I want to talk about the importance of Pennsylvania's part in the upcoming election, and how much advertising plays into it. My faith in true motivation to register hit an all time low when in order to bribe students to register to vote, the university had a huge star (better known as Addison from Grey's Anatomy) come to campus. I agree that it was smart. First off, tons of college girls watch Grey's Anatomy and the chance to meet a former star of the show is priceless. But then how many students who showed up at our dining hall that day went with the true intention of registering to vote? And if they did register, how many of them simply registered as a chance to meet with her face to face instead of wanting to register because they want to have a say in how our country is run over the next four (or eight) years? And just because they are registered to vote, will they? I showed up before "Addison" did simply to register... as an Ohioan. But the kid walking me through registration refused to tell me how to do so. He just kept saying that as a student of Lehigh University, I was a Pennsylvania resident. But I have an address here in PA and in OH. I want to have a say in how local elections go in my hometown, and would have rather registered there and done an absentee ballot, but much to my dismay I was told that "it doesn't matter which state you vote in, as long as you vote." Because of time pressures, I registered as a PA resident because quite frankly I am too busy to take the time to attempt to register to vote twice. But it did upset me that this kid thought the state I voted in doesn't matter, because it does. Unfortunately we are not a one man one vote kind of system. We have one man one vote, which gets turned into 26 men standing in for thousands of voters opinions. What if it were my vote that made the majority in Ohio, and only makes the minority in PA? And if where I vote can make such a difference, why aren't we all allowed to choose where we vote? I can go on an on, but my head is already spinning with all the possibilities of "what if's".

Feminism Revisted

This post will ultimately be very short, for two reasons. One, the insert I am asking you to read and comment on is pretty long itself. Two, I would like to know what others think before I start to give my own opinions. But let me start off by saying that my first post about Sarah Palin stands corrected: apparently there are some feminists who are choosing to think before voting, and not just playing the gender card as I had originally anticipated. The following is an email I recieved through some friends of a friend.

Esther Eve Ensler, the American playwright, performer, feminist and activist wrote the following about Sarah Palin:

Drill, Drill, Drill
>I am having Sarah Palin nightmares. I dreamt last night that she was a member of
> a club where they rode snowmobiles and wore the claws of drowned and starved
> polar bears around their necks. I have a particular thing for Polar Bears. Maybe
> it's their snowy whiteness or their bigness or the fact that they live in the
> arctic or that I have never seen one in person or touched one. Maybe it is the
> fact that they live so comfortably on ice. Whatever it is, I need the polar
> bears.
>
I don't like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to
> build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard
> to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more
> insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and
> solidarity of Feminists.
>
> But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism
> which for me is part of one story -- connected to saving the earth, ending
> racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds,
> deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.
>
> I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the most dangerous choices of
> my lifetime, and should this country chose those candidates the fall-out may be
> so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never
> recover. But what is equally disturbing is the impact that duo would have on the
> rest of the world. Unfortunately, this is not a joke. In my lifetime I have
> seen the clownish, the inept, the bizarre be elected to the presidency with
> regularity.
>
> Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as a metaphor. In her
> world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or
> evolves. She does not believe in global warming. The melting of the arctic, the
> storms that are destroying our cities, the pollution and rise of cancers, are
> all part of God's plan. She is fighting to take the polar bears off the
> endangered species list. The earth, in Palin's view, is here to be taken and
> plundered. The wolves and the bears are here to be shot and plundered. The oil
> is here to be taken and plundered. Iraq is here to be taken and plundered. As
> she said herself of the Iraqi war, "It was a task from God."
>
> Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion. She does not believe women who are
> raped and incested and ripped open against their will should have a right to
> determine whether they have their rapist's baby or not.
>
> She obviously does not believe in sex education or birth control. I imagine her
> daughter was practicing abstinence and we know how many babies that makes.
>
> Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried
> to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think
> independently. Sh e cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference.
> This is a woman who could and might very well be the next president of the
> United States. She would govern one of the most diverse populations on the
> earth.
>
> Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has
> been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from
> the air.
>
> Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right. But when
> God and Guns come together in the public sector, when war is declared in God's
> name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of
> separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever
> tried to be.
>
> I write to my sisters. I write because I believe we hold this election in our
> hands. This vote is a vote that will determine the future not just of the U.S.,
> but of the planet. It will determine whether we create policies to save the
> earth or make it forever uninhabitable for humans. It will determine whether we
> move towards dialogue and diplomacy in the world or whether we escalate violence
> through invasion, undermining and attack. It will determine whether we go for
> oil, strip mining, coal burning or invest our money in alternatives that will
> free us from dependency and destruction. It will determine if money gets spent
> on education and healthcare or whether we build more and more methods of
> killing. It will determine whether America is a free open tolerant society or a
> closed place of fear, fundamentalism and aggression.
>
> If the Polar Bears don't move you to go and do everything in your power to get
> Obama elected then consider the chant that filled the hall after Palin spoke at
> the RNC , "Drill Drill Drill." I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think
> of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. I think of military
> exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt,
> ambiguity or dissent. I think of pain.
>
> Do we want a future of drilling? More holes in the ozone, in the floor of the
> sea, more holes in our thinking, in the trust between nations and peoples, more
> holes in the fabric of this precious thing we call life?
>
> Eve Ensler
> September 5, 2008

2008 VMA's

While I know that the VMA's don't bring politics to mind, I have a good reason for bringing this up. Did anyone watch this year's VMA's? Last year was supposedly a huge disappointment, especially for Britney Spears, and this year they were giving her a chance to redeem herself while "presenting" the 2008 VMA's. Being a closet Britney fan (I still know all the words to her songs) I decided to tune in, and got a huge political surprise in the process. Russell Brand, famous in Britain, went on a political rant on national T.V. If you haven't seen it, here is the link.
The whole time it was airing, my jaw was on the floor. I was waiting for someone to come and pull him off the stage, or for the screen to go blank as they "accidentally" switched to a commercial break. But that never happened, and Brand was allowed to continue his rant supporting Obama and busting Bush's balls. He mentions that he is required by broadcasting law to be 'fair' to both sides, and mentions Bush in no positive light whatsoever, and almost reprimands Americans for allowing him to be in office for so long.
I couldn't help but feel awkward watching it. While I know that MTV has always been a sponsor and advocate of getting young people to vote and be involved in politics, I also felt that it was inappropriate to allow Brand to impose his opinions on an entire viewing audience. But then I had to ask myself why?
It could be because of my upbringing to not impose my opinions on others, especially while putting down someone who disagrees with me by embarrassing them or calling them names. It could be because politics was not something that was discussed in my house, mainly because my parent's sit on opposite sides of the fence. It could be because we are so censored when it comes to opinions, and take such care to make sure that the news doesn't offend anyone, that I am simply not used to such blatant opinions regarding such sensitive and important topics.
I feel that I should applaud MTV for allowing freedom of speech to be practiced on their channel, but I can't help but wonder how far it will go. If someone decided to do the same thing regarding even more sensitive topics, such as abortion or homosexuality, would it still be allowed to air as Brand's opinion were? If so, is that ok? And if not, why? And I can't say that I have a right to reprimand Brand either. If anything, he got young people talking about politics in general, something that rarely happens, and if it takes such bold statements as he made the other night to get kids off their facebook pages and onto political websites, I can't really say he's in the wrong.

Looking Past Gender

Sarah Palin has been a topic of much discussion lately, not only on the news and in our class, but also in my Women's Studies class. It was in this class that I started to have worries about a woman candidate for the first time. I have always been an advocate of equal rights. My fear however is that rather than listening to what Palin has to say regarding her abilities and qualifications, many women will be on her side simply because she is a woman. Also, Palin has a very likable personality. We discussed in class how she seems to be the type of person you could easily have a conversation with, and her attitude puts those that watch her on T.V. in a good mood. But will people, especially women, be able to look past the fact that she brings a (much needed) spunk to the Republican party and start to see her for her policies and her ideals, not just her gender?