It thinks its hardly appropriate to call Mr. McLuhan a “conservative” in its current usage.  And incredibly inappropriate to link his sentiments to those of the current administration.

The author adeptly realises the current administrations inability to account for changes in new media.  What he doesn’t realise is that the current administrations foreign policy in Iraq is in direct opposition to this media trend.  As electronic media continue to spread and become more involving, the ties of nationalism,patriotism, and imperialism(a product of the written word) dissolve. 

to quote mcluhan:

“in an electric media environment minority groups can no longer be contained--ignored. Too many people know too much about each other.  Our new environment compels commitment and participation.  We have become irrevocably involved with and responsible for eachother.”

in essence:  public consent to the war was a product of the old forms of mass media.  A medium in which the author correctly acknowleges the administrations mastery. 

the eventual loss of the war in iraq will be a testiment to the power of these new electronic media, which decentralise power by design.  Much like guerrila warfare defeated and replaced the old “stand in a line and get shot at” method.

And, not even Goebbels with a cell phone and a Myspace profile could stop it.

perhaps i was a bit quick to judge, yet it seems like the author , by mentioning mcluhan’s religion and politics at the begining is attempting to annex mcluhan into the religious right...which annoyed me.

to quote the article:

“America needs to deploy a commander with the conceptual depth of a Marshall McLuhan and the ruthless brilliance of a Joseph Goebbels”

its seems to me his version of what the administration “should” do lies somewhere between intense propaganda and genocide.

aside from this the author makes use of “the war on terror”...refers to iraqis as “jihadis”...and uses “we” several times to refer to the administration

All this aside the article was thought provoking and funny at times.

My beef is with his arguement that the administration might find some use in manipulation of the more decentralised forms of electronic media...which goes against mcluhans argument of how those media may function

it seems like he author is advocating a change in content...the basis of mcluhan’s “medium is the message” is that content is irrelevant.

Anyhow, any reference to mcluhan’s relevence is definately worth linking
and I thank you for doing so. It’s given me an interest in seeing “the queen”.