Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Day 181- Vampires and Werewolves

Dear Mr. President,

On July 21 of 2007, I was dressed as Bellatrix Lestrange and, before an exuberant crowd of over 2,000, I revealed the first copy of the final Harry Potter book, and sold it to the first person in line. Less than an hour later, we'd sold a copy to every person who'd waited in line, and my roommates and I headed into the metro to go home. I'd been at work since 9 am, and it was close to 2:30am. Three men approached us on the platform and, seeing that we were reading the Harry Potter books, offered us $50 a book, cash. So you might see why I wasn't at all surprised to read that Elena Kagan was asked to comment on the Edward v. Jacob "controversy."

I want to be disappointed by this, but I can't help finding it sort of endearing. Don't get me wrong, the Twilight phenomenon has never appealed to me at all, but the young girl who went to the midnight shows of all the Star Wars special editions, or who, (even as a poor 21-year old) refused to sell my $21 copy of the Deathly Hallows for $50 so that I could stay up 12 straight hours reading it, understands those fans, to a point. I can't help but be impressed that these stories, intended to do little more than entertain children, have swept up much of the adult population in a shared experience. The people who hate Twilight, or who joke about it, are as caught up in this phenomenon as those who love it. Maybe the bookseller in me is always gratified to see people excited about reading, but I think it's more than that, too. I think that, having lived in so many places in my life, and always feeling a bit transient, it is comforting to know that we're all looking at the same sky, so to speak. That, on July 22nd, 2007, when I looked around on the metro, I was seeing the same sea of orange covers that friends and strangers alike were encountering on planes, in classrooms and cafes all over the world. That art, which is glorious in its celebration of our differences, the unique experience it offers each of us, also allows us to see how much we have in common.

Certainly, as a bookseller, I have also witnessed those who have been taken in too deeply by their fantasies and fandom, who have lost sight of reality and may never recognize it again. I don't know that fiction can be blamed for offering such an alluring alternative for those who find reality too painful. And, while I respect the Senate and the process of judicial confirmation too much to wish it to appear trite or silly, I am confident that werewolves and vampires will be far from the most ridiculous or undignified things that Kagan will be questioned about in the coming days.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Day 180- Lions and burgers and fries- Oh my!

Dear Mr. President,

An exotic meat restaurant in Arizona is coming under fire for serving lion burgers in honor of the world cup. I think this discussion highlights an amusing sort of hypocrisy in our culture, the squeamishness people develop when faced with the ugly consequences of behavior we try to tell ourselves is harmless. I suppose food is harder to swallow when it's got the face of cuddly cartoon creatures acting out their own version of Hamlet. But eating Simba, or Nala, or even Mickey and Minnie, is no worse than eating any of the millions of nameless, long-suffering factory farmed cows or chickens or pigs that are sold and consumed every day. I believe there are ways to respectfully and healthily raise animals for food, and that the healthier the animals, the healthier the resulting food. My moral objections to eating animals is because of their mistreatment in the current system, not because of their cuteness. I think any one who can eat a chicken should have no problem eating a lion. Or, for that matter, a dog.

Our belief in the greater value of some life, life we find familiar or attractive, manifests itself in far more sinister ways than objections to certain types of food. I think it is this same sense of differentiated value that makes us believe an American life is worth more than an Iraqi or Afghani or Palestinian life. That allows us to condemn a 15-year old boy to Guantanamo bay for 8 years of torture without a trial on allegations of killing an armed, armored and uniformed soldier of an invading army in the middle of a war. That makes us crow with victory at the hanging of an old man, or to find ways to legalize torture, so long as we don't call it that. Who are we to determine the value of a person's life based on the language they speak, the country they're born in, or the God they pray to? What criteria must a person or animal meet for their death to matter? To be called a crime?

Every living thing will have its share of suffering. I think that our goal ought to be to avoid making more of this, whenever possible. I don't think we can create world peace, or eradicate injustice or suffering for all. But I think that it's a noble end to work toward. The way Americans live, the things we eat and the things we buy and the violence we export, have a terrible cost that most of us will never have to face. I don't know if this is avoidable, and I don't want to tell people how to live, but I think if we start by refusing to hide from reality, either in the guise of meaningless labels like collateral damage or enemy combatant or in the glossed-over realities of the origins of dinner, we'd all make better choices.

These values have to come from those that lead us, as well. Instead of spinning the truth into something more palatable, more acceptable to our sensibilities, our government has to tell us the hard truth about the consequences of our decisions, at the ballot box, in the battlefield, and in the supermarket. I think that real leadership doesn't shy away from reality, even when it's hard to stomach.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Monday, June 28, 2010

Day 179- The sweetness

It's another Earth Day Monday! Since I'm a baker, I thought I'd talk about some ways to reduce the HUGE environmental impact from the sugars that we use.

Dear Mr. President,

Lately, in an attempt to distract myself from the absence of my friend, I've been watching The X-files probably more than is healthy. Remember the good old days when we thought the government was covering up the truth about UFOs? The abuses and crimes ignored, tacitly approved, or even ordered by our government that have come to light since 9/11 are so much worse than fiction. At this point, I think a good revelation about extraterrestrials would probably help the government so much that Robert Gibbs would announce it from the press room himself. Anyway, my other method of coping with this has been to bake- A LOT. I've been a stress-baker for years, and as college classmates and coworkers can attest, some of my best experiments come during the most trying times in my life.

But all of this baking can be bad for my figure, and for the earth. Sugar production and processing is hugely destructive to the environment, and largely responsible for the current sad state of the Everglades. I've taken to buying the bulk containers of a organic, fair-trade, sustainably farmed evaporated cane juice. I know where it comes from and how it is produced, and I believe that it is far less harmful to the environment than the cheaper white sugar, but it still has to be shipped quite a distance. I think I can do better. Last week, I baked Orange Zucchini bread, and used half of the sugar, replacing the rest with orange juice. (I have a million oranges from my produce box, so oranges will probably continue to be used this way in my baking adventures.) In Washington, we're famous for our apples, and apple juice is another alternative sweetener that is easy to get from local sources in the right season. Another great alternative is to actually make your own sugar, from sugar beets. This fall, when the beets come into season again, I'm going to try making my own from local, organic beets. Finally, I'm resolving to stop using individual sugar packets entirely. This is an incredibly wasteful practice that too many coffee shops perpetuate. It may be convenient, but I think that reducing the amount of packaging and processing in the foods we consume is worth a little inconvenience from time to time.

Yesterday, my mother took me shopping for groceries at Costco. I know buying some items in bulk reduces the amount of packaging and can be environmentally beneficial. But then I saw the inside of Costco. So much stuff in one place is really overwhelming. I had a hard time imagining how a person from any of the number of countries on this planet with food shortages would feel, walking into any of the hundreds of stores like that in this country. The carbon footprint of just one Costco and all its products must be astounding. Suddenly, surrounded by swarms of carts and people queueing up for samples, shrinking in the shadows of endlessly high stacks of product, it all seemed useless. How could buying a 10lb bag of sugar to save a few inches of plastic, or walking instead of driving, or all the sustainably grown organic local produce I could eat ever stand up to that? How could I make even a dent? If I save a few gallons of oil every week, how does that help when barrels of it are spent each day just to produce the dead animal in one meat section of one Costco? (Never mind the concession stand, or the frozen food aisle.) Can I make any significant difference?

I don't know. I can't shake this feeling of smallness, but I can sleep at night knowing I'm not participating in some of the worst parts of our consumption. Maybe that's all I can hope for, just to feel OK about the small changes I'm making in my own life, and hope that others want to do the same. Anyway, on this earth day monday, I am so grateful for the earth that produces the food I eat, and I promise to continue looking for alternatives that are healthier for it and for me.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Day 178- Pride

Dear Mr. President,

The Space Needle, arguably the most easily recognized icon in our city, is flying a rainbow flag this week. This has, of course, caused its share of grumbling, but it makes me proud to be a Seattlite. I went to a high school in a small town where being gay was not acceptable. I saw the struggles of my gay, lesbian, bisexual and not-entirely-straight friends. Some bore the antipathy they received well. Some stayed in the closet, or, at least, out of the way. Personally, I was on a crusade to get the boys on my cross-country team to stop calling things they disliked "gay", and earned their annoyance and even the wrath of my coach, when I called him out about it, as well. This was only 6 years ago, and, while I'm sure that Arlington is a long way away from flying any rainbow flags of its own, every time I see the Space Needle, I'm reminded of how far we've come. I'm proud to live in a city that celebrates its gay community.

As a general rule, I don't date Republicans. I believe that people of different political opinions can be friends, can have mutual respect, but, for me, there are aspects of the Republican party's platform that are so contrary to my values, that I could never be in a relationship with a person who believes in them. The opposition to gay marriage is the most significant of these. One can argue the separation of politics and personal values to a point, but too many people I love are being kept from full rights as Americans because of who they love, and for me, that's as personal as it gets. If a person can cast a ballot for that kind of bigoted ignorance, or a candidate who perpetuates it, they have no place in my life.

Who we love and who we hate define who we are, and, as I am proud of my city for showing its love, I am ashamed of my country for being guided by those who hate. It is 2010, in a nation ostensibly founded on the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How is it still possible that two consenting adults in love cannot be allowed to marry? What does that say about us, as a nation? Isn't our freedom the root of our national pride? Patriotism is so difficult to muster in the face of such unapologetic hypocrisy. Flying a rainbow flag may be easy, but my state is also beginning to walk the walk legislatively, as well. It is too little, and it is too slow, but it is a lot better than the practices of the federal government.

I think that the opponents of gay marriage in this country need to hear some hard truths. Their fears are based in ignorance, their religions do not and must not dictate the laws of this land or the lives of other Americans. Their prejudices have no place in our legislation. We should repeal DOMA, because it is the right thing to do, and because it would give so many Americans cause to be proud of our country again.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Day 177- Warner Brown

Dear Mr. President,

My Grandfather passed away today. He was almost 89 years old. He served his country in World War II, raised 5 children, lived to see his first great-grandchild, and, even just a few years ago, could beat my sister handily on the tennis court. His ashes will be scattered in Florida, the place he was undoubtedly the happiest, and, if there is any afterlife, he is happily reunited with my grandmother. Theirs was the family's one love story, a brief courtship followed by a wedding and a long deployment. When the war ended they were together until her death, six years ago, and my Grandfather never loved anyone else.

I did not know him well, but I believe he was a good man. He lived a continent away, but when I look back on the crowd of hands that have held me up and gently pushed me onward, his is undoubtedly among them. He barely knew my sisters and I, but every month while we were in college he sent us $25, which he insisted that we spend, not on books or bills or anything sensible, but on something fun. (I confess, sometimes groceries were fun.) I was never as thankful as I ought to have been, but I hope he knew my gratitude. He was stubborn and funny and totally independent. He lived well, and I am glad, for his sake, that death found him before he suffered.

I don't feel particularly sad, to be honest. My Grandpa lived a long, respectable life, had a loving family, and died a quiet death. This is certainly more than is promised to any one. I don't think I've contemplated death much more or less than any other 24 year old, but I know it has never frightened me. It is all any of us is owed, without exception. As dazzlingly complex as life on this planet may seem at times, every one succumbs to the forces of entropy, and, at the end, we are all the same. Walking home tonight, I felt oddly close to every one, from the tired bus driver, to the tribe of punks drinking and smoking in their back yard, even to Presidents and rich oil executives, because I am reminded that when our unique stories end, when the trigger is pulled or the breaks fail or the organs shut down, the same night awaits us all. And I believe it is peaceful, and beautiful, and calm.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Friday, June 25, 2010

Day 176-Choice as a human right

Dear Mr. President,

Today I read about the impending G8 discussion of global access to abortion services. While the Canadian PM has tacitly made his opposition to this clear, there is hope that the US will come out forcefully in support of safe and legal access to contraception and abortion as a global woman's right. I'm not so hopeful; I think that, for all of your administration's talk about the importance of education and equal rights for women and girls, the health care debate clearly demonstrated that reproductive rights are not enough of a priority to warrant any real political risks. This depressing thought reminded me of a news story I'd read several months back, about a nun in Arizona. Sister Margaret McBride, the administrator of St. Joseph's hospital in Phoenix, approved an abortion for a patient who would have died without terminating her pregnancy. Sister McBride was excommunicated for this, and condemned by many anti-choice organizations.

What struck me about this story is the obvious disdain the church has for the woman's life, and also the contrast in their reaction to this Nun's actions and those of the countless Priests accused of child molestation. This same hypocrisy is apparent in the Helms amendment, and, domestically, the demands that insurance plans covering abortion use no federal funds. Taxpayers fund death and torture and extrajudicial incarceration in Afghanistan every day, but the idea that an organization allowing Afghan women to make their own reproductive decisions would get a dime of American money is too controversial? Surely, if we can declare access to education essential, we can also fight for every woman's right to control her own body, as a woman's health is essential to her participation in society. The US should lead by example, repeal the Helms amendement and campaign strongly for the right to choose for every woman, no matter where she lives. I hope that the G8 will provide an opportunity to demonstrate courageous leadership on this issue, even in the face of controversy.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Day 175- Thank you

Dear Mr. President,

Thank you so much! I just got my financial aid letter from the University of Washington, and I'm going to be OK. More than OK, I'm going to be able to finish school, and graduate and, because I won't need to work full-time, I'll be able to do this with the concentration and devotion that my education deserves. This would not have happened without the expansion of federal pell grants, and, of course, without the generosity of my school, which ensures that lower-income students have their tuition paid for with grants. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

This has been my most important dream for so long; I, for the first time in a long time, am daring to hope that the life I have to look forward to will be one I've wanted and not one that my circumstances have forced me to accept. Getting my degree has been such a struggle, and I can't begin to convey how relieved I am to finally believe it might be possible. It is in my control, the responsibility for my success or failure is mine alone; my family's financial situation will no longer hold me back or give me any excuses. This is frightening, and it is exciting, and I will do everything in my power to rise to the challenge.

Since I just received the news, I am perhaps too exuberant to find anything more to add. Thank you so much, Mr. President, I promise I will make this experience count.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 174-Secretary of War

Dear Mr. President,

I think that replacing General McChrystal was a necessary thing. The war in Afghanistan does not seem to be going well, and much of our own conduct has been unacceptable. I don't know that General Petraeus is the best man to replace him, but, as I'm not a military officer, and am in no way qualified to comment on the best way to wage a war I fundamentally oppose, I have no particularly strong feelings about this choice. I hope that, if nothing else, the change in leadership provides an opportunity for us to seriously reconsider and reexamine our entire strategy in Afghanistan. What is our goal? Safety? Stability? I do not see how more weapons, more violence, more destruction, will help achieve these ends. What real purpose is our mission there serving? Do we seek to gain strategic global positioning? Is it conflict for conflict's sake, a vain attempt to slake the bloodthirst that we can't even admit to having? Is it the same death throe delusion that has taken down empire after empire daring to set its sights on this land? Or is it just old-guard military men who want to beat the Soviets, even at empire, hell-bent on completing their cold-war victory even all these decades later? Because, Mr. President, and I confess I am no expert, it does not appear, at least, that we are doing anything more than strengthening the terrorists we claim to be fighting. Osama Bin Laden has not been caught, and even if he is, it does not matter. Our invasion has spread one man's delusion beyond his loyal band of followers and made them a global political and military force to be reckoned with. Were we just looking for another challenge? I don't know what is true, I don't know what I believe, and I don't know what the best solution is. I feel certain, however, that there is more motivating our actions than self-defense. Be it vengeance or greed or a need for chaos, I am uneasy, as an American, being represented that way to the rest of the world.

Today a friend asked about the Secretary of War, a position he read about in Lincoln's cabinet. He was curious as to what it had become. Did the men who decided to change the name of that position think that it would mean less war? Or did they just find the name too impolite for modern sensibilities? We can call it defense, or even homeland security, but war has certainly not become any less fashionable. I may be less involved, and asked to sacrifice even less, than the generations of American civilians who committed their whole selves to the national war efforts, but still I am tired. I am so tired of this war, and I have not been fighting it. I have not been dying or suffering in it, either. Bombs are not dropping in my neighborhood, as they are for countless Afghan civilians, but I am still tired of their sound. This war is exhausting, because it has no clear objective and it has not clear imperative. This war is exhausting because it strengthens the forces we claim to oppose, extending and provoking and ensuring that another generation will pick up the kalashnikovs their fathers are dropping as we gun them down. Because each life lost leads only to more lives lost; the overwhelming suffering and destruction leads only to more suffering and destruction. We are better than this, Mr. President; better than our conduct in this war, better than the petty despots we've propped up, the violence we've perpetuated, or the viciousness of those who attacked us. I know there is a significant and vocal portion of our population that equate war with patriotism and justice and righteousness, but I also know that we are better than that, too.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Day 173- Abuses of power

Dear Mr. President,

I started my new job today. It's much more responsibility than my last job, and requires me to make quick decisions, often based on little information, my own instincts and my own experience. If I screw up, things could get stolen, crimes could go unnoticed, or some one could get hurt. Still, I could go completely rogue, I could overlook laws and safety regulations and do everything in my power to cause as much harm as possible and, still, I could not destroy the Gulf of Mexico. While I'm sure that the people who's jobs depend up on the oil industry were relieved to hear the court's decision to overturn your moratorium on new deep-water drilling projects, I can't imagine that 63 days have been enough for the industry to have adopted practices or contingency plans to avoid, or more quickly react to, another disaster. Yes, every one deserves to make a living; but the dangers posed by this industry's reckless pursuit of efficiency at the expense of safety are too great to blindly continue to drill as we did before. Because of the industry's ties to the agencies that regulated them, they have operated on what could generously be called an honor system; BP has demonstrated that none of the deepwater drilling projects are prepared to effectively deal with the kind of disaster we're now two months into dealing with. Most likely, it won't happen again; if it does, the consequences would be unimaginably devastating. is that a risk that this judge feels willing to take? Further regulation, further oversight is needed, and until that happens, allowing new projects to go forward is irresponsible.

I can't regulate the safety practices of the oil industry. I don't have the education or the skills. I put faith in my government to do this for me, and it has failed us all. The judge overturning your moratorium is now a part of this failure. We cannot place the value of a person's livelihood above the value of the lives it may destroy. I find myself increasingly disturbed by the world we live in; a world where the President may order covert assassination of American citizens, may rendition and torture and twist a person's status to deny them legal rights, but where he may not threaten the profit margins of the oil industry. When did corporate interests become more powerful than the legal rights enshrined in our constitution? The executive may ignore Habeas Corpus, or due process or the first amendment, but to try to protect the American public and the environment from the reckless behavior of an entire industry is beyond his ability? I'm really not trying to make you feel worse about the court's decision, but it seems like the power of the executive really ought to be wielded to protect the individuals who are not powerful enough to defend themselves, not those organizations who exploit them.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Monday, June 21, 2010

Day 172- The Carbon River Rainforest

Note: From now on, Monday's letters will be dedicated to environmental issues, as a part of my observance of a weekly earth day.

Dear Mr. President,

When I was young, I loved the outdoors. A childhood friend's father took us hiking as often as he could. We climbed Mt. Pilchuck, camped on the peninsula, and back-packed the first week's worth of the Pacific Crest Trail. On our hikes, he would often talk to us about the importance of nature, and of reverence for the natural world. At the time, she and I were probably more concerned with boys and make-up and keeping our figures, but his lessons have stuck with me as I grew mature enough to understand them. We were never to leave trash, or destroy anything intentionally, disturb wildlife or their habitats if we could help it. Respect for nature would keep us safe, it would teach us things, and it would strengthen our connections to the sacred. We learned how to make and safely extinguish a fire, to pack a bag with enough to survive for a week and still carry, to find good walking sticks and to appreciate the sights and sounds of our surroundings. I am so grateful to have had these experiences, and I regret only that I did not continue these ventures into the natural world as I grew older.

One of the most biologically diverse forests, and one of the last inland rain forests in the United States is not more than a few hours from where I sit, in the shadow of Mt. Rainier. The Carbon River Rainforest is not a protected area, and is threatened by logging and development projects nearby. There is a a campaign lobbying to extend the boundaries of Mt. Rainier national park to include the rainforest. I sincerely hope that the interior department pays close attention to this issue, which is important not only to my state, but to any one who would like to see this fragile ecosystem preserved. Expanding the protection of the National Park to include this area is obviously something that will have to be decided by people who know more than I do about the economic and environmental impacts of such a decision; I just want to express my hope that the former won't be given greater importance than the latter. Yes, jobs and economic growth are important, but we only get one planet and places like the carbon river rainforest are too rare and too important to surrender to the hope of a few more old-economy jobs.

Future generations of children deserve the emotional, educational and spiritual encounters with nature that I was lucky enough to have; if we cannot give them sustainable energy sources, clean air or clean water, preserving what is left of our planet's natural beauty is the least that we owe them.


Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Day 171- The Most Important Job

As the father of two young daughters, I know that being a father is one of the most important jobs any man can have.

President Barack Obama, 6/20/2010

Dear Mr. President,

The most important job any man can have. I've never heard a better, or more heartbreaking description of fatherhood. This day has made me a bit sensitive for years, a dedicated celebration of a role that the my father never lived up to. This year it is particularly hard, both because my mother is facing the loss of her own dad, who had a massive stroke and will likely not live to see his 89th birthday in a few weeks, and because my best friend left today for the Peace Corps. I wanted to write about fatherhood, and all the men in my life who, with no bond of blood to compel them, supported me and encouraged me when I really needed it. I think your own childhood had similar experiences, but, as you said in your speech today, it is a hole that cannot ever be filled. My dad didn't leave, he wasn't physically absent, but, especially as I grew older, I often found myself needing a dad and finding that he was unwilling to be one. I've never wanted more from him than for him to just be my dad, to call me and ask about my day and tell me stories from his job and bad jokes. I may resent the hell out of his spending habits, his prioritizing new jewelry for my stepmother and motorcycles and caribbean cruises over any support for his daughters' education, I may think his law-and-order morality and republican voting record appalling, but at the end of the day, he's my dad, all he ever had to do was call me.

The worst part is the self-doubt. I know I could probably heal things, I could, again, be the one to call and we could talk again and it would be almost like I had a dad again. But I know it comes at much too high a cost, that I will always believe my obedience and submission and self-reproach is required for any one to love me. I would always question if I am too smart or too independent to be loved, if, one day, any slight offense, any violation of unspoken rules, would result in months, or even years of silence. My father had three girls and it was his most important job to be a father to us, to be good to our mother. How does any man justify walking away from that job?

Thank you, Mr. President, for reminding us how important that job is, to all of us. I am grateful for the number of father figures, friends, mentors, teachers, brothers, and the fathers who work so hard every day at it. Happy Father's day.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Day 170- Irresponsible

Dear Mr. President,

In my life, I've been helped a long by a number of friends, given opportunities, supported and mentored to achieve many of the things I have. I've also had to make some difficult decisions, to learn to rely on my own instincts. It's ironic that some of the people who have tried the hardest to shape my life have also often avised me to stand up for myself, to stop allowing people to walk all over me. After 24 years, I still haven't found a balance. I often acquiesce when I know I ought to stand firm; or obstinately refuse to compromise, even when I should know better. Today I had to act on instinct, to make a major life decision based on little more than faith in my own instincts. It will likely cost me the support of a number of people I respect and care for, but, when it comes down to it, I have to trust my intuition.

What is it about life as the lowest rung in a huge corporation that seems to lend itself so easily to comparison with my relationship to the powers that govern this country? I felt just as powerless under Howard Schultz as I did under President Bush, or even your own administration. At work, this is understandable; my relative significance to Mr. Schultz could not be smaller. And, ironically, while I represented the face of his company to the public I served, I had little role in making any decisions about the company (and was paid very little.) In America, while my vote may count as much as Mr. Schultz's, his ability to buy access to the people in power, to control the destinies of enough voters to matter more to any politician than nameless, inconsequential me, my own influence is dwarfed by comparison. I'm going to go out on a limb and suppose that, were he to write you a letter, Mr. President, he'd get more than a form response.

Was it irresponsible of me to leave my job today? I'm not sure. I don't think I'll ever feel good about the way I had to make this choice. Will I gain more significance working for an independent store, or by writing you 365 letters? Almost certainly not. But I will wield a greater amount of control over my own daily life and destiny. In a world divided by those who have power and those who will live without ever glimpsing it, I suppose this is all I can ask for.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Friday, June 18, 2010

Day 169- A dangerous letter

Dear Mr. President,

Maybe it's a silly thing to feel personally connected to, but, as some one who bothers your office with daily letters, I was especially horrified to learn about the New York woman's letter to you, which resulted in her husband's arrest. I think it's a frightening precedent to set, allowing the people who write to you asking for help to be tracked down and arrested based on their letters. I hope that her husband is allowed to stay in this country, though I recognize that the enforcement of immigration laws isn't something you handle personally.

On the topic of immigration, I was pleased to learn of the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law. I think, even if the suit is unsuccessful, it send the right message to say that the federal government does not approve of the draconian measures being taken. I think it also shows that your administration has the courage of its convictions, are are willing to take politically unpopular positions when its the right thing to do.

I recently read a New York Times column about marriage equality that cited an interesting fact. Apparently, a full year after it was legalized by the courts, one 20% of American approved of interracial marriage. This seemed shocking to me, both that the approval of what is now a commonplace activity was so low, and also that the issue was taken up in the face of overwhelming public opinion. That kind of courage seems to be lacking from politics these days, when 47% of the population approves of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples, to no end. To me, this only confirms a long-held belief that the opinion of the majority is not a sacred thing when it calls for the oppression of others. It seems like polling dictates what is possible for politicians these days, which undermines our elected officials as leaders. I think the administration's action against Arizona's law, which may have popular support, especially among conservatives, demonstrates that you haven't completely put opinion polls before defending civil liberties. So thank you, for that.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Day 168- Michele Bachman, Hugo Chavez and Joe Barton

Q Michele Bachmann called the fund a redistribution of wealth fund. On FOX they’re calling it “Chavez-like” as in Venezuela Chavez. Can you speak --

MR. GIBBS: Not the boxer?

Q Not the boxer. (Laughter.) Can you speak to the larger theme here of Republican and conservative opposition to this as yet another Obama socialistic, big-government initiative?

MR. GIBBS: I mean, I don’t -- it’s hard to tell what planet these people live on. It’s hard to understand -- it’s hard to understand their viewpoint, but it may explain their votes on financial regulation; it explains how they view whether or not the banks ought to be able to write their own rules and play the game the way they played it in -- several years ago that caused our economy to crash. It’s understanding how we got an MMS that was handing out drugs in favor of drilling permits.


White House Press briefing 6/17/2010

Dear Mr. President,

I'm not often surprised by the Republicans. Normally, comparing your policies to Hugo Chavez's socialism, or kissing up to BP executives, seems like par for their particular course. But this is a national tragedy. I thought that the party of "America First" would be able to put aside their allegiance to their big donors for five minutes and recognize that an egregious crime has been committed against America and the American people and the company responsible needs to pay for the cost of cleaning it up and the livelihoods its negligence has ruined.

I suppose you have to admire their commitment to the "disagree with anything a Democrat says" strateg; such fidelity isn't often found in career politicians. Though I suppose, at this point in her career, Michele Bachmann is safe in the knowledge that her supporters don't expect a great deal of rational, or even logical thought. Still, this seems like a risky political move for any one trying to appoint themselves or their party as the standard bearer for the populist anger in this country. I'm dumbfounded. Maybe the rest of the country isn't as angry as I and most of the people I've encountered are; maybe the citizens of Texas and Minnesota who vote for Bachmann and Barton are huge supporters of BP and think that they shouldn't have to pay for this disaster. I've met my share of Minnesotans and more than a few Texans, however, and they don't seem like stupid people.

Anyway, Mr. President, I hope the next time a column is published about your lack of aggression or emotion, your inability to effectively "declare war" on BP, we all take a deep breath and remember that the legislative branch is still the most powerful, it's still run by people like Michele Bachmann and Joe Barton, still funded by BP and other corporate interests and we still have no one to blame for that but ourselves.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Day 167-Earth Day Monday

Dear Mr. President,

I, and many others, have been calling on you to take the opportunity, now that the graphic images demonstrating the toll of our oil addiction are still shocking Americans into questioning their behavior, to call on all Americans to change our habits in order to avoid another incident like this one. Today I read an article that convinced me we've been wrong to do so. Americans have outgrown the spirit of sacrifice and community that got us through WWII; when President Bush asked only that we keep shopping, we were only too happy to comply. I want you to ask us to change, to give up some of the luxuries we're used to for the greater good of sustaining our planet for generations to come. I want you to do this, but I know that, even if you did, it might only mean the end of your Presidency, and have little effect on our actual habits.

So today's letter, Mr. President, isn't for you. It's for all the people who read my blog. It isn't many, mostly friends and family, but I'm hoping it will be enough. This is as big a soap box as I will ever have. So, dear readers, I ask you to take a look at your own lives, your own habits. How can you use less oil? How can you make transportation and food and lifestyle choices that will help you consume less? Can you encourage others in your life to do the same? Even small changes will add up if enough of us commit to them. I'm making a commitment to all of you, and to our President, to make the small changes necessary in my own life, to give up the things that I can live without, if it means a better world for my nephew. Many of us have a holy day, a day set aside for the sacred; I'm proposing that we, no matter what our faith, chose one day a week to devote to the planet as well. We should give up a day to the reverence of the earth, to tend our gardens or clean up parks or, at the very least, to give up consuming fast food, especially beef, and unnecessary driving. We need an Earth Day every single week. What greater display of faith could their be, than to put aside our instant gratification, for the betterment of future generations?

My Earth Day is going to be every Monday. I'm going to do more research about reducing my oil consumption and overall carbon footprint, and post a more detailed plan here. I hope that every one who reads this can find a small sacrifice to make in their own lives. Because, be it today or tomorrow, things have to change.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Day 166- All the ways we say goodbye

Dear Mr. President,

I saw your speech about the oil spill, and I do know that it is important and I do want to comment on it. But tonight I can't seem to get past the overwhelming sadness of my friend's impeding departure to think about anything else. I know that I'll be fine, and that she'll be fine, and that the work she'll do with the Peace Corps will be exciting and fulfilling. I know these things, intellectually, but emotionally all I know is that my best friend is leaving and I'm going to be left behind while she moves on to a new part of her life. Foolish, right? I can't explain or excuse it. I've been watching our other friends, taking cues from the ways they express their own sadness, and coming to a much clearer understanding that we all manage these types of challenges differently. So, forgive me for taking it personally, but reading yet another op-ed from Maureen Dowd about their being a "right" way to respond to the Oil spill and you not finding it was a bit exasperating.

I think i would not be so irritated by this, if Dowd were the only one saying it. Instead, it seems like every talking head in the media, save those on the White House payroll, are leaping at the chance to suggest that you say or feel or pretend some emotion that they feel is the "right" response. The truth is, nothing is going to make us feel better, short of the spill stopping and the gulf being cleaned up and us all getting to live the way we've always lived. But that isn't going to happen. Nothing is going to make us feel better, so I hope that the White House isn't wasting too much time trying to pin down the perfect tone. Maybe every one in the media could stop worrying about how you sound and go back to writing about actual news. Every one responds differently to tragedy, and any one who thinks you're not serious about handling this because your response doesn't have the allegedly correct tone is simply not going to be convinced by anything.

The Republican response to this, which seems to be, "Don't use this massive and obvious lesson about the dangers of our consumption habits to try and change our consumption habits," is equally infuriating. I would rather have a tragedy be exploited, if it led to honestly corrective measures that would prevent it from happening again. I think that learning from our mistakes ought to be one of those things that transcends party or ideology, and if the Republicans have an honest disagreement over the cause of this spill or the best course of preventative action, they should feel free to propose it. Simply disagreeing with any proposed action because it is based on a tragically hard lesson is not leadership.

I'm so sad, in such a selfish way, tonight, that I suppose my opinion can't matter much on this subject. The only thing I know for sure is that there is no correct way to feel about this, and there is no way for the President to feel that will solve this problem. I wish Maureen Dowd would find something else to write about, and I hope that people wake up and realize how much we're all to blame for this tragedy. For now, I'm just going to say that I think you're doing the best you can, and, even if it's a long way from good enough, I'm grateful that some one is taking care of the hard things, while I am wrapped up in my own, considerably smaller, world.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Monday, June 14, 2010

Day 165- World Cup!

Dear Mr. President,

Glenn Beck hates the world cup. Actually, Glenn Beck has himself convinced that all of America (or whatever the collective pronoun he speaks with refers to,) hates the world cup. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to see the racist, or at least xenophobic, implications in his words; Glenn Beck hating something he doesn't understand, however, is hardly news. Not that any thinking person needs to have this contradicted, but in my own experience, arguably just as American as Beck's, soccer is just as quintessential as apple pie.

I remember the day I started playing soccer. It was in second grade, during recess. It was one of those rare, gorgeous days, and I managed to convince the boys to let me play with them in order to even out the teams. I made one (entirely accidental, but, apparently, incredible) save, and they decided i was one of them. From then on we played every day, one class against another. We played for two years, until I moved to a new elementary school, and my parents signed me up for an all-girls league. At our first team meeting, we discussed that our proposed name, the pink panthers, was already taken by another team. It was put to a vote and, by a large majority, we decided to call ourselves the pink flamingos, instead, disappointing more than a few parents by prioritizing pink jerseys above a ferocious mascot. Six years (and several mascots later) we were an odd mix of high school girls; some popular, some unknown, some geeks, but we all put the game first. Girls who bullied me at school were my sisters in arms on the field. Some of us were poor, some were rich, some were middle class; we came from many different kinds of families and represented a diverse collection of ethnicities. We cheered the suddenly famous women's world cup team on as they penalty-kicked their way to a stunning and dramatic victory. I used to practice juggling in the backyard of my mother's house, fantasizing about playing in front of a crowded stadium. Our parents haggled over carpools and halftime snacks, and, while we donned shin-guards and climbed into their mini vans, our mothers became a new demographic of female voters dubbed "soccer moms". Soccer didn't change my life; it was an integral part of my life. I don't know who I'd be without it, the self-confidence it inspired, the emphasis on fitness and teamwork and sportsmanship surely helped me become the person I am today.

Anyway, I never played soccer after high school. I don't regret this, exactly, I was never good enough to play as more than just a hobby, but I still love the game. I love the way enthusiasm for soccer games infects its fans, young and old, American or international, in exactly the same way. I played soccer with little boys in villages in Palestine, when we had no more than a few words of shared language. I cheered along with Dutch and German fans while we watched games on a tiny hostel TV screen. Soccer might not feed or clothe or shelter any one, but it brings the world together. I would imagine that this is exactly why Glenn Beck, and his like-minded contemporaries, hate it so much. You're a sports fan, Mr. President, and so I have no doubt that you appreciate the excitement of the world cup, and the symbol of progress that hosting such an event is for South Africa, and so I hope that, in between all of the millions of important things you have to do this month, you're able to enjoy a few games.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Day 164- The Saudi Arabia of Lithium

Dear Mr. President,

The news of huge mineral deposits discovered in Afghanistan is mixed blessing; surely a country with a GDP of $12 billion can benefit from the discovery of trillions of dollars worth of industrial metals, though I think the people of West Virginia might have a few cautionary tales about the dangers to workers and to the environment that come with an economy based on mining. I'm eager to see the situation in Afghanistan improve; the decades of suffering, war and poverty that the Afghani people have survived could break the hardest heart, and if mines represent a way out, than I am glad for their sake. On the other hand, I fear that the Pentagon's statement that Afghanistan could become "the Saudi Arabia of Lithium" might prove to be prophetic; that the wealth of the land and the poor will be exploited to create a wealthy (and corrupt) ruling class. And, while I know full well that write this on a machine using many of the minerals I'm referring to, the reality is that there isn't an infinite supply of these resources; at some point we will run out the things we have been so quick to tear up the earth for. Will we look back on the mountains of West Virginia, or the Great Lakes, or the Gulf of Mexico and wish we had learned to live without the resources we destroyed them for? Will Afghanis look back on their own land one day and wonder if their wealth came at too high a cost?

Clearly, neither you nor I are qualified to make the decisions regarding the future of Afghanistan's mining industry. The risk of the Taliban, or of another foreign power controlling the mineral-rich areas is no excuse for exploitation by American interests. The land and its resources must be controlled by the Afghan people and their elected officials, though, I suppose, even that will be problematic. My concern for the snow leopards aside, I wonder if the cost of destroying a country's ecosystem can be quantified, let alone measured against the economic benefits. But no matter what I think is right, I have to believe that the decision is best made by those who will suffer the results directly. I hope that my government can restrain its eagerness to preach the correct way to handle Afghanistan's resources and respect the Afghani people enough to let them determine their own destinies.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Day 163

Dear Mr. President,

Several Januaries ago, I was living in Washington DC, and I'd just begun training as a barista in my bookstore's cafe. Sometime during the week-long training process, the dress code's exclusion of pinstripe pants, the same actions and combinations of ingredients repeated drink after drink after drink, even the words we were taught to say started to bother me. I sat outside the store on my lunch break, ignoring the light snow, and cried with despair. I was 21, and convinced that, because I was not in school for the first time in my life, I was doomed to amount to nothing, that my life was broken beyond repair. My boss sat outside with me and asked me what it was in life that I wanted. He told me (perhaps in an attempt to boost my self-esteem and perhaps because he meant it) that I was too smart to be serving coffee, that I wasn't allowed to give up on my potential yet.

I'm 24 now, and I still serve coffee. I'm going back to school this fall, and, while I'm terrified that I'm no longer smart enough or somehow too old to be back in a University, I would not be doing it if it weren't for this belief that I have the potential to be more. That serving coffee is not my destiny. I want to be useful to people, to Do Good and to matter in ways I can't really articulate but I know can never be realized if I don't finish my education. I'm afraid that this is arrogant, that I might do a lot worse than to serve coffee and that I should not imagine myself to be better than any job, no matter how awful the hours or silly the dress code or mindless the work. I'm afraid that I will only disappoint myself if I try for more. Maybe my destiny is just as ordinary as I am now, and I should make the most of it.

I could not do this without the legislation you've passed to make higher education more accessible to people like me, and for that I cannot tell you how grateful I am. I think that the importance of education cannot be overstated, and I am so glad that my government recognizes this. You can't give me the answers, you can't give me direction or purpose or self satisfaction, but you can and have given me the assurance of knowing that the education I need to escape is possible, even for some one of my limited economic means.

I look back on the person I was, years ago, and I see that I have grown up enough to believe in second chances; that I am not so young as to think that 24 is too old to start over. I'm still plagued by the same fears and the same arrogance and the same self-doubt, but at least I have enough hope to try and improve my situation. I have had too much help from too many teachers and mentors and friends along the way to ever imagine I am doing this alone, and I know that it is their faith, more than anything, which has given me the audacity to try again. I hope that, when I am much older and, hopefully, wiser, I can look back at this summer and my restlessness and see that it was all for the best, that my growing out of my situation in life will lead to greater happiness for me and greater usefulness to our society. I dare to imagine that is exactly what you had in mind.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Friday, June 11, 2010

Day 162- Is it a stomach bug, or is Chuck Schumer talking agin?

Dear Mr. President,

Senator Schumer has inspired me. Instead of just a tepid boycott of Arizona, let's close off the borders, (I'm sure we can get Mexico's cooperation on this from the South.) We can keep out all but the most essential medical supplies and some food. (No potato chips though, at least not until we get some heat from the international community.) We'll allow a few Arizonans out, if they need medical treatment, but they'll need to apply for permits and not be on any lists of registered voters. You see, I think their immigration law is indicative of a dangerous trend of radicalized, religiously-based extremism, and, as Sen. Schumer propses, we ought to "strangle" them, (economically, of course,) until the population can be made to see the error of their votes.

If it works in Arizona (and, I'll admit, the obesity rates might mean it will be years before the blockade has any real effects,) we can put this into use anywhere we see these dangerous trends; if Carly Fiorina wins a Senate seat, we should definitely do the same to California, though obviously the coastline will make it more difficult. What about Massachusetts? The people electing Scott Brown should definitely be punished for their poor decision making skills. If we don't really have the troops to keep these rogue states in check, or to effectively restrict travel in and out of them, maybe we could consider building a few more walls? After all, many Arizonans have family living in other states, and it's important that we make sure they don't become agents of their radical relatives.

I know many of your legislative proposals have been controversial, but I'm confident this would satisfy at least 98 members of the Senate (and John McCain really shouldn't count, anyway. He's never satisfied with sanctions, he'll be calling for a regime change.) It can even be spun as a jobs bill! Imagine all the employment opportunities for construction workers to build a wall around an entire state! I know, Arizonans might devise a tunnel system to smuggle Ensure in from Mexico, but we've got bombs for that, I'm sure. Knock down a few retirement centers, and once they realize no building materials will be forthcoming, they'll be scrambling to vote for whoever you tell them to.

Anyway, Mr. President, I'm sure that Senator Schumer will not be worried about the White House calling his words reprehensible, but you might want to reassure him, just in case.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Day 161-Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca

Dear Mr. President,

Usually when I'm reading about murdered teenagers suspected of stone-throwing activity, it's a news story out of Palestine. The disgust that grips me is no different, when it happens here at home. I am heartbroken over the death of 15-year old Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and there are no excuses for his murder that will make the action pardonable. His family is owed an apology by the American government and the agent involved. This boy was gunned down in cold blood. Mistakes, even tragic, fatal mistakes, happen, but we must be forthright and sincere in our apologies for this unforgivable incident or all Americans will bear the responsibility for the boys death.

I hesitated to tell my roommate about this. I saw how she took the news of the Arizona immigration legislation, or of the mural in Prescott and she herself has been the target of anti-hispanic racism; my sisterly affection for her inclines me to protect her from hearing about these stories. She has young brothers, and I don't know if she saw their faces when she heard of this boy's death, but I cannot fathom the fear that must follow such clear evidence that people who look like her brothers are now fair game for her own country's border patrol. They're treating Mexicans like vermin these days, she said. I didn't know what to say, to try and make it better.

I understand the need for a secure border, or at least the illusion of one, but Mr. President, this is too high a price for me to pay for a false sense of safety. There is nothing I value enough to think worth the murder of unarmed children, of any nationality, in any place, for any reason. Please, do not allow this tragedy to be spun in order to justify the unpardonable actions of the agent. Do not try to sell us on the necessity of this action. It would be nothing short of a betrayal of the trust I and millions of others have in your administration to protect our values. Please, Mr. President, apologize for this mistake, condemn this as a crime and make it clear that this kind of conduct will never be acceptable in the name of the American people.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Day 160- Apartheid

Dear Mr. President,

Apartheid, like genocide, is not a word to be thrown around. It is too powerful, its history too bloody, to use lightly. It has been invoked quite a bit this week, be it because it's been banned or because the situation in Gaza has drawn the condemnation of Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, or because Barney Frank's unintentional irony has just gotten downright embarrassing. When President Carter used the word, he was accused of anti-semitism. I'm sure that, were you to use it, you'd be called the same, probably even worse. "Unsustainable" seems to be as provocative as the White House is willing to get.

Unsustainable. This clean, ambiguous term seems to imply that the problem isn't that Israel is abusing its power, depriving people of their rights, and subjugating millions of people based on their religion or ethnicity, but that the system isn't practical. It's not a moral objection, but a pragmatic one. I agree with the White House that the situation is unsustainable. I also agree that it's apartheid. One cannot see the divided roads in Hebron, or the stark loom of the wall and not be moved by the injustice of it all. I'm glad that you met with Mr. Abbas today, and I think the aid package is, at least, a tangible demonstration of good faith, though I think that ending our military aid to Israel would be a better use of our money, and, in the long run, more helpful to the Palestinian people. I suppose, at the end of the day, I don't care what you call the injustices of the world, so long as you act to end them. I want to believe that we are taking steps in the right direction, and that progress, even slowly made, is more important than the words you use to describe the situation.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Day 159-Primary politics

Dear Mr. President,

I haven't followed Blanche Lincoln's career. Her recent primary race caught my attention mainly because of the support for Bill Halter on DailyKos. I won't attempt to pass myself off as any kind of expert on Arkansas politics, but it seems to me that the White House made an incredibly foolish tactical error in throwing its support behind the incumbent. Lincoln opposed the public option, opposes bringing prisoners in Guantanamo bay to the US, she opposes the estate tax, she takes huge corporate campaign contributions, she is, in short, exactly the kind of politician you've criticized in your campaigns, were she a Republican. (I'm sure you'll have ample opportunity to demonstrate this when her Republican opponent wins this fall.) Isn't it hypocritical for the White House to perpetuate the stagnation and inaction caused by the Joe Liebermans and Blanche Lincolns, when you won your office promising a new kind of government?

This isn't to imply that conservative Democrats, or that centrists in general, have no place in our legislature; however, the battle for healthcare reform illustrated our desperate need for the political courage that no bought-and-paid for stooge of corporate interests can possibly provide. It illustrated the need for change. You, Mr. President, were an anti-establishment Democrat who challenged Hillary Clinton and won on the strength of both your grassroots support and the clutch endorsements of members of the Democratic establishment (like Senator Kennedy) who had the vision to see that you could be what our country needed. Why would you not take every opportunity to breathe new life into the legislative branch, to support those courageous few willing to take on the well-funded and complacent incumbents who have frustrated every attempt of your administration to wield the power of the majority? Especially when your support of the status quo results, as I believe the Arkansas race will, in the loss of a Senate seat to the Republicans?

The political leadership of the White House has been incredibly disappointing when it comes to primary challenges. Democratic incumbents are given little incentive to demonstrate political courage when the White House supports them on incumbent status alone. The Democratic party is strengthened by the primary process, not weakened by it; it is how we hold our elected officials accountable. I'm incredibly let down by today's results, and will only be more so when the full effect of this betrayal of liberal principles manifests in November.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Monday, June 7, 2010

Day 158- Helen Thomas

Dear Mr. President,

Helen Thomas's remarks were offensive to many people. I don't think there is any one, including Ms. Thomas, who would deny that. Her remarks have inspired more forceful outrage from your administration than the 9 dead civillians on board the Mavi Marmara. I can't speak for any one else, but that offends me, deeply. What Helen said, while upsetting, didn't kill any one, didn't destroy families or cut short the life of an American teenager. Her words didn't cost any one an eye, didn't shed a single drop of blood. Yet, while the 9 innocent dead managed to summon your dismay and regret, her non-lethal words were called reprehensible.

Murder is reprehensible. The prolonged suffering and starvation of the people of Gaza is reprehensible. And I would have no problem with your administration calling her words reprehensible, as well, if you had managed the same level of outrage after the flotilla attack. Her career, a long and distinguished one that inspired a generation of women in journalism, is now over. I don't think that what she said was right, I don't think that what she said was fair, but I know, for sure, that no one died as a result.

I know these last few weeks have been spent trying to strike the right emotional note with the American public over the oil spill, to some how demonstrate your emotional response is proportional to this tragedy. The hypocrisy of the reaction with regards to Ms. Thomas and to Gaza, the anger stirred over words contrasted with the mild dismay over injury, suffering, and death is, in my opinion, a much more problematic demonstration of how out of step your administration is with the human cost of your policies.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Day 157- The purity of arms

Dear Mr. President,

Today while reading about several Israeli Naval Officers' objections to the attack on the flotilla, I came across a phrase I had not encountered since I was last in college, the Israeli concept of a "purity of arms." While the idea of rendering a weapon impure by employing it in ignoble ways seems as though it is a principle designed to steer a nation toward using force only for "righteous" causes, it seems to me that this ethos leads only to deception. A people who require that an inherently unethical action, violence, be used only for ethical means, are asking only to be lied to and manipulated. I do not, by any means, feel that Israel is the first or only country to employ such an ethos; the United States often seeks to portray our own military actions as being purely righteous and good. Likewise, the American people ask for this deception; we want to believe that we are allowed to possess the weapons and wield the might of our fighting forces, because our cause is just and, even, pure.

I have never been to war, but I don't imagine there is much purity to be found on a battlefield. I don't believe that objects designed to maim and kill can be in a state of purity or impurity; they are weapons and weapons are just devices with purposes and no morality. The soldiers carrying the weapons, themselves devices with purposes handed down to them by men in much more expensive uniforms. It could be argued that these men are guided by the people who elect, appoint, and generally empower them, that their morality is derived only from ours. The power dynamics that support or contradict this could be examined for ages, with no easy or obvious conclusions to be drawn. It is the people's fault; it is the fault of those in power; it is the fault of the human condition; in the end, it does not matter. If our soldiers and their weapons are deployed to kill and to destroy, than we can claim no purity of purpose, regardless of our enemy. They might oppose the terrorists of al-qaeda, or the Janjaweed soldiers in Sudan; at the most individual level it will still be fathers and sons and brothers (and more than a few mothers and daughters and sisters) who are dying.

I am a believer in the paramount righteousness of non-violence, but I am not entrusted to lead any one, much less the United States of America. I understand that you must exist in the "real world" where violence is threatened and done against America and American interests every day. While some would claim that "weakness always begets aggression" I think this is tantamount to blaming the victims of violence for the violence done to them. Furthermore, I don't believe that the use of force is a show of strength, so much as it is of fear. Does our responsibility to protect the weak, to stand for justice and even freedom for all require that we use violence to these ends? I cannot answer this question to my own satisfaction. I want to believe that we could exist in the world as a nation unwilling to use violence and call it righteous, that, if we must defend ourselves with the horrors of our war machine, we might at least be honest about the toll it takes and the complexity of our enemies and our motives.

But I want to believe a great many things.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Day 156- No one died.

Dear Mr. President,

No one died. That's how I answered my friend when she asked what happened to the Rachel Corrie. Certainly not for the first time in my life, I've had to readjust my threshold for acceptable behavior. I felt this frustration often when I worked as Loss Prevention, and often found myself thinking "Well, this person is drunk and disruptive, but at least they aren't smoking crack in the magazine section." (Yes, that actually happened.) It isn't that I think it's acceptable for Israel to prevent cement and building material from reaching the people of Gaza, for them to board ships and forcibly redirect them; but no one died, so I guess that's acceptable behavior, now. Or, they might have shot a girl's eye out during a protest, but at least they didn't crush her with a bulldozer. Is the behavior actually getting better or am I just become numb to the smaller injustices because of all the larger ones?

I'm tired and frustrated and finished adjusting my tolerance for injustice by this nation that we protect like it's our younger sibling. I caught sight of my reflection today, the silver necklace I wear, which is an outline of Palestine, suddenly looked delicate and fragile, a leaf that might be carried away or crushed at any moment. Isn't that how Israel impresses it's vulnerability upon visitors? Helicopter tours designed to show off how endangered it still is? This recent act of violence will not tempt me to the same folly that Israel has fallen to. I don't call for violence, for the inversion of the oppressed into the oppressors, for the fear I feel to become a weapon of some one else's destruction. I just want it to end. I just want the world to wake up and see the injustice we have perpetuated without any one else having to die to prove it. I know it isn't that simple and it isn't that easy and if there were some obvious solution we'd all leap at it. I am just so heavy with grief, these days.

So I'm not going to ramble any more, when words have long ceased to be enough. I'm going to sleep for a few hours and hope things look better tomorrow.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Friday, June 4, 2010

Day 155-Hope & Change

Dear Mr. President,

Tonight a close friend, while we shared horror stories from our respective jobs, mused that, no matter how bad things got, he often cheered himself up by thinking, at least he doesn't have to deal with the President's job, or all of your problems. As some one who is frequently told by the very customers making it necessary for me to be at work at 4am how much they pity me for having to be up so early, I know this doesn't help to relieve the tremendous burden of your job. But I do hope you know we appreciate the magnitude of your struggle. On days like today, when I am so despairing of the ignorance and shallowness and petty crimes of so many, I like to remind myself of the people in this world who give me hope.

Emily Henochowicz lost an eye to the IDF this week, for daring to speak out against their attack on the humanitarian ship. She's 21. My best friend leaves in 3 weeks, giving up two years of comfort and delaying academic and professional success to work with community health clinics in rural West Africa. She's 24. My youngest sister supports her family working retail and living paycheck to paycheck, trying to ensure that her son has all he needs to grow up healthy and supported. She's 22. I am surrounded, daily, by examples from my life and from the lives of those I may never meet, of the hope you asked of us in your campaign. What could be more hopeful than giving up your time, energy, even your physical safety for the sake of the next generation and the world we will leave them? You asked us to hope, Mr. President, and I think that, despite all that would inspire only cynicism and despair, we are hopeful, yet.

In exchange for this, we asked you to change things. We asked that our hope be not in vain, that our country be remade in an image more of us could find reflective of our own features, our true nature. Your efforts have been honest, if the results have not always been as profound or as swift as many had expected. Right now it seems like, more than just oil, it is all of our political ambitions, our dearest hopes and grandest plans gushing out to be lost at sea. How will we fix this? Even after it is fixed, will the fallout consume your presidency? I am sure that no one feels this fear more acutely than you, sir.

I suppose the point of this letter is to remind you that, more than our relief at being able to entrust you with the most difficult job in the country, we share your struggles, too. That my generation will have ownership of whatever world you leave us is not lost on me. I am afraid, I am worried, I am angry; but I have not lost hope.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Day 154- The Millennials

Dear Mr. President,

I was pleasantly surprised to learn tonight that my generation has a name. We are, apparently, the Millennials. (I don't recall being asked for input when this name was chosen. I doubt I'd have approved, but I suppose it's better than "Generation Y") Timothy Egan is calling on us to "save" our country from the boomers. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Egan, and I did find it surprising to learn that more 18-29 year olds voted in 2008 than those over 65. This has clearly not escaped the notice of Organizing For America, which almost daily contacts me asking for participation or support. I am comforted by this. Demographics are on my side, as the ruling class of this country grows (slowly) younger, my hope is that things will (slowly) improve. I think Egan's points are well-taken; my generation's views on gay rights, environmental issues and the wars launched under President Bush may have been ahead of our time and now widely accepted. However, our participation has done little to fundamentally change the system or the way we ourselves are perceived by those in power. (Evidenced even here, by Egan's quip about our ability to leave our facebook pages long enough to elect you, forgetting, perhaps, the role that social networking and blogs played in that election.)

This thought strikes me most often when I am asked about my tattoos. I have seven, and will soon have eight. According to a recent post on the freakonomics blog, 36 percent of 18-25 year olds, and 40 percent of 26-40 year olds have tattoos. When people express their concern that the body art I have no will be detrimental to my professional success, I like to consider this statistic. I currently have a job where, despite making less than $10/hour and having little to no consequence in society, I have to keep my tattoos covered up. I respect that, as my employer, this company can make me wear whatever it pleases. I do not generally find that my tattoos affect my ability to make coffee, or my customer's enjoyment of said coffee. While I do think that my tattoos say something about me as a person, I don't think that having tattoos in general does. I reject the notion that they make me less professional or respectable, and that is because I respect myself (and my professionalism) more than I care for the opinions of those who would judge me on what they see. (Arrogance? Perhaps. I'll call it self-assurance and be quite content to keep it. ) My generation's willingness to accept a person for what is on the inside may largely be attributed to the often-faceless modes of interaction we have with one another online, and helps us to get past the kind of appearance-based prejudices that still hinder our parents.

But my generation has our faults, too. We often mistake awareness for action; blogging about something or updating our facebook status to support a cause is fine and good, but we vote most effectively with our dollar, and too many of us forget our idealism once we have to put money on it. Our demographic being among the most targeted by advertisers, we ought to have a greater impact on the policies of those companies whose products we consume than we do our government. I have many friends who are game for any kind of political discussion or debate, but who grow defensive and angry when their own purchasing decisions are called into question. If we're really going to steer this country in a better direction than our parents, we have to put our money where our well-intentioned tweets are.

I respect your and OFA's efforts to engage us; I can offer my personal pledge to do my part to help elect progressive candidates in 2010. But beyond voting, beyond organizing voting efforts, my generation has to do more. Egan, and OFA, are not asking us to save the country with our progressive vision, they're asking us to do so by electing the last generation of progressives. To show up on election day, and then to let the grown-ups take things from there. I think it's time that more of us ran for local, state and federal office ourselves; that we begin shaping our destinies through direct participation and not just by voting.

Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the death of one Millennial, Turkish-American Furkan Dogan, who, at 19, was killed on the Mavi Marmara, attempting to do bring hope and aid to the people of Gaza. His death ought to remind all of us, young and old, to honor those giving their lives for justice. If we had more elected officials willing to demonstrate this kind of courage, perhaps the youth of this nation would not be called upon to do it for them.

And now, I return to my mindless social networking. See you on Election Day.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Day 153

Dear Mr. President,

I have a hard time accepting the recent rash of arguments from US officials (even VP Biden) that seem to equate Israel's PR interests with its security interests. As though an attack on a humanitarian ship is an acceptable thing, if that aid was a threat to Israel's security. VP Biden put this all into unforgivably simplistic terms when he said "I put all this back on two things: one, Hamas, and, two, Israel's need to be more generous relative to the Palestinian people who are in trouble in Gaza." First of all, the ships facing down the threat of the IDF to bring construction supplies to Gaza weren't doing it because Israel wasn't "generous" enough with the Palestinians; it is not generosity that they are asking for, but basic equality. The people of Gaza are not asking for Israel's charity, and allowing Gazans to import basic materials for construction and education would be an indication that Israel is capable of reason, not generosity. VP Biden, never known for his tact, is especially distasteful in this choice of words. If this were really about Israel's security interests and not its PR interests, these aid ships would have to have been smuggling weapons, rather than just tangible evidence of Israel's oppressiveness. The hawkish, right-wing reactionaries in control of the Israeli government pose a far greater threat to their country's long-term security than Hamas ever could.

I can't say that I'm surprised by the obtuseness of your administration's response, but I am, as ever, growing my capacity for disappointment. I feel like I've run out of things to say about this. I've run out of warnings that don't do any good, even as I am proven right. I've run out of condemnation, out of appeals to your humanity, your morality, your values. We present ourselves to the world as a voice for peace, even as we abide, encourage or initiate violence, suffering and oppression where we deem it acceptable. Mr. President, I may grow weary of asking these unanswered questions, but the day I stop asking them is the day I lose faith in this country forever. There are days like today when, as much as it pains me to admit, that doesn't seem particularly far off. Listen to your own administration's response tot his, and tell me that its cold, passionless refrains (which, forgive me, but not even Biden could be expected to really believe,) are worthy of the government you lead, of the values of the people you represent, or of the world we'd see built for the future. Do you even know what that would sound like, anymore?

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Day 152- Rachel Corrie

Dear Mr. President,

Another ship is heading toward Gaza. Israel has vowed, once again, to stop it with force. Right now, today, this moment is when you need to personally intervene. You can't tell me that you didn't see the earlier tragedy coming- any one with even a casual engagement in the region saw the calamity rushing towards the Mavi Marmara and its crew with the speed of an IDF helicopter. The Rachel Corrie and her crew will be facing the same calamity, soon. Israel will not hesitate to react the same way. We can express regret at the loss of life, call for investigations and demand resolution to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza all we want; but we must first call on Israel not to use deadly force against another humanitarian vessel and the brave souls on board. Outrage will not bring back the 9 dead, but swift, decisive political action could save lives when (and not if) the next confrontation occurs. The siege of Gaza must end, the blockade will be broken, and no amount of bloodshed now will deter further attempts. Israel is now discovering the power of peaceful, determined civilians willing to give their lives to ease the suffering of others; fear of that power could lead to more irrational violence.

Perhaps it is fitting that this ship is named after Rachel Corrie. I wonder, sometimes, if she was surprised when the soldier driving the bulldozer didn't stop, and, had she known, would she have stood her ground? I think she would have. I think the ship that bears her name is full of people who, knowing full well that the helicopters and the commandos will come, that the bulldozer will not stop, are standing up to stop the destruction. They deserve our respect, our support, and, God knows, our protection. Mr. President, you may not have been able to save the 9 dead aboard the Mavi Marmara, but you can save the crew of the Corrie. You, alone, can wield the diplomatic influence to have any hope of stopping an attack on this ship.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that people shouldn't have to die trying to bring supplies to Gaza. People shouldn't have to die trying to protect homes from being destroyed. The International community, and especially the United States, should make the consequences for these kind of human rights abuses so debilitating that no nation would dare conduct itself in this manner and still call itself our ally. These brave people are taking on the responsibility that should belong to all of us, as citizens of this planet. We should stand with them; Israel should be made to know that an attack against the Rachel Corrie is an attack against the United States of America. Don't make them stand alone, Mr. President.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey