Time to go make Change!

Civic Engagement

For my civic engagement I decided to help out with the Obama campaign by volunteering for a day. They had me go canvass on Friday October 31st and Saturday November 1st to get the people out to vote that coming Tuesday, instead of just getting people to vote I decided to spend a little extra time talking to them about why they liked the different candidates and what they knew about the local election. I ended up in the Historic Baker district of Denver which is located just west of Broadway around 4th. What I discovered while canvassing was that many people did not want to talk to me about the election so close because they were so frustrated with the constant bombardment of election talk and information or they would just say I am going to vote, I’ve already early voted, and I’m filling out my mail in ballot tonight. But I did get lucky and got to speak to two individuals in great depth about the local election, and encouraged about 10 other people to go out and vote so I felt like I made a little bit of a difference. In total I spent around 3 hours on Friday and 3 hours on Saturday walking around canvassing.
Through out this experience I observed that many people were starting to get tense with the election getting so close, they also were extremely tired of talking about the election and how it would affect them. I think the mobilizing that Obama did to get people out to vote was really amazing; in the end I don’t think people were prepared to have a candidate spend that much time and attention on them.
In the end the best part of this experience was when I got to talk to one lady about amendment 46. At first she was really excited to vote yes on this amendment because she thought it would finally bring some sort of equality to Colorado. I was really hurt when I had to tell her the truth about how amendment 46 was really going to take away many opportunities for communities of color and for many women. She appeared really heartbroken and almost to the point of tears, that was until I talked to her about how she could tell everyone she knew to vote no on 46 and that would give us a fighting chance for equality. After we talked for about 30 minutes she seem really excited again, this time to educate her friends about the truth with amendment 46. After that conversation I felt really proud because I feel like I happened to change one vote in the favor for equality when it was almost lost to lack of knowledge. I just hope that the other people canvassing had some similar experiences and that was the reason 46 and 48 did not pass. In my heart I’m really glad that we had this opportunity to go out and make a difference and it appeared to of really paid off.

Amendment 48 & Civic Engagement

The Amendment 48 lecture and the assigned readings were very eye opening.  I didn't realize before how far reaching the implications of Amendment 48 are.  I have been talking with various friends about Amendment 48 since the lecture and we are all very horrified, not only by the effects the amendment would have on pregnant women's rights but also that many people are not aware of the full extent of these effects.  Even more horrifying, for me, is that people in favor of Amendment 48 also fail to realize the amendment will impact more than just the verdict of Roe v. Wade or rather they see this information as the "clever" attempt at persuasion from the opposing pro-choice argument.  

I was very surprised to hear some abortion abolitionists are now opposed to the redefinition of "person" due to their own experiences of being subjected to its use outside of the anti-abortion objective.  The fact that it's not worry about what could happen, it's what is already happening to pregnant women where such redefinitions have occurred and the denial of these events being caused by 48-esque approvals is shocking and scares me quite a bit. 

My disgust for this amendment led me to get involved with the "No on 48" campaign for the civic engagement project.  On October 11th I volunteered at Planned Parenthood to canvass for "No" from 11am - 5pm.  The three canvassing organizers did not seem to expect anyone to show up for this big canvassing day so when a mere six volunteers, including myself, arrived they were ecstatic.  Each volunteer received an information packet as the organizers began covering the facts of Amendment 48: what it would affect, how it would affect it, and all the little numbers and figures Americans find so compelling, most of which I had already learned in our lecture on the topic.  

The volunteers then paired up to practice what we would say during our door-to-door mission. I honestly did not do very well with this; I could have rambled on about the amendment any ol' day but when asked to sum up the major points in under a minute, I seemed to forget everything and became completely tongue-tied.  Luckily, this did not matter much when we split up in three groups and actually began canvassing in a Lone Tree neighborhood; we barely had a chance to get a word out before shoving a flyer into the hands of residents who were eager to close their doors.  My favorite encounter was with a woman who claimed to be having a party but was clearly not - there was no evidence of people enjoying themselves inside nor were there any cars parked outside of the house ("Elementary, my dear Watson!")  More often though, no one was home so we left the flyers at their door and hoped for the best. 

The whole ordeal wasn't exactly how I had imagined it.  I suppose I thought there would be more people, marching out in a mass to canvass or relentlessly calling voters and offering the facts, making all of Planned Parenthood buzz.  Even though our canvassing troop was very small, our time was valuable nonetheless, evident in the success of the amendment being denied by Colorado voters.  I garnered a sense of togetherness as well as a feeling of power in this togetherness.  I was also filled with a sense of pride for having a small part in defending choice. 

RE: The Law and Politics of Affirmative Action

I wasn't as unsettled by professor Melissa Hart's approach as others were given that she was unsure of who her audience would be and that as she apologized for her manner we kept confirming she was with like-minded people.  Also, for a person who seemed more used to a debate format on the subject it seems logical she would present a more biased view.  I liked her point that the system shouldn't be changed to conform to the racism of others; her specific example being those who look around a classroom and think a person was only accepted into a college because of the color of that person's skin or that they were cheated out of acceptance for the same reason.

Like Ashley, I can see where Ward Connerly is coming from, trying to eradicate any "racial preferences" to considerations based purely on merit but this is at the expense of diversity and community supports, among other things.  A person's qualifications are already considered before racial considerations are taken into account.  With abolishing affirmative action, how then is unconscious discrimination to be dealt with?  It is impossible to determine a person's intent in such a matter and without laws to safeguard against discrimination how can we assume fairness in, for example, application processes - that a person was not accepted for racially charged reasons rather than purely based on merit (as per Connerly's goal).  Unfortunately, it is just not plausible in our society.  I'm not saying affirmative action is a panacea, that with it discrimination is magically a thing of the past, but it serves as at least a leg-up, for lack of better explanation.

To say that gender or race based programs will still be funded but only if they are open to everyone doesn't make sense and completely defeats their purpose.  It is shocking just how many programs would be eliminated, even scholarships having anything to do with race or gender. Ye gods!

In concurrence with others, my worry is how deceptive the amendment is.  I remember a gal telling me once she was at the MLK day parade on Colfax and an African-American man approached her trying to get signature to get the amendment on the ballot.  She asked if he really knew what the amendment was about and it turns out he had even been deceived by the language in the amendment.  It's frightening that someone who would be directly affected by the amendment, thought they knew what it was all about and was fervently supporting it, was mistaken.  With that, the uninformed must be far more horrifyingly (and unknowingly) perplexed.

“Women in Politics”

Having Faith Winter come speak about women in electoral politics was a really amazing experience for me because she really motivated me to possibly run for a political office one day. I know the point of the speech was to empower women but as a queer man of color I felt like I am underrepresented as well and that if I ran for office I could finally have representation. This presentation also really made me think about my mom and giving her the invitation to run for an elected office. But then I remember that she is a Canadian citizen and can’t run for office.
The presentation also made me realize how important having women in office really is because it will help make the change that we thought women would get when they were given the right to vote. I still have faith that women can be the moral compass that they used as a campaign strategy in the suffrage movement. From my experience women do have a stronger moral sense and have the ability to create legislation that will promote equality and change. Something I learned from Faith’s speech was that when there are more women in a legislative body there tends to be more socially just laws passed. If this is true then as a social justice advocate I need to advocate more to have a large majority of women in all legislative bodies so that more socially just legislation will pass.
Lastly Faith really taught me the power of an elected office; she said she gets to make change as an elected official rather than trying to lobby for others to make change for her. If I really want to see drastic changes happen around me I will need to take a more active part in causing that change and one great way I can do that is by running for a political office. I just hope one day that I might possibly get the chance to run for a political office, but if not I hope that I can invite and encourage women around me to run for political offices so they can make more positive change in our society.

Equal Rights for Women

After hearing Dr. Syrett’s lecture on the Equal Rights Amendment, I did a lot of thinking about the equality women have strived for, whether it’s in politics, the workplace, or society in general. As much progress as women have made, one thing that struck me was that women still don’t have the ability to make their own decisions regarding their life without criticism or disapproval from society. The idea that women have a responsibility to stay at home with their kids is an antiquated belief but one that is still very relevant to today’s society. Many women are raised to believe that their main goal in life is to get married and be a mother. If they choose to deviate from that plan, they may have the right to but that doesn’t mean there won’t be societal repercussions. It amazes me that in a constantly evolving world, we can still think of women as somehow inferior to men. However, when I see women like Sarah Palin promoting the “hockey mom” image, I see that women themselves can be perpetuating their own problem. It’s not that I disagree with what she believes in; it’s the fact that she is promoting the idea that this is how women should be. As opposed to embracing the idea that each woman is an individual and individuals are different, she is promoting the stereotype that all women are hockey or soccer moms. I find it funny that she complains about the sexism she endures on the campaign trail, which is valid, yet she is unable to distinguish herself as anything but a “typical mom”. I believe women like Sarah Palin, who promote conformity as opposed to individuality, are seriously detrimental to the feminist movement.

Community Engagement

I realized that perhaps I was supposed to write a blog devoted entirely to my community engagement, rather than writing it as snippets in other blogs. So, just in case, I'm going to re-document it all here, and talk about my most recent experience as well.

I spent 2 hours volunteering for Hank Eng (CD6), and another hour at an event for him. I spent 2 hours volunteering for NARAL's No on 48 campaign, and a couple of hours at the Cable Center on Election night.

The latter two were my favorite activities. Especially after seeing No on 48 get trounced the way it did, tabling for something that I believed in so strongly made me feel like I'd done something important. Election night was extremely exciting because of all the energy in the room (it didn't hurt that Barack Obama won, either).

Finally, this Saturday, I spent an hour at the No on Prop 8 protest downtown. I'd never been to a protest before, but it felt wonderful to be involved in something that I hope will be historic. Someday, I hope people look back on Nov. 15, the day LGBTQ people and their allies rallied and marched throughout the country, and see it as the beginning of a larger movement to bring equal rights to the LGBTQ community. Either way, I saw a lot of great signs (and made one of my own). There were only a few counter-protesters, and while their signs and the attitudes that went along with them were very disturbing to me, it was wonderful to see that there were very little of them. By contrast, the capital was filled with people protesting for our rights. It gave me hope, and a sense of comradery, to see that so many people were willing to come out and say that Prop 8 was not okay.

Civic Engagement

I volunteered with the NO on 48! group, which I found to be very interesting. I was attracted to NO on 48! because I thought it was absolutely the most absurd thing I had heard of and if it had passed, it could have had serious consequences not only for women but all of America. Abortion is obviously a very touchy issue but amendment 48 was about so much more than abortion, another reason I was drawn to it. When one amendment can impact so many different areas of life, I think at the very least people have a responsibility to be completely informed and aware of the amendment. From my experience volunteering with the group, I found that most people had a general idea of the amendment would entail but they didn’t necessarily understand the extent to which it could go. Unfortunately, the group had a couple of tabling sessions cancelled but we were still able to adequately inform people on amendment 48, at least on the DU campus. One thing that really stuck out to me was that even though it was a “women’s issue” nearly all the volunteers at the meetings were male. The two student leaders were female but they were pretty much the only females. I thought it was great that men were helping out with the cause but there was part of me that wondered if it was more a reflection of a lack of female supporters than an abundance of male supporters. One thing I liked about volunteering for the group was that they were just focused on informing people, not changing their minds. I think there was a general understanding that if people were well informed on the issue then there was a very strong chance it wouldn’t pass. Although not everyone felt this way, many of the volunteers wisely avoided the abortion issue and instead focused on how it violated a woman’s constitutional right. By doing that, it made amendment 48 a non-partisan issue that almost every person, male or female, pro-life or pro-choice, could identify with.

Women in Politics

While I thought Mrs. Winters was nice a person and had good intentions, I completely disagreed with her and thought it was the weakest of all the lectures. There are many antiquated ideas of what a woman should be and those stereotypes greatly hurt a woman’s chance to be treated equally and respectfully, especially in a political environment. However, and I don’t mean to be disrespectful, I thought she actually did a disservice to women politicians rather than help them. Based off her lecture, I think she is completely out of her league jumping into politics but that is more a reflection of her age and inexperience than her sex. She mentioned negative stereotypes of women but then she essentially generalized all women politicians by saying they are all non-partisan, willing to collaborate, and work across lines of authority. I was little thrown-off by this because there were absolutely no facts to back up those statements but she lost my support when she mentioned this is true because SHE is willing to do all those things! She is not a reflection of women politicians, nobody is. Every woman is different and every woman politician is different and to generalize women like that, even if is positive, exacerbates the problem people have with perceiving women, rather than help it. She is obviously a very ambitious woman but a problem I have with ambition in politics is that it can cloud people’s judgment and put an individual ahead of the people. While I have no idea what she is like as a politician, I hope her ambition to be a politician doesn’t supersede her reasons for wanting to be a politician.

White House Project and Wrap Up

My apologies on posting so late. The White House Project was an interesting lecture. It seemed to me that women should have higher goals than just getting on to the school board. I'm sorry if that sounds snotty, but women should be going to the senate, the house of reps and the actual white house. I know that the project cannot do everything for women, but it seems like a good start to get more women into power. One thing that was very interesting is when she discussed that the general public does not trust women with the economy and national security, but the public believes that women are more trustworthy than men. I feel like it is notion that allows women to do some things, but prohibits other things due to the fact that we are "emotional and shouldn't be trusted with such important issues".  I really admire the overall goals that the White House Project has, but I feel like the organization could be better. They need to expand to more states and get more women running for office. I also think it was interesting that she discussed that once women have "permission" to run, then they run. I didn't quite understand what she meant by that. Why should women need permission for anything. We are quite capable of making our own decisions and can run without getting permission from males or anyone else. 

In terms of civic engagement:

I volunteered  more than 5 hours working for Colorado for McCain, I know he is not the most popular person in class but I still enjoyed volunteering. I really felt respected. My major responsibility was to call unregistered voters and talk to the issues that they wanted to talk about. I did get called a bitch a couple of times, but other than that it was a very good time. I liked getting to know people around the campaign. One of the perks I got, was to actually meet with John McCain at a women's town hall meeting. I got to ask him a question and held a bit of conversation with him. He was one of the most polite people that I have ever met, probably because he was campaigning but still. I also made really good connections for later on in my life. I meet a few lawyers that we volunteering that were really excited to hear my plans for law school. I didn't expect to go and make connections but it did happen. Although McCain did not win, I feel like the experience that I had because of the campaign will help me with future plans in life and if I do go into politics. 

In terms of this class:

I really did enjoy this class, although I do believe that it was a little biased to the left but that is OK. :)  I felt like my opinion was taken seriously and that I could express my opinions without getting yelled at or anything like that. I hope another class like this comes around again.

I wish all of you the best of luck with the rest of school this year and I hope all of you have a wonderful winter break.

Take Care,

Chelsea

Everyone Go Vote! Decide!

Persuadable Voters in 2008: Campaign Effects and Candidate Strategy
This presentation was probably the most educational class I have ever been too, I learned so much about elections and how they really work in our modern society. For me I came to a huge realization that our society is corrupt if this is how political campaigns run their elections. For me they way they target voters on wedge issues really scared me because people are so motivated by one or two issues that they will vote against all other issues they find important. And a lot of these issues appear to be social issues like abortion or gay marriage. I personally think we shouldn’t even talk about social issues unless they pertain to giving people more rights and abilities to choose in their own life. I don’t understand why our country fights so hard over whether to give or deny a group of people rights, for me it’s all about giving the most rights to the most people possible. But the tactics used by politicians seems like it is not about talking about the issues and how they will lead our country to a better and brighter future but rather why my views are better than their views. To me it seems really childish that we debate why one is better rather than how one is going to be the best thing for the country. For me I would really like to see an election where the candidates drop all the games talk about the issues and allow people to decide on those who they think is better no more of these games that plays games with our heads.
Maybe it is just me but I currently feel like the whole country is running around in a stage of infancy and paranoia with the election, I really hope that the people that are still undecided can figure out who they think will run this country in the best way possible and cast their vote! But with the record turnout at the primaries I’m excited to see the record turnout for the election in a few weeks. I can only hope for the best and that we as a country will move forward with positive change!

Say Yes to Affermative Action! Vote NO! on 46!

The Law and Politics of Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action the great no no term of the century. For millions of people they think it is a system that gives bonus privileges to minorities in this country. This large tumor of ignorance seems to be growing everyday with things like Amendment 46. At first I didn’t know the full extent of how affirmative action worked, I thought it had something to do with goals and quotas but I knew that if you had lower grades you wouldn’t be bumped up to a higher status or get more points. But the way white males talk about how because of affirmative action they are now oppressed really angers me. They are some of the most privileged people in society and yet they feel the need to complain that they are being mistreated in some way. I don’t understand how they cannot see the huge amount of privilege that they already have why do they need even more special treatment?
I feel like to stop policies like these from happening again in the future we need to educate the population on what affirmative action really is and how it really works. That people who benefit from affirmative action deserve to be there but had to go through more struggles due to society to get to the same place. I hope there comes a day when affirmative action is not necessary but currently the policies to help that are not being created. We need to start by making education more equal across the board, instead of taking money away from schools that are failing start by giving them money. Get more teachers to have smaller class sizes in intercity schools and provide more options for families so kids can stay in school longer when they get older.
I hope this amendment does not pass, I feel like if it does then we will be pushing back progress in Colorado and with the current trends Colorado can’t afford any more push backs. I feel like Colorado is already on the right path and I have faith that this piece of legislation will not pass and that people will realize the importance of providing opportunities to everyone!

Ugh! Why Phyllis Why?

The Equal Rights for Which Women?: The E.R.A. of the 1920s and 1970s and Debates over American Women’s Roles
This class discussion really opened my eyes in how the ERA worked and why it didn’t pass. The way the opposition used fear of what was important at the time to keep the law from passing. By targeting the groups that this bill effects and using their fears to make them think the bill will hurt them rather than help them seems like the main strategy used by people trying to stop social justice. It is really hard to understand why people were and still are so against women having an equal role in our society. I look at the heat that Hillary Clinton faced because she was a woman and no one wanted to look at the great abilities that a woman could possible bring to the white house. Why does inequality matter so much to the conservative right? I personally feel like there are enough resources to go around for all of us on this small planet but why can’t we just share?
What upsets me the most is when individuals from oppressed groups fight against their oppressed identity. For example Phyllis Schlafly was one of the biggest opponents for the E.R.A. and she was a women who did not even follow her own ideals. Claiming that women need to stay in the home to help their husbands, and that the laws need to protect women because they are more venerable compared to men, yet she went out speaking all over the country and didn’t stay home with her husband. It is people like this that scare women not to stand up for themselves and take the abuse that society is dishing out. How can she as a woman stand against other women to help suppress their rights, to me that is just mind baffling and seems like an oxymoron. I don’t understand what would motivate someone to fight so hard against something that will ultimately make their life better? For me I really hope that something like the E.R.A. will appear in congress and in the house again so we can prove to the world that the United States is capable of equality and even though that we have a horrible history we realize that and want to move forward with it!

48!

Danger on the Ballot: How the "Human Life Amendment" Threatens the Well being of Women, Children, and Families.
This topic was really intense for me to listen to, I did not realize the effect that 48 would have on the laws and how it played out in our culture. While doing the readings I was really appalled to what happened to these women in other states. The one that will stick with me the most is the story of the disabled woman who had a re-occurrence of her cancer and she was pregnant. I started to cry when I was reading how the laws in Southern Carolina didn’t protect her or her child’s life. To me it really addressed how the system doesn’t seem to work for the few that are at the bottom or in the margins, but works really well for the ones that are at the top and have power. It seems like the ideals of the conservative right tend to have a lot of money and this is how these laws are presented on the ballot and to me that’s unfair.
Laws and amendments like 48 really appear to be creating targets on the people that the majority of society sees as unfit and uses a loop hole to try and remove them from the society. These laws really would affect poor women of color who are in situations that are not necessarily their own doing, also with the passing of this law it will give a lot more power to doctors who tend to be white and male. This power dynamic is quite unacceptable in my eyes and I really hope that this amendment does not pass. My question is how do these amendments get on to the ballot, I feel like this issues is a civil rights issue, and that Roe v. Wade already settled the score on abortion? It is really hard for me to understand why the United States of America is still discussing issues of civil rights, for being one of the world’s strongest super powers we squabble over issues that should have been dealt with years ago. I am just hoping for the day that the United States can give equal rights to all its citizens and members that are involved like we promised over 200 years ago, I am really disappointed in how far we haven’t come.

Pink among a world of Black Suits

Well better late than never!!  I had a crazy week last week and never got the time to talk about the White House Project.  I was not sure what to expect what Mrs. Winters talked to us.  I had never heard of the White House Project before I had read about it a few days before class and was very interested about what she had to say.  I was rather shocked when she was more interested into pushing women to get involved then she was being grateful for the women who already were, like herself. 

I know for a fact that I never want to be in a political position at all.  Even if someone comes up to me and tells me to, I really have no interest in it at all.   I agree 100% about what Sarah Hyde wrote, when she said Faith spent a lot of time talking about why it is important to have women in politics, these claims were based on stereotypes and generalizations about how women think and operate. She said that women, unlike men, "work across lines of authority." Meaning that women don't care about receiving credit for their work, they just make sure the job gets done.”  I think that the way Mrs. Winters talked, almost put women back a step again in my mind.

There is no way that men will be women and women will be men, so we have to come up with a way to make equal ground and get all the issues covered.  I am almost embarrassed to use this as my analogy but it is a very true one, take Legally Blond.  Witherspoon defies the odds, gets into law school and works on Capital Hill basically as a Barbie doll.  I think that movie was the best example for young girls and women to be involved in politics.  That movie proved that all types of girls can follow their dreams, and even though they have most of the world working against them they still can be unique and get to the top if they try hard enough.

I am sure when this movie came out feminists when ballistic because this Barbie stereo type is continuing and that Witherspoon is a beautiful, skinny, blond.  Well sadly there is no way getting around this but she was able to overcome obstacles that were put in her path by people who did not believe in her.  Those are the ideas that young girls aspiring to be lawyers or do anything in politics should remember.  You can do anything if you put your mind to it.  Even be a pink Barbie doll among a world of black business suits. 

Women and Politics

While I wasn’t too impressed with Ms. Winter’s lecture, because of the generalizations that she made, (others have already touched on that, so I won’t go there) I found some of the antidotal stuff very thought provoking.

Right now, if we (as a country) continue on the path we are right now, it’ll take 200 years to achieve political parity. That means it’ll take 200 years for there to be any kind of gender balance in politics. 200 years is almost as long as the United States has been a country. Of course, that is assuming that political thought will stay stagnant. It took 43 presidents, and all those years of history to open the door for Obama. Can we really say that it’ll take as long as that to reach political parity? I really doubt it.

1 out of 4 children think it’s illegal for a black person or a woman to be the president. I wonder if they are thinking something different now.

The three H’s…husband/hair/hemlines…can any of these things be more interesting than a woman’s agenda. Unless she’s Brittney Spears or some other Hollywood train wreak? I don’t think so. Even Palin’s agenda was more interesting than her “first dude”, her $10,000 a week stylist, and her $150,000 wardrobe…

1 woman=man enough? 2 women=cat fight 3 or more women=agenda

Civic Engagement

I went to the homelessness forum last Thursday, and over all I felt that it lacked direction. (1.5 hours) I did get to hear a great comment though. “You will not hear either candidate take a position on homelessness because McCain is trying to separate himself from Bush (who took a stand against homelessness) and Obama is already dealing with accusations of being a socialist.

I also went to the election night results at the cable center. I agree with previous bloggers that the excitement could be felt in the air, but it felt kind of repetitive. While others might disagree with me I felt we only confirmed what we already knew weeks ago. McCain would have had to win all the swing states and then some, quite the impossible feat considering the state of the economy.

Yes We Did

Last week, to fulfill the remainder of my community engagement, I went to a function for Hank Eng, who was running for CD6. I was there for about an hour, where I listened to and met a California congressperson who had come in for the occasion. I also chatted several members of the community that I had met at prior events (for Hank as well as my Caucus many, many months ago). I had a good discussion about the dangers of Amendment 48, although I was very aware that I was preaching to the choir.

Speaking of 48, I am so incredibly relieved that it fell through--and by such a wide margin! It is good to see that the people of Colorado are by and large not in favor of such extreme, reproductive-rights hampering measures.

Last night, I attended to event at the Cable Center for a few hours. The excitement in the air was tangible as Obama first won states that were on the border, and then finally won it all! I paraphrase the much derided quote of Michelle Obama when I say that this is the first time I have been proud of my country in a very long time. To witness such a great moment in history was emotionally overwhelming, in the best way possible. To know that my rights as a woman, and as a bisexual woman at that, have a chance at being protected under the new administration was enough to make me breathe a sigh of relief all on its own. But to see the first black and biracial president elected first hand was like witnessing a miracle. And being in a public venue, watching the reactions of people all over the country, made it that much more amazing.

I still look forward to the day a woman is elected president. But to see a black man elected to the highest office, and by such a wide margin of electoral votes, gives me hope again that in our country, with enough time, anything may be possible.

The Way of the Bonobo

After Faith Winter's lecture on Wednesday, I could not help but be reminded of the Bonobo, a species of primate (and rampant sex fiends), whose community is dominated by females.  Those researching the species attribute this domination to the rich bonds existing between the females.  Winter noted such a connection between women in our society is weak and is what the White House Project is trying to build.  However, while the Bonobo bump uglies to achieve social status/acceptance (though I'm sure some women are not above taking this route for their gain), the White House Project gives women tools to interact and gain positive acknowledgment in the male dominated political arena.

Establishing a professional network of women supporting women is simply an enabler for women in general.  I see the White House Project not about just blindly getting a mass of women into political office or the like but giving them a resource, an accessible community to find reassurance and strength in what seems a lonely endeavor (i.e. a woman amongst many, many men).  Something that says, "I'm kickin' ass, you're kickin' ass.  Let's band together and add some power to our kick."

Winter generalized women a lot in her lecture (which is difficult to avoid) but not all women are the same and I cannot support someone just because we share the same gender if I don't agree with that person's views.  Sarah Palin, for example, sucks, a lot.  She's done so from the beginning (two of my friends who grew up in Wasilla give some great examples: How Local Teens Beat Sarah Palin in the Battle of the Wasilla Skate Park & Palin, Because We Don't Need It).  Many women are not swayed to support Palin simply because she is a woman, myself included.  But I must give her kudos for inspiring women to say to themselves, "I'm more capable than she is."  Yes, you are, ladies! Even though Palin isn't the best representation for women in leadership, or least is not my personal ideal, her moment in the limelight supports the visibility idea behind the White House Project - women in leadership inspiring other women to get out there too.  Winter said to invite women to run for office, so see Palin as fuel for invitation rather than just a failure; when a woman says she could be a better leader than Palin, invite her to do so, I have every confidence she could be.

Add Women, Change Everything

There are a lot of social questions that can never be answered. This is my problem with the world, and there is no one in particular to blame for this issue. But I am the kind of person who needs answers, so I find myself mad at the world when they are not readily available. By now, you're like, really Ashley, what are you talking about? I'm talking about women in politics, and what we make of them. How can a woman "be a man" without NOT being a woman? If she's no longer "being a woman" we do not want her, but if she is too much of a girlie girl, we don't take her seriously. You have your Hillaries - the strong "women's woman," sporting the pants suits and playing with the big boys. Then you have your Sarahs - the beautiful "men's woman," rocking $6,000 dresses while smiling and winking at the cameras. But there is no clear cut definition of what we want a woman in politics to look like. We're going to talk about the Hillaries like they're men in womens' suits, and we're going to assume the Sarahs are beautiful idiots. We as a society are unable to look at a woman without marking her - which is my frustration with the world. What would we do if we ran across a woman who played politics like a Hillary, but looked just like a Sarah? Chances are we wouldn't be able to NOT take in account her appearance.
So what about President Barbie? I think the idea is simply FABULOUS, and if I had a daughter I would certainly buy her President Barbie before I even considered purchasing Pregnant Barbie - you know, the cute barbie with the huge belly that was on shelves a few years back? You press on her tummy and the baby magically pops out! Whoever thought of that one is a GENIOUS! I can just imagine all of the conversations on motherhood that were sparked between little girls and their parents! I would not buy pregnant barbie if it was the last toy ever made and my child had her birthday on Christmas. If you ask me, it gives off the impression that that is what little girls are supposed to do with their lives - have babies and still manage to look like barbie! But this is an entirely different issue, so back to president barbie... I love this, it shows that barbie can do more than play in her beach house, pop out babies, and care for her pets.
I think Miss Winter's speech Wednesday was (for lack of a better word) inspiring. Though I do agree with some of our other bloggers - in that I felt I was kinda being sold the program - I felt we needed to hear what was said. Although (like some of our other bloggers pointed out) I am hesitant to agree with the idea that women will bring morals to politics (believe it or not, gentlemen, women too can suffer from lack of morale), I do firmly agree that women would bring a different perspective to politics. Again, it's back to the old social question - we need to be like men, but still be ladies. We need to play hardball, but maintain our "morals." Be a man - but don't forget to look and act like a woman at the same time. Since there are no definite answers, I offer this - we need more women in politics so that we can become comfortable with all types of women. I love the phrase you can't win if you don't play - as women, we cannot expect everything from politics if we don't jump in there for ourselves.

Women in Politics

After Faith Winter's talk and learning about women in politics and the White House Project I definitely do support their goal of getting more women into office but there are aspects of her speech that I don't agree with and are broad generalizations on her part. Firstly, I think it sucks that there aren't more women in politics, there is an entire organization of predominately men making decisions on my behalf without having any knowledge of the female experience. I don't think men politicans should be making health care decisions that affect women and the only way that is going to change is by getting more women in office. There are more women in the US population than men so our numbers in all political venues should be at least 50 - 50 if not more women to be completely representative. I realize this will probably never happen but I think it would be ideal.

Now onto what I didn't agree with. Faith spent a lot of time talking about why it is important to have women in politics, these claims were based on stereotypes and generalizations about how women think and operate. She said that women, unlike men, "work across lines of authority." Meaning that women don't care about receiving credit for their work, they just make sure the job gets done. She used herself as an example of this point, saying she just wants things to get accomplished and it's not important to her that she receive the credit. I don't think that this can be applied to women as a whole. It seemed so outdated to say that essentially women don't need recognition and that men can get the credit for work a women did and that is a good thing.

In addition Faith said that women matter in politics because they think outside the box. I'm really not buying that only women do that. She assumes that all women think outside the box and that it is a very rare thing for a man to do the same, but I think this statement to be untrue and impossible to prove in any case.

Overall, I think Faith has the right intentions and that the work she does is great and worthwhile, but I don't think that her reasons for why we need women in politics hold any weight. We need women in politics because politicians are elected officials who are supposed to represent the views of their people and if there are no men there then that is not a successful sample and then they don't have all the resources to serve successfully.

Women's Rights: More Important than Numbers

While I enjoyed the presentation from Faith Winters about The White House Project, there were aspects of the organization’s philosophy with which I did not agree. As opposed to the presentation being an informative discussion, I almost felt like I was being sold something. I found it odd that so much of the presentation was about just getting A LOT of women into politics without really addressing the differences and individuality of each woman out there. I completely understand that more women in politics in terms of diversity and support. However, I think finding people who support women’s rights to be more important than just pushing women (no matter what their views are) into politics.

Like Raishel, I did not like the generalizations that were made about women in politics, like the fact that women are more “moral” than men. Not every woman can be compared to every man. I know plenty of women that if put into a leadership position would not make the most “moral” decision. I am still a little bit confused as to why The White House Project would want to push for a large number of women in politics if those women would not improve other women’s lives? I think that it would be more important to advocate and support those who support women’s rights no matter whether they’re women, men or anything else.    

I did learn a lot from the presentation even though I didn’t completely agree with everything the organization pushed. The barriers that prevent more women from entering office are very apparent in society, especially with the current election. The idea that ambition is somewhat unappealing is evident in people’s reactions to Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. I found it very interesting when Ms. Winters said that the number one reason women run for office is because someone invites them. I wonder what is the number one reason men enter politics?  

The Disappearing President Barbie

As it so happened, I went to Toys 'R Us recently to pick a board game, and wandered, sentimentally, into the Barbie aisle.

I remember President Barbie. I remember Dr. Barbie. I remember when Barbie had careers unrelated to children and animals.

Now Barbie can do the following:

"What do YOU want to be when you grow up - a pet boutique owner? Baby doctor? Swim instructor? You can do it all, with Barbie® doll and these sweet "I Can Be…™" sets! Barbie® doll has fun and looks fab as she pampers pets, takes care of those baby bundles of joy, and teaches the toddlers to swim safe!" (http://barbie.everythinggirl.com/catalog/productbrd.aspx?subcat_id=210015&product_id=2000947)

Now, Barbie always had pets and babies that you could play with. But, for a while, we saw more diversity. And, of course, it's not to say these 3 aren't admirable careers, but they seem to represent a very sexist, old-fashioned stereotype that Barbie/women can only involve themselves in nurturing careers--careers that deal with small children and animals.

I think someone needs to inform our guest lecturer that, sadly, President Barbie is dead.


...Anyhow, I found yesterday's lecture very interesting on so many levels (I promise, no more about Barbie).

First, I thought it was interesting that Ms. Winter played into the very old belief that women are automatically more moral than men, and thus will run things differently. On the one hand, it is very possible that, due to socialization, we would run things differently. But, on the other, it seems a naive assumption that presumes something about women--that we are the opposite of men. This idea is very old, and while it is possible that there are some biological components to differences between the sexes, a lot of it appears to be socially constructed as a way of marking men and women as different from one another.

Secondly, I got a kick out of the quote about Sarah Palin as a temptress/cheerleader. The honest truth is that the GOP has played her up in exactly that way, and her constant winking at the camera during her debate DID feed into that image. The problem, I feel, is that Sarah Palin and her backers are playing directly into sexist stereotypes, and then crying sexism when the public responds.

Finally, I do very much agree with Ms. Winters on one thing in particular: for women to stop feeling the pressure to 'be men', more women do need to be elected. We do need to shift the political landscape, and with it our idea of what a politician is, to encompass more than traditional, hegemonic masculinity. Then, perhaps, we can stop focusing on whether our candidates are too masculine or too feminine, and just allow them to be whoever they are along the gender continuum.

Civic Engagement Project: Canvassing for No on 48

For my civic engagement project, I canvassed for No on 48. On October 11th from 11-5, I learned about Amendment 48, met some very cool people and had my first canvassing experience. First, Liz, Sarah and I went to Planned Parenthood in Stapleton. It was interesting because as we drove up, there was a group of people standing around in the rain yelling about how abortion is murder and we were perverts for going in there. It made me sad that they not only make people feel bad about their decisions and that they focus on that one small aspect of Planned Parenthood. When we told the receptionist that we were volunteers for No on 48 along with two other women who came in with us, she was shocked! When we went up to the conference room, the three Planned Parenthood employees were even more shocked that we were volunteers and that we had actually shown up. It made me sad that they were so excited because it just showed how few volunteers they have for their campaign. To begin, they handed out packets about the No on 48 campaign and coached us on easy points to remember and tell people. We even did a little role playing with one person being the canvasser and the other being the person at the door. It was good practice because I was nervous who we were going to encounter while we were canvassing.
All three of the No on 48 employees was super enthusiastic with very strong feeling about the Amendment. One of the women filled us in on all the powerful organizations backing the No on 48. One woman knew more of the biological aspects of fertilization while another knew more of the legal aspects of getting an amendment on the ballot. I was so glad that I had been able to learn so much about Amendment 48 from Lynn Paltrow’s presentation because that way I wasn’t totally unaware when I got there. I learned even more about 48 from the people at Planned Parenthood. I didn’t realize how much Amendment 48 would affect health care and doctors’ ability to care for women without breaking the law.
We did our canvassing in Lone Tree, in three different groups, each with one Planned Parenthood employee. I spoke with a few actual residents but mostly we just left lit at the door. I was surprised how impatient most people were. They didn’t really want to listen, so it was great to just explain who you were and then hand them a flyer about No on 48. I think a lot of people just vote yes because they don’t know what the amendment is even about. It felt good to be spreading the word and hopefully preventing people from voting for something they don’t understand.
I loved canvassing. I felt so powerful and like I was really doing good things for society. Before we left, the leaders gave us shirts, stickers, signs and posters. I put up posters all over my house and gave some to my friends. I am really glad I canvassed for No on 48. I feel like I made a small but important difference.

The Excitement of the 2008 Campaign

The presentation about persuadable voters with Dr. Sunshine Hillygus was great. First of all, she began with the fact that academics had come to the conclusion (using only non-campaign factors) that Obama will be our next president. That’s fine by me! I just had so much interest in this presentation because it is happening all around us. I loved previous speakers on historical issues, but this election is so different and new, it is incredibly exciting.
I appreciated that Dr. Hillygus explained exactly what is so different about this election, like the candidates and their “firsts” for sex, age, and race, the huge amount of money spent, the desire for radical change, and the huge mobilization of voters. Going into the presentation, I believed that the campaign played an incredibly huge role in the actual election. I had not even really thought that people can choose who they want to vote for without it being shoved in their face.
Dr. Hillygus said that there are two camps in the debate of whether campaigns matter. Those who say yes are pundits, candidates and journalists. Those who say no are academics and political science forecasters. In terms of pre election polls, I really thought the idea of the Bradley Effect was fascinating. The Bradley Effect is when people overstate their support of black candidates to appear more socially desirable.
I will be voting on November 4th so like Graham, I found it fascinating that some people just vote for the president by who is first on the ballot. It made me sad that young people vote in such smaller numbers than adults. Do we think the government doesn’t truly affect our lives? Do we think our vote doesn’t really matter? Do we just not care? Because I am from California, I have never seen so many campaign ads until I came to Colorado. California is seen as pretty much a lost cause for McCain, so I love being able to vote in Colorado and possibly help that push for Obama. Being in a so-called “purple” state, I am getting a much more charged and nerve wracking experience of the election.

Random Thoughts

Dr. Hillygus’s lecture was by far one of the most entertaining out what we have already heard this quarter. It was very well organized, and packed tight with a ton of information and interesting facts. Her use of images really helped her presentation, and the delivery of all that information. Unfortunately, with so much information being thrown at me I found it hard to hold onto anything except a handful of randomness.

The Truth of Bradley Effect: People with negative racial attitudes don’t vote for any Democrat.

First of all, I found the statement that Palin actually de-excited Republican voters to stop my train of thought on a dime. If that is indeed factual, then is quite a hit for the Grand Old Party to take. What was supposed to attract Hilary supporters away from the Democratic Party, might have actually sent away fellow Republicans. That is a bad position since party members are the most likely to vote for the party. It is doubly bad since Republicans are already in a relatively unexcited state because of the circumstances of the election. The combination of economic turmoil, and being the incumbent party already put them in a tough place. Palin might have gotten the GOP the gender card, but that might have lost them the election.

Two weeks in an eternity. Those in Canada can relate, but so can quarter students.

Another note that I took was that the voting history of senators are held against them. I have never thought of that, because I had always been under the impression that governors are usually elected simply because they can be seen as mini-Presidents that would make the transition well.

Independents are mostly made up of partisans who disagree with the party, for example a pro-choice Republican.

Persuadable Voters

I found this lecture to have been one of the best all quarter for a variety of reasons. First off, she was non-partisan, which was a nice change from previous speakers. Politics can be a very sensitive topic and it was nice to have a lecture that focused on politics as a whole, not just one side or issue. She also was a very polished public speaker, which made a huge difference for me. It is much easier to stay focused and really listen when someone’s speech flows fluently and I thought she did a great job at that. Being a visual learner, I liked her use of graphs and charts because they were the perfect complement to her speech. She was very professional, yet relaxed at the same time, which makes for a good lecture combination.

Going on what Sarah said, I also found it very interesting that certain amendments are chosen based on their ability to attract voters who are passionate about the subject and otherwise might not bother to vote. I think this kind of reflects what a dirty game politics can be. Everyone always has an ulterior motive and things are never just how they seem. I understand it is done to increase voter turnout but it seems like people are playing games with our futures and constitutional rights.

I really learned a lot from this lecture about the small and little things about this election and elections in general. Besides the fact this election has a 72 year-old man, an African-American, and a woman, I was surprised to learn that only 2 senators have been elected to President and we are guaranteed a 3rd this November, which truly makes this a rare election. I was shocked that something like being first on a ballot gives a candidate a better chance to win but the more I thought about it, the less surprised I was about it. We live in a country where people choose a candidate based on whether the candidate “is like one of us”, so its not that surprising that people would pick the first name they come across (still a little sad though).

"Your Vote Counts!"

Although everyone has heard the statement, “Every Vote Counts,” and it is slightly cliché, I feel that this election will be a very critical one in not only history but in the whole projection of American views, values, nature and later analysis examining statistics. As a first time voter it is almost overwhelming to investigate and keep up with all the issues and messages the media and society has been bombarding us with. Now in an effort to move past the “Your Vote Counts” public service announcement, I would like to shift my attention in response to Dr Sunshine Hillygus’ lecture.

I would like to begin by saying that I loved the way she conveyed so much information clearly and concisely, her charts and graphs served as a great visual aid, the presentation was very neatly organized, and she expanded on current views and perspectives. I agree with Ayres, on her comment, “It was nice to have a speaker with no agenda. She was someone who wanted to tell us the facts and not push her personal views on us.” Further expanding on the lecture, beyond the notion of this election being historically different, I liked the way she pointed out that there are more key points besides age, sex, and race such as the fact that there is no incumbent running, the vast “Anti-Bush” sentiment and call for “change” in terms of status quo being significant factors.

In addition to this, just as intriguing as the material she was presenting, were the questions and thoughts provoked. I thought it was interesting how she asked the question, “Do campaigns matter?” From the perspective of the average citizen, this question should be a no brainer, “yes,” however, I feel that more often than not it is just taken as tradition and is part of the game. Conceptually speaking, the purpose of a campaign should be to serve as the instrument(s) and structure for raising political social consciousness in answering the inquiry of: “What matters?” “To whom does this matter?” and “Why does this matter?”

In conclusion, I would just like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the lecture, learned a lot, and left with a few new thoughts to consider more analytically. In response to the election as the campaigns intensify, I eagerly await November 4th because I am tired of all the petty campaign strategies (although sometimes entertaining), media being nit-picky about how a candidate is presented/represented , and finally want to see the results.

Persuadable Voters

I found Dr. Hillygus' discussion very interesting. I had never really thought about all the factors that influence who people vote for and how a campaign is run. The one thing I still have a question about is how a poll is conducted. When they say a certain percentage of people are going to vote for McCain or Obama, who are these people? Do they do a sample and apply it to the whole country because I am voting but I have never participated in any survey regarding the election so that makes me wonder how accurate the polls actually are.

What I found most interesting about the talk was about the function of the amendments. Dr. Hillygus said that which amendments are chosen to be on the ballot is a strategic decision to increase turnout on election day because they anticipate people being passionate about the wedge issues. This angered me in a way because I can't help thinking back to amendment 48 and that it is on the ballot to get all the people who are passionate about women's issues and abortion to come to the voting booth when they may not normally. I think this is a dangerous strategy because of the horrible reprocutions if it is passed and all just to increase voter turn out.

I was also struck that Dr. Hillygus said that anything can make a difference in who people vote for. She said that whichever name is listed first on the ballot is likely to get more votes simply because they are listed first. The point was that even a rainstorm can effect voter turn out and I was surprised that some people could really be that apathetic about the election. I can't imagine that anyone could be so neutral on the election that they can't decide and just vote for the first name on the ballot. I haven't seen many elections in my lifetime but I think we all have a sense that the passion people have for this election is unprecedented and for some to not care who wins is unimaginable to me.

Dr. Hillygus also surprised me when she said that some academics are wondering why anyone would want to win this election because they would inherit the bad economy and wouldn't be able to turn it around in four years so they would most likely lose re-election. She said some democrats think the best strategy is for Obama to lose the election. I had never thought about that before and I suppose it makes sense but I don't think anyone who is for Obama could ever vote for McCain or visa versa because of this strategy.

A Great Nonpartisan Discussion

I have to start off saying that I loved the lecture by Sunshine Hillygus.  But then again how could it not be an interesting with the name Sunshine.  It does seem like a common theme, not only in our class but also the general public, the loathing of the Electoral College.

Sunshine started off her talk by why this election/campaign season is so historic.  I always thought it was because of the range of the candidates (young women running as VP under McCain, young black man running for president), I never really thought of any other reasons for it being historic, but she mentioned quite a few.  From the 22 weeks for the Democrats to choose their nominee, Independents allowed to vote in Vermont during the primary, only two Senators have EVER been elected and now we have both main party nominees being former Senators and a HUGE amount of money, just to name a few.  This was a very interesting way to look at the historic future of this election and I will bet most Americans have no idea about this aspect of this historical election.  I will assume that most Americans think the same way that I did when it come to the historic aspect only being in the candidates. 

The most interesting point that I took from Sunshine’s talk was about who is going to win.  Obviously that was a main point of the talk as well as the main thought in the American people as we get closer and closer to Election Day.  But she made interesting points about the fact that American Democrats are being very loud and yet that does not mean that there is not huge support for the Republicans.  In fact she used a great analogy to show why this is so.  She says that when people are excited they talk more about it.  They are louder and they want to be heard.  Obama is a new change, a new twist on the ‘normal’ candidates for president (as Hillary would have been as well).  Whereas McCain is just like the ‘normal’ candidate for president and the Republicans are not speaking out as much.  Yes Obama has more money and yes Obama has more people speaking out on his behalf but it does not in any way guarantee that he will be the President.   There is no doubt that because of Obama’s outspoken supporters there will be bandwagon voters.  The type of swing voters who will join Obama’s campaign because of all they hear and the amerce hype around his campaign.  One would hope voters choose a candidate over morals and political platforms not just on public appeal.  (but then again it is this public appeal that McCain was trying to get women voters to vote for Palin).

There is no doubt that this is going to be yet another election that is going to come down to the wire with a huge amount of upset either direction the results show.

I think the most pleasing aspect of Sunshine’s lecture was that she was NONPARTISAN!  It was nice to have a speaker with no agenda.  She was someone who wanted to tell us the facts and not push her personal views on us.  

A Jumble Of Thoughts...

Like Liz and Ashley, I have long disdained the electoral college, though it's rumored to have a purpose. I believe that purpose is to try to prevent candidates from targeting specific demographics and overlooking others. I do not know enough about political science or campaigns to know whether this is a reasonable assumption. I did, however, find Dr. Hillygus' discussion of the narrowly-targeting mail propaganda to be quite fascinating. My household has been getting propaganda from both campaigns; the fact that my father was, many years ago, registered Republican seems to be causing an influx of letters that identify him as a loyal one. I wonder now whether they know he has 'crossed over', but are using that past knowledge and perhaps a knowledge that he has worked with Republicans in our district (while advising the Democrats that run against them), to try to enact medicare reform, as a basis for sending mail that they hope will sway him to the other side.

On the subject of votes counting, I really do have reason to hope that this year mine matters, as the state of Colorado is so up-in the air. The lecture did, however, give me reason to be nervous, as I was taking solace in the extent of Obama's lead in the polls. However, McCain and the online and televised chatter about his campaign seem to be on a continuous downward spiral, between the lambasting of the money spent on Palin's wardrobe and this week's racially-charged hoax that even Fox News said, before it was revealed as a hoax, could spell the end of McCain's campaign if it was discovered to be such.

Speaking of Palin's wardrobe, anyone have any thoughts on whether this discussion is sexist? She certainly thinks it is, but then again, she only seemed to start thinking media commentary was sexist once applied to her.

Does it matter if the question is less about what she is wearing then the misuse of funds by the RNC to dress her as such? I think it does. But then again, perhaps the fact that they spent so much money to make her appear presidential but attractive is sexist in and of itself. Granted, all presidential and vice-presidential candidates need to put on a certain appearance. But does it reflect negatively on a campaign that's touting it's VP nominee as 'the hot chick' to spend 150K on clothes and pay her make-up artist from Dancing With The Stars the highest salary of anyone on staff?

Granted, I have often thought the media portrayal of female politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice have been more than a little bit sexist. At least Palin's being referred to by her last name, a respect that has often been accorded to neither of these other women who, in my estimation, are ten times smarter and more deserving of respect than she. I thought the attention paid to how much cleavage Senator Clinton was shown was outlandishly sexist. So is it my disdain for Palin that makes me less inclined to see this as such? Perhaps, but I really do think that this is something different. In this case, like so many other times since Palin was chosen as McCain's VP-nominee, I feel like the 'sex card' has been thrown out there to try to avoid a real critique of the candidate and her backers--in this case, an outlandish, frivolous use of funds, which should raise eyebrows among donors, as well as an American public caught in the midst of a major economic downswing.

On another, very different note, to supplement the 2 hours I spent on Hank Eng's campaign, I spent 2 hours on the Driscoll Bridge tabling for NARAL (I hope to add another hour or two next week). I was heartened when several women came past and thanked me and my fellow tabler, a similar reaction I got while carrying a No on 48 yard sign to the car about a month ago. I was also heartened by a group of high school boys touring DU who were so pro-choice that they threw our pamphlets back on the table when, in the jumble of trying to explain things to them, they misinterpreted us and thought we were a pro-life/anti-choice group. It's nice to see men, even and especially men that young, taking a stand on women's rights.

The Chance of Salmonella Outweighs the Guarantee of a Nasty Strain of E. Coli

Author David Sedaris on undecided voters:

"I look at these people and can't quite believe that they exist.  Are they professional actors? I wonder.  Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?  To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane.  The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. 'Can I interest you in the chicken?' she asks.  'Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?'  To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."

I found D. Sunshine Hillygus's lecture on the political science view of the presidential campaign and the persuadable voter to be quite interesting.  The way undecided voters are narrowed and targeted with certain "wedge" and moral issues was intriguing to me.  I never realized how specific candidates could get in singling out certain "undecided/persuadable" individuals and feeding them less nationally discussed campaign issues that may sway how they vote.  But I share in David Sedaris' sentiment that this presidential race seems to leave little to be undecided about.  Additionally, it was great to see the breakdown of the considerations in the analyses predicting the election outcome.  Things look good for the Obama supporter.  The certainty of political scientists and Hillygus's willingness to bet on an Obama win is reassuring in view of all the banter happening on the news and the endless (and often redundant) campaigning.

Although all the number analyses point towards an Obama win, the section of Hillygus's presentation entitled "The Trenchant Irony Story," revealing the limitations of the predictions and why McCain could "pull it off," makes me worry about a repeat of the 2000 election and another Gore-y disappointment (this reminds me of the Sarah Silverman video for The Great Schlep when she talks about Florida).  It was disheartening enough that upon returning home, I found solace in making another donation to Obama - a kind of shopping splurge for the politically depressed, I suppose.  However, I have faith in the Democratic vote, especially with, seemingly, more Republicans announcing their endorsement of Obama (i.e. Colin Powell - someone on Hardball noted if his decision had been about race, he would have come out in support of Obama a long time ago).  I feel Democrats are more motivated this year to change the status quo.  Also, young voters, who seemed to fail us in the previous election, are more politically engaged perhaps due to the inability to overlook our country's pressing and obvious setbacks.  At the same time, we can't take the predictions as Gospel and should keep up our guard and enthusiasm.  As Obama reminds us, Democrats shouldn't be overconfident ("then he boarded Air Force One, blasted 'We Are the Champions,' and shouted, 'I'm king of the world!'" - Amy Poehler, SNL Weekend Update).

I'm with you on the electoral college, Ashley, it's kind of bullshit.  The voice of the people seems better represented by the popular vote.  I think this is why some (or perhaps many) people are turned off by the election and don't vote, holding the belief their say doesn't really count in the end.  This is probably especially true for young people, who may feel they have little power within many institutions in the U.S., subsequently leaving them to feel their opinions are not taken seriously by our "elders" who should be on the edge of their seats with ears like a bat.  So "gather ye rosebuds while ye may," let's hone our political edge, become professionals in the art of controlling our environment and give them something to echolocate. 

Persuadable Voters

You gotta love a person with the name Sunshine :)
I felt that our speaker presented interesting perspectives regarding polling surveys and predicted outcomes for this election. Although, for my own personal reasons, I hope support for Obama is genuine, there's no way to really know for sure until the 4th... But it comes down to this - are people likely to respond to a survey, claiming that they are voting for a black man just to "prove" or demonstrate that they are not racist? And are the people who are voting for McCain taking the time to complete the survey, or do we have a majority of Obama supporters, who are more excited and active during this election, that are taking the survies and slanting the data? It's definitely a different way to look at things.
And can I just say that I really do not like the electorial college?!! I am openly admitting right here and now that I do not get how it works exactly (feel free to comment if you think you can help me out here) so it may just be a lack of understanding, but from what I do understand about it - I don't like it. How is it that the popular vote does not elect our president? For the people, by the electorial college? I don't like the sound of that. And is it true that if the popular vote counted for more than the electorial college, Gore would have won years ago? Again, someone help me out here...
As far as predicting the outcome of this election - we're not going to know until the 4th, and I'm trying not to get my hopes up because there's no way to tell for sure how it's going to turn out. Despite everything we're being told, despite "expert predictions" - it's up in the air, if you ask me.

Affirmative Action

Like Graham, I have mixed feelings on Affirmative Action (unfortunately, I was not able to listen to the lecture, so I suppose I'll just have to go on views not informed by that). On the one hand, I believe in the essence of this policy: that we need to give minorities and women a fair shot, as they have been lacking that chance in the past and still face insurmountable discrimination (both subtle and obvious). On the other hand, I am unconvinced that Affirmative Action is the best way to go about solving the issue, and am fairly certain that at some point it will need to become obsolete. Like Graham, I think that the problem and solution lies much earlier in education; it is essential that we give all children, of all genders, races and classes, an equal starting point. Unfortunately, this might still be equal only on paper, but lacking quotas, which have been outlawed and are far more discriminatory than Affirmative Action, I suppose it is impossible to completely guarantee the lack of racial and gender bias in hiring and admissions processes. Honestly, this requires a major restructuring of social ideology that will probably not occur over night, although I hope to see it happen in my life time.

Having said this, I voted no on 46, for a multitude of reasons. The first being that I do not want to take the chance of important programs being cut in the way that they have been in other states that have passed similar laws.

Secondly, if Affirmative Action is to be eliminated, as I believe to be necessary down the road, there MUST first be put in place alternative programs and educational funding to maintain opportunities for minorities and women. Additionally, as per my point above, I believe it would be hazardous to eliminate programs targeted specifically for interesting women, minorities, and lower-class individuals in opportunities they may otherwise not have considered because of low numbers within a profession. In other words, although I don't think the law should favor individuals because of their race or gender, even if to remedy past discrimination, I do believe outreach and other such programs designed to increase opportunity are important. At the same time, we must be careful not to further disadvantage minorities and women, or to curb their opportunity growth.

Affirmative Action to me is so incredibly complicated. On the one hand, I think it is unfair and unconstitutional to discriminate based on race or gender, including discrimination against members of a power-holding group (white, middle-class, able-bodied, heterosexual males). On the other, I am very aware of the matrix of domination and oppression that plays into our policies, hiring practices, and social worlds, and am as uncomfortable encouraging it as I am with saying that members of a power-holding group should be discriminated against because they are already advantaged within the structure of our political-economic-social landscape.

Gender roles and race relations both follow certain social scripts that we cannot chuck overnight, much as we'd like to, because the opposition is too great and we don't know how to live entirely outside of such scripts. Thus, we need to navigate toward the edges of those scripts, creating new boundaries that can later be pushed yet again. As with most issues I am ideological about, I am impatient that we are not yet at a point that these long-held social scripts have not disappeared entirely. But I am hopeful that they will continue to mutate so that, eventually, we can live in that ideal world where there is no need for Affirmative Action, because women and minorities will have equal opportunity and will no longer face the discrimination they have for so long.

Amendment 46 and Voting in General

I just got my voter booklet in the mail last week, and Amendment 46 was one of the ballot measures that I skimmed. At the time it didn’t really sound that bad, after reading Melissa Hart’s brief I realize I was one of the many people mislead by the language of this amendment. The fact that “preferential treatment” isn’t defined really is the fallout of this amendment, because of this Amendment 46 won’t be what presumably most people think will be, or accomplish what these very people want it to. On that same note it’s quite a shame that Initiative 82 didn’t get enough signatures to make it on the ballot. I think that movement would have been critical into making this amendment better aligned with the perceived.

In response to what someone said earlier, there are a lot of crazy ballot initiatives this year, and my step-mother and I discussed that when we briefly discussed the contents of the “blue book”. I mentioned that there must be a lot of amendments, and a good measure of them could be undoing what a previous amendments set out to do in Colorado. While I haven’t done any research to confirm or refute that statement, it is something interesting to consider. My step-mother had been a voter in Montana for a lot of years, and she said she never had to vote on this many amendments before. It’s kind of scary that so many people are willing to sign so many amendments onto the ballot. Of course this is from a fairly naïve perspective, I’m just starting to really understand how all of this works since this will be the first year I’ll be voting.

The potential to ban student groups based on race and gender, and similarly, programs in existence to encourage underrepresented groups in certain fields to pursue those career paths and provide better access to those industries is appalling. Another student touched on student groups earlier saying that they offer much needed support. And might I add that they also provide a way to educate others outside that particular group in the safe learning environment of a college or university with programs that those groups usually bring to campus and co-sponsor.

follow up

I did not want to be the only one to say it and I am very glad that Graham brought it up but yet again our speaker brought in her own personal views on the topic.  I understand that she is passionate about 46 but what I originally expected was for these talks to be academic and suppose to give us facts and information.  I know that it is hard when someone is very passionate about atopic to keep their opinions to themselves.  But I was yet again disappointed that we had a far left speaker coming in and preaching her believes on us.  As I said about the last speaker, I sure hope that when she teaches she is not so blatant about her political believes.  

AA

I had a lot of mixed emotions over last week’s lecture on affirmative action. I was very put off by the speaker for a variety of reasons. I was disappointed that she was unable to keep political views silent and insisted on reminding us just exactly what she thought (I have also found this to be a consistent problem with teachers here at DU). While some topics may necessitate political views, this was not one of them. Bringing up personal political or religious views when they are unnecessary can only create division and mask the issue at hand. While I understand she is very passionate about her work, I found her anger to be a little unsettling and immature. She came across as very judgmental and negative, which for me took away some of her credibility. I believe in the cause she is promoting but it affects me differently when there is so much negativity and childish antics in her approach (kind of like negative political ads-enough!)
I believe we live in a racist and unjust society where someone’s race, sex, or class will determine their opportunities for the future. Being a white, middle-class male gives me privilege over any minority or female just because of how I was born, not because of my character or what I have accomplished. I am completely against amendment 46 because it pretends to be about equality when it is anything but and like amendment 48, it just simply goes too far. However, I am very ambivalent on affirmative action. It’s not that I don’t support it; I just think it’s wrong but for the right reasons (if that makes sense). I believe in creating diversity and giving minorities an equal and fair chance; I just don’t agree with the methods for solving this problem. It is an issue that needs to be addressed earlier in the education system, along with issues about race and inequality. Maybe this wouldn’t work but I believe it has a better chance of working in the long term than the current state of affirmative action.

New Issues Taking a Step Back…

In following up from my last blog, I had done the reading early and was looking forward to hearing Melissa Hart speak. Unfortunately I was somewhat disappointed with Wednesday’s class as a whole, not only because one of the speakers, Roberto Corrada, University of Denver Sturm College of Law cancelled last minute but also because it shifted from a (hopefully well rounded) debate to a single, scattered, unorganized lecture. Although Melissa Hart’s passion for the subject shown through and she was very knowledgeable about amendment 48, I found her issue brief to be much more enjoyable.

On a side note, in an effort to connect class with other extra-curricular activities, last Wednesday, after the lecture, I attended a regular Latino Student Alliance meeting and I just thought it was ironic how one of the items we briefly discussed was amendment 48. Based on course reading and lecture I had the opportunity to speak up and inform the other members a little more on the topic. Furthermore, I shared the article over the list serve for anyone else interested in learning more. Also as another side note, the AUSA Senate will be having a meeting on Tuesday, October 21st at 6:00 and the issue of amendment 48 will be brought up, discussed, and voted on as a whole to represent our campus in terms of supporting or opposing it.

Now in an attempt to wrap it up, in response to many of this past week’s blogs, I agree with the general consensus and their responses to these “new” ridiculous amendments. If you step back and take a look at some of these issues, what I find scary, is that amendment 46 and 48 are both attempting to bring up issues that already have monumental, historically based resolutions, such as the Civil Rights Movement and Roe v. Wade behind them. If you look at the similarities of each case, both captured national attention and a nation was divided on personal belief, opinion, morals, ect. Therefore, taking this into consideration, I think that the personal agendas and bias present today in conjunction with their “newly” emerging issues are largely unnecessary. In addition to this, I think it is entirely unfair how the people pushing critical ballot issues are using deceptive strategies and unclear, undefined, misleading wording to push their own personal agendas.

Amendment 46 - real life examples

After blogging about Amendment 46, I began to think more about how affirmative action has worked in my life in the past. I have a few friends who on job and college applications they refuse to check any of the boxes denoting their race or gender. I can't tell if this an anti-affirmative action or a pro-affirmative action. Most of these people were white and female, so I don't think marking the boxes would have changed the outcome for them anyway. However, I think it was a statement on how things like race and gender are important in our society when they shouldn't be. I think those people who refuse to check the boxes are wondering why does it matter what race I am; does that change my accomplishments or abilities? But the truth is, if a black female from an impoverished home and city who was first generation high school, graduates college with a 3.5 that is much more of success story in our society than a white male from a rich, college educated family achieving the same thing. If you erased the story of gender and race from those two applicants, they would look the same which isn't the case. I'm not sure what my point is about that, I can't decide yet but it's just an interesting point.

Another real life example that comes to mind is from high school. My best friend was so concerned that she wasn't going to get into any of the colleges she wanted. When she confessed her fears to others, she always got the same response. People would tell her she was a shoe-in anywhere because she was Filipino. I confess that I said the same thing, I thought I was comforting her at the time but now I see that it was degrading. No one praised her actual abilities, just her minority status which we believed would secure her in any college. I know she would hate to think that she was only at a certain school because of her race but also I have to wonder would she like to be considered based only on her accomplishments without her nationality playing into it at all if you know it would help you? I think affirmative action is a tricky thing, on one hand you love it but on the other people can resent it- but I think to add a constitutional amendment that is anti affirmative action isn't helping anyone, but hurting many.

Hidden behind 48

I found Melissa’s talk to be very informative, but unfortunately as Eliza said she was a bit scattered.  She was very well versed in Amendment 48 but because she was so passionate about it that she got lost in her emotions and in my opinion was not able to present in an organized manor.

Growing up in California I am very aware of how things changed with and without affirmative action.  My boyfriend had a teacher when he was in high school that had to be replaced because he was white and they needed to have a certain percent of African American teachers.  It was sad because he was considered by the students as one of the best teachers, but because of affirmative action he was moved to another school in San Jose.  When I was talking to my mom about Melissa’s talk she brought up another story that I had forgotten about.  Our good family friends the Hromadka’s have two sons.  Both are very smart.  The oldest applied to Michigan State and did not specify his race or color.  He got in and when he got there the school was shocked that he was a blond hair, blue eyed boy.  They had expected him to be ethnic in some way.  Three years later when his brother attempted to get into MS he was declined even though he was 10 times more qualified to attend MS.  Even though people are ‘qualified’ to attend certain universities it is still a factor that because of law colleges are required to have a certain percentage of African Americans, Indians, ect.

I found it very interesting that white women have been the ones who have benefited the most from affirmative action.  I would never have guessed that.  I was not shocked at all about the statistics about the University of California system.  Growing up around UCSB you rarely see people who are not white.  (There are quite a few Asians but as for African Americans, they are few and far between).  The only time that I would have dealt with Affirmative action (before it was illegal) would have been in Elementary school.  But it really made no difference at my elementary school.  We had one Hispanic girl and that was it.  The other 21 kids where as white as snow.  I guess growing up in Santa Barbara gave no real chance for affirmative action to take place, because there really were not that many African Americans. 

I think that affirmative action is very important.  Melissa pointed out that affirmative action just insures the chance for minorities to be remembered.  It is not just the African Americans, and Indians that are minorities anymore and I don’t think a lot of people realize that.  As a white woman, I don’t see that I have gotten a hand up because of affirmative action but I guess I have never really thought about it either.

We are still a racist society

I found the presentation on the law and politics of affirmatives action to be really informative, if not a little bit scattered. Before last Wednesday, I didn’t know anything about California’s Prop 209 and I’m from California! I had never even heard of Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz. I loved how passionate Professor Hart was and how she laid out exactly what would happen in Colorado if Amendment 46 passes and what had happened in states that voted yes in the past. It is interesting that even if a similar law is passed in two states, the way each state handles it is very different. This is all due to the fact that the American Civil Rights Institute did not enforce their desired change in Michigan and the fact that the governor of California at the time was a proud supporter of Connerly. It is incredible that the wording of an amendment can make or break its passage. The two words, “preferential treatment” destroyed any affirmative action in California. I agree with Ashley when she says that the “language of the amendment… masks its true intention.” That was better than I could have said it! I was slightly confused at the beginning of the presentation and couldn’t seem to grasp all the names and laws, but I eventually figured it all out. I loved when Professor Hart went more into the broad idea that there is so much rage in our society today about race and the so-called opportunities they get because of equal opportunity. I didn’t even realize it, but sadly, white women have benefited the most from equal opportunity. It’s so frustrating that we are slowly getting rid of our equal opportunity amendments before they truly can benefit minorities. I liked that Professor Hart addressed the fact that ending equal opportunity is idealistic in that we still live in a racist society, not matter how badly people want to believe that we don’t. I was shocked to hear that Boulder has only 140 African American students out of almost 30000 students. As I’m writing this, I’m noticing how carefully I’m choosing my words, for fear that I sound racist. When I discuss gender, it is easier because I am a woman, I am the victim whereas in the case of race, being Caucasian, I feel like the bully.