Remembering an Artist essays

Remembering an Artist essays Ron Jeremy, Vincent Van Gogh, Emily Carr, Madonna and Miles Davis are all considered artists in their own right. The lives and achievements of these men and women are common public knowledge because theyre taught at school. If theyre not taught from a teacher as part of the curriculum then theyre learned by socializing with friends at school. This creates the misconception amongst young people that; artists who dont fall under this category just arent good. I would like to present one of these artists who arent good. Georgia OKeeffes story isnt one that involves a messed up childhood. She never had to fight off a drug addiction, she was never insane, and her artwork was never made through the inspiration of insanity. She was, however, a gifted child. Relatively speaking, Georgia OKeeffe had a normal childhood. Early in her life, the theories and teachings of her mentors heavily influenced her paintings. Her art therefore, was a unique blend of abstract and representational. She was k nown for the purity, boldness, and clarity of her still-life compositions. After the death of her husband, she moved to New Mexico, there her paintings began to reflect the daily life of the culture there. The very land she lived on became her inspiration. Although Georgia OKeeffe is not very popular with the new generation, she is very much worth remembering. Unlike most other women in the early 20th century, Georgia OKeeffe did not let discrimination ruin her life. She used her art to capture the worlds attention and also used it as a way to shield herself from societys problems. Born in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin in 1887, Georgia O'Keeffe was the second of seven children. When she a little girl, she took art lessons. Her teachers thought she was very gifted and encouraged her to paint more. After she graduated from high school, she wanted to become a...

Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky Saul Alinsky was a political activist and organizer whose work on behalf of poor residents of American cities brought him recognition in the 1960s. He published a book, Rules For Radicals, which appeared in the heated political environment of 1971  and went on to become familiar over the years mostly to those who study political science. Alinsky, who died in 1972, was perhaps destined to fade into obscurity. Yet his name unexpectedly surfaced  with some degree of prominence during high-profile political campaigns in recent years. Alinskys  reputed influence as an organizer has been wielded as a weapon against current political figures, most notably Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Alinsky was known to many  in the 1960s. In 1966 the New York Times Magazine published a profile of him titled Making Trouble Is Alinskys Business, a lofty credential for any social activist at the time. And his involvement in various actions, including strikes and protests, received media coverage. Hillary Clinton, as a student at Wellesley College, wrote a senior thesis about Alinskys activism and writings. When she ran for president in 2016 she was attacked for supposedly being a disciple of Alinsky, despite having disagreed with some of the tactics he advocated. Despite the negative attention Alinsky has received in recent years, he was generally respected in his own time. He worked with clergymen and business owners and in his writings and speeches, he stressed self-reliance. Though a self-proclaimed radical, Alinsky  considered himself a patriot and urged Americans to take greater responsibility in society. Those who worked with him recall a man with a sharp mind and a sense of humor who was genuinely concerned with helping those who, he believed, were not being treated fairly in society. Early Life Saul David Alinsky was born in Chicago, Illinois, on January 30, 1909. His parents, who were Russian Jewish immigrants, divorced when he was 13, and Alinsky moved to Los Angeles with his father. He returned to Chicago to attend the University of Chicago, and received a degree in archaeology in 1930. After winning a fellowship to continue his education, Alinsky studied criminology. In 1931, he began to work for the Illinois state government as a sociologist studying topics including juvenile delinquency and organized crime. That work provided a practical education in the problems of urban neighborhoods in the depths of the Great Depression. Activism After several years, Alinsky left his government post to become involved in citizen activism. He co-founded an organization, the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council, which was focused on bringing about political reform that would improve life in the ethnically diverse neighborhoods adjacent to the famous Chicago stockyards. The organization worked with clergy members, union officials, local business owners, and neighborhood groups to combat problems such as unemployment, insufficient housing, and juvenile delinquency. The Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council, which still exists today, was largely successful in bringing attention to local problems and seeking solutions from the Chicago city government. Following that progress, Alinsky, with funding from the Marshall  Field Foundation, a prominent Chicago charity, launched a more ambitious organization, the Industrial Areas Foundation. The new organization was intended to bring organized action to a variety of neighborhoods in Chicago. Alinsky, as executive director, urged citizens to organize to address grievances. And he advocated protest actions. In 1946, Alinsky published his first book Reveille For Radicals. He argued that democracy would function best if people organized in groups, generally in their own neighborhoods. With organization and leadership, they could then exert political power in positive ways. Though Alinsky proudly used the term radical, he was advocating legal protest within the existing system. In the late 1940s, Chicago experienced racial tensions, as African Americans who had migrated from the South began to settle in the city. In December 1946 Alinskys status as an expert on Chicagos social issues was reflected in an article in the New York Times in which he expressed his fears that Chicago might erupt in major race riots. In 1949 Alinsky published a second book, a biography of John L. Lewis, a prominent labor leader. In a New York Times review of the book, the newspapers labor correspondent called it entertaining and lively, but criticized it for overstating Lewiss desire to challenge Congress and various presidents.   Spreading His Ideas Throughout the 1950s, Alinsky continued his work in trying to improve neighborhoods which he believed mainstream society was ignoring. He began to travel beyond Chicago, spreading his style of advocacy, which centered on protest actions which would pressure, or embarrass, governments to tend to critical issues. As the social changes of the 1960s began to shake America, Alinsky was often critical of young activists. He constantly urged them to organize, telling them that although it was often boring daily work, it would provide benefits in the long run. He told young people not to wait around for a leader with charisma to emerge, but to get involved themselves. As the United States grappled with the problems of poverty and slum neighborhoods, Alinskys ideas seemed to hold promise. He was invited to organize in the barrios of California as well as in poor neighborhoods in cities in upstate New York. Alinsky was often critical of government anti-poverty programs and often found himself at odds with Great Society programs of Lyndon Johnsons administration. He also experienced conflicts with organizations who had invited him to participate in their own anti-poverty programs. In 1965, Alinskys abrasive nature was one of the reasons Syracuse University chose to cut ties with him. In a newspaper interview at the time, Alinsky said: Ive never treated anyone with reverence. That goes for religious leaders, mayors, and millionaires. I think irreverence is basic to a free society. The New York Times Magazine article about him, published on October 10, 1966, quoted what Alinsky would often say to those he sought to organize: The only way to upset the power structure is to goad them, confuse them, irritate them, and most of all, make them live by their own rules. If you make them live by their own rules, youll destroy them. The October 1966 article also described his tactics: In a quarter-century as a professional slum organizer, Alinsky, who is 57, has goaded, confused, and infuriated the power structures of two score communities. In the process he has perfected what social scientists now call Alinsky-type protest, an explosive mixture of rigid discipline, brilliant showmanship, and a street fighters instinct for ruthlessly exploiting his enemys weakness.Alinsky has proved that the fastest way for slum tenants to get results is to picket their landlords suburban homes with signs reading: Your Neighbor Is A Slumlord. As the 1960s went on, Alinskys tactics delivered mixed results, and some localities which had invited were disappointed. In 1971 he published Rules For Radicals, his third and final book. In it, he provides advice for political action and organizing. The book is written in his distinctively irreverent voice, and is filled with entertaining stories that illustrate the lessons he learned over decades of organizing in various communities. On June 12, 1972, Alinsky  died of a heart attack at his home in Carmel, California. Obituaries noted his long career as an organizer. Emergence as a Political Weapon After Alinskys death, some organizations he worked with continued. And Rules For Radicals  became something of a textbook for those interested in community organizing. Alinsky himself, however, generally faded from memory, especially when compared to other figures Americans recalled from the socially turbulent 1960s. The relative obscurity of Alinsky abruptly  ended when Hillary Clinton entered electoral politics. When her opponents discovered that she had written her thesis on Alinsky, they became eager to link her to the long-dead self-professed radical. It was true that Clinton, as a college student, had corresponded with Alinsky, and had written a thesis about his work (which purportedly disagreed with his tactics). At one point, a young Hillary Clinton was even invited to work for Alinsky. But she tended to believe that his tactics were too outside the system, and she chose to attend law school rather than join one of his organizations. The weaponizing of Alinskys reputation accelerated when Barack Obama ran for president in 2008. His few years as a community organizer in Chicago seemed to mirror Alinskys career. Obama and Alinsky never had any contact, of course, as Alinsky died when Obama was not yet in his teens. And the organizations Obama worked for were not those founded by Alinsky. In the 2012 campaign, the name of Alinsky surfaced again as an attack against President Obama as he ran for reelection. And in 2016, at the Republican National Convention, Dr. Ben Carson invoked Alinsky in a peculiar accusation against Hillary Clinton. Carson claimed that Rules For Radicals had been dedicated to Lucifer, which was not accurate. (The book was dedicated to Alinskys wife, Irene; Lucifer was mentioned in passing in a series of epigraphs pointing out historic traditions of protest.) The emergence of Alinskys reputation as essentially a smear tactic to use against political opponents has only given him great prominence, of course. HIs two instructional books, Reveille for Radicals and Rules For Radicals remain in print in paperback editions. Given his irreverent sense of humor, he would probably consider the attacks upon his name from the radical right to be a great compliment. And his legacy as someone who sought to shake up the system seems secure.

Companies must develop effective Crisis Communication techniques to Essay

Companies must develop effective Crisis Communication techniques to respond to problems or dangers - Essay Example Crises Communication is considered as the sub speciality of the profession related to public relation designed for defending or protecting an organization from facing any kind of public challenge associated with its reputation (Greenberg and Elliott, 2009). The challenges may arise in the form of any criminal allegation, investigation or inquiry from the government agency, any sort of media inquiry, violation of rules and regulations associated with the environmental conditions etc. In today’s world of social media, it is certain that every company will face crisis. The question is when the crisis is going to take place. The combined effort of millions of common people playing the role of ‘citizen journalists’ along with infinite number of different online platforms guarantees the organizations that they would be victimized by someone, by means of spreading damaging message, which are often rumours. If somehow those rumours are found to be true then the companies can be put to defensive corner before they can gather relevant evidences in their own favour. When there is an emergency, then it becomes very important for the organizations to communicate. ... Thus, the most important component in this situation is to prepare for the crisis communication plan, which would enable the organization to clearly communicate to the internal as well as external stakeholders. The organizations should be able to respond accurately, promptly and confidently in such a case of an emergency. The audiences must be reached by these organizations suffering due to crisis for satisfying them with the information that they require. The image and reputation of the organizations can have a positive or negative impact based on the public perception related to this crisis. Thus, in order to face this crisis situation and maintain its reputation it becomes very important for the organizations to plan for an effective crisis communication strategy which would enable them to satisfy the customers, employees and other stakeholders with sufficient justification for the incident. Understanding the audiences properly is very important for the organizations suffering fro m crisis situation. It helps in reaching to these audiences with the most effective communication plan which would satisfy them. There exist many potential audiences who want information at the crisis situation and also after its occurrence. The main challenge that remains for the organization is identifying these potential audiences, determining their needs for the information and then identifying that whether the organization is able to communicate and explain to these audiences. The potential audiences for the organizations include customers; employees; news media; community; the management, investors and directors of the company, government officials etc. The organizations find that public importance is highly significant with advancement of technology and public

Is International Relations Simply International History If Not Why Essay

Is International Relations Simply International History If Not Why - Essay Example International relations involve the relationship that exists between sovereign states and nations. International relations usually encompasses the responsibilities that member states, countries, foreign international companies, government institutions and non-governmental institutions partake in ensuring that a cordial relationship exists among them (Ole1989). Some critiques have viewed this relationship as outdated and one that has no positive impact on member states. On the other hand, supporters of International relations believe that this relationship has proved beneficial to nations that have adopted it and is still embraced by many nations that believe in the importance of international relationship. International relations has enabled the solving of issues such as those related with globalisation, international security especially concerning terrorism, preservation and conservation of the environment particularly global warming, political issues, economical issues and human ri ghts violation especially in nations where genocides have occurred. International relations are an important concept in the modern society internationally particularly because this is the era that is dominated by digital technology and advanced technology in form of communication and transport. This has therefore necessitated the need for good cordial relationship among nations especially because of the need for peaceful collaboration between countries (Guzzini 2001). I therefore argue that contrary to views that International relations is simply international history, the relationship is still being embraced by many countries and is here to stay because of the benefits the relationship accords members. The global world has experienced numerous changes in the recent past especially after the end of the Second World War. Many nations have acknowledged the need for good international relations for not only security reasons but also other reasons such as economic prosperity, promotion of human rights and for environmental conservation. The international relations have especially been embraced by international non-governmental organisations and other private bodies such as World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations and International Labour Organisations. These international interactions are becomingly progressively more distinguished by non-government actors such as the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund, a lesser need for military power and in the decline in the power of the state. Historically the concept of international relations was first embraced globally after the establishment of the United Nations body especially to address issues related to human rights violation. This was particularly in relationship with Second World War where human rights were greatly violated by nations that took part in the war. Since then the world has experienced the establishment of various global organisations to address political, social, humanitarian and economic issues. In accordance with human rights violation, even though there has been incidences in which human rights violation have been experienced the world in general has made major steps in ensuring human rights are protected by member nations. This is particularly demonstrated by the strides that the international court of law has made in ensuring that those involved in the violation of human rights are punished for their crimes. For instance, former Liberian President Charles Taylor was accused of committing crimes against humanity. Another example is

Amazon Long Tail Essay Example for Free

Amazon Long Tail Essay The long tail is a phenomenon whereby firms can make money by offering a near-limitless selection the term was coined by Chris Anderson, an editor at Wired magazine, and I feel both Amazon and Netflix have a long tail model since they can offer things that many stores don’t carry so there is always something for someone. (Gallaugher) I feel like Amazon has done a great job of using the long tail method and have a limitless selection of anything someone could ever want or need. I find that I can see things I have never even dreamed about. I only buy books there but it is good to browse. Amazon â€Å"Offer{s} a nearly limitless selection and something interesting happens: there’s actually more money to be made selling the obscure stuff than the hits. At Amazon.com, roughly 60 percent of books sold are titles that aren’t available in even the biggest Borders or Barnes Noble Superstores†.(Anderson 2004) â€Å"Amazon.com is a Fortune 500 e-commerce company based in Seattle, WA. Amazon was one of the first big companies to sell goods over the Internet. The company was founded by Jeff Bezos in 1994, and launched in 1995. They started out as an online bookstore and then quickly diversified by adding other items, such as VHS tapes and DVDs, music CDs, software, video games, electronics, MP3s, clothing, furniture, toys and even food items.† (Schneider) â€Å"Amazon took its long tail strategy in a totally new direction, offering its Prime customers (those who pay a $79 annual fee for free 2-day shipping) a wide selection of streaming movies and television shows, for free. The move is a direct slap at Netflix, a company that started with a focus on renting hard-to-find, long tail DVDs but which has moved increasingly toward popular blockbusters as its video streaming operations ramp up. Amazon will not have nearly as many recent and popular releases in its free offer as Netflix, but for people who are open to Amazons viewing suggestions its hard to beat free† (Wunker, 2011). This can show how the differences of how companies charge money for similar services can affect the long tail view. I feel that it is hard to have a long tail kind of company because of the competition â€Å"The long tail gives the firm a selection advantage (or one based on scale) that traditional stores simply cannot match.† This is both true of Amazon and of Netflix while Netflix can stream its videos Amazon has to send out its products by post. (Gallaugher) â€Å"The IT Department at Amazon.com also has a massive responsibility, as they oversee an enormous system that is extremely reliable. Amazon.com describes their IT group as â€Å"system, database, and networking experts (that) build and operate highly reliable, scalable distributed systems with terabyte-sized databases and infrastructure that can handle a massive number customers (Schneider) Knowing all of this It is used makes it easier for Amazon to fine tune its company and find the best fits for its customers. It is true that Netflix and Amazon have an endless stock and don’t need to keep them in house but in time Amazon will fully own the business as it expands and offers more products for less. Amazon is global but it is unheard of to use Netflix here in Korea. I actually can use different free sites to stream free videos since the copy right laws in Korea are a bit flexible. In conclusion both companies seem to be doing well in the long tail area but Netflix may fail in the near future unless it ventures out to new and different things. Amazon will crush it if they don’t adapt soon.

Historical Types of Rationality :: Culture History Essays

ABSTRACT: In this paper we suggest that the contemporary global intellectual crisis of our (Western) civilization consists in the fundamental transformation of the classical (both Ancient and Modern) types of rationality towards the nonclassical one. We give a brief account of those classical types of rationality and focus on the more detailed description of the contemporary process of the formation of the new HTR which we label as nonclassical. We consider it to be one of the historical possibilities that might radically transform the fundamentals of our human world; in fact, this process has already begun. The paper mentions some of the main features of this process, such as formation of a new type of scientific object; new conceptual schemes; new logical and methodological equipment of scientific research; and new understanding of human nature, human mind, human action, and social order. Introduction Approaching the end of our millennium it becomes more and more evident that the modern type of rationality-which has dominated Western culture since the 17th century-is in crisis; that it has reached the limits of its potentialities and something new is being created. We seem to be experiencing the global crisis of consciousness which perhaps concerns fundamental questions of our cultural identity and signals total social crisis of our civilization. This raises a question about the nature of our current cultural this identity: Is it still modern or already "postmodern"? Or are we only experiencing the continuation from classical to modern (Krà ¡l 1994)? Is the crisis of "modernity" a permanent state from which there is no way out and where we can do nothing other than to endure bravely the fate of our time (Weber 1983)? Should we comply with its anamnesis as deconstruction and thus to acquiesce to the extremes of its dichotomies (Lyotard 1993, Derrida 1993)? Or is this crisis someth ing temporary? Should we believe in the future and hope that renovation of the past will take place in our pluralist society (Ricoeur 1992)? Do we face a decisive turnabout consisting in a return to the past, a reevaluation of the Orient and a valorization of ecology (F. Capra 1983)? Should we seek an alternative in glorification of nature and desacralization of culture (Griffin 1988)? Does the way to rescue civilization lead through deliverance of the individual "self" from the oppression of blunt rationality? Or does it lead through enforcement of the principles of fundamentalism whether with a capital "F" (radical, aggressive, insisting on the upholding of the essential articles of faith, e.

Direct Democracy

In the United States, direct democracy takes its most evident form in ballot initiatives. According to the president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute, M. Dane Waters, a version of this practice was said to have existed as early as the 1600s in New England. The practice then was for proposed ordinances to be placed on the agenda to be discussed by the whole town and later approved by voting on them during their town meetings.However, Dane Waters continued, ballot initiative as it is known today started during the 1900s – specifically in 1978 when Proposition 13 reduced the property taxes in California from 2. 5 percent to 1 percent. That California initiative resulted to limitations in the property taxes of 43 states and a reduced rate in the income taxes in 15 states (Cato Policy Report). A Washington Post columnist, David S.Broder described ballot initiatives as a tool designed to enable the people to directly write laws and in the process, check the influence being wielded by interest groups in the legislative process. Unfortunately, Broder explained, the initiative process is flawed since the opinion of those who are in disagreement is not being heard. Because of this defect, he maintained, statutes approved through ballot initiatives are not being subjected to checks and balances, effectively robbing the minority of their right to be heard.Broder argued that this contradicts the intent of the founding fathers (Cato Policy Report). The chairman of the Cato Institute, William A. Niskanen, disagreed. He stressed that the initiative process is actually a system of checks and balances since it regulates the power of legislatures. In other words, it does not weaken the American system of government. Dane Waters supported the view of Niskanen. He maintained that ballot initiatives were not meant to introduce adverse changes in the American system of government but to enrich it.In fact, he said, even the founding fathers had recognized its wisdom. To prove his point, he quoted James Madison, one of the founding fathers, who said that As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the Constitutional Charter under which the several branches of government hold their power is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory to recur to the same original authority whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of government (Cato Policy Report).Ellen Ann Andersen, in â€Å"OUT OF THE CLOSESTS & into the Courts, demonstrated how a ballot initiative works. In her search for a suitable illustration, she decided to look at the effects of the initiative process on the civil rights of lesbians, gays and bisexuals (lgb’s). Her decision was baaed on the fact that until 1993, the focus of approximately 60 percent of all ballot initiatives in the country was the civil rights of lgb’s.She therefore concentrated on the most famous of these initiatives à ¢â‚¬â€œ Amendment 2 which was approved by the voters in Colorado in 1992 (Andersen). Amendment 2 was sparked by a proposed ordinance on human rights which was heard by the Human Rights Commission of Colorado Springs in 1991. The proposal sought to prohibit discrimination of any kind based on â€Å"race and color, their religion and creed, their national origin and ethnicity, their age, marital status, their sexual orientation, or their disabled condition.† It immediately encountered stiff opposition mostly from big fundamentalist Christian groups which included the biggest Christian radio ministry in the country – the Focus on the Family. Due to the relentless assault that they made against the proposed ordinance, it was finally defeated in the city council by a vote of 8-1 (Andersen). Things did not end there, however. The defeat of the proposed human rights ordinance started a statewide campaign against gay rights which culminated to the framing of Amendment 2.A grou p named Colorado for Family Values (CFV) was organized at the behest of three individuals, namely: Tony Marco, an anti-gay activist; David Noebel, head of anticommunist Summit Ministries, and Kevin Tebedo, who was the son of Maryanne Tebedo, a senator of the state of Colorado. CFV was able to establish links with national conservative organizations. It obtained the assistance of the â€Å"National Legal Foundation† in drafting Amendment 2 and used the handbook which was written by a lawyer who represented the â€Å"Concerned Women for America† as a guide for its efforts to promote the amendment.The proponents of Amendment 2 appealed to the moral values of the people and capitalized on their lack of adequate knowledge about homosexuality as they painted gays and lesbians as a hazard to society. It distributed a bulletin which alleged that Lately, America has been hearing a lot about the subject of childhood sexual abuse. This terrible epidemic has scarred countless youn g lives and destroyed thousands of families. But what militant homosexuals don’t want you to know is the large role they play in this epidemic.In fact, pedophilia (the sexual molestation of children) is actually an accepted part of the homosexual community (Andersen)! CFV also declared to the people of Colorado that homosexuals represented a great danger to the overall health of the community because they are the most relentless carriers of â€Å"sexually transmitted diseases; they are the most fertile breeders of diseases; and that by the middle of the 1990s, hospital bed would be difficult to come by due to the large number of homosexuals who are infected with AIDS (Andersen).Black propaganda such as these, coupled with the findings of a poll which was commissioned by the Denver Post which showed that 46 percent of respondents considered homosexuality to be morally wrong, 40 percent tolerated homosexuals, and 14 percent declared their neutrality, enabled the anti-gay secto rs of Colorado to deal a crushing blow to the gay militants. The CFV campaign also argued that lgb’s should not be granted protected status or â€Å"special rights† because they were not â€Å"legitimate† minorities having failed to satisfy the criteria set forth by Supreme Court decisions, namely:1. A group wanting true minority rights must show that it’s discriminated against to the point that its members cannot earn average income, get an adequate education, or enjoy a fulfilling cultural life. 2. The group must be clearly identifiable by unchangeable physical characteristics like skin color, gender, handicap, etc. (not behavior). 3. The group must clearly show that it is politically powerless (Andersen). In spite of the sting that black propaganda caused, it was the â€Å"no special rights† campaign slogan that dealt the greatest damage to the gay militants.Lawyer Jean Dubofsky said that The â€Å"no special rights† slogan was very cleve r, particularly given a time when at least white males don’t like affirmative action. The Amendment 2 people spent a lot of time talking about (how) you don’t want gays and lesbians getting in front of you in line for jobs or scholarships or college. Of course, that wasn’t what Amendment 2 was all about overall, but that’s the way it was sold†¦. People I talked with voted for it because they felt gay and lesbians should not get affirmative action (Andersen).In other words, Amendment 2 was ultimately approved by the voters of Colorado, thanks mainly to the underhanded campaign tactics employed by its proponents. Thus ended the political struggle waged by the gay activists. They were decidedly beaten in the political battle. However, it turned out that they were far from accepting defeat. Defeated in the political arena, they then turned to the legal battle. Amendment 2 proponents had only nine days to savor the taste of victory before the lgb’s petitioned the federal district court.A complaint was filed in the name of the following: Richard Evans (he was a former employee at the Mayor’s office of Denver who was open with his being gay); five other lgb’s; and a heterosexual male who was infected with AIDS. The cities of Boulder, Denver, and Aspen were also included as complainants because they had ordinances which protected the rights of lgb’s which Amendment 2 would effectively nullify (Andersen). The second aspect of the initiative process (the legal battle) turned out to be a different matter altogether.Prepared even before the election day as a â€Å"fallback† strategy, the complaint included several allegations. First, it argued that Amendment 2 violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. Then it claimed that the amendment denied lgb’s of their freedom of expression as well as association. Finally, it alleged that Amendment 2 was in violation of due process and the â₠¬Å"right to petition government for a redress of grievances† (Andersen). The difference between the political and the legal aspects of the initiative became immediately evident.Whereas the voters were the center of decision-making in the political exercise, the legal battle transferred the power to decide to the judges. A total of thirteen judges heard the arguments whether Amendment 2 should be considered constitutional. One was a district court judge; three were justices of the Supreme Court of Colorado; and nine justices came from the United States Supreme Court (Andersen). The two sides presented the same arguments that they used during the campaign.The proponents of the amendment argued that they were simply against granting homosexuals special rights and that they were interested in safeguarding the well-being of children and the family, and allow the state to allocate its resources to assisting the legitimate minorities. The gay advocates, on the other hand, argued that in fact â€Å"special rights† as employed by the proponents of the Amendment was merely a red herring to mislead people and that the Amendment would effectively deprive them of their rights and constitutionally-guaranteed protection.They further claimed that Amendment 2 was only motivated by the hostility of its proponents towards lgb’s and that homosexuality was in fact not only a â€Å"life-style choice† but is comparable to race and sexual orientation (Andersen). What happened, however, was while their arguments won for the proponents the battle for the ballot, the same arguments caused them to lose their case in court. Ironically, a dissenting judge claimed that the act of the majority justices from the Supreme Court in striking down the Amendment had been an act â€Å"not of judicial judgment, but of political will† (Andersen). Direct Democracy The assumption underlying the discussion on the initiative process is that the employment of paid petitioners is a harmful development reducing the quality of our democracy and privileging money over true commitment to causes that are put on ballot. However, this assumption is a questionable one, and counterevidence is abundant.Therefore, this essay will have the following structure: first of all, it will show little harms in employing paid signature-gatherers that are offset by possible benefits of such design of the initiative process, and, secondly, the essay will criticize the workability of the solutions offered in the concluding section of the chapter. The perceived danger in allowing paid petitioners is that only causes that enjoy considerable financial support can make their way to the ballot. Another threat, as opponents of this policy argue, is associated with the fact that it is devastating to the spirit of volunteerism and civic involvement.There is a view that ‘[p] aying petitioners degraded the signature gatherer because it came to be seen as a sales job rather than as the precious province of the public-spirited citizen’ (Ellis, 2002, p. 48). Thus, the need for mobilizing and engaging citizens becomes virtually irrelevant to policy-making process. However, there is little persuasive evidence that paid petitioners signify the death of grassroots and the advent of the ‘greenback democracy. ’ Issues that arouse strong public sentiment can recruit a sufficient number of volunteers to push their case through.There are several reasons why volunteer signatures drive will survive in the future. First of all, using volunteers in the qualification phase can help save money for the electoral contest. Secondly, volunteer petitioners often gather signatures with higher validity rates, thus the number of signatures needed decreases whenever volunteers are used. Thirdly, volunteer-based signature gathering campaigns constitute a way to mobilize and inform citizens. Fourthly, volunteer signatures drive is a powerful public relations tool, since such initiatives usually enjoy positive publicity (Ellis, 2002).Volunteer campaigns have potential to succeed only if a campaign issue can easily generate strong feelings among the public. Yet issues arousing strong public sentiment are few and far between; more often, it is an interest of a smaller group of people that is at stake, but it is undemocratic to disregard the plea of such groups of citizens only because their case does not excite hearts and minds of their fellow citizens. In the modern democracy, there are few deeply appalling wrongs that need immediate remedy and can attract crowds of concerned citizen, like the case of African Americans in the 1960s.In the modern democracy, incremental changes need to be made to accommodate different interests and to make their coexistence more efficient and pleasurable for all. Numerous notable initiatives, serving community interests best, made their way to the ballot thanks to paid petitioners. Furthermore, the ban on paid petitioners will affect different states in different ways. It will create a dangerous disparity in the quality of the initiative process in states with smaller and bigger populations.For example, it will create considerable complications for signature gathering in such states as California, where the number of signatures that are necessary for an initiative to be put on ballot can be several times higher than in other states. It is especially relevant given the everyday life constraints on citizenship and civic participation. Consumerist ideology makes long working hours an imperative and leaves people with less time to participate in politics and community affairs. People volunteer in their leisure time, and leisure is a competitive sector.It is hard to expect a large number of citizens to sacrifice their spare time for gathering signatures in favor of their cause, however strongl y they feel about it. Indeed, ‘[t]he main hurdle that most initiative proponents face is finding enough people willing and able to dedicate a large number of hours to gathering signatures’ (Ellis, 2002, p. 53). Moreover, there are legitimate concerns that the ban on paid petitioners will privilege people with abundant amount of spare time over those possessing more financial resources. In fact, paid petitioners democratize the initiative process by making it more inclusive.Many citizens do not hold strong opinions on some issues, but it by no means indicates that these issues should be excluded from the democratic debate. There are issues that are hard to frame in the way that solicits a passionate positive or negative attitude. In addition, privileging people with spare time over those with money borders on classism. For example, unemployed citizens with a lot of spare time can recruit a large number of volunteer to campaign for a welfare reform, while middle-class bus inessmen do not have such time to petition for a tax reduction.In a democracy, all groups ought to have equal access to the mechanisms of democratic participation and should be allowed to make the best use of resources available to them to ensure such participation. Therefore, as Ellis (2002, p. 54) notes, ‘the rise of paid petitioners and professional signature-gathering firms promotes democracy by increasing the involvement of a wider diversity of groups. ’ The ban on paid petitioners will not significantly decrease the role of big interests and money in the initiative process.A fact that is often overlooked by the opponents of paid petitioners concerns the evidence that recruitment, training, and coordination of volunteers mean considerable costs to an initiative sponsor, although volunteers work for free (Ellis, 2002). Moreover, the ban on paid petitioners will give an unfair advantage to organizations with better access to human resources. It ‘would advantage firms that employed large numbers of people and would make it impossible for all but the most popular causes to exercise the right of direct democracy’ (Ellis, 2002, p. 48).The opponents of paid petitioners also overlook the fact that signature gathering firms have a more professional approach to the initiative process. One of the possible advantages, as Ellis (2002) acknowledges, is that such firms have more experience in planning signature gathering campaigns and can offer a clear timeline for the process. However, there is another important advantage in employing signature gathering firms. Professionals working there can inform citizens more efficiently by presenting information about the issue at stake in a more accessible and understandable way.Thus, the indirect benefit of using paid petitioners is greater awareness of the citizenry on a wider array of issues. The proposal to ban paid petitioners also underestimates people’s ability to choose whether to sign a p etition. It is argued that signatories to petitions do not express their real opinion but agree to sign them ‘for a variety of reasons, among which are desire to be rid of the solicitor or to help him earn a day’s wages’ (Register, 1913; in Ellis, 2002). However, citizens are often more aware and concerned than this notion assumes.Many of them refuse to sign petitions that contradict their convictions. If ignorance was the case, volunteer signature drives would be as futile as professional signature gathering firms. Having proven that the harms involved in the process of employing paid petitioners in the initiative process are often exaggerated, there is a need to critique the proposed solutions to the perceived crisis. Providing more information about signature gathering will have little effect, as citizens are already overwhelmed with information on public issues.Few would dedicate their time to studying booklets on how certain initiatives made their way to the ballot. There are cognitive constraints on the amount of information citizens can consume. Furthermore, few would have enough spare time to devote it to reading booklets with information on how many volunteers and how many paid petitioners were employed to gather support for a certain initiative. The proposal to leave petitions with county registration officers can be dismissed on similar grounds: citizens do not have enough spare time to dedicate to public affairs.Valuing signatures collected by volunteers over those collected by paid petitioners is simply non-enforceable. Abandoning signature gathering altogether is also not a viable alternative, since the process of petitioning presents at least some checks on the power of large interests. Paid petitioners ensure that issues of at least some interest to at least some groups of citizens make their way to the ballot. In fact, it does not quite matter how issues are placed on ballot; what matters most is the citizens’ abilit y to express their opinion about different initiatives in a popular vote.