Never Let Me Go

Since I started on Kazuo Ishiguro's newest novel, Never Let Me Go, I haven't been able to stop listening or get it out of my head. I bought the Audio CD, read beautifully by Rosalyn Landon. I've had to limit myself to either listening only in the car or only as I get ready for bed at night. I was almost late to class three times last week because I was so caught up in the story as I was getting up and getting ready for the day. I've enjoyed it so much that I'll put it on when I get in the car, drive to wherever I need to be then sit in the car and listen until I'm verging on lateness. Even then, once I get to the meeting, class, grocery store, whatever, I have a hard time thinking about anything else.

I don't want to reveal too much about the story. Even though I probably wouldn't have bought the book if I hadn't known what it was really about, I would have enjoyed it even more if I had been able to allow the story to unfold. Each chapter is a wonderful new layer. As each one is peeled back to disclose something new about the characters and their place in society, the pieces start to fall into place.

It's a wonderfully written, provocative, and thoroughly engaging story. I still have the last disc to finish, and I can't wait to get in my car and listen.

Things in a Day

Three things that ruin my day:
1. People treating me like I'm stupid
2. Overdraft charges
3. Dirty dishes left in the sink overnight

Three things that make my day:
1. Emails or phone calls from old friends
2. Good mail - letters, cards, packages, magazines, not bills
3. Answered prayers

Today was one of those up and down days; lots of crummy things happened, but lots of good things did too. I got in an argument with a work colleague, my bank charged me for making a miscalculation, and the kitchen was a mess when I got home tonight. But, I also got a very encouraging email from an old, dear friend that I hadn't heard from in a while, I got two books in the mail and this week's Economist, and God has really been responding positively to my requests this week. That sounds like I can manipulate God by saying the right words. But really, He is totally blessing me this week. I have been praying for guidance in finding a job, I've been praying specific things for friends, and I've been praying for provision in my financial needs. He provided a contact at a great organization today, my friends have all reported that they have received exactly what they needed, and the bank took off the overdraft charges! I'm just learning to trust him more and more. I want to trust Him even when I'm not seeing him at work so quickly. That's my prayer today, and always; that I don't trust in my own understanding, but acknowledge him in all things.

Racism

I would usually consider myself to be pretty sensitive toward racial issues. I would consider myself to be accepting and open-minded toward anyone. Not to say that I haven't made ignorant remarks in regards to people of other races and ethnicities when I was younger and more foolish. But seriously, I really do think that I treat people with kindness and respect. People are still people regardless of race or ethnicity. I truly belive that and behave accordingly.

Every once in a while though, I have an interaction that makes me realize that I do not understand racism at all. I was chatting with a student in the Center for Indigenous Nations Studies today about the grant project I am working on, my thesis, and the plight of indigenous peoples in Latin America. He was an excellent listener, and he seemed genuinely interested in hearing what I had to say. Things started to turn when I made the comment that the indigenous experience in Latin America is fascinating, very different from what happens here in the US, and is often very subtle.

I'm not sure if he already had his arms crossed or if he crossed his arms and leaned back in his chair when I said this. But he kind of bristled and said, "you think it's subtle?"

Quickly, I tried to clarify my statement and said, "well some people would call it subtle (meaning, not me). What I mean is that in want ads, it will specify 'good appearance,' meaning 'white.' They don't say 'blacks need not apply.'" I waited for his reaction.

"You're not from Kansas are you?" he asked, smiling and leaning forward toward his computer. "You don't sound like you're from Kansas."

"No, I'm from Florida. I went to Florida State in Tallahassee for my undergrad," I answered. Then the conversation took another turn.

"I'm from California," he said. "Actually I worked on some of the legislation over school mascots. We've been kind of engaged in a battle over the mascot there," he commented.

I should have been expecting that. Anytime I mention Florida State around people who are associated with Indigenous Nations or Native American scholarship and activism, this chill goes through the air. I can't change where I went to school or the fact that I loved it. But this mascot ordeal is really important to some people. "I get kind of defensive about protecting my school because while I was there, I felt like the University was really respectful of the Seminole tribe, involving them in the rituals and ceremonies, they participated in homecoming," I said.

"If that's the case, then I'm surprised by some of the comments made by the board rep and the president at some of the meetings I've attended related to that," he replied. "Some of their comments were just really racist," he added.

At that point, I got called in to the meeting I had been waiting for. I was disappointed to end this conversation, but also a bit relieved. As I left the meeting a few minutes later, I stuck my head back in the office and said "It was nice meeting you."

"You too," he answered, offering his hand. As I shook it, I searched his face for a second, wondering if I had offended him, but he was only smiling. "Good luck to you," he called as I turned to leave.

Walking back to my office across campus I replayed the conversation in my head. Had I been wrong in my comment about racism being subtle? Was my example about want ads really contradicting what I was trying to say? Then I realized that I hadn't even heard the end of his story about the FSU reps in the mascot meeting.

This is when I realized that I have no idea what racism really feels like. I can talk all day about how people are discriminated against because of ignorance and pride, but when it all boils down, I am not that different from anybody else. Feminists often claim that they have a unique perspective on the world as part of a marginalized population. Of course women haven't always been treated as equals, and it's arguable that even now, we still aren't. But really, I have never been denied a job because of who I am physically. Even though stereotypes of women in the media are perhaps comparable to the mascot thing, I don't know if anyone really pays much attention anymore. Are there any feminist groups trying to get media that objectify and demean women off the air? That's not the point though. The point is that I have never experienced oppression like indigenous people or other non-white populations. Can I truly have an objective, prejudice-free perspective on these issues until I experience racism first hand?

Yeah for Mondays!

I actually kind of like Mondays. They represent a fresh start. A new week holds so many possibilities. I can leave last week behind me and focus on all the things I can accomplish this week. I usually make a list of things to do each week - a five day plan, if you will. I haven't worked up to a five-year plan. That seems too lofty for me right now. But it's becoming more appealing as I face making big decisions about my future. Maybe I'll put that on my list of things to do this week: five year plan. I have to post my five day plan up in several places that will catch my eye throughout the week. Then I have to remind myself not to wait until Friday to start on those things. I'm trying to make my new motto: "The key to success is not in trying harder but in being consistent." I got it out of a running book. I've been toying with the idea of running a marathon for about three years now. I can never keep on a regular training schedule though. I get about three weeks in and get bored. Then I just try to do the long runs on the weekends without all the shorter training runs during the week. That doesn't work very well.

My problem, though, is that I really excell in doing things at the last minute. It's not a very good habit, but it is a good skill. I wish I was more incremental in my approach to tackling major projects. But I'm much more successful when I get within a few days of a deadline and hammer things out all at once. It's a strategy that's gotten me through grad school really well. Let's be honest though, I'm not turning in my best work. I could turn in much better papers if I took the time to read through them, correcting errors and working out the kinks in logic before submitting them. That doesn't really motivate me not to procrastinate though. I don't want to sound arrogant, but I just have to believe that my half-assed work is as good as most professors and employers expect. Maybe I'm kidding myself by thinking that most other people work over time. I think that's one of the biggest lies among grad students. Does anyobdy really READ all the assigned material before class? Does anybody really proofread their papers and get feedback from other people before turning them in? We all spend a lot of time and energy trying to convince everyone else that we're just as smart as they are, but are we fooling anyone? I mean, I know there are those few truly brilliant people who do spend a majority of their time reading and thinking and writing for class. And they are the ones who are getting their money's worth. I envy them. I chalk it off as my underdeveloped sense of self-discipline. Perhaps it's my semi-obsession with being acknowledged for my work. Either way, I don't take the time to do things as well as I could, and thus far it's done me just fine.

At the new grad student orientation three semesters ago, I was looking around the room, listening to what each of my new colleagues had accomplished, and where they were from, feeling not unlike Elle Woods at her first day at Harvard Law sitting in the grass with the students who had spent a year immunizing children against TB in third-world countries. KU is no Harvard, but some of the grad students I have come in contact with here are Ivy League. Regardless of first impressions, I've settled in here nicely. I even feel like I am cut-out for graduate work better than some. I work hard, even if it is last minute, I am a reader, I communicate ideas well, and I am a damn good TA.

Why am I so concerned about entering the work force then? School is the only thing I've ever known. I had a bang-up internship as an undergrad. I really flourished there. But what if it was just that particular work place, or those people? Will I be able to find that again?

These are all issues I guess I just have to trust God with. I know He has a plan and a purpose for me. My one true desire is just to follow his will. He created me. He knows my talents, gifts, weaknesses, and interests. Who better to shape my destiny?

Look at all the good things that happen at the beginning of a week! The possibilities are endless! I could wake up tomorrow and find my dream job. I could meet my soul mate on Wednesday. I could win an all expenses paid trip to Buenos Aires on Thursday. And Friday, I can do all the things on my to do list. Yeah for Mondays!

Eleanor Clift: Madam President

The First Woman President lecture series continues this week at the Dole Institute of Politics. So far it's been really good. I mentioned Carol Mosely Braun's talk last week. Last night Eleanor Clift, a panelist on the McLaughlin Group, contributing editor of Newsweek, and co-author of Madam President: Shattering the Last Glass Ceiling, spoke about the potential for women to be elected into the presidency and why it hasn't happened yet. The key issue for her is the small pool of potential candidates. It's not that people don't vote for women, rather, there just aren't enough women willing to run. "The American people are more willing to elect a woman president than there are women willing to run," Clift stated. Much to the chagrin of many baby-boomer feminists, their daughters are choosing to stay home with a family at a higher rate than even a generation ago. Perhaps we're already seeing women take for granted all the work our mothers and grandmothers did to earn us space in the political arena. For my mother, just the fact that I could have easily played team sports in high school but chose not to, was irksome. She had longed to play basketball and softball in school, but wasn't allowed to. She's told me the story several times about wanting to be a school crossing guard in Jr. High, but only boys could do that job. Am I taking all her work for granted?

I like to think that I'm blazing my own trail. Political Science is still a male-dominated field. In my entering cohort I was one of four women, and the only one not intending to complete a Ph.D. and teach. I worked at a Top 100 PR firm in Tallahassee. My boss was excellent about finding talent and developing his employees, and relied on women. I have a feeling that that kind of environment may be rare.

But what will it take for someone like me to enter that pool of potential candidates? Just the fact that Clift mentioned that there aren't enough women willing to sacrifice a family life for their career makes me wonder if that's part of my purpose. I'm not married, not dating anyone, never really have had a steady relationship to speak of, and my personal goals are not necessarily conducive to 2.5 kids, a dog, and a white picket fence. Not that I don't want those things or think that women who do want those things are bad or don't have personal goals and ambitions. Maybe it's just where I am in my life that those things are not on my radar. I really need a man who has a flexible career and really wants to be a stay-at-home-dad. But even that has its problems. There's something about the male ego that just doesn't fit that model. And it never looks good in the political arena for a woman to "wear the pants," ie. Hillary Clinton. Female candidates have a whole new set of rules. They have to be feminine and caring bt tough and agressive; understanding and warm but decisive and commanding; intelligent and humorous, but not calculating or airy. It's an impossible dichotomy. Clift cited that a female president would have to be a perfect balance of Mother Theresa and Jack the Ripper. What an outrageous combination!

I was discussing this with some female colleagues this morning, and we were laughing about the obstacles facing women in office and the potential for female candidates. We decided the best course of action would be to join the military, volunteer for active duty in the Middle East, come back as a "war hero" and run for a state level position and just begin working up the ranks to governor. Then after a couple terms in a large swing state, make a bid for the nomination. I wonder how important party politicking will be for the first woman president. It's all speculation now until there actually is a woman elected.

Carol Moseley Braun, Electoral Systems, and Politics in America

Last night I attended a lecture by former US Ambassador, Senator, and 2004 Presidential Nominee Candidate, Carol Moseley Braun. Her lecture is part of a month-long series "The First Woman President." What a way to kick off the series! She is such a dynamic and accomplished woman! I didn't pay much attention to her in the primaries, but I was quite impressed with her last night. While I can't say that I agree with all of her ideas and policy plans, I was inspired by her determination, courage, and sense of humor. I hope to follow in her footsteps and give my own lecture about what it means to be a woman in high political office.

One of the main difficulties she discussed in running a presidential campaign as a woman was her inability to raise enough money. She cited an interesting statistic that while over 80% of Americans said they would support a female presidential candidate, only 60% said they thought their friends and neighbors would support a female candidate. This perception gap is possibly more detrimental than it seems at first glance. Nobody wants to vote for the candidate that they think is going to lose. If one thinks that no one they know will support a woman for President, why should they vote for her? Perhaps this is part of the fundraising difficulty. In our society, I have a difficult time believing that most Americans think that a woman would be less capable of being an effective leader simply because of her sex. If a woman is educated, experienced, effective, and has demonstrated loyalty to her country and to the people of the US, then why shouldn't she be elected over a man who may have similar qualifications? Are there still people out there who are so narrow minded to think that women are just not supposed to play that role? I know there are. I also that there are people who are overtly racist. That's why we haven't ever elected a Black, Latin, or Asian President. It wasn't until 1969 that a Black woman was in the Senate.

One of the questions posed to Moseley Braun after her talk was about abolishing the Electoral College. Her response was that if the American public can persuade their leaders to change that institution, then it will happen. While the political will of the average citizen can go a long way, I don't know if changing the Constitution to dissolve one of the oldest institutions in our government is possible. There will have to be some major disjuncture in our electoral system that is reiterated in several Presidential elections before it becomes apparent that the Electoral College is antiquated and irrelevant.

This week in my classes, we're talking about electoral systems. We discuss the pros and cons of the single member district/plurality system we use in the States, and the Proportional Representation systems used in many other countries. I always ask my students to state which one they think is better. Usually, I get several different responses . Then they want to know what I think. After all this discussion, I really have to say that I prefer the PR system. I'm even more convinced after Moseley Braun's talk. She cited another stat that at the rate that women are being elected into office, it will be 2080 before we reach gender parity in government. It's pretty clear that PR systems promote gender equality and minority representation. Changing the electoral system here would be more difficult than abolishing the Electoral College. The Electoral College doesn't have any effect on how I go and cast my vote for the President or my Representatives, but switching from plurality to PR, that's a huge change. It's possible, but highly improbable, I think. Campaign finance reform is really the first step in transforming our electoral system.

In the UK there are regulations on the amount of money spent and on the type of media that can be used in political campaigns. No TV commercials or radio adverstisements, only printed media (billboards, flyers, newspaper advertisements, etc.) are permitted. In New Zealand, candidates are only allowed to spend $25,000 on a presidential campaign. This creates a more even playing field and allows for more candidates to participate. Imagine that! Anyone with $25,000 and a few good ideas can get elected. It would really prevent this stupid problem of choosing between two similar candidates with similar educational backgrounds and experience. It would be amazing to have average women and men running for elected office based on their own convictions and plans. Parties would still play a role. A US President without support of the legislature would be totally ineffective. Parties help people identify their political ideology and provide a forum for developing a cohesive plan for governance. Real campaign finance reform is about opportunities, and expanding democracy, not party dominance and corruption. So instead of placing limits on how much money can be raised from certain types of organizations, place limits on how the money can be used. Elections shouldn't be won an lost based on fundraising; they should be won and lost based on who is the most qualified candidate that represents and serves the will of the people.

Just Another Day . . . With Germans

This week has gone so slowly! I'm glad Wednesday is almost over. Thursday and Friday fly by. I have to be really intentional about working on my thesis this weekend though. I planned on using my free Fridays to research and write. I haven't been very good about that yet, but really, last Friday was the first one of the semester, so I can't feel too guilty. I just found out today that the deadline is mid-March, not mid-May. I really have to crank it up a notch and get on the ball with this. I think most people spend more than six weeks writing their Theses. I do have some work done, just not as much as I should. I meant to work on it over Winter Break, but could never get motivated. Excuses won't get me a degree though.

Today was just another day. I had class at 8am this morning. I only have 10 students enrolled for this section, so it's fun, and not too difficult to get them involved. I don't really know if they enjoy my classes as much as I do, but my evaluations have never been bad. I think teaching really appeals to my extroverted side. I just love being up in front of people, leading a discussion, telling stories, or just listening to their opinions and stories. I always leave class feeling energized, even at 8am.

By the time I got to my own class this afternoon, I was ready to crash. I enrolled in this class at the suggestion of my advisor. She said it would help me clarify some of the theories that I'm trying to refute in my own research. So far, I've been kind of bored. Today, we were talking about how people develop political attitudes and how those attitudes change over time. One of the books we're using is Russel Dalton's 2005 edition of Citizen Politics. He uses survey data to help determine people's political values in post-industrial countries; specifically the US, France, the UK, and Germany. I was surprised at the responses of Germans on many of the questions. For example, one of the survey items was a statement and respondents were supposed to agree or disagree with it. It said, "women need children in order to feel fulfilled." Only 46% of Germans disagreed with this statement (39% of French disagreed). Another question was about the importance of the government providing jobs for the unemployed. This wasn't really a priority for Germans, and my professor revealed why. Apparently, there's a law against firing employees. Once someone is hired, they can't be fired. They can quit, but the company cannot lay them off. The outcome, in one situation, was that a man was hired by a labor contracting company and immediately requested his six weeks of paid vacation. This is another benefit to German employees. The day he was supposed to start work after his 6 week paid vacation, the man called in sick. He said he was depressed and took another 6 weeks of paid sick leave (no limit on the number of sick days). After paying the man for three months and never getting a single day of work from him, the company tried to fire him. The man took them to court, which ruled that the company had to keep him on the payroll AND pay damages for attempting to fire him! I couldn't believe that. What an outrageous system!

A second example my professor gave was about an employee who embezelled $40,000 from the company. He was arrested, convicted, and spent a year in prison. Upon his release, he returned to the company wanting his job back. The company refused and he took them to court. Can you guess what they ruled? Amazing! The man got his job back! I just don't get it.

Maybe I shouldn't think it's as funny as all that, but I just couldn't believe my ears. Was it possible that a major world power treated its businesses so poorly and its workers so irresponsibly. There can't be any incentive to do a really good job. Maybe good employees get raises, but if you can't get rid of the losers, then what good is that? One of my colleagues suggested that every few years companies should just close down and then open up again with new employees. It's not that easy though. The professor then informed us that if a company closes or goes bankrupt, etc. and opens up in the same field of business as before, it must re-hire all its old employees!

This is the problem with social democracies. Of course there are some great advantages, national health care, free education, great maternity benefits. But the taxes are high and it must really suck to be a business owner. I can see how countries that are trying to get on their feet and establish a stable government and economy may need more government intervention to keep their people from getting trampled by globalization. But really, what business does a well established government have muddling in people's everyday lives like that? It's just a different way of running things, but I just can't see it working well for long. If that's what the people want from their state, then more power to them. I just really hope it's not a trend that picks up here in the US anytime soon. All I want from my government is protection from the fear of getting blown up on a daily basis. Now I realize, that it's not doing a hotdog job of that now, but I don't expect much. I also think some social issues are important for the government to address, like homelessness, the declining quality of education, clean air and water, and maintaining National Parks. Also, maintaining highways and interstate transportation is good. But really, the most important thing my government can do domestically, is make sure everyone has the freedom to say as they please, pursue their dream job, live in a neighborhood they like, and marry who they want. Really, is that so hard? A lot of that is not even up to the government. Racism is still prevalent, and the government can't do anything about changing people's minds and attitudes about who they like and don't like for whatever reason. I think that's a personal issue that starts at home. That's one thing we talked about in regards to political attitudes, is that they're passed down intergenerationally (and they're directly correlated with affluence). Duh! Sometimes political scientists (or social scientists in general) spend a lot of time stating the obvious. Attitudes are learned through socialization. And that is definately not up to the government.

I'll get off my soapbox now. I have to get back to work, because, here, I CAN get fired for being a crummy employee. Even though, 12 weeks of paid vacation and sick leave wouldn't be so bad.