That Digital Bus Stop site has everything! Very fun stuff -- thanks for sharing it with us!
Advertisements on public buildings are seen as an eyesore.
Tasteless. Clueless. And — thank God — only temporary.
The new Bank of America signs that were plastered onto the Wabash Avenue Bridge over the weekend represent a grotesque cheapening of the public realm...
Wow! Chicago is sending a message to its citizens and tourists that it's desperate. This conjures up dystopic future scenarios, tattered ruins of once great cities, cheapened, grimed, and prostituted to corruption. Like cover art for a cyberpunk novel set in Chicago 2050, where layers of peeling tattered ads deface dirty, broken infrastructure.
Rohm Emanuel, former Chief of Staff to President Obama, approved that idea. It reminds me of the movie Idiocracy.
Imagine if B of A and the other main sponsors of government put up signs on state capital buildings and the white house. If the Chicago test didn't result in such negative feedback representatives that might have become commonplace. I like the idea of elected officials wearing patches of their sponsors like Nascar drivers do. With super-pacs the patch would be a huge question mark.
ROFL I thought of Idiocracy too, where some people had ads on their bodies and many were paid to spout slogans daily. The Nascar-like patches are a logical extension. In Philly we see sometimes have city buses entirely covered by one ad, even the windows. It would be more honest if members of congress did wear the names of the monied interests who pull their strings, since they obviously don't represent the people any more.
Same here Ruth -- in Austin buses will have the entire bus painted with ads and sometime people will have their personal cars with ads all over them.
many were paid to spout slogans daily - would that be called advertising tourette's syndrome?
I watched a German News program on PBS that showed two college kids who painted their faces with advertisements to earn money.
I don't wear shirts with advertisments on them. I had a supervisor who wore a Tommy Hilfiger sweat shirt all the time. How did I know - because it said Tommy Hilfiger in three inch tall letters. He probably paid more than $50 to advertise for that clothing line. Needless to say I thought he was an idiot desperately seeking a sense of identity through his fashionable sweat shirt.
Bill McKibben agrees with you, Chris.
Instead of doing the work of legislators, that is, they were acting like employees. Forget the idea that they’re public servants; the truth is that, in every way that matters, they work for Exxon and its kin. They should, by rights, wear logos on their lapels like NASCAR drivers. [emphasis mine]
I think I read this before. It's an informative article.
Here is an excerpt:
Far from showing any shame, the big players boast about it: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, front outfit for a consortium of corporations, has bragged on its website about outspending everyone in Washington, which is easy to do when Chevron, Goldman Sachs, and News Corp are writing you seven-figure checks. This really matters. The Chamber of Commerce spent more money on the 2010 elections than the Republican and Democratic National Committees combined, and 94% of those dollars went to climate-change deniers. That helps explain why the House voted last year to say that global warming isn’t real.
It also explains why “our” representatives vote, year in and year out, for billions of dollars worth of subsidies for fossil-fuel companies. If there was ever an industry that didn’t need subsidies, it would be this one: they make more money each year than any enterprise in the history of money. Not only that, but we’ve known how to burn coal for 300 years and oil for 200.
Those subsidies are simply payoffs. Companies give small gifts to legislators, and in return get large ones back, and we’re the ones who are actually paying.