It's profoundly unsurprising that one might have trouble convincing ClearChannel to take your money for an anti-war billboard: I mean that's not even news, right? But I just love this statement:
Meyer said the company generally does not run copy that would be unsuitable for children or cause them to ask difficult questions.
Those meddling kids and their difficult questions!
I don't want to argue about whether we did or not, but...
That ad ignores the fact that we could, in theory, all vote for war, thereby givng an example of democracy and going to war.
-bZj
All this demonstrates is that you haven't taken all the implicit premises of the statement into account. The one you're missing is that "Democracy is good". Voting to beat the stuffing out of someone isn't going to convince them of that.
The general statement that teaching is best done by example doesn't imply that all examples are instructive. I think anyone who's been to school knows that if you put it to them in that way. Using a logical system without "All" and "Some" operators in it to analyse natural language doesn't work (all of the time).
I'm admittedly one of the few that tries to take all implicit premises of any statement I make into consideration - moreso if I were starting a public campaign. Subjectively judging Democracy as good has no implications regarding the desire to spread Democracy. So whether or not someone is convinced of Democracy's inherent goodness is irrelevant to a war-going society. Ask the Romans if they cared what their conquered thought of their Democratic ideals.
The Romans did very well at their self-appointed job of "spreading Democracy" by way of war. Wouldn't it be a good counter-example of a Democratic nation if everyone voted for war, and said nation didn't follow through? And, yes, I'm deliberately ignoring both the thought that we could be in need of taming by way of war, and the fact that Rome fell.
-bZj
""I'd love to get the Democrats' spending, the Republican spending and the Nader spending,'' he said."
heh 'the' Nader.
the use of "the" in that refers to "spending", with Democrat, Republican, and Nader describing the target of the spending.
i was aware of that :p
i just thought it was funny that they didnt use a word like 'party' or 'camp' to describe the people around Nader.
i had this mental image of Nader himself ringing up all the billboard companies when he surely has heaps of people to do it for him
Does this mean we're going to see The Nader versus The Batman?
$
Nobody fucks with The Nader!
Love the icon. :)
its from the webcomic Something Positive
I've got an idea. Why not send the Clear Channel people on a scenic tour of Iraqi hotspots?
If you include Saddam's mass graves, I'd be all for that. Except that I don't think the Clear Channel people would need it as much as, erm, other people.
Other people, as in, perhaps, the current administration?
Playing dumb, are we? Heh. Okay then, I'll let you keep playing with your Bush voodoo doll, and not keep raising "difficult questions". Have fun at the peace rally.
I'll make sure to have fun.
Can we tour the rape rooms? You know, the ones that are still in operation?
Sill in operation? I thought that Al-Qaeda only beheaded hostages. Do they rape them now too?
Okay then. Enjoy your reality, thanks for playing!
Hey, if your "side" can play dumb (see above), so can i.
"The truth is a three edged sword".
...filed away in my file of "things the Right will say to defend their side", thank you for playing.
Because one guy is wearing a black hat, doesn't mean the other guy is wearing a white one. Even if you do put your hands over your ears and say "Lalalalalalala".
If we don't shut up those meddling kids, someone might not get away with something.
Perhaps they'd like to commission Clear Channel Exhibitions to design a museum exhibit for them.
This might be the first (maybe second) time that I actually heard about some news before seeing it on jwz.
Anyhow, I thought the most interesting/entertaining/disturbing thing was what was written in the New York Times article:
"A lawyer for Project Billboard, Doug Curtis, said that at one point Clear Channel suggested that the group use a less provocative billboard ad, one with the image of a little girl waving a flag accompanied by the words, 'Democracy is best taught by example.'"
That quote got me too.
jwz, thanks for the new user icon :P
The whole "exploding American bomb" animation makes me think "American Terrorist." I wonder how similar a movie called "American Terrorist" would be to "American Psycho"?
Would that mean it was all in America's head?
-bZj
Good point, it is all just a twisted American psychotic break, and none of this is really happening, or at least as far as the voting population appears to be concerned.
Anyone know how to convert this to work as an animated AIM icon? :)
Looks like it's got a bit of a short fuse.
It might reasonably be argued that the difficult questiosn are the only ones worth answering. Certainly they're often the ones most worth answering. DAMN people like this who want to turn us into a nation of unthinking sheep....
"Meyer said the company generally does not run copy that would be unsuitable for children or cause them to ask difficult questions."
So I guess the "Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity" billboard is out, then?
Maybe you could sell that as a pro-abstinence message?
No, that slogan is out because it is stupid.
No one can be made virgin by fucking, but it is demonstrably possible to make peoples and/or countries peaceful by bombing (invading, conquering) them.
As far as I am aware, neither Germany nor Japan have started any wars or engaged in armed conflict of any kind since they were both crushed into abject surrender and submission in 1945.
Knee-jerk antiwar people are idiots because they willfully ignore the historical fact that wars can be waged for good reasons and can bring about positive change.
Another good quote...
It seems pretty stupid for Clear Channel to reject this ad as long as their was no one else willing to pay more for the space. As a forum provider, Clear Channel should always take ads from the highest bidder IMO.
I don't disagree with their fundamental right to reject any message, I just don't see why would want to.
ugh - sorry for stupid "their/there" misspelling.