words in its comments section, and second, because it's just plain hurtful.

I spend a lot of time banning commenters and removing comments containing that racial epithet, but it's like trying to stamp out an army of ants. I've even toyed with the idea of starting a "YouTube N-word hall of shame" and making a video just to give light to YouTube account holders who use the word on my channel, thinking that would make them stop.

And then realizing the idea might backfire, and lead to greater use of it, not less.

And before you go on about how blacks use the n-word, this is one black man who doesn't use it, never has, and doesn't want anyone else using it around him, regardless of color.

And when it's used on my channel, it's not presented as a term of endearment, it's intended to insult and to harm me.

Look, I'm not complaining about being black, because from my perspective, you get to see how people really are. If you want to see if that so-called good hearted person really is just that, observe how they treat someone like me.

And yes, that goes for other African Americans, and all other "afro-something's" in the World.

While society has improved dramatically over my lifetime, it's now morphed into a culture war between racists and non-racists, and blacks who are self-hating versus those who aren't, as well.

And while open society may seems to have progressed to an even greater extent than my last sentence would imply, in the online World, it's different. There's racism at every turn, from commenters and trolls, to offensive blog posts and forums.

But YouTube should not be the place that reflects this problem, and especially not for its content producers like myself. I fear that I may be unfairly penalized for something I can't easily control. Am I losing ad dollars because I can't bat off every n-word?

Yes, I make a fair income from the YTP, and Google AdSense automatically places ads, but I can't see the advertisers decision that may lead to an ad not being on my channel. And how do I know what the reason is? From my cursory analysis, it's less about my appearance - after all I'm a good looking brother, I think - than it is about the comments and the n-word.

That's a problem that's unique to me as a black person, and at times, like when I discovered the use of the n-word up to 52 times each month, it frankly makes me cry. If I can avoid people who act like this in the real World, I should be able to do so on YouTube. I can't attract the best brands with this problem, even though they may understand it's beyond my control.

I have raised this issue with YouTube and other YouTube partners at partner meetups in the past, and the discussion went along the lines of "If you make money from the overall volume of comments, let them talk." But I'm tired of those comments popping up in my email box on a near-daily basis because they're hurtful.

There must be a better situation than this forced masochism.

YouTube commenters must understand that YouTube is a private company and my channel belongs to me. It's not a free speech public forum, but a business - at least for me. A business I can't run effectively if I can't control against undesirable words that could chase away advertisers. There's no example in modern history of an advertiser who was drawn to the use of the n-word, and scores of examples of advertisers running away from it.

YouTube itself would benefit from a ban on the use of the n-word because it would make the video-sharing site an even better place for marketers and for people of color, especially blacks like me. One of the first YouTube Partners.

That's not too much to ask for.  

Patients Satisfaction Surveys: Valid Test, Or Make-Work for Money?

Perhaps you remember Sam, the chronic inebriate whose story I shared to discuss the pitfalls of basing doctor pay on patient satisfaction surveys.

Looking at his discharge papers, I wondered who helped Sam fill his survey out, and how much their "help" affected the results.

After all, millions upon millions of dollars are already now at stake for hospitals. And individual doctors' Medicare payments are expected to be based on their satisfaction scores, as early as the year 2015.

Surely these surveys are validated and standardized, right? Surely there is policing to prevent "helping" people fill them out? You might be surprised by the answers to those questions.

For instance, when you're talking about something like "satisfaction," there are some regions where patients are less forthcoming with praise (check out the difference between, say, a quiet night hospital score in California versus Alabama).

These scores also lack variability. Westby Fisher, a clinical associate professor at University of Chicago's Pritzker School of Medicine, calculated, with the Kaiser Foundation, the mean, median and standard deviation of hospital patient satisfaction data. Nationwide, there is just a two to six percent variation. In other words, the results vary arbitrarily, but very little. By statistical standards, it’s not a very good test.

Read more...

Disclaimer: Identifiable patients mentioned in this post were not served by R. Jan Gurley in her capacity as a physician at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, nor were they encountered through her position there. The views and opinions expressed by R. Jan Gurley are her own and do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the City and County of San Francisco; nor does mention of the San Francisco Department of Public Health imply its endorsement.

Sen Rand Paul Patriot Act Amendment Killed

As this blog post is written, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who this blogger considers to be a wacky guy on civil rights issues, is watching his Patriot Act amendment, called Amendment 348, go down in flames in the U.S. Senate.

Senator Paul, who worked to force an amendment to the Patriot Act that, if passed, would have effectively suspended the suspicious activity reports provision of the legislation, long and forcefully under the assertion that the basic rights of Americans were being violated.

But Mr. Paul's spirited presentation was greatly over-shadowed by fact that we live in a time of great fear of even possible terrorist attacks.

And when a deranged person is able to do harm to someone - as in the case of Jared Loughner's gun attack on Arizona Representative Gail Giffords - we ask 'How did they get the gun, and why wasn't law enforcement tracking them?'

Well, if Senator Paul had his way, America would have lost the ability to track any one who gave reasonable suspicion of terrorist behavior, by checking their gun purchasing records. Now are their abuses to the law? Yes. But throwing the 'baby out with the bathwater' isn't the answer.

Rand Paul sees the World via a rather narrow Libertarian lens. If he's to succeed beyond one term, he has to realize that view point, by design, is now always in accordance with America's desires.

Even hard-core conservative Republicans like Georgia's Saxby Chambliss (who said he owns more guns than anyone in the Senate) failed to support "my friend" Rand Paul in this vote, saying it would "harm law enforcement." 

Yeas 91, Nays, 4 Amendment 348 is withdrawn.  That means it's killed. 

Subscribe to Zennie62 on Twitter.

Vertex Incivek Patient Steve Goodwin On The FDA Approved Drug

In my last blog posts, I introduced the new drug INCIVEK by Vertex as a way to help people suffering from Hepatitis C. As I reported, Hepatitis C is a virus, particularly common among African Americans, and that causes inflammation of the liver.

Hepatitis C effects an estimated 270 million to 300 million people Worldwide, 30,000 people in Santa Clara County, 12,000 people in San Francisco City and County, and 2,400 new cases were reported in 2010.

For this blog post, and as promised, I interviewed the main advocate for the use of INCIVEK. His name is Steve Goodwin.

Steve Goodwin is a chief engineer and a one-person band, talking to anyone who will listen about INCIVEK. In the video, below, Goodwin eloquently explains how he came to find out about INCIVEK via the use of the website Clinical Trials, at clinicaltrials.gov, and how it's helped him to a more normal path of life.



Steve also wrote a paper of INCIVEK and how it's helped him, and all of this has been his doing because he's, frankly, happy to be alive. Here's what he wrote:

I am eternally grateful to Vertex Pharmaceuticals and the UCSF Medical Center, for providing me the opportunity to eradicate the virus that I likely had for over 35-years. I was part of a Phase 2b Study referred to as PROVE 3 in 2007. This study was designed for subjects with Genotype 1 Hepatitis C who had not achieved a Sustained Viral Response (SVR) with a prior course of interferon based therapy. I was most fortunate to be in the arm of the trial that has now been approved by the FDA. This included triple treatment of INCIVEK with the standard of care (SOC) for the first 12-weeks and then a continuation of pegylated interferon alpha 2a and ribavirin for the remaining 12-weeks. All said, my treatment was only 24-weeks compared to the previous SOC of 48-weeks.

Although I was asymptomatic for the approximate 35-years prior to obtaining the elusive cure, I knew that the viral infection was continuing to damage my liver in insidious ways that I was unaware of. I also educated myself on the disease and realized that I could not expect the disease to remain dormant forever. Recent studies have indicated that as an individual approaches the age of 60 and beyond, that the disease begins to progress at a much greater level, as compared to being young. The body’s ability to fight off the infection by replacing damaged liver cells is reduced with advancing age. I did not want to be part of those statistics and decided to do anything and everything I could to get the monkey off my back.

Regarding reported side effects, I would have to say that the worst thing for me was temporarily losing the ability to taste (hypogeusia) chocolate and coffee! As for the reports of rash, I had a slight increase in the sensation of itching (pruritus) but never broke out with any rash. I have inherited allergies and eczema, but found that I only needed to control myself from scratching. I found Gold Bond skin lotion as a great remedy for helping to reduce the itching and I wore white cotton socks over my hands while sleeping. I remembered the days when my daughters were babies! I tolerated the treatment quite well. I continued playing tennis, running the treadmill and traveled on vacation. So much of it has to do with attitude.

2007 was indeed a magical year for me. I was considered to be one of the most difficult groups of subjects to be treated: 1) treatment experienced – meaning that I had previously failed an interferon based treatment, and was a: 2) null responder - meaning that I had not achieved a 2-Log drop within the first 12-weeks of my previous treatment in 2003. I beat the odds and recognize that there are thousands of other people that remain infected today that did not achieve an SVR from a previous attempt at treatment.

Now does Steve's cheerleading benefit Vertex? Hell yes. But lost in that is the simple fact that the job of medicine to is save lives and help make our lives better. That's what happened for Steve Goodwin, and that's why he's so happy.

Tom Jones On American Idol, Mick Jagger On Grammys - Ageless Rockers

America got quite a cultural wake up call watching American Idol Wednesday night. After Scotty McCreery, who's bent is toward country music, won the singing competition, and got to meet Carrie Underwood backstage, the show ended with a performance by Sir Tom Jones.

Tom Jones, born June 7, 1940, is now 71 years old and from a time, the 1960s, of Go-Go Girls, James Bond, and his own show, demonstrated to a whole new audience that he's not only still got it, but at a high level.

The reaction to Mr. Jones was tremendous. "Tom Jones" as a keyword search was number one and listed as "Volcanic" on Google Trends and a top Twitter Topic, as well. When I shared a YouTube video of Jones' performance with my Mom - this one...



..My Mom's reaction was one of pure joy; she has been a big Tom Jones fan, and she raved about his performance, saying "He's from my time!"

With his American Idol presentation, Sir Tom effectively pushed together Americans who were 13, 33, 53, and 73 years old. Only a few performers can do that; Tom Jones and Mick Jagger are part of that club.

We're in a wonderful place where digital media has fused our culture in a way not possible 20 years ago. Jagger, The Rolling Stones front man, was rocking at the time of Tom Jones, and when he gave his rendition of "Everybody Needs Somebody," the reaction to 67-year-old Mick Jagger throwin' down at The 2011 Grammy's was equal to that of Tom Jones.

And, like Jones, young people who use Twitter to get their information, were sharing tweets about a person some in the media considered as getting too old to do his craft.

Forget it.

Mick Jagger and Tom Jones have shown that it's possible to have entertainers who transcend generations, and vast distances of time and culture, but that only could have happened with social media.

Social media has a larger and broader demographic distribution pattern than for standard media. So, a much larger part of the American culture is aware that Tom Jones and Mick Jagger kicked ass in the 21st Century, than would have been the case in the 20th Century.

Stay tuned.

Rob Woodall, Georgia GOP Congressman Health Care Hypocrisy

Georgia GOP Congressman Rob Woodall (GA District 7) was caught at a town hall meeting making a statement, or a series of them, that could only be borne of hypocrisy.

While lecturing a constituent about self-reliance, and saying "You want the government to take care of you, because your employer decided not to take care of you. My question is, 'When do I decide I'm going to take care of me?'"

But the woman he was trying to talk down to wasn't have any of it. She said I have a question about taking care of you. You have government subsidized health care, but you are not obligated to take that if you don't want to. Why aren't you going out on the free market in the state where you're a resident and buy your own health care? You lead by an example. Why aren't you leading by example?"

Congressman Woodall tried to dodge the question, but she's having none of it. Finally, after she pressed him regarding why he doesn't go and get health care on the open market, and takes the free, government-sponsored health care provided by the people of America, he says "Because it's free... Folks, if you give people something for free, you should expect them to take it."

Those are the words of a person who cares only about himself. The question is, does Congressman Woodall's selfishness represent the entire GOP?

Stay tuned.