Fill/Stroke.com
We believe that our representation in politics is a serious matter. It needs to be faced with rigour and seriousness.
Mr. Berlusconi, when you speak, you should represent the entire Italian population.
No comments. Posted by md in politics on 12 November 2008.
Political Monogamy by TruthThroughAction.org
No comments. Posted by md in photography, politics, sexy on 10 November 2008.
Forgive me for my lack of enthusiasm today about our President Elect. As heartening as such a victory is for America, it is marred by ignorance and leaves me feeling shame for my country at the same time. The election of Barack Obama to our highest office may seem to be the end of one form of bigotry, one form of xenophobic ignorance, but like a smoker who franticly chews gum, or an alcoholic who turns to drugs, we’ve just replaced one addiction with another, one prejudice with another, one form hatred and discrimination with another.
Yesterday, another 3 states banned gay marriage and a fourth denied some of its orphans the chance of a good home by banning the right for gays to adopt.
California’s ‘Yes On Prop 8′ had $25 million dollars donated by the Morman church, to “uphold the sanctity of marriage.”
I still have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that is not directly tied to religion, and along with such huge support from a church, this is a reduction of everyone’s rights, not just homosexuals. This is church funding government, however much you’d like to deny it.
I am reminded, (and this comparison has been mentioned elsewhere) of the same arguments made against interracial marriage. The “lack of morals”, the “healthy upbringing of the child”.
I think the same people opposing gay marriage would be (and probably still are) the same people protesting interracial marriage, and I think its just as disgusting a group of people as was back then.
So as jubilant and excited as I might feel about the possibilities of the future with a President Obama, my excitement is held in check, realizing that a large portion of our country is treated as second class citizens, with no right to express their love in whatever way they choose.
6 comments. Posted by md in politics, social change on 5 November 2008.
You should be out voting. Go. Vote.
If you already voted, go do it again.
No comments. Posted by md in politics on 4 November 2008.
The above image reminds me of the importance of context within design. I honestly believe the general population feels they are looking past the issue of race in this election. However, its another ballgame when you get the opportunity to see Obama in the context of a white man and McCain in the context of a black man.
Mr Miessler wonders “would Obama even be noteworthy if he were white? Would McCain be in the race at all if he were a black 72-year-old”? I know your response; it wouldn’t matter to you because you’re above that kind of thinking. But, I want you to really consider the above renderings before you answer. Think of the candidates and where they stand on issues that matter to you, as you take it in.
Context is incredibly powerful, and this is an extremely good example of that.
Here’s some information on the renderings; from thecoolhunter.net:
Created by creative director - Tor Myhren from Grey NYC, the posters slice through the race issue between candidates - acknowledging that much of this campaign has predictably but stupidly been re-cast as a battle between black and white. Myhren’s powerful imagery rightly implies that this is all just distraction, seeking to refocus our attention onto what really matters - the issues.
1 comment. Posted by tanner in opinion, politics, social change on 2 November 2008.
We realize there are readers from all over the world here, so we apologize for this brief localized post. We’re in Arizona and have a large amount of readers from here. We also apologize to some readers who are bored with our current political posts. (And this certainly isn’t going to be the most interesting post you’ve ever read.) But, one more week and we can be back to less of that.
Really quickly: We have readers in California too. Though we won’t go over everything, we’d like to further extend our opposition to Proposition 8 which appears on the ballot there. Please, do not vote yes on this measure.
Now, for the main point of this post. There are 8 propositions this election cycle in Arizona. Most of the time, people aren’t really aware of them until they get in the booth. We just wanted to take a brief moment to give you more than a few minutes to decide what you think of these, and also, share our opinion (when we have one) on them.
Proposition 100:
From the Arizona Secretary of State web site: “This Initiative prohibits the government from charging any new tax on the sale or transfer of real property in Arizona. Currently, there are no real property sales or transfer taxes in Arizona. However, the government could enact a real property sale or transfer tax at any time. This Initiative would prohibit the enactment of any new real property sales or transfer tax by a constitutional amendment.”
Based on the language of the pro’s and cons of this ballot, it sounds like pre-emptive fear. The idea that “with the economy being bad, its only a matter of time before cities and counties start looking for more money”
But, it seems to also be preventing double taxation issues as well.
Here is a link to the full language as well as some additional arguments for and against: Prop 100
Proposition 101:
Passage of this proposition would result in an amendment to the Arizona Constitution stating that no law shall be passed that restrict’s a person’s freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans, and that no one shall be penalized for opting not to participate in any particular health care system, plan or coverage
The main issue with this proposition is that the opponents of it say its possible that there may be a need for universal healthcare and this proposition is preventative to that possibility.
Propostion 102:
Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.
To be honest, this post originated out of a desire to openly protest this amendment to the Arizona constitution.
I will try to be calm in my language about this, but it gets me extremely worked up. I feel absolute disgust at those who would propose to vote yes on this measure. The idea of discriminating against people, simply based on your own religious beliefs is something to be ashamed of. And yes, there are no arguments that do not use religion as their primary opposition to gay marriage. No matter how its worded, at its core, this is a religious prejudice.
In Arizona, there is already a ban on this, which the courts ruled on in 2003. It is already a law and there is no need for a constitutional amendment. In 2006, this same measure was on the ballot, and I am proud of Arizona voters for voting against it. However, this time the campaign for this measure seems to have better funding, with more banners and billboards around Phoenix than before. Money that should’ve been spent on all of the many other fiscal problems happening in this area.
I went through the opposition arguments on the main page (I read the pro arguments as well, but was constantly nauseated by the ignorance within) Here are some of the best quotes:
The Arizona Constitution is not the place to change morality every time someone in the Arizona Legislature has an idea about what that morality should be. This legislative referendum has nothing to do with preserving the institution of marriage and everything to do with abuse of power by government.
__
Arizona voters defeated this measure just two years ago. Why? Because what it seeks to restrict is already against Arizona Law. So that’s not what this is about. What it really is meant to do is send a message to the rest of America that not every American is welcome in Arizona. It will impact citizens of every race, color, religion and gender. That’s wrong. And it’s not what we’re all about.
Phoenix is a city that values and respects diversity. That is why thousands of new residents continue to come here every month from all over the country. It adds to our economic vitality and will be even more important as we compete for highly-educated knowledge workers for our growing economy.
As Mayor, I have been focused on making our community safer, strengthening our economy and creating more educational opportunities for our children. We’re making great progress. Let’s not permit a hateful few to define us to the rest of our country by painting a target on a specific group of citizens.
I urge you to oppose these divisive tactics and vote no on Prop 102.
Phil Gordon, Mayor of Phoenix
__
Our elected officials in the Arizona Legislature are entrusted by the people to make decisions on issues of great importance to our community and to confront the real problems Arizonans face.
Instead, they have chosen to put the divisive, mean-spirited and discriminatory amendment on the ballot - again.
Voters already rejected this in 2006.
Why isn’t the legislature addressing the urgent issues of Arizonans, such as jobs, education, the economy, and the cost of gas, food and health care?
It is time we demanded real action on real problems.
I urge you to join me - vote no AGAIN on Prop 102.
United States Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, District 7, Tucson
Tanner Woodford, Adria Robles-Morua and I, Mark Dudlik strongly strongly urge you to vote No on this measure.
Several Links:
Full Language: Prop 102
Also: AZtogether.org
Proposition 105
Currently, a ballot initiative that gets the support of at least half the people who vote is approved. Proposition 105 would require a majority of all those registered, not just a majority of those who vote, for any measure that increases taxes, fees or involves additional government spending.
Sadly, I must relate this ballot measure to a fantasy baseball story. Recently a bad trade was proposed. The league votes on the trades, and if 6 of 10 teams not involved in the trade vote “No”, the trade is rejected. On this most recent trade, only 5 people were active enough to vote at all. All 5 said “No!” but the other 5, not being active, were basically counted as a “yes” vote, and the trade went through.
This measure basically makes it so this scenario could often happen, where even though the people who showed up to vote have decided the issue one way, those registered to vote but who didn’t show up, count as a “no” vote. (opposite results from the baseball example, but you get the idea)
I’m voting no on this.
Full language: Prop 105
Proposition 200
Currently payday loan businesses are regulated by the State. This licensing program is set to terminate on July 1, 2010. Proposition 200 would repeal the program’s termination date. The Payday Loan Reform Act would preserve this financing option for those who choose to use it, and also alter the procedures by which payday loan businesses operate including limiting the number and frequency of loans that can be made to one person and reducing loan fees that can be charged.
Don’t really have an opinion on this one
Full language: Prop 200
Proposition 201
If passed the “Homeowners’ Bill of Rights” would require a minimum 10-year warranty on new homes, allow a homeowner to participate in the selection of contractors to do repairs, and allows homeowners to sue home builders without being responsible for the builders’ attorney costs. Home buyers would have the right to cancel within 100 days and get back most of their deposit.
No opinion on this one either.
Full language: Prop 201
Proposition 202
If passed the “Stop Illegal Hiring” Act would revoke the business license of employers who knowingly or intentionally hire illegal immigrants. This initiative also increases penalties for identity theft, as illegal immigrants often use stolen identities to conceal their undocumented status. Fines collected as a result of this initiative will be distributed to schools and hospitals to help deal with the financial burden placed on Arizona because of illegal immigration.
We do not support prop 202. We do support regulation that protects both honest employers and legal citizens, we also support legislation that can help ease the desire of immigrants to come to the US for, often temporary, stays as employees. We also support legislation that punishes employers that try to exploit illegal immigration without care for the humans affected. This bill does not do enough for any of the previous concerns.
Full language: Prop 202
Proposition 300
A five-member, bi-partisan Commission comprised of citizens was appointed by the Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House and the Arizona Chief Justice. They unanimously agreed to recommend via Proposition 300 that the salaries of legislators should be raised from $24,000 to $30,000 per year.
Can’t really care about this. 6,000 x 5 = $30,000. Vote yes, big deal. Take the money from the extra Prop 102 ad campaign funds.
Full language: Prop 300
Thanks everyone, hope this was useful to you.
ObamaBats: 24 True Type Dingbats
Jeff Domke presents ObamaBats.
I’m proud to announce and share the ObamaBats! A collection of 24 high-quality dingbats featuring Barack Obama and various design elements. This collection is completely free for download, upload, distribution, use and modification. Use these dingbats to start creating your own Obama paraphernalia today!
No comments. Posted by tanner in branding, interwebs, politics on 29 October 2008.
The closest elections in recent history
Good Magazine presents: the closest elections in recent history. (Thx PTRBKR)
No comments. Posted by tanner in information design, politics, visualization on 29 October 2008.
Most recent pro-Obama commercial from the “wassup” guys:
Its been eight long years since the boys said wassup to each other. Even with the effects of a down economy and imminent change in the White House, the boys are still able to come together and stay true to what really matters.
No comments. Posted by tanner in politics on 24 October 2008.
