[CIMC-working] Re: vampires and corps - POSTED: TABD update feature

[Doug Morris]

Ian,

I strongly disagree.  That's why I used strong evocative reasoning.
But look at it -- the reasoning that is -- again perhaps.
Not everyone reading us has read a lot of political theory.  They may be 
new to politics.  Having strong themes helps to convey a 
message.  Especially when there is a profound similarity between the 
metaphor and the actuality.

Corporations are at least as bad in reality as vampires are in myth.
This is no propaganda.  It is reality.

The TABD is fine in the red bar.  The context is obvious.

Coporate greed is lame, just plain lame.

We are all greedy for something.
Greedy for love, attention, help, respect...

Corporations aren't just greedy.
The transnational organizations that answer to no nation and no moral code 
and exploitative, domination and destroy people and environments.

We need to be creative with our prose.

The story has allusions to vampiric type things.

Your analysis of the use of the power of the metaphor about technique and 
information delivery to me... misses the point.

Our mission is to inspire.  To be brave.  To be colorful and fired up at times.

We have to be willing to take strong stands.

The two previous features were boring.  Let's allow this one to be spiced up.

Corporate greed.  Might as well go off to a public policy phd program 
somewhere.

Best, Doug

At 10:03 PM 11/8/02 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
> > Indeed, it might be an insult to vampires to compare them to corps.
> > Corps are worse.
> > Corps are soulless, amoral, immortal organizations where the strongest
> > survive by exploiting people the most and by eating their own ilk.
> > Corporations are death and torture machines of global scope.
>
>I think the arguments for the vampire metaphor sound like propaganda
>(not meant in a bad way), and our coverage of the demonstrations is more
>to inform people who are already sympathetic (since that's our
>readership).
>
>The current boring, somewhat cliche header describes the content that
>follows.  I think symbolism in the header upstages the content and in a
>small way makes it harder for a reader to parse.
>
>Though, looking at it, "TABD" in the red header portion is easily
>missed, and the main title has no mention of the TABD -- that *should*
>be changed, as it's a functional problem.
>
>   Ian