The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by andrew b.:

how about a little rogue advertising?
A little spray painted message goes a long way to make one feel that he is not alone.

There is a limited amount of "space" - alongside a road, in the airwaves - for your eyes, ears and mind. It could be argued therefore that some of these limited spaces are a public good. The control of these public spaces is often by less-than-democratic means. Unless democratic means one-dollar/one vote. Maybe some public spaces should be re-appropriated.
There is a certain level of inequality that would be unacceptable, no matter how "naturally" it had evolved. If a George-Bush-led corporate cabal controlled all media, you'd deface a billboard of govt/corporate propaganda - and consider it your right as a human being. Of course, this is nowhere near the reality, but where's the line? Desperate times...
Of course, this is purely hypothetical.

Liberals, libertarians, neo-liberals - economy or FP, liberate yo'self...
I gotta be free, I gotta be me.

I think it was totally reasonable to vote for Nader IF you come from a state that was unrepentantly Republican. Say, Texas...where I'm from. No need to go through that formal "vote-swap" scheme (which seemed a great idea)...A Gore vote there is wasted, and you can send your message to the dems to grow some glands (either type) and move to the left with the civilized people. And get the underwhelming Nader his 5%, future debate access and matching funds...and we could have been treated to radical, revolutionary rhetoric, on prime time...sounds like - single payer, minimum wage, maybe even, gun control.

BUT, if I lived in a state where it might be close (many of them)...I would have been tempted to still vote Nader, and I would be kicking myself. I feel safe in saying the dems would not take us this far afield in foreign policy (in spite of their me-too-isms in congress)...maybe a limited Afghan adventure, but definitely not this new war. If our next leader apologises and writes a few really large checks, our international relations will recover. But, trainloads of Iraqis will still be dead.

Avram...exactly. I think many lefties don't understand that raising a fuss about these issues doesn't upset the right. It's playing a role the right set for them almost. Rumsfeld cavalierly tosses off a few comments, those of conscience complain - it delineates and polarizes the us vs. them. They want this image. It's identity politics, "we're not them, we're the real Americans." The right doesn't care about being seen as, say, anti-enviro...they have focus-group tested these sentiments and decided that they gain more in energy and support from the right and center than they lose on the left (where they had little to lose). So, (1) pick an enemy...tree-huggers, immigrants(mexicans lately), arabs, the french, blacks (aff. action, welfare, confederate flag issues)or ACLU-types whining about human rights abuses...then (2) attack - usually only symbolically or rhetorically, so they retain a logical escape from unpleasant conclusions (i.e., "it's about state's rights, or only quotas, or only illegal immigrants)...(3) sit back and let the worst human tendencies swell your support or wallet. It's great advertising, the only problem is it could be argued that, rather than only expressing a latent sentiment, these techniques create these feelings, or at least radicalize them. And there are real-life, sometimes violent, consequences...thus, limbaugh creates the rise of the angry white man. It is worse in less-developed countries (for now), as they lack established, professional norms for media (Fox news, anyone?)..not to mention campaigning and education.
Sorry so long.

Comment statistics for andrew b. on the Electrolite blog

Total: 4 comments. View all these comments on a single page.