Originally posted by Orochian+May 26th, 2004 - 8:53 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Orochian @ May 26th, 2004 - 8:53 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by nycgirl84@May 26th, 2004 - 7:40 pm
<!--QuoteBegin-softgrey
@May 26th, 2004 - 4:32 pm
[i am speaking of the overall majority of the student body...the ones who got in because mumsy and daddy and grandpa all went there and donated large sums of money to insure junior's admission...oh my...does that sound like anyone we know?... 
True, his connections helped him get in, but that doesn't help you pass the classes. Most college professors are liberal anyway, so it's doubtful they would have been leniant on his grades. I just get annoyed when people make a statement like, "Bush is dumb" and give no explanations. Yes, he is the not the best speech-giver or the most articulate, but that does not automatically shout idiocy. I would feel the same if someone said, "Kerry is a liar" and then didn't back it up with examples. Kerry, by the way, was likely helped by his family's connections and prestige. His father was a big military guy and his mom was Rosemary Forbes of the Forbes family. I don't know who I'm going to vote for this year, but I just thought I should present this bit about Kerry to be fair. 
[/b][/quote]
I hate it when things are 'backed up' with information taken out of context or that isn't quite applicable to the situation. I'm not pointing any fingers here, I'm just making a general comment because the issue of supporting evidence was raised. For example, I don't like it when people point out that Kerry was 'inconsistent' in the Senate whereas Bush has always been 'decisive.' It isn't fair to compare the records because they have such different political backgrounds. Kerry was in the legislative branch, which includes plenty of negotiation about bills and small changes in bills...etc, while Bush has had to worry about maintaining a decisive image because he's been in the executive branch. The two positions are hard to compare accurately the way they've been comparing them.
Sorry, I just had to get that off of my chest.
As far as the lightheartedness of such clothing goes...While I agree that many people seem to think that Che was a singer in some rock band
, I still feel that clothing is a valid method of communicating political ideas. As Lena said so nicely,
fashion has always been political, since middle ages and beyond,
wearing a slogan may be cheap and 'light', nevertheless,
it is communicating a political view, for all to see.
Aside from simply wearing anti-Bush paraphernalia, wearing tshirts for political organizations or causes can be effective in sending a certain message (like, for example, wearing a 'Love Makes a Family' shirt or some other pro gay marriage thing). I'd much rather wear a shirt advertising a cause that I care about than Abercrombie or Old Navy, for example. Why should I care whether Abercrombie gets more business because someone likes my shirt? If my clothes make people ask about the cause or notice that I support the group, though, then I'm glad to make a difference.
I also like Body and Billboard's concept. 
