Showing posts with label Controversy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Controversy. Show all posts

Monday, April 7, 2014

Charette

An updated, edited, more comprehensive version of this rant can be found on The Fedora Chronicles

In my hands I have this short stack of pages all stapled together on the left hand side. On the front over there’s a map of this town pirated from Google Maps and inside there are other maps that illustrate the center of town the way it is now and how it could be again if we all just “cooperate.” I’ll admit that there are a couple of good ideas but the question remains – how are we going to pay for any of these ideas and can we take just the good ones and ignore or delete the bad ones?
“Bad ones?” you ask. On some of these maps there are “shopping,” “business” and community centers proposed right where people already have homes and/or business already. This committee suggested that “The Town Of Rindge” seize these homes in North Rindge at “fair market value” via “Imminent domain.”
There are also aspects of this “Charette” (the name they gave this proposal) that suggest that some parts of the town (or the whole town) be “rezoned” to accommodate smaller buildings. As it is now, you need a minimum amount of anchorage before you can build – part of this ‘proposal’ suggest that we turn minimize that minimum to just 1 acre … or a half… maybe… depends on who you ask. That (might) mean that if you own a 5 acre lot, the new zoning laws will turn that into individual 1 acre lots (all bunched together) and your taxes (might) go up. …Depending on which expert you ask.
A small group of people actually read this proposal and have concluded that this isn’t good for this town. They took what they learned and made an effort to tell their friends and neighbors – “Hey, we don’t think this is good for this town, we gotta divorce it from the actual town’s master development plan.”
Before I got on the bandwagon I asked a lawyer friend of mine to read it and give me his thoughts; his conclusion that this short stack of paper be a bane for some but could be a boon for others. It could cripple some people who want to start a business out of their home, it might not. The problem with this “Charette” is the ambiguity. If the town commits to making this their actual plan you could see your taxes go up while your property values go down.
(Again, I’m abbreviating because I’m dancing too close to 500 words here… just to the point where I might lose your attention. I bet there are some lurkers who are reading this screaming “you’re over-simplifying!” Yea… no kidding, ya think? )
Other people looked at this, didn’t like it. Some people actually spoke up at one of the town meeting I attended and said that they read it and it’s pretty clear that this contains a plan to remove them from their homes to put something in its place to give other people the sense of a community.
This past March “The Town” put it to a vote – should we keep the Charette or exclude it from the town’s over-all development plan. The voters said ‘get rid of it’ via an overwhelming majority.
Since then there have been a handful of people (some who were involved with it’s development) cried foul. Voting against this thing is “racist” and against “poor brown people” – says the white people who were in favor of the Charette.
To clearify – the pro-charette clan now claim that these people who were against it are “racist.” The people in West Rindge who were going to be displaced via Imminent domain? According to the pro-Charette people: RACISTS!
On what basis does one become a racist because they don’t agree with a development plan that doesn’t mention race? White people who are for something can claim that other white people who are against must be… what? Just make something up. That’s like saying that people who doesn’t like anchovies are UNIX experts.
Now, I asked the question publicly – how is voting this “plan” out racist? What evidence do you have that the people who don’t like this are bigoted? Give me some quotes, screen shots, audio recordings… anything to prove that the people who were against this plan are racist.
Nothing. No response… except I’m no longer “Facebook friends” of some of the people who are charging the Anti-Charette people with racism. Well, now they’ve moved on to calling the deletion of the charette with book-burning, an obvious allusion to Nazism.
There’s more detail to this that I’m oversimplifying this for brevity sake(because graphic designers and digital artists don’t have time to read about bullshit that involves a town they don’t even live in…) but this bundle of paper called “The Rindge Charette” caused a big stir.
Why is this important for graphic designers? This is “Fisk’s Graphic Design Blog” after all.
Business is good for graphic designers. If you have business coming into the region and you’re a good graphic designer you’ll always have enough work. You could also have enough steady work to start your own Advertising/Marketing company. So long as the business climate around you is fine your bottom line should remain in The Black.
Local controversies like this – especially when it comes to politics – could also kill your career if you’re not careful taking sides. There’s a fine line between being involved with local issues because it does affect you and taking a side that’s too controversial. Some might go out of their way to ruin you for retribution for what you said and done. At the same time – as part of that balancing act – not taking aside and not being involved might be detrimental, could be misconstrued as waiting for one side to win before you pick aside.
I picked my side when I saw, read and heard some of my friends we being called racist – including some of my Hispanic friends were tainted with that label. The audacity of white people calling Hispanic people racist is beyond irresponsible; it’s reprehensible.
ksv094IcU42As to the name-callers; I can have an honest and even heated debate with literally any reasonable person on almost any subject and I pride myself on admitting when I’m wrong or misinformed. I quit debating with people when they’re obviously losing and frustrated and thus resort to name calling because my continued participation might be misconstrued as an endorsement of that person or obstinate views.
The charges of “book burring” is an obvious reference to Nazism in the Nineteen-Thirties, egregious – especially after your claims that anyone who voted against The Charatte is “racist” and “hates brown people”- immature, immoral and unfounded charges like that means that whatever moral-ground you had is lost.
For me, your credibility and even respect is diminished. You’re not the person I thought you were if that’s what you really think of people who simply want Rindge’s future in the hands of Rindge citizens, period. You can justify it all you want, but to resort to calling people harsh names like “racist” reveals a cruel and ignorant streak ingrained in your very nature.
My only regret is that I didn’t “unfriend” you first.



















Thursday, February 20, 2014

Utah Mom Spends Family Money For Censorship

judy-loves-coxFew friends of mine asked me what I think about the news story about a Utah Mom who went to a “Pac Sun” store at the local university mall and bought up the entire line of offensive T-Shirts to prevent anyone else from buying and wearing them. She’s planning on hanging on to them until day 59 of the guaranteed 60 day return period so that in the meantime nobody else can buy them, either. She also said that charges should be filed against this outlet and or the entire chain of stores because they violated the city and town’s decency laws.

What’s to say about this, especially from a Graphic Designer? Where can I start?

I would actually like to applaud the graphic designer or design team for coming up with this design of T-Shirts that caused a controversy so powerful that people are talking about their shirts. The photographer who took risqué photos of the woman or women who are in various states of nudity also deserves a lot of credit. Anyone who can create any design that generates news deserves a lot of a special commendation since it’s so hard to generate this kind of buzz especially when we’re being bombarded with other designs from other graphic designers.

Second, I have some experience with being prosecuted because of a design I made and it’s always bittersweet, especially when it’s intentionally offensive. I created this one poster with the “stop smoking” theme; my idea is to show people what smoking actually does to your lungs and wallet. My poster was so offensive that it actually made people turn away but the message stuck – If you smoke one pack a day you’re spending over $2,000 a year making your lungs look like ‘this.’ It’s intentionally offensive and it makes people think; mission accomplished. I had to debate or argue why my poster works and should be kept as-is. I created a debate and a controversy and hopefully moved some people to take action. Which leads me to…

Three, I thought Utah was still a part of the United States where The Second Amendment still holds some value. One of the aspects of living in a society like this is that people have the right to publish whatever they want just short of child pornography or instructions on how to make a bomb that will kill the president or any other public official. I’m allowed to write anything so long as it doesn’t cross the line into deformation. I’m allowed to buy anything that’s on the open market, period.

If I want to buy smut or pornography and someone wants to sell me smut or pornography, that’s my business. If someone wants to pay me to make smut or pornography, that’s my business too. The only institutions that can or should get in my way is my marriage (the supreme law in this house in that jurisdiction) The State and Federal Government (to make sure that neither children or animals are being exploited) and my religion. Period.

What this woman, Judy Cox has done is prevented me from going to that specific store and buy something that I might want. By buying up all these shirts because she thinks they are indecent she has prevented me or others from that area from exercising their First Amendment Rights. She has the right to be offended, but she doesn’t have the right to censor other people.

It doesn’t matter if she thinks they’re offensive, I’m even a little disturbed by how young women are becoming more sexualized, simply because you don’t like something doesn’t mean you get to ban it. What this incident has done is given the anti-religion crowd an precedent; since you think this is offensive, I find your Christ paraphernalia offensive and I want that removed from my sight!

Judy Cox may have started something she can’t finish. There are going to be a lot of people who are going to raise the bar and hope that there’s another woman out there just like her who will buy up all of their offensive material. What she’s also done is she’s caused everyone to take a moment and look at Pac*Sun’s products and I’ll bet their sales have grown significantly over the past week. Pardon the pun, but I bet they think this controversy is a Godsend.

What do you think? Write a comment below or send me a tweet…

 

Links

People: “Utah Mother Buys Out Store's 'Pornographic' Shirts over Teen Concerns,” By ANDREA BILLUPS 02/19/2014

WHEN THE SHIRT HITS THE FAN: Woman buys all 'indecent' shirts to remove them from store.