portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting portland metro

alternative media | media criticism

Bettering Belmont Billboards

Was driving along Belmont and happened to notice a billboard around 28th or so. What a great opportunity to try out my fancy new cellphone with photo capability!
billboard betterment program results photographed by a passerby
billboard betterment program results photographed by a passerby
Close up of billboard betterment program results photographed by a passerby
Close up of billboard betterment program results photographed by a passerby
Obviously this message is more important than the usual billboard garbage from the fascists at Clear Channel. I figure this billboard improvement is likely true. I was surprised to learn that 50% of NYC residents believe that Bush and Crew consciously allowed 911 to happen for their own dark purposes.

When some monopolistic dictatorial company like Clear Channel has managed to swindle control of all the billboard space in Portland, then it is inevitable that people will fight back against their dominating control.

I would enjoy seeing a new clear channel billboard improved every single day.

Hmmmm 12.Dec.2004 11:46

alan

Is this considered....multi-tasking?

I don't know if you get it 12.Dec.2004 11:48

cs

I love your message. Problme is, the style is poorly done. Culture jamming, as an art, is more about taking something existing and reinventing what its symbolic meaning is. This usually involves taking the message presented by the corporate piece and modifying it, not covering it up with some unrelated statement. Keep up the good work, but you have to be either more selective in your billboard choice or more crafty in your message. I know this billboard is low to the ground and very easy to access. so no more excuses next time folks. I love you.

billboard improvement 12.Dec.2004 14:26

zippy

cut him some slack...it's beautiful!!

what it is 12.Dec.2004 16:27

ad-prop studies

This is a hypothetical analysis of the topic, given with respect for the creative labor of any aspiring ad-prop workers

Knowing the rich store of fallacies and lies in current and recent production by the national regime, it's conceivable that skilled ad-prop workers would examine the opportunities for ad-prop production with respect to what the signs already have on them that can be revised or given other more social and revolutionary impact. It might involve just the changing of a word or two, and could be achieved with less material and labor

Apparently, some experience in the logistics and manufacture of the product has been achieved. That given, it is conceivable that concentration would be lent to creatively and cleverly using the existing resource for dramatic effect. For instance, it might involve study of the elements of the existing sign--facial expressions, particular settings, group composition and actions of the models, the potential for dramatically changing what might be considered the bland consumer blather of the ad copy by changing one or just a few words (or maybe even a letter or two), or changing the face on a body, to dramatic socially relevant effect. This potential for changing one or a few things that a target offers would conceivably simplify and reduce production risk and effort in coming up with a clever design that uses what is already there

. 12.Dec.2004 19:01

.

arm chair critics abound - try doing something

Together we win 12.Dec.2004 21:08

Pasty

(Sigh....) How much I enjoy seeing the fruits of detached contemplation manifesting themselves into a critical analysis of this culture jam. Hey next time I am in a protest and getting my ass kicked by a cop who is having a bad day, be sure one of you waves to me and gets my attention. Later on I might get some insight into a more effective use of my civil disobedience, oh and try not to spill your soy mocha latte on your laptop.

Be a little more positive folks, action is action, if it can be done better DO IT, anything is better than complacence.

how about 12.Dec.2004 21:33

this?

customized ELECTION FRAUD

UNcover the source CODE

analysis given with respect and positiveness 12.Dec.2004 22:12

ad-prop studies

Is everyone convinced that topics discussed and the way that they are discussed on the Internet are beyond the interest or reach of state security? I'm not. I'm not confident to accept the contentions by IMC tech staff, geek camp followers and self-proclaimed, faceless gurus) who tell us that IP addresses transiting the IMC servers (and ISP servers) are somehow not traceable or not being captured by state security. It's my ass, not theirs

With regard to discussions about overt tactics and acts of resistance, isn't it reasonable to craft one's comments as abstract observations, in lieu of more direct association with actions? Does anyone have a better way of engaging in these kinds of discussions over unprotected lines, with unencrypted packets and headers, while yet seeking to have a legal basis for successfully discouraging, if not denying, potential charges of aiding and abetting? How does one participate positively in examination of certain topics--and in what way--that doesn't provide primae facia evidence before a grand jury?

Admittedly, the syntax is strained and "detatched"--just read between the lines, maybe, for chrisakes. Thanks

---alone in the desert, in front of a desktop, drinking Darjeeling (with a little milk), with the first 60 second infusion (nearly all the caffeine) poured off--and you will not get a wave from me, and you won't be alone--I'll hope to have your back, sister

negative analysis 13.Dec.2004 01:11

Dorothy

I don't know where you get your "IMC tech staff, geek camp followers and self-proclaimed, faceless gurus". The ones I have and the ones who post on this site from time to time, ALL, say you should assume you can be traced.

The best IMC techs can say, the most they have said, is that the site does not regularly log IPs and that several subpoenas seeking logs have failed to uncover any. This says absolutely nothing about tracing by other means.

I think there is circumstantial evidence that they can, and will when they want to. It is not the sort of thing whose cover they would blow to pick up some fool boasting about the size of his ego.

I doubt that IMC techies say IPs are untraceable.

More negative analysis 13.Dec.2004 01:29

Dorothy

The trick with propaganda is that it should attract people to one's cause.

Billboard-improvement, like any propaganda, ought to appeal to people... other people. What appeals, of course, depends on many factors. Sometimes reactions are simply astonishing.

However, the message pictured above undoubtedly repels the average american.

It is, in fact, so repellent to the average american that I suspect it is a bit of unsubtle cointelpro intended to incite hostility against billboard-vandals.


An action may be an action. It is also a consequence.

I promise, I will be a little more positive when the consequences are a little positive.

Just a thought... 13.Dec.2004 03:52

AA

Seems to me that it would be best to assume that you are being tracked and then simply not care about it... especially when discussing vague things like tactics and whatnot.

When thinking about discussing actions that you have personally taken part in... don't.

If I were to suggest the formation of a Cascadian Milita there is no court in the country that could convict me for sedition... but if I actually formed a milita with the express intent of violently overthrowing the US federal governmnet then it would be another matter entirely.

So, I can say, safely, that I support the actions of whoever modified the billboard. I support their actions and hope that they do it again.

Even if "big brother" is watching my give-a-shit-o-meter is way low.

Beautiful 13.Dec.2004 08:00

Bern Haggerty

Thank you. I am proud of you, and I don't care who is monitoring Portland IMC. We should all develop a sense of self-esteem openly based in our resistance to the American Corporate and Military Empire. I don't know if Bush ordered 9-11, I might have inserted "Universal" above health insurance or "Empire" below customized, but I think the stark look and swastika emphasize the most urgent message: Bush is "beginnning to look a lot like Hitler" [this might sound nice set to the tune of a popular Christmas song on innaguration day!]. Don't let the critics get you down. Peace. Bern Haggerty.

Altered Perceptions 13.Dec.2004 14:14

Carny

Try this alteration for size . . .
Speak No Evil, Smell No Evil
Speak No Evil, Smell No Evil

FLAMES 13.Dec.2004 15:41

mnstr

the message in the modification is so inflamitory that there would be no " appropriate " place to put it where it would be palatable to the average consumer-bot , and that's the point.
damned fine work !!

yeehaw 13.Dec.2004 16:10

yeeyeeyeehaw

who did this is my new hero. keep up the GOOD works.


effort reasonably placed 13.Dec.2004 16:13

zippy

The subject billboard modification is crude and ugly...therin the beauty. Of course anyone who is concerned with incidents surrounding the mis-use of the swastica will be upset or offended by the slogan affixed, but I personally think it's rightly associated in this case with bush. The daily death count on in Iraq is on his inept hands.
In regards to property destruction in the case of billboards, a different concept is raised in my mind. That would be the right of commercial interests to impose self promoting information on a vulnerable public via the billboard, and the resulting case that's made for an unsympathetic and critical public to respond.
Through history, advertising has proved that it can be a creative and informative media. In the form of billboards it has proved that it can be presented in ways that enhance the setting in which they are located, making it a more pleasant and enjoyable place to be and drive through.
Oftentimes though, as billboard owners exploit them for money, they seem to show particular contempt for hapless residents, visitors and those driving through an area where a billboard is located. Generally offensive themes, images and subject matter thrown up in large, conspicuous scale making them inherently difficult to ignore. At least with television, you get a show of some sort to either side of commercials.
Where does the revenue from billboards go? Not to the subjects of the advertising, that's for sure.
Billboard users impose their garbage on the public, but what do they offer in return? Often very little, except an eyesore, and that's why I imagine a lot of people don't feel too bad about pleas on the part of billboard owners and advertisers about, in this case, so called property destruction.
The advertising on the subject billboard isn't especially offensive other than that the concept of any available kind of health insurance for many people in the U.S. is highly remote.
I think billboard owners should be very conscientious of the information they are delivering to the public and how it's being delivered. They should be be very careful to consider the relative inability of the public to exclude from their consciousness, commercial bearing structures placed in the public way.
If they were to make a sincere effort to do this, the incidence of critics moved to co-opt their property to produce a vital direct responce might be reduced significantly.
The hotshot mover and shaker heading up the local clear channel should be drawn and quatered for the electronic billboards his company has imposed on the public. In the very complicated traffic situation south of PSU, one is located that creates an immense distraction that could eventually contribute to a serious traffic accident, particularly during rough weather conditions.
It would be nice if someone reading this thread (or whatever it's called) had some kind of authority, connections, intelligence and civic responsibility to reign in these billboard owners whose actions really are a kind of abuse of the public through their adverstising structures. Untill then, I kind of welcome ad hoc alteration of these "public" informational structures, even if the result lacks a certain sophistication others would prefer.

gee whiz 13.Dec.2004 19:32

irritated

If this is "Fighting Back" we are in pathetic shape,

move 18.Apr.2005 11:12

justin justinleestansfield@yahoo.com

i want to move to portland,i,m english male 34 living and painting in spain,need a contact there etc
examples of paintings www.justinstansfield.co.uk and my e-mail  justinleestansfield@yahoo.com


Dictatorial Corporate Monsters 11.Jul.2005 10:17

Robert Kessler

I notice that you have no problems using a cellphone manufactured by a slave-labor international corporation and you don't have a problem making cellphone calls over a network owned by a fascist money-grubbing airtime network. You're writing on a computer most likely built by a faceless corporate giant and listening to a an iPOD manufactured by a psuedo "people's" computer company that actually seeks to control creative flow by masquerading as a technological liberator.

So denigrating a billboard company is pure hypocracy.

Don't be a hypocrite. It's time to drag Western Civilization back to the stone age...only then will we all truly be free. REVOLUTION!

www.liberallyspeaking.blogs.com

An Open Letter to President George W. Bush 13.Jul.2005 20:47

Michael minusthemusic@comcast.net

Dear Mr. President,

I've read two books lately that I highly recommend to you. They are both by the same author, David Ray Griffin.

One is called "The New Pearl Harbor; Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11". If the title rings a bell for you, I'm not surprised.

The Project for a New American Century, an advocacy group which many of your close acquaintances and members of your administration belong to, wrote, "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

It is also rumored that, on the evening of September 11, 2001, you wrote the following in your diary, "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today."

It's pretty obvious in hindsight that you had a motive for being complicit in the planning of and carrying out the attacks on American lives and property. After all, the attacks allowed you to manipulate a congress that is beholden to its constituencies. Congress gave you poorly defined, open ended powers to create war where ever and whenever you can be convinced that there is even a minute chance that plans may someday be drawn up for the purpose of disturbing "American interests". Almost every single member of both houses endorsed this all encompassing, sweeping Executive Branch power lest they be thought of as unpatriotic.

The Patriot Act, an act which can keep the most a-political people "in line", was another "opportunity" that arose from the September 11 attacks.

Public support for an invasion of Iraq was another benefit from the attacks. After all, Iraq is in The Middle East, the greatest portion of its population is practices the religions of Islam and it was lead by a "tyrant" against whom we previously fought. This tyrant, Saddam Hussein, was very easy for you and your administration to demonize.

Of course, some of the demonizing to which you and your supporters refer involves Saddam using chemical and biological weapons against his own people as well as his neighbors. You never mention that we were allied with Iraq when most of that was taking place. You also fail to mention that Saddam got many of his weapons of mass destruction, as well as technical training on how to use them, from The United States of America. Leaving those facts out of the demonizing process is fairly weak, don't you think, Sir?

As bad as Saddam was, neither he nor his country were involved in the attacks of 9/11, even according to the official account.

Griffin's second book, "The 9/11 Commission Report; Omissions and Distortions", was almost not written and published. You fought an independent investigation into what happened on 9/11 and you fought it hard.

You finally gave in. You just placed a couple of caveats on the commission.

First, you insisted that you choose the members of the commission. I look at that and wonder how it must feel to be a common criminal in this country. I'm sure you know seeing that you ended the lives of so many of them when you were governor of Texas.

Secondly, you promised that you and Vice President Cheney would "speak" to the 9/11 Commission, but you would only do so in private and not under oath. I wonder what you would have said differently to the commission if you testified before them in public and under oath. I wonder why you made a distinction.

Someone who is being investigated for criminal activity doesn't usually get to choose his or her judge and jury. She or he also is not given the opportunity to decide whether testimony will be under oath or not.

Of course, you can always say that The 9/11 Commission wasn't investigating you.

This brings out another aspect of the commission's investigation. The commission entered their investigation into what happened starting at a point which already identified the accomplices. It seems to me, Sir, that, when investigating a crime, the first thing is to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, who committed the crime. Proving or disproving innocence or guilt should be a next step. For those of us who must use the US judicial system, we are tried based upon evidence, even circumstantial evidence. If there is a strong enough motive, then circumstantial evidence may very well be the basis for putting a person away.

I've already pointed out the motives that you and your administration had for committing the crimes of September 11, 2001. Professor Griffin, of course, goes much deeper and further in his books. Again, I highly recommend your taking the time to read them.

The motive, according to your very own words, Sir, for the nineteen hijackers was your allegation that they did what they did because "they hate us for our freedom".

I know you're The President of the United States, Sir, but your statement must still fall into the realm of circumstantial evidence. Did any of these nineteen hijackers actually tell you that they did what they did because "they hate us for our freedom?" If so, then you must either communicate with the dead or you spoke to them before the attacks. It can't be the latter because that would prove that you knew about the upcoming attacks. I believe, and this is merely my opinion, that you had no idea if they committed their heinous act because they "hate us for our freedom".

If you read Professor Griffin's books, Mr. President, you'd find much more evidence that you were involved than evidence that points to the hijackers.

I asked myself if you had any motive for being complicit in the recent London bombings. Amazingly enough, I think you did.

I believe that the polls which show a decline in support for your Iraq war provided an interesting motive to create yet another "Pearl Harbor", albeit a smaller one. It's a bit early to see just how successful you were.

One bit of circumstantial evidence that's already surfaced is the fact the Israel's Treasury Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was supposed to attend a meeting in a building just above the tube in which one of the blasts took place. There is speculation the Netanyahu was warned by his own government, a close ally of the US, not to attend the meeting. He did not attend the meeting.

Another interesting fact about the London bombings that could be construed as circumstantial evidence is the fact that, like you, Prime Minister Blair doesn't want an official inquiry into what happened in London on June 7, 2005.

What is it with "terrorist attacks" and the fear possessed by governmental leaders towards independent investigations, Mr. President? I know you can't speak for Prime Minister Blair, but, as you also fought such an investigation and you are a close "friend" of the Prime Minister, you may have a feel for why he doesn't want to investigate an act that killed his countrymen.

I'm now doing some research into whether any terrorist bombings, starting with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, coincided with any particular political event. I haven't gotten too far.

Of course, Bali happened in October, 2002. That "terrorist attack" took place about five months before you officially began military operations in Iraq. Were you having any trouble talking John Howard into joining the "coalition of the willing?" What better way could there have been to raise anger and fear among Australians than to kill a few of them and blame it on Middle Easterners?

Speaking of Al Qaeda, Sir, I find it extremely interesting that you've found and are getting ready to try Saddam Hussein, a man who led a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and haven't been able to find Osama bin Laden, the person you've called the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. That's almost as interesting as the way you seemed to play down the capturing of bin Laden not long after 9/11.

It's pretty well known that the bin Laden family and the Bush family were fairly close throughout the years. I wonder, how well did you know Osama while you both were young? Did you know him well enough to possibly be working with him to carry out these attacks? Is bin Laden sending young men to their deaths to help you achieve your belligerent goals? I just wonder.

So, other than 9/11, Bali and London, I haven't researched any other "terrorist attacks" to this point. I figure I'll look into the 1998 bombings of American embassies in Africa, the 2000 bombing of The USS Cole, even the Madrid bombings which led to Spain's withdrawal from "the coalition of the willing". Did that one backfire on you, Mr. President? I guess not everyone reacts to violence with the hateful revenge that you would like to see.

In closing, Sir, if you have any information that would help me in my research, like an American version of The Downing Street Memos, please feel free to send it to me. I'm sure you already have contact information for me.