2nd formal paper last revision

November 25, 2012

Dear Old Guard Feminist:

An uncontrollable byproduct of free speech is that it generates hurtful language and ideas, which may offend one's sensibilities. A dominated group may feel marginalized by inflammatory language or ideas, like sexism. But what is the best way to empower historically dominated people, like women? The media, which may be influenced by the state, and vice versa, certainly have the power to shape public thought and discourse. Should sexually explicit or exploitative material in the media be discouraged for the purposes of empowering women and other historically dominated people? In academic literature on the issue of sexism and patriarchy, most of the evidence examined are media products. Although often left unsaid, the natural tendency is to think critically about what controls may be constituted. As seen in the current state of the American media, when left unchecked, one can hardly expect the media to change based on the criticism of academia. I propose that freedom of speech ultimately empowers women, even if some of that speech is less than flattering.

Based on these premises, there seems to be three ways forward available. The first is to adopt a laissez-faire approach. Simply allow the media to be reflective of the culture it represents. The second is to impose change through decree of the state. The state already assumes some restriction of free speech, through the vehicle of the law. Specifically, some discriminatory and libelous language are outlawed. Pornographic and violent material and images are regulated to restrict distribution. A way forward would be to further restrict media presentations, protecting dominated people. The third option is a softer form of control through which media presentations may be criticized for the purpose of making controversial material fall out of fashion.

It is possible to compare these ways forward as they have independently manifested in different cultures around the world. It is important to note that this investigation will focus on gender and sexuality. As each culture studied is represented by independent media, they are reflective of the sensibilities of that culture. This means that cultures with medias considered free in regards to sexuality, may be quite restrictive politically.

An example of a nation that has opted for strong state censorship is Iran. Max Fisher, a writer for The Atlantic wrote of Iranian censorship, “The Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with the cinema since even before its founding. Ayatollah and future dictator Ruhollah Khomeini, in his years as revolutionary, condemned movies in both of his books as forces of foreign corruption and imperialism,” (Fisher). It should be recognized that much of the censorship that occurs in Iran is due to deep rooted traditions that would be inconsistent with popular western film. But do women fare better for the strict censorship? It would seem not, as Iran ranked 125th among countries surveyed in UNESCO’s 2011 The Global Gender Gap Report (UNESCO). The report ranks countries in terms of their gender equality, the number one ranked country has the greatest gender equality. The report would seem highly relevant as it compares the gap of services, mobility, and opportunity available for men versus women, as opposed to the levels themselves. This is important because it allows for developing nations imbalances due to historic reasons like poverty or war. In fact, countries in conflict, such as revolution in the case of Egypt and Tunisia are omitted from the report. Iran’s problems with the continued oppression of women obviously run deeper than their media, but it seems impossible to notice that strict censorship of what may be called exploitative material does little for the empowerment of women.

A case in which a state has chosen not to restrict their media is Finland. Finland was reported to be the freest media in 2011 by the Paris based group Reporters Without Borders. That isn’t to say that there are no censorship laws in Finland, but rather they restrict illegal child pornography websites and copyrighted material. The Finish government has chosen not to restrict other lawful if distasteful imagery containing exploitative or pornographic material. In the same UNESCO report, Finland is scored as the third ranking country in terms of gender equality. It seems a free media is an important enabler for those who strive to achieve equality.

Pervasive restriction seems to inhibit gender equality, as identified in the Iranian example. Unrestricted medias seem to enable gender equality. But how do nations with limited restriction stand up in terms of gender equality? In the case of the United States (US), and the United Kingdom (UK), which practice some form of censorship in the form of restricting access of minors to risque material, similar results occur. Both the US and the UK restrict sexual imagery more stringently than violent imagery. Shootings and assaults are common on prime time national television, but nudity is more strongly restricted. Of course, there is some sexually suggestive material available to minors through television and popular movies, but violent material seems more accessible. The UK with a score of 16 and the US with a score of 17 seem to predict a correlation with limited restriction. Milder censorship seems to provide a milder obstacle to gender equality.

It would be an oversimplification to chart gender equality simply as a function of media censorship. But a free media tends to fall in line with a smaller gap in gender equality. Reporters Without Borders (RWB), the OpenNet Initiative (OPI), and Freedom House (FH) are all private non-profit institutions that gather data on censorship world-wide. I compared the RWB report, the FH Free Press Rating, and the ONI rating in terms of social filtering and compared them to UNESCO's gender equality index. The results were a little more staggering. In all nations compared, no nation with a “Not Free” rating in the RWB report scored better than the Russian Federation's 43rd. Of the 26 countries available for comparison in both reports with “Not Free” ratings, the mean score was 96.

This would seem to indicate that countries without free medias tend to produce quite large gender gaps, comparatively speaking. Countries with “Free” ratings did much better. Of those 26 countries available in all three censorship reports and UNESCOs reports, the mean score was 27. I should qualify this data by saying not every country with a “Free” media did particularly well in the UNESCO report. Japan was scored as having a fully free media in two reports, however it scored a 98 in the gender equality report. Yet, the averages seem to speak for themselves. Countries with freer medias have smaller gender gaps, which means greater equality.

One can not blame restrictive media for large gender gaps in access to power, education, and healthcare (three of the main criteria in evaluating the UNESCO gender gap). But one can see how countries with restricted medias perform in their providing access to those resources. I believe censorship is a slippery slope, and as can be seen in our American censorship of sex over violence, its difficult to be consistent. Medias are representative of their culture of origin, and that should be taken into account when comparing these numbers. The media is often a forerunner to civil rights reform, notable in the case of the acceptance of homosexuality and minorities' access to power. Hopefully, a free media may also act as a harbinger of the empowerment of women. As a soldier in the US military, I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. I personally witnessed harsh restriction of women's rights. I feel that media restriction was not the cause of women's oppression, but freedom of speech facilitates women's liberation. Medias can change minds, and the best gift to be given to disenfranchised people of the world is a voice.

In conclusion, there is a correlation of data that suggests that freer medias tend to accompany societies with smaller gender equality gaps as identified by the UNESCO report. I challenge those who would encourage any type of censorship to look at those nations with restrictive medias and their attendant gender equality gaps. There is plenty of room for academic criticism of distasteful media, but it hasn't produced great change recently. Academic criticism may serve as a conversation starter for individuals to make educated choices, but perhaps not institutionally. What is truly needed to further the cause of empowering historically dominated people are the success stories of women and other historically dominated people who make positive change. It is not enough to attempt to restrain those backward ideas that have repressed women and others in the past.

Sincerely,

Benjamin A. Meade

123 Main St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95062

Works Cited

United Nations. UNESCO. The Global Gender Gap Report 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: UN World  Economic Forum

Censorship by Country. Wikipedia, 23 Nov. 2012. web. 25 Nov. 2012.

Formal Paper 2 Rough draft version 2

November 25, 2012

Dear Old Guard Feminist:

An uncontrollable byproduct of free speech is that it generates hurtful language and ideas, which may offend one's sensibilities. A dominated group may feel marginalized by inflammatory language or ideas, like sexism. But what is the best way to empower historically dominated people, like women? The media, which may be influenced by the state, and vice versa, certainly have the power to shape public thought and discourse. Should we discourage sexually explicit or exploitative material in the media for the purposes of empowering women and other historically dominated people? As we examine academic literature on the issue of sexism and patriarchy, most of the evidence we examine are media products. Although often left unsaid, the natural second order of effect is to think critically about what controls may be constituted, direct or indirect as they may be. As we can see by the current state of our media, when left unchecked, we can hardly expect the media to change based on the criticism of academia. I propose that freedom of speech ultimately empowers women, even if some of that speech is less than flattering.

Based on these premises, there only seems to be three ways forward available. The first is to adopt a laissez-faire approach. We simply allow the media to be reflective of the culture and ideas it represents. The second is to impose change through decree of the state. The state already assumes some restriction of free speech, through the vehicle of the law. Specifically, some discriminatory and libelous language are outlawed. Pornographic and violent material and images are regulated to restrict distribution. A way forward would be to further restrict media presentations, protecting dominated people. The third option is a softer form of control through which we may criticize media presentations for the purpose of making controversial material fall out of fashion.

It is possible that we may compare these ways forward as they have independently manifested in different cultures around the world. When we analyze metrics concerned with gender equality, we may make better decisions about the best way to liberate previously dominated people. It is important to note that for the purposes of this investigation we will focus on gender and sexuality. As each culture we will study is represented by independent medias, they are reflective of the sensibilities of that culture. This means that cultures with medias that we may consider free in regards to sexuality, may be quite restrictive politically.

An example of a nation that has opted for strong state censorship is Iran. Max Fisher, a writer for The Atlantic wrote of Iranian censorship, “The Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with the cinema since even before its founding. Ayatollah and future dictator Ruhollah Khomeini, in his years as revolutionary, condemned movies in both of his books as forces of foreign corruption and imperialism,” (Fisher). We should recognize that much of the censorship that occurs in Iran is due to deep rooted traditions that would be inconsistent with popular western film. But do women fare better for the strict censorship? It would seem not, as Iran ranked 125th among countries surveyed in UNESCO’s 2011 The Global Gender Gap Report (UNESCO). The report ranks countries in terms of their gender equality, the number one ranked country has the greatest gender equality. The report would seem highly relevant as it compares the gap of services, mobility, and opportunity available for men versus women, as opposed to the levels themselves. This is important because it allows for developing nations imbalances due to historic reasons like poverty or war. In fact, countries in conflict, such as revolution in the case of Egypt and Tunisia are omitted from the report. Iran’s problems with the continued oppression of women obviously run deeper than their media, but it seems impossible to notice that strict censorship of what may be called exploitative material does little for the empowerment of women.

A case in which a state has chosen not to restrict their media is Finland. Finland was reported to be the freest media in 2011 by the Paris based group Reporters Without Borders. That isn’t to say that there are no censorship laws in Finland, but rather they restrict illegal child pornography websites and copyrighted material. The Finish government has chosen not to ban other lawful if distasteful imagery containing exploitative or pornographic material. In the same UNESCO report, Finland is scored as the third ranking country in terms of gender equality. It seems like a leap to say that these numbers mean that a free media produces greater gender equality, but perhaps a free media is an important enabler for those who strive to achieve equality.

Pervasive restriction seems to inhibit gender equality, as identified in the Iranian example. Unrestricted medias seem to enable gender equality. But how do nations with limited restriction stand up in terms of gender equality? In the case of the United States (US), and the United Kingdom (UK), both of which practice some form of censorship in the form of restricting access of minors to risque material, we find similar results. Both the US and the UK restrict sexual imagery more stringently than violent imagery. Shootings and assaults are common on prime time national television, but nudity is more strongly restricted. Of course, there is some sexually suggestive material available to minors through television and popular movies, but violent material seems more accessible. The UK with a score of 16 and the US with a score of 17 seem to predict a correlation with limited restriction. Milder censorship seems to provide a milder obstacle to gender equality.

We can not chart gender equality simply as a function of media censorship. But a free media tends to fall in line with a smaller gap in gender equality. Reporters Without Borders (RWB), the OpenNet Initiative (OPI), and Freedom House (FH) are all private non-profit institutions that gather data on censorship in varying media outlets yearly. I compared the RWB report, the FH Free Press Rating, and the ONI rating in terms of social filtering and compared them to UNESCO's gender equality index. The results were a little more staggering. In all nations compared, no nation with a “Not Free” rating in the RWB report scored better than the Russian Federation's 43rd. Of the 26 countries available for comparison in both reports with “Not Free” ratings, the mean score was 96.

This would seem to indicate that countries without free medias tend to produce quite large gender gaps, comparatively speaking. Countries with “Free” ratings did much better. Of those 26 countries available in all three censorship reports and UNESCOs reports, the mean score was 27. I should qualify this data by saying not every country with a “Free” media did particularly well in the UNESCO report. Japan was scored as having a fully free media in two reports, however it scored a 98 in the gender equality report. Yet, the averages seem to speak for themselves.

These comparisons may seem generalized, but their results confirm each other. We can not blame restrictive media for large gender gaps in access to power, education, and healthcare (three of the main criteria in evaluating the UNESCO gender gap). But we can see how countries with restricted medias perform in their providing access to those resources. I believe censorship is a slippery slope, and as we can see in our American censorship of sex over violence, its difficult to be consistent. Medias are representative of their culture of origin, and we should take that into account when comparing these numbers. The media is often a forerunner to civil rights reform, notable in the case of the acceptance of homosexuality and minorities' access to power. Hopefully, a free media may also act as a harbinger of the empowerment of women. As a soldier in the US military, I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. I personally witnessed harsh restriction of women's rights. I feel that media restriction was not the cause of women's oppression, but freedom of speech facilitates women's liberation. 

In conclusion, there is a correlation of data that suggests that freer medias tend to accompany societies with smaller gender equality gaps as identified by the UNESCO report. I challenge those who would encourage any type of censorship to look at those nations with restrictive medias and their attendant gender equality gaps. There is plenty of room for academic criticism of distasteful media, but that seems like so much bark without bite when it lacks enforcement. What is truly needed to further the cause of empowering historically dominated people are the success stories of women and other historically dominated people who make positive change. It is not enough to attempt to restrain those backward ideas that have repressed women and others in the past.

Sincerely,




Benjamin A. Meade
123 Main St.
Santa Cruz, CA 95062




Enclosures: 2

United Nations. UNESCO. The Global Gender Gap Report 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: UN World Economic Forum

Censorship by Country. Wikipedia, 23 Nov. 2012. web. 25 Nov. 2012.

Proposal Revision

I propose to write a paper that will compare the effects of censorship, either formal or informal, with regard to sexuality internationally in the media, and compare that to the relative gender equality in the nations compared. I will conduct research for academic writing on the matter, and discuss those sources findings. I suspect that we will find nations with the most highly sexualized media will also have the greatest measure of gender equality. My hypothesis is inclusive of those media outlets whose sexualized media may even contain pornographic or otherwise demeaning imagery. 

My intended audience is all those interested in a discussion of gender relations as it relates internationally. I find that America is a nation of mixed influences, from its puritanical roots, to its diverse population of immigrants. It would seem of benefit to explore these topics among more homogenous societies in comparison. I will prepare my argument in Rogerian style, accepting that little empirical evidence is available, and most will require less than scientific interpretation. But after my research is complete, it may require me to rework my hypothesis if my evidence contradicts my suspicions.

I will integrate the likely counterpoint to my argument. Including the idea that provocative media may provide a psychological “pressure valve” for releasing sexual or violent ideation. I will also generate counterpoints to the finer warrants to claims that will be needed to support the thesis statement.

The intended reader effect is to regard sexual imagery in the media with a greater situational awareness to the author's purpose, and thus inform judgment. 

Rhetorical Analysis 3 Kimmel

In “Bros Before Hos” by Michael Kimmel, the author identifies pressures and norms that coalesce into what Kimmel calls the “guy code”. Kimmel explores the expectations placed on men first by method of compare and contrast.

Kimmel relates the stories of some of his interviews with women and then with men concerning their gender. He found that women thought “Nobody can tell me what it means to be a woman anymore,” (608). Later Kimmel contrasts this with what male interviewees thought it meant to be a man, “Never show your feelings, never ask for directions, never give up, never give in, be strong, be aggressive, show no fear, show now mercy, get rich, get even, get laid win...” (609). Kimmel's compare and contrast methodology certainly seems appropriate when examining one gender in relation to another.

To explicate his definition of the “guy code” Kimmel employs the classification and division method by categorizing certain attributes as desirable in the male gender. This is most apparent in his “Real Guy's Top Ten List,” (608). Kimmel also includes Robert Brannon's summarized four basic rules of masculinity. These rules, documented by the social psychologist in 1976 are strikingly similar to the list Kimmel compiled in recent times. It can be assumed that Kimmel's objective is to convince the reader that little has changed in the expectations placed on men from the point of view of the social and behavioral sciences.

Next, Kimmel describes the implementation of the “guy code.” Kimmel uses the process mode of writing to describe the operation in action. Kimmel's method can be witnessed in the passage that begins, “Guys hear the voices of the men in their lives – fathers, coaches, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, priests – to inform their ideas of masculinity,” (611). The description of the enforcement of the “guy code” can also be described as a process, as Kimmel explains here, “Masculinity is largely a 'homosocial' experience: performed for, and judged by, other men,” (611).

Kimmel uses description to finish out his essay, as he describes homophobia as a means by which to force masculine behaviors on males. Kimmel appeals to the male fear of being misperceived as homosexual as the driving force in macho behavior. Kimmel states, “Everything that is perceived as gay goes into what we might call the Negative Playbook of Guyland. Avoid everything in it and you'll be all right. Just make sure that you walk, talk, and act in a different way from the gay stereotype,” (613). Kimmel cites his interactions with men in workshops about how it feels to be perceived as gay to reinforce his position that the vehicle for conforming men to traditionally masculine roles is homophobia.

Kimmel employed many different modes in his investigation of male standard enforcement among other males, but chiefly he used the process mode. Several passages begin with a narrative, but they are ultimately related to the process of enforcement. I would like to point out however, that much of his evidence may be anecdotal, and I suggest he may have tainted the interviewees answers with leading questions. It would seem likely that one could find evidence to support a similar standard base for women, but he discounts that in the opening of his essay quoted above. I propose these premises undermine his argument. 

Rhetorical Analysis two, Salam

Rhetorical Analysis

Title: The Death of Macho

Author: Reihan Salam

Date: 28 October 2012

Topic: The global shift of male dominance in market production to women earners.

Analysis of Argument: 

Exigence: The author describes the financial crisis of 2008's strongly negative impact on employment of men in typically male dominated sectors of the economy. The author predicts the effects of the financial crisis with regard to gender.

Intended Audience: The author speaks mainly to layman readers interested in the economy and gender relations.

Purpose: To inform the audience of change within the economy, and to make predictions based on observable evidence.

Claims: The author claims that the financial crisis will result in lasting change from a historically male-dominated society to a female-dominated one. The author claims that historically masculine behavior caused the financial crisis. Further, the previously high-risk masculine behavior will be replaced with more feminine leaders. The author claims that men in the present will be left with the option to adapt or resist the change. 

Main Evidence:

Rhetorical Analysis:

Writer's Strategy 1: The author begins by citing the large losses of jobs in typically male dominated markets, such as the housing industry. Additionally, this under or unemployment has lasting and damaging effects on male psychological health. 

Reader Effect 1: The scale and gravity of the disproportional effects on men versus women captures the reader's attention and focuses them on the author's predictions. 

Writer's Strategy 2: The author points out that the electorate of previously male dominated countries replace their leaders with women leaders. This is exemplified by Iceland's electing the first openly lesbian prime minister. 

Reader Effect 2: The reader acknowledges the rising power of women policy makers, and it follows that these changes in top world leadership will be reflected at all echelons.

Writer's Strategy 3: The author makes predictions about men's choices in their role in the future. The author proposes that men can adapt to their new role as a gender somewhat subordinate to women, or resist change. 

Reader Effect 3: The reader embraces a world view that allows for a dissolution of permanent male dominance over women in political and economic realms. 

My Response: I found this article very timely and logically sound. The author's strategy is strongly formulated as almost every claim is substantiated with verifiable evidence, with the exception of his predictions. Particularly of interest is the historic examples such as the New Deal, compared with the current administration's economic stimulus plan. It follows to compare these examples with other nations policy for economic growth, like China. 

Readers Response Two

In "Two ways a man can hurt a woman", the author, Kilbourne discuses the effect of advertising and the media on women. In general, the essay appears as an introduction to themes probably discussed later in the book, and serves to inflame the reader's conscience. I assume the later, because the tragically nebulous nature of the author's writing obscures her purpose.

Kilbourne bemoans the victimization of women through the media through sexist arguments. “Wouldn't it be wonderful if, realizing the importance of relationships in all of our lives, we could seek to learn relational skills from women and to help men develop these strengths in themselves?” (Kilbourne 578). To which I should reply, Pardon my gender ma'am, I didn't realize that I needed an emotional education from a woman.

Kilbourne goes further to describe the objectification of both male and female bodies, but she's quick to point out that feminine objectification is worse. Kilbourne describes it as a form of cultural abuse. To me, this position is morally indefensible. I feel that the word abuse is much too strong to attach to advertisements depicting unattainable bodies. Additionally, those advertisements she describes as pornographic seem to be a matter of taste. If we police material on the basis that some persons may find it pornographic, don't we limit advertisers ability to practice free speech? She describes the advertisements as enabling sexual abuse, but she does not describe a link between advertisements and media and abusive behavior. Perhaps she does so later in the book, but in this passage, that association seems like an illogical leap. Ultimately, all abuse is wrong, and we as a society need resolution. However, to suggest such an association is irresponsible at best. Perhaps I would have found suggestions for improvement to be appropriate, given the nature of her argument.

Kilbourne also describes a link between addiction and abuse, although the link is unsubstantiated with academic citation. One can assume that she includes her “cultural abuse” as one of the forms of abuse. A crucial byproduct of power is responsibility. To upraise exposure to advertisements as abuse seems to lessen the responsibility of the observer for their actions upon exposure. We can agree that the reasons advertisers promote their products in the way that they do is because they are successful. If we suggest that people who purchase these products do so outside their control, we lessen their responsibility and power.

In effect, Kilbourne's arguments pertaining to advertising and their effect on women are ill-based. The points she raises about the magnitude and pervasiveness of violence are potent, but the connections she draws with regard to advertisements do not follow. If these connections are formed more fully in the book to which this passage belongs, that would change my critique. But that begs the question, why would such a passage be included in a collection of writings such as this textbook? This passage is challenging, and it questions things I held as self evident. While captivating, it fails in the art of persuasion.

Cutting Corners on Education (Final Polish)

Benjamin Meade

English 2

Stacy Knapp

7 October 2012

 Cutting Corners on Education

It's hard to imagine California as an under-educated state. Some of the finest institutions of higher learning in the entire world are located in this state. That high standard of education has led to the growth of Silicon Valley, and other economic juggernauts located in California, as they may be content in the knowledge that California will continue to produce a skilled labor class, capable of supporting industry. But unsustainable spending, funded by irresponsible borrowing has led to fiscal insolvency. California spends more than it makes through taxes and federal subsidies, and the financial crisis of 2008 has revealed skeletons in our closet. Some believe in raising revenue and others believe in reducing spending. Ultimately, the quality of education in California's public schools is what's at stake in regards to Proposition 30. Most of the rhetoric available concerning Proposition 30 in the media presents a pluralistic point of view. I suggest Proposition 30 is a band-aid, and it only temporarily stops the bleeding. Proposition 30 is a good start, but it's not good enough, and if it passes, we as a state will have this argument again.

In response to California's budgetary crisis, Governor Jerry Brown has introduced Proposition 30, an amendment to the California constitution, which raises taxes for education and public safety to balance the budget. Advocates of Proposition 30 say raising taxes is the only way to sustain California's educational responsibilities. The state has already cut funding for other programs deeply, and argues no other budget cuts are realistic. That seems logical as the sum expenditure on K-12 and higher education equals close to 53% of California's spending from the general fund, according to the May revision to California's fiscal year 2012-2013 budget. This information is available at http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Revised/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf . It seems reasonable to presume that any new cuts would need to occur in the largest portion of the state government's budget, namely, education.

One problem with Proposition 30 is that it is projected to bring in revenue just above what would have been cut by automatic trigger cuts which will occur January 1, 2013 if Proposition 30 does not pass. That means that Proposition 30 raises estimated revenue only proportional to the deficit to be cut on January 1. Other government agencies are funded proportional to need rather than our cash on hand approach. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is one such agency. The VA funds disability and other veteran's benefits proportional to the number of service members in need. As president of the Veterans of Cabrillo College, I have first-hand experience with filing claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Administrative costs are subject to executive discretion, but the benefits to be paid out by service members are projected and funded accordingly. In essence, Proposition 30 prevents degradation to our current system, but it is not forward-looking. 

We should project our schools' needs, and then fund them according to need. The official title and summary of Proposition 30 states, “In many years, the calculation of the minimum guarantee is highly sensitive to changes in state General Fund revenues. In years when General Fund revenues grow by a large amount, the guarantee is likely to increase by a large amount. A large share of the state and local funding that is allocated to schools and community colleges is 'unrestricted,' meaning that they may use the funds for any educational purpose.” Doesn't it seem likely that in the event more revenue is generated than needed, it could be spent unnecessarily simply because funds were available? We should consider funding on a cost per student basis.

Additionally, Proposition 30 distributes money for public health and safety services to local governments due to realignment. Programs like substance abuse rehabilitation, law enforcement and prisons are some of the programs included. According to the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30, figure three, about 99 million dollars is allocated to prevent spending reductions in public safety programs like those stated above. So, what do city police grants and prisons have to do with public education? I propose these are separate issues and need to be legislated separately. Maybe we should spend that extra money educating our citizens, rather than policing them. The public safety provisions within Proposition 30 also weaken it to opposition attack. This endangers the proposition for those voters who respect the cost of a good education, and are willing to pay for it.

Another problem with Proposition 30 is the nature by which revenue is collected. Proposition 30 raises taxes uniformly in a sales tax increase of ¼ of a cent for all sales, but raises income tax on earners above 250 thousand or 500 thousand for those filing jointly by 1-3%. Opponents of Proposition 30 abjure the disproportional nature of the taxes. Families earning more than half a million dollars per year can afford to pay private school tuition, and aren't dependent on public schooling. In effect, wealthier families are charged to pay for middle and lower income families' education. Opponents could call this type of tax a redistribution of wealth. If Proposition 30 is seen as a redistribution of wealth, we risk alienating those whose support is most needed in a time of fiscal insolvency, the wealthy. This makes Proposition 30 less resilient to opposition attack. Taxing only the super wealthy seems political and it fuels the opposition's fire. Shouldn't all of us pay our fair share of taxes?

As a California community college student, my major, astronomy, is in jeopardy at Cabrillo. I look at our sporting facilities, the new gym and the Visual and Performance Art complex and I'm reminded of what's important to our community. Mathematics is still taught on chalkboards, while I see pianos in almost every classroom in the music hall. I think it's great to fund the study of the arts, but it reminds me that my major has a one person department, and it seems likely to be one of the first programs cut. I will vote yes for Proposition 30, in lieu of a better amendment. If we allow our system of public education erode, we disallow upward mobility for lower and middle class families. Our youth will inherit a caste system in which lower income families can not elevate their standing through education. But we should be aware that Proposition 30 does not go far enough to make California competitive as it used to be. Proposition 30 is also vulnerable, and its passage is a big maybe. We need a durable amendment that can withstand partisanship. That means taxation proportional to income, and funding proportional to need. We also need to legislate purposefully, and respond to unique budgetary concerns with unique legislation. We can't lump in all of our potential cuts and make meaningful decisions.