Should the Fremont Troll in Seattle be demolished? Should neon signs be strapped to buildings?

[Leopolds Ghost]

Poll question: Should the Fremont Troll in Seattle be demolished? Should neon signs be strapped to buildings?

Should people only be allowed to post bills that contain approved speech,
certified in a manner that primarily constitutes a high-entry-fee
taxation scheme to allow only "non-underground" ads from being posted,
the end result being licensure of entire bridges, streets, and subway
stations for corporate advertising by a single entity, as at present?

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. Background: The Fremont Troll is a piece of "guerrilla sculpture" under a bridge in Seattle

The Volkswagen Beetle in the Troll's mouth could conceivably be a hiding place for a bomb.

There is a similar piece of "guerrilla" concrete work under the Burnside Bridge in Portland, Oregon, a skate park.

I don't think the skaters got permission to build it until after the fact.

In any case, they built themselves. In America, unlike Mexico, it's technically illegal to build anything yourself. That's why we have to import skilled handymen from Mexico.

How do we know the skaters didn't fiendishly plant dynamite in the concrete piers they constructed? Only one way to find out.

[uppityperson]

2. Lightbright signs can be hung on buildings too.

[Leopolds Ghost]

3. Someone posted a picture of Times Square the other day...

Ideas are a bigger threat than bombs. For instance, the danger posed by Times Square is the idea that America has become a completely stratified, business-run, entertainment culture that no longer produces anything of substance. This makes people in other countries whose relatives die in industrial accidents or get beaten up by security contractors call us cowards decide its okay to kill Americans.

Somehow, we've become convinced that the physical threat posed by an individual lit-up sign, like the ones in Times Square, is the problem because it could blow up.

Somehow, when something breaks down ACCIDENTALLY, we do not react the same; we don't let it change us. If there had been a permit for an electronic billboard and it caught fire, would people react with horror?

Why do they react with horror the minute they hear there was no permit for a NON-threatening lit-up sign - as if permissivity itself breeds danger? Annoyance at the commercialization of public space? Perhaps.

But instituting a permit process for placards only encourages businesses to license and "sponsor" entire buildings and subway stations.

This in turn does not cause the threat of terror, but it does incite vandalism by dissatisfied members of the public who lose respect for previously well maintained public edifices that have been defaced with "wall to wall" corporate sponsorship techniques. If the public loses its respect for the "sacredness" of public space, then the ads and sponsor logos become signs that it has been privatized and is no longer "theirs" to take care of.

If any one of the accidental plane crashes over the past 5 years had been intentional, would we have reacted with a raft of legislation affecting all aspects of daily life? Upon hearing that it was accidental, why didn't we? Psychological reasons, I guess.

It's convenient for our leaders to manipulate us into believing that any electronic gizmo could be a threat, and therefore to fear everything you aren't forewarned about on TV.

The real threat is posed by the ideas that are being disseminated through those lit-up neon signs in Times Square -- such as previews for the latest Hollywood disaster movie where major US cities get blown up by terrorists and the audience is expected to be frightened, thrilled, and cheer for the hero. Anyone remember all the disaster movies in the 1990s? Why aren't THEY cited as "encouraging" the terrorists? Because I think they did exactly that.

It does not encourage terrorists to say that we want to maintain an open
society, and not allow the threat of buildings being blown up cause us to militarize and close those buildings off to the public and develop a paranoid, offensive posture with enemies around every corner and automatic suspicion of the average working folk. You can't blow up a democracy. It has to be undermined from within.

Numerous accounts have cited how steeped in Western culture the 9/11 hijackers were... they were infused with the culture of violence that we've been exporting in Hollywood movies that portray the US as a helpless, decadent victim whose beautiful landmarks can only be protected by the threat of force.

Fascists thrive on the threat of terror, they WANT to portray the "old America" that built the Empire State building and exported Popeye films during WWII, as decadent and founded on a culture that was "too open"...

Whatever happened to the Old America, the one that believed people were fundamentally decent and would not do such a thing, and exported that notion to the world?

Terrorist organizations thrive on the expectation that they WILL blow up a beloved landmark such as the World Trade Center and that we will respond by militarizing everything instead of rebuilding it and rallying the world to bring those responsible to justice.

[mark414]

4. bravo

but sadly i think that america is dead and gone, RIP. but enough people like you and me get together we'll bring it back

great post

[uppityperson]

6. Very good writing

[Leopolds Ghost]

5. bump

[JackRiddler]

7. Should we allow cars to be parked in cities?

These are after all the most common delivery systems for terrorist bombs of all.

[Leopolds Ghost]

8. Let's not get carried away... what about buildings?

If we stop building impressive-looking architecture, we will have nothing left for the terrorists to blow up. Many cities are well on their way to meeting this goal, with concrete barricades around everything.

[Norrin Radd]

9. The nearby "Waiting for Interruban" statue

is frequently festooned with personal displays (though anything political would probably get torn down by the conservative yuppies infesting the neighborhood).

http://www.fremontseattle.com/urb_frameset.htm

I walk by the Fremont Troll, often. The Troll was created via a contest sponsored by the Fremont Arts Council. Some idiot was smashing holes in his hand, last year.

[Leopolds Ghost]

10. I've never been to Seattle, but I was down the road in Portland

Which used to have actual theatres, working class neighborhoods and breweries. No more.

I was there during the height of the grunge era. I always meant to go to Seattle.

Sounds like Fremont is another neighborhood being defaaced by urban renewal... of course the people defacing the troll probably considered it a "blight on the neighborhood"...

[Norrin Radd]

11. Yep. They are building unaffordable condos everywhere

and a Kinkos across the street from a locally-owned printing shop. Though they still pretend that Fremont has it's former laid-back, Bohemian atmosphere once a year during the Solstice Parade (though there have been louder grumbles each year about the nude bicyclists). As long as they don't attempt to transmogrify the University District and Capitol Hill, the tide will be held back somewhat.

It's sort of surreal, the gentrification of Fremont, as there is a statue of Lenin in the middle of things:

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/WASEAlenin.html