Thursday, September 30, 2010

Day 273- Keeping Fear Alive

Dear Mr. President,

You seemed to endorse the Rally To Restore Sanity in an interview the other day. I think that's probably a wise decision on your part, since the rational, calm and willing to disagree without outrage are probably your most loyal constituents. While conventional wisdom continues to spell certain doom for Democrats this fall, I think that the quieter voices of those who would rather not shout or hang tea-bags from their hats or paint hitler mustaches on their opponents are yet to be heard. I understand, however, that it is actually in your interest to keep the fear alive, so to speak. Lowering expectations frightens supporters to the polls on election day, scares money out of donors and time from volunteers. Doing and changing and acting and governing with conviction might also accomplish the desired result, but that is, to be fair, a much more challenging thing to do.

I heard Robert Gibbs insisting that the things you have accomplished are more surprising than the things you haven't accomplished. I understand that Mr. Gibbs is paid to try to make reality sound more favorable, but I think your administration's strategy of insisting you've kept your promises is not going to work. For one thing, the level of discontentment among voters would not exist if their daily lives had measurably improved over the last two years. I think that they will improve, and that your policies have often looked to favor the long-term benefits over instant gratification, but I don't think that is a message you or Mr. Gibbs will be able to sell to an increasingly desperate middle class.

Honestly, Mr. President, when you spoke, I used to listen. What you were saying and the way you were saying it, used to inspire me as few people ever had. When I heard you speak, I heard a leader. These days, you sound like a politician. And it isn't style that bothers me; I don't think that your political problems can be solved by changing the tone of your voice. It's substance. You can't rely on the same soaring rhetoric when trying to justify the underwhelming and often mundane changes you're making. And while I'm not suggesting that every speech you give ought to lend itself to a youtube music video I think the reason people are so disappointed is that there isn't much glory in bickering with right-wing democrats to wrangle watered-down legislation through inane congressional procedures.

I think you can be a better President than you have demonstrated, and I think Democrats can lead the country better than they have so far. I hope you find your voice again soon. What brought liberal voters out in record numbers in 2008 wasn't fear of losing to John McCain. It was the faith you gave us that we didn't have to be afraid all of the time, that our collective efforts and our collective courage could change our country. That we could make it safer, as we made it freer. That we could make it fairer as we made it more reflective of our values. That we could would wake up one day and believe, again, in the promise it held for all of us, no matter who we are. And those aren't promises you can make to the voters, this time around. You can say we're not finished yet, you can scare us with what Republican control will do to the little progress we have made, but you can't rely on fear alone. Stop lowering expectations and putting off controversial votes and trying to win the middle by turning on the left. Start showing people that you're not afraid of an ugly fight in the fall, that Democrats will stand up for our values and talk to us like we're adults. Empower your supporters instead of just scaring them. And watch that Yes We Can music video, one more time. I feel like I'm staring at a fresh glass of Hope Koolaid, just waiting for you to give me a reason to start drinking it again.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Day 272- A short note on the first day of school (because I need sleep)

Dear Mr. President,

Today was my first day of classes in over a year. While most nights at this time find me wide awake and worried about getting enough sleep, my chronic insomnia seems to be on hold for the evening, because all I want to do is crawl into bed and shut my eyes. It's a feeling I really don't want to discourage, so I'll make this brief.

In the coming months, you can be sure I will write to you about my classes and the subject matter we're covering, be it American Indian law or water security issues in the Middle East. But today was just the first day, and, for the most part, we just covered the syllabus and did introductions. My name's Kelsey. I'm a NELC major. I'm a senior. I'm in this class because I think it will help me understand the rest of the world. Etc.

One of my favorite professors suggested today that we could be optimists or we could be pessimists. Maybe being a pessimist was our right, and we could write our "ugly blogs about the sky falling" but it wasn't as productive, in general, as a positive outlook. And so, for the record, let me say that I do not think the sky is falling. Forgive me, but that is all I have for tonight.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Day 271- Jimmy Carter

Dear Mr. President,

I've been a particular fan of former President Carter since he wrote his book Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid. His courage in speaking frankly about human rights abuses so many other American leaders are happy to ignore impressed me. When I heard today that he'd taken ill, I was worried, but it sounds as though his book tour will resume. I'm glad that he's healthy enough to continue, especially because his tour include as stop at my own bookstore, on a night I work. While the events staff have hinted that making a "Jimmy Carter's #1 fan 4 life" T-shirt might not exactly convey the appropriate level of decorum, I will be nonetheless enthusiastic for the President's visit.

Other news today has reminded me why President Carter's willingness to speak out about the oppression of the Palestinian people is so important. The results of the autopsy of Furkan Dogan, the Turkish-American boy who was executed by Israeli soldiers on the Mavi Marmara reveal that he was fatally shot in the face while already lying down and wounded. It's heartbreaking evidence of the violent way Israel's government is willing to respond to the threat posed by humanitarian activists. I'm sure your administration has seen the forensics report, and the findings of the UN mission. I hope that you find the courage President Carter has displayed, and call out these continued human rights violations for what they really are.

Tonight my thoughts are with President Carter, wishing him a speedy recovery, and also with you, in the hopes that you do not lose sight of what is really important.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Monday, September 27, 2010

Day 270- Suspicious Activity

Dear Mr. President,

Today's New York Times Op-ed about the National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative discusses the difficult balance between personal liberty and national security sought by your administration. It made me think of my own work in loss prevention. Generally speaking, all of the activities that might indicate a person is planning a terrorist attack are legal; prevention requires law enforcement or intelligence officers to respond to legal activities that arouse suspicion. This, of course, can lead to abuse and civil rights violations against innocent people who have no intention of committing a crime at all. On a much smaller scale, my line of work requires a similar impossible balance. No one can be caught for theft without first doing several other perfectly legal things. I have to witness a person select the item and watch them continuously until they leave my store without it. Until they leave the store they have usually done nothing wrong. Suspicious behavior is my only way to begin to predict who will steal. But looking around warily, hiding from staff, or wearing clothing that facilitates concealment of merchandise aren't, in themselves, illegal acts. My job therefore requires that I attempt to prevent theft by monitoring the perfectly legal activity of shoppers who often turn out to be no threat whatsoever.

Does my suspicion infringe upon their civil liberties? I'm sure there are people who don't enjoy being watched as they shop, but most never notice I'm watching them. Have I done them harm by thinking it might be possible that they could steal? I suppose it's my parents' influence that inclines me to the belief that an innocent person has nothing to fear from investigation, but the liberal I've grown up to be recognizes that preemptive suspicion, even without tangible legal consequences, can violate a person's civil rights. I experienced the other side of this when flying out of Tel Aviv and being interrogated and strip-searched because of my tattoo in Arabic. Nothing about my tattoo is harmful or potentially harmful to others, nor does it logically indicate extremist tendencies on my part. (Tattoos are, to my understanding, haram, or at least frowned upon making it unlikely that a tattoo like mine would indicate extreme religious convictions.) That I was interrogated in the airport by Israeli officials was entirely unsurprising, but it wasn't at all based on logic or effective law enforcement. This suspicion did violate my civil liberties because it resulted in an invasive search, unlike my own suspicion of shoplifters which never results in a search or detention unless the selection and removal of the item has been witnessed directly.

Obviously terrorism can't be compared so easily to shoplifting; I wait until a crime has been committed before taking any action at all, and such precaution can lead to the loss of innocent lives in the case of terrorism. That being said, I still believe that civil liberties are more important to our well-being than the illusion of safety. I appreciate the NSARI's intention; data collection and analysis does need to be reworked and our counter terror efforts ought to be based on behavior/activity rather than race, religion or nature of origin. I appreciate the difficult nature of this attempt by your administration. What must be paramount is the absolute assurance that any investigation resulting from suspicious but legal activity be conducted respectfully and without the intention to humiliate or intimidate suspects. Maybe we can never be safe, but we will certainly not become safer by denying the basic humanity of those we fear.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Day 269- Truthiness

Dear Mr. President,

My fangirl enthusiasm for the political comedy of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and their writers is rivaled only by my geeky obsession with international law. Since international law is taking a beating today, I thought I'd write instead about the ventures in to mainstream political discourse Stewart and Colbert have made lately. It can't have slipped your notice that both are holding Glenn Beck-inspired rallies to restore sanity and keep fear alive in Washington DC. While some Democrats have expressed mixed feelings about the event, citing a possible dampening of get out the vote efforts, I think that, as the right embraced Beck and Palin's event in August, Democrats ought to be capitalizing on Stewart's call for moderate, reasonable discourse. Demonstrating a sense of humor about themselves can't possibly hurt their election prospect this fall, and I believe that the rallying cry from a figure widely loved on the left will be more effective than all the possible phone banking and door-knocking that may be missed as a result.

Similarly, the non-controversy controversy over Colbert's testimony before the House seems to be more absurd than the comedian's own schtick. Elmo testified before a House committee; surely the bar for legitimate expertise from witnesses was lowered long before Mr. Colbert was invited to testify. Even if his testimony was compelled for no reason more legitimate than to increase awareness of the hearings and of the "take our jobs" program, than I think there are far more important things to be upset about. That Democrats are joining in this chorus of disapproving voices is deeply disappointing. Colbert and Stewart should be the reasonable answer to Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. Their satire of these clownish right-wing puppets almost always works in the favor of the Democratic party (or, at least the parts of it that still have the the courage to act and talk like Democrats.) Yes, they are comedians. They tell more jokes than they do truth, but still, I think, one would be hard-pressed to find a more effective way of combating the absurd and depressing tactics of the right wing media than by mocking them.

I'm not suggesting Stewart or Colbert run for office or anything ridiculous like that. Their value is in their outsider status- their commentary would not be effective if they were saddled with the responsibility of actual governing. But in their attempts to keep our public servants and the rest of the media honest, I think that they do serve a purpose with even more value than mere entertainment. I hope that Democrats stop disparaging their attempts to rally unenthusiastic young voters and learn to laugh at themselves a bit more.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Day 268- BDS? Droid Does.

Dear Mr. President,

I got a smartphone because it seemed like a good idea at the time. After owning it for a few weeks, I realized that my already troubling addiction to the internet was getting completely out of hand. I still haven't figured out a reasonable balance, or summoned the self-restraint to limit my usage. Despite my mixed feelings about this technology, I had to smile when I saw the story of the Israeli bloggers against illegal settlements who developed an app to let consumers find out if their purchases come from West Bank settlements.

President Abbas has already warned Israel that the negotiations will fall apart without the continuation of the settlement freeze. These Israeli bloggers are acting responsibly to demonstrate their objection to these illegal settlements by changing the way they spend their money (and by helping others to do the same.) I think a theme of my political philosophy, almost surely lifted shamelessly from your own writing, is that the way we spend our money reflects our values as individuals and as a society. The BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) campaign against the Israeli occupation is an effective, non-violent strategy for expressing opposition to injustice. These same settlements are officially opposed by your administration. Economic sanctions have been used by the US to nonviolently oppose the human rights abuses of unjust regimes around the world. The US should officially adopt a policy making it illegal to import or purchase goods produced by Israeli West Bank settlements, or to provide material support to these settlements which are illegal under international law and a major roadblock to our stated foreign policy goal of a viable, sustainable peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

I was pretty reluctant to type that last sentence. Not because I don't believe it. Not because I don't think you already know it's the right thing to do. I think that if we are serious about our foreign policy goals we ought to write laws and spend our money in a way that reflects this. My reluctance comes from my general preference to leave that choice up to the consumer. I don't enjoy being told where I can and cannot spend my own money, and it isn't something I'd want to impose upon another person, no matter how convinced I am of the necessity of such an imposition. Unfortunately, the difficulty faced by the average consumer trying to determine the origins of their purchases is significant enough to prevent all but the most conscientious from doing so. Official policy is the only way to ensure that consumers are aware of what they are buying and what those purchases support. I call for such a policy without the faintest hope that the political will exists to implement it. Even encouraging consumers to makes this decision on their own would be an act of political suicide. But until your administration is prepared to do more than gently discourage settlement activity, it will continue and it will dismantle any hope of real peace for Palestinians and Israelis. For those of us who aren't willing to wait for our leaders to find the moral courage such a stand would require, well, at least now we've got an app for that.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Friday, September 24, 2010

Day 267- Trust

Dear Mr. President,

Your speech to the UN general assembly about the prospect of peace between Palestine and Israel was difficult to hear, even as it was unsurprising. The way you glossed over any mention of violence by Israel against Palestinians demonstrated to any one listening that the United States continues to turn a blind eye to the very real suffering Israel has inflicted. It is so insulting to refuse even to acknowledge the needless loss of life and senseless destruction of Israel's occupation while using the most manipulative imagery possible to condemn the rockets fired from Gaza. ("This time, we will think not of ourselves, but of the young girl in Gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams, or the young boy in Sderot who wants to sleep without the nightmare of rocket fire.") You perpetuate the idea that Palestinians might be oppressed, but Israelis live in constant fear of their lives- conveniently ignoring the inarguable fact that dramatically more Palestinians die at the hands of the Israeli military than Israelis are killed by Hamas. To allow that disparity to go unacknowledged while condemning Palestinian violence is the kind of gross misrepresentation of reality that I usually expect from FOX news.

While I admire your optimism in believing that the peace talks should continue even if the settlement freeze is allowed to expire, I don't see how you can reasonably ask the Palestinians to accept this. These peace talks are based on the idea that each side can trust their enemy to hold to its promises, to keep its word. That kind of trust is the only way any agreement will be reached or any lasting peace could ever be established. Stepping up construction on illegal settlements in territory that any reasonable final agreement will have to belong to the Palestinian state is the ultimate confirmation of the Palestinian's fears that Israel's appetite for land will never allow them a state of their own. (I say stepping up and not resuming because the settlement freeze has only slowed construction and never actually stopped it.) The Palestinians have, for six decades, watched their land erode to Israeli control. They have seen it taken by military force, by racist and unjust laws, by the construction of the apartheid wall. They have seen their neighbors and their children shot for harvesting crops on their own land. They have seen their water supplies dwindle to water Israeli crops. They have seen roads diverted around settlements that certain races are not allowed to drive on. They have been choked off from relatives living on the wrong side of arbitrary lines or with ID cards of the wrong color. They have had attempts at commerce and education foiled by checkpoints and blockades. It is a miracle that the current Palestinian leadership has summoned the good faith to talk, to suspend disbelief and allow for the hope that the land they have now might remain in Palestinian control. Allowing settlement construction to continue is a testament by the Israeli government that it has no interest in peace. That it has no intention of allowing the Palestinians their own state. It is a betrayal of trust these negotiations will not recover from.

You may ask all you wish for the talks to continue even if the freeze expires. It will come to nothing. You are likely using every diplomatic tool in your repertoire to try and convince the Netanyahu administration to extend the freeze as an act of goodwill. As Israel's closest ally and largest provider of military aid, our influence ought to be enough to accomplish this. I think, however, so long as you continue to demonstrate that we will not be practically tough on our ally, that we are not willing to revoke the military aid and to do more than verbally admonish their worst acts, Israel has no incentive to take the US or the peace talks seriously. I was a skeptic from the beginning about these talks, but you have asked us to hope. You asked us to trust that these men negotiating are serious about peace because they see it is their moral obligation and in the interest of their people. Trusting words is difficult in the best of circumstance, but trusting those words in the face of actions and policies that directly contradict them is downright foolishness. Israel must demonstrate a willingness to give up many of these settlements, that they can be trusted to obey international law and the terms of any future agreement. Expanding settlement construction now will only prove that the trust of the Palestinian people was in vain.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Day 266- 100 days

Update: It turns out due to an error earlier in the year this should actually be called "99 days" oh well. Live and learn, eh?

Dear Mr. President,

The measure of a presidency is often taken by the accomplishments of the first 100 days. I think this is silly. You've got to allow at least a few days to find all the light switches and figure out how to navigate the west wing, right? Not to mention all the the thanking people for their help getting you elected, the waiting for congress to remember that no one in the country knows who they are after election season ends, and, of course, the post-victory poll numbers can't be taken that seriously. But I have 100 days left to write to you this year, and I want to make my last 100 letters count. In 100 days, I want to think that my country will be different. I want to think it will be stronger, economically, and that the Bush-era tax cus will be allowed to expire. I want to think that it will be a freer, and more fair country, where gay and lesbian Americans will be allowed to openly serve in our military and marry whomever they please. I want to think that our image abroad will be improved by the closure of Guantanamo bay, the end of combat in Afghanistan, and that truly fair-minded American leadership in the Palestinian/Israeli peace talks will help create a stable, free and secure Palestinian state. We might also be a greener nation, with an end to harmful agricultural subsidies, a robust new energy policy and heavier federal investment in making our national infrastructure more environmentally friendly. Every single one of these things is possible in 100 days. (I may also wish for socialized health care and higher education, but I recognize those things can't happen in 100 days.) All of this can happen. And while my cynical, realistic side believes that none of these things will be accomplished in so little time, the part of me that still hopes for a better future believes that your next 100 days can be just as important and productive as your first 100 days, or the 100 days that will come after December 31st. And, while I have 100 letters left to write, you can bet that I'm going to bug your more than ever about every single one of these goals.

2010 has been kind of a rough year for you and your presidency. But it's got 100 days left, and that's plenty of time to turn things around and change the way this year and your administration is remembered by history. I hope you make them count.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Day 265- Mere Charity

So let’s put to rest the old myth that development is mere charity that does not serve our interests. And let’s reject the cynicism that says certain countries are condemned to perpetual poverty, for the past half century has witnessed more gains in human development than at any time in history. A disease that had ravaged the generations, smallpox, was eradicated. Health care has reached the far corners of the world, saving the lives of millions. From Latin America to Africa to Asia, developing nations have transformed into leaders in the global economy.

-President Barack Obama, 9/22/2010

Dear Mr. President,

In your remarks at the UN today, you made several points about the way that progress toward a stable and more just world for all is prudent for the national security interests of America and wealthy nations everywhere. I think you're right about this. Achieving the Millenium Development Goals is more than a moral obligation- it's in the our own interest. Which is why it is so disappointing to hear words like this in direct contrast with the way we appropriate funds to support these goals. Spending as much as we do each year on wars against two countries that have little to no basic social services, education or infrastructure seems like maybe we've lost sight of the whole idea behind the MDGs. If you really believe that our national interests are served by fighting poverty, suffering and disillusionment, why do you keep spending so much of our national budget on the tools of war?

You're right about the way this discussion needs to be framed- no act of charity is performed without self-interest. Having a frank conversation with the American people about our interests and the best way to serve them is long overdue. Waging wars might make us feel better, it might create the illusion of progress in a society demanding instant gratification, but I think you know it doesn't server our long-term interests. And while you may safely express this sentiment in remarks to the UN, you have little hope of being heard over the din off a Tea Party rally or town hall full of the angry and the afraid. People may not want to be told that they're wrong, that they have to wait to see the results of our current policies, that they have to work and help and change themselves if our country is going to remain in our position of global leadership over the next few generations. But I think people will always respond better to being told the truth, to be spoken to like adults, than coddled and told only what pleases them. Saying to the American people that economic development, increasing access to education and improving the rights and freedoms of people around the world is the best way to fight terrorism requires more than just words; the way we spend our money also has to change if the MDGs are ever going to be achieved or if the world is ever going to believe that America is serious about our commitments to justice, equality and opportunity for those without it.

This logic should also be applied domestically. Welfare, unemployment benefits, health care- none of it is "mere charity". These social services that protect Americans when they are the most vulnerable help keep our economy and our society more stable. This basic principle- that doing right by the least among us makes all of us stronger- is also not something Americans always want to hear. But I don't think you ran for President to lie to us, and I don't think you ran because it sounded like a fun gig. Americans have to learn to wait, to invest in our long-term interests and stop looking for the quick-fix that only makes us feel better. Until we have a leader willing to tell us that we're never going to make the changes necessary to make the goals for 2015 anything more than optimistic fantasy.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Day 264- Griping and Groaning

So when I hear Democrats griping and groaning and saying, well, you know, the health care plan didn’t have a public option; and I don’t know, the financial reform -- there was a provision here that I think we should have gotten better; or, you know what, yes, you ended the war in Iraq, the combat mission there, but you haven’t completely finished the Afghan war yet; or this or that or the other -- I say, folks, wake up. This is not some academic exercise. As Joe Biden put it, don’t compare us to the Almighty; compare us to the alternative. That’s what’s at stake in this election.

-President Obama DNC finance dinner 9/21/2010

Dear Mr. President,

I understand that the rich control this country. I understand that donating thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party can buy a person a seat at a table of power or at least a few minutes of your time. So when you go to fundraising dinners and make jokes and give slightly less interesting versions of your stump speech to people wearing single-use clothing that costs as much as I make in a month, I usually don't mind. But when you take an opportunity like this and use it to take a shot at those of us who are struggling just to get by, I have to admit it rubs me the wrong way. "Griping and groaning?" Do you think the people upset about losing the public option are upset because they lost a political game? Because they didn't get their way? A lot of people, even under the new Health Care legislation still can't afford insurance. We still can't afford to get sick, to miss work or to see a doctor for anything short of a true emergency. Is it "griping and groaning" to worry about what happens if I get into an accident or if one my roommates catches strep throat? Or being upset that while you compromise on financial reform, my roommate is told by her small-business owner boss that payday will have to wait a few weeks because business has been too slow? When I read your quote from this dinner, this thirty-thousand-dollar-a-plate dinner, and thought about the way I've been laughing about being rich over a $500 paycheck this week, I felt humiliated.

The tragedy of this recession isn't your low approval numbers or the enthusiasm gap among your supporters. Blaming the left for being disillusioned with your lack of progress isn't going to turn us out at the polls and it isn't going to help you get Democrats to line up in support of your agenda. Your chief of staff might call us whatever names he wants, but without the liberal wing of the Democratic party to fight for things like the public option, you'd be left compromising your tepid centrism to the far right and I don't think that would look much different than President Bush's America. Our griping and groaning is the only reason Congressional Democrats were given the supermajority they spent the last 2 years squandering. I credit your leadership with a number of the accomplishments from congress this year, but why would you berate those of us still hoping to push them to do more?

So while you might mistake our vocal disappointment for griping and groaning, maybe you should step out of the rooms full of people paying more per plate than I take home in a year and remember that all the money from all the rich people in the country can't buy you the support of your base, and it can't give you the satisfaction of actually doing right by the people you got into politics to work for. So while I appreciate your recorded message for OFA volunteers, and your request for more donations from us, I guess I just don't have $30k for dinner and listening to you mock me, my values and the people who share them.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Monday, September 20, 2010

Day 263-Prime Rib

Dear Mr. President,

The first time I heard Lady GaGa's music, I was with my best friend. While our upbringing has made us proud indie-rock lovers prone to asserting that our fandom predates a band's national popularity, we've always had a weak spot for catchy dance music. Lady GaGa's attempts to market herself as a redefinition of what is beautiful annoyed me, to be sure, (skinny blonde girls have, to my understanding, been thought beautiful for most of human history,) but I remained an unrepentant fan of her music. Today she gave a speech protesting Don't Ask Don't Tell, entitled "The Prime Rib of America". I think that a celebrity using her fame to humiliate three members of the US Senate into possibly changing their support of a bigoted policy is better than having a tabloid-splashing public breakdown à la Lindsey Lohan, Brittany Spears or Amy Winehouse. (Which, of course, isn' to say that Lady GaGa has to choose; her mugshot may yet grace Perez Hilton's homepage.) Our culture's fascination with celebrity is not unique to the modern era, nor is it unique to America. It seems, unfortunately, that the human condition requires our bizarre worship of the beautiful and famous. I would imagine that many celebrities would gladly return to the freedom of anonymity, the ability to walk down the street without make-up and not worry about being photographed. The ones who at least make enough peace with their fame to try and do some good with it are admirable.

While GaGa's speech wasn't exactly the Gettysburg address, it had moments of poignancy that I hope the people mocking her heard. The Senate Amendment to repeal DADT is currently too close to call- it seems that not a single republican can be found willing to put morality and justice above party loyalty. Should the 41 Republicans continue to hold to the threat to filibuster, I think the Democrats ought to make them. Make them filibuster a hateful, archaic policy based on a dying prejudice. Make every single Republican member of the Senate talk until they fall over with exhaustion for the sake of denying American soldiers their rights. And broadcast every second of it. Because I think the contrast between a gorgeous American popstar standing up and asking her country to live up to its promise and the Republican members of the Senate trying to perpetuate bigotry and intolerance would make for some great pre-election television.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Day 262- Carrot sticks

Dear Mr. President,

Glenn Beck is continuing to hone the skill that made him popular- telling people what they want to hear. Today he has decided to attack the First Lady for the Let's Move campaign, which he inexplicably sees as a threat to his french fries. Beck makes people feel good about their bad choices. Don't let the government tell you what to eat! Don't let them take your freedom fries! He's the ultimate enabler. I have no problem with Beck eating french fries until his arteries turn entirely to trans fat. I'm sure the First Lady doesn't, either. Attempting to combat the undeniable epidemic of obesity and weight-related diseases by improving the way children in this country learn about healthy lifestyle choices is admirable, and exactly no threat to Beck's, or any one's access to french fries. The conversation is uncomfortable; many people probably feel guilty about the choices they make when it comes to food and exercise. I'm sure many of these people would rather be told that they are fine and that no one should be allowed to talk about better choices they could make, as Beck does.

What Beck is doing is pathetic and ultimately perpetuates the problem of complacency, but it is nothing compared to what the government does. Our government has provided $300 billion in federal subsidies of the commodity crops corn and soy, which have made exactly the kind of processed food we should be avoiding cheaper and more accessible than ever. While the First Lady campaigns tirelessly to encourage healthier eating, your federal budget continues to undercut her efforts. All of the positive role models in the sports world can't have half the impact of altering the economic reality that processed, nutritionally bankrupt food-like-substances are cheap and widely available. Poverty is an undeniable factor in this epidemic, as well, and must be addressed in a more comprehensive way before we can expect to see any real improvement.

Taxing soda and snack food is an often-suggested way to reduce consumption. I think that's a great plan, but I know enough junk-food addicts who would fiercely oppose such a tax that I can understand why you might not want to undertake such a step in an election year. Ending subsidies of corn and soy, however, would slowly raise the cost of processing these foods, raising their price (and saving huge amounts of money for taxpayers) without directly taxing consumption.

The First Lady is having a difficult conversation with the country. Telling people that they haven't been doing right by their children is never easy, but it is a truth that must be told. Many will turn to the false comfort of people like Beck who will assure them that their way of life is sacred, untouchable. But unless policies that support the First Lady's efforts are put into place, our health and the health of our planet will continue to suffer the effects of heavily subsidized, cheap, insubstantial calories. This seems like an obvious example of Democrats saying the right thing and being completely unable to back it up with substantial policy changes. Is it any coincidence that the states with the highest obesity and poverty levels also tend to be so-called red states? Maybe it's a stretch, but I think that people generally want to be healthier and more economically stable than they want to be told comforting lies. In the absence of politicians with the courage to offer these things, however, i can see why they'd at least choose the lies that make them feel good over empty promises.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Day 261- One in Seven

Dear Mr. President,

I have written you 260 letters this year. Of those 260, the top two subjects I've tagged are "Hope and change" and "values." These are more for my own reference than anything else. "Hope and change" refers to a letter that addresses something I feel you promised during the campaign. "Values" is usually to indicate a letter about our national or societal priorities. I chose "values" because it's a term often co-opted by the right (and, I'm sure, used by your own staff in the context conservatives use it.) So-called values voters, by the conservative Christian definition, oppose gay marriage, abortion and stem-cell research. The website for the Values Voters Summit lists the agenda as "Protect Marriage • Champion Life • Strengthen the Military • Limit Government • Control Spending • Defend Our Freedoms". I've always been irritated at the idea that voters sharing these particular values are the only ones conventionally identified as values voters- as though all of us are not voting based on our own personal values.

What does it say about what we value that preventing two people in love from marrying or putting the lives and well-being of women at risk is a demonstration of having "values"? Especially considering the 2010 census data, which shows a record number of Americans, 43.6 million or one in seven are living in poverty? When one in five children live in poverty, and one in four African Americans or Latinos? Where are the Christian values in letting twenty percent of American children grow up impoverished? While I do think the main source of this problem comes from corporate greed and corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle, we as voters must also be held accountable for this. Voters who don't inform and educate themselves before voting. Voters who allow trivial issues of appearance, personality or campaign smears to sway their vote without an appreciation for issues. Especially voters who do not vote at all.

Once, however, we have voted, once we have elected a party to control Congress and the White House, the responsibility falls to you to come through with all the Hope and Change promised to this country during the campaign. Mr. President, for all the right might howl and scream and lie through their teeth on FOX news, Democrats have cowered, backed down, abandoned the values that ought to define our party and set it apart from the greed, xenophobia and selfishness of our opponents. A livable minimum wage, a strong national education system, and access to affordable health care - these are values that Democrats ostensibly stand for, values I support, values I was promised would be defended when I cast my ballot in 2008. If these values were being fought for just as hard as the right is fighting to undermine them than 1 in 7 Americans would not be living in poverty. Your job isn't easy, and it isn't close to finished. This election is going to be ugly and difficult and the next one is probably going to be worse. I do not feel sorry for you. One in seven of us is living in poverty, Mr. President and while every single one of you elected to represent us is living in fear of election day, the situation is just getting worse. I think it is time that you asked every elected Democrat what they really value more- their office or their conscience.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Friday, September 17, 2010

Day 260- SMART Grants, napkins and sea shores

Dear Mr. President,

Today has been a great day. First, I'd like to thank you for a bit of good news I received today. Instead of taking out the small subsidized loan I'd been offered this year, I've just been awarded a National SMART grant. This is incredibly reassuring. The loan I was planning to take out this year wasn't huge compared to my total debt, but I'm still happy to avoid borrowing at all. I know I am incredibly lucky to be given this grant, especially when so many other students in my situation are seeing their debt levels continue to rise dramatically. I'm so grateful for the help.

Also today, I received a letter from my friend serving in the Peace Corps. I miss hearing her voice and seeing her every day. I miss our pancake mondays, our walks around greenlake and our heated political discussions that usually devolved into a general discussion about how much we want to marry Jon Stewart. I love reading her letters and hearing the details of her life in Burkina Faso, but I think part of her letter to me was actually meant for you:




It says: "I stole you a napkin from the embassy =) There is a sweet picture of Obama hanging in the embassy. It makes me so happy to see it. I'm still proud he's our president."

I don't think I could say it any better.

The last thing that made today great was this story a friend sent me on facebook about Israeli women helping Palestinian women sneak across the border for illegal day trips to the beach. A quote from one of the brave Israeli women interviewed struck me as particularly moving. "We want more Israelis to realise that there is nothing to be scared of. We want more people to refuse to accept the ideology that keeps us apart – and to just refuse to be enemies."

There is nothing to be scared of. I refuse to accept divisive ideology. I refuse to be enemies.

These are powerful, wise words. And the simple act of taking these Palestinian women and their children to see the ocean shows how ordinary citizens can fight injustice through simple acts of kindness. I think maybe these women should replace Netanyahu and Abbas for the peace talks. Something tells me they'd make a lot more progress.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Day 259-Good and Evil

Dear Mr. President,

I have a constant struggle between the parts of me that believe people are basically good and the part that believes people are selfish and amoral. I want the believe the best of people, in general. But my parents were cops, and the people they dealt with daily were murders, rapists and child molesters. People who are difficult, if not impossible, to forgive or to find redemptive goodness in. At work it is my job to catch shoplifters. This is a much smaller scale of badness than what my parents dealt with, but I often encounter individuals who challenge my belief in man's fundamental goodness. Today was one of those days. While it was ultimately a positive outcome, the incident has definitely made me reflect on what I believe.

The process of enforcing the law, on whatever scale it has to be done, requires a sort of reactionary mentality that isn't generally how I see myself. When I'm catching a criminal, I don't have time to think about the circumstances in a person's life that led to their crime. I don't have time to consider the societal problems that have forced them into the situation, or a long-term strategy for their rehabilitation. I have to react to what they do a the time they do it in whatever way I can best minimize the damage. I try to be respectful and always consider the humanity of the people I deal with. A person's humanity does not, of course, exempt them from mankind's more instinctive and animal-like impulses- fight or flight- and anticipating this while respecting the individual's humanity is one of the more challenging aspects of my job. I consider a number of circumstantial factors that combine to make a person desperate, and I don't think I have encountered any one I would actually call evil. Even when choosing fight over flight, I don't believe that a person can be judged by their worst and most desperate behavior. But this does not exempt them from responsibility for their choices, and that is why I have to react to the situation and not to the big picture.

You don't have that luxury, unfortunately. You were, after all, the one who ran for President. You knew what you were getting into when you applied for the job. So while I do the best I can to deal with the situation at hand, to stop criminals without losing my compassion for them, you've got to think about the greater problem. I deal with crimes. You worry about Crime, an abstract, complex concept that affects and is affected by everything from economics to education to social values. I'd be incredibly happy to be put out of a job, to have all crime stopped by some massive national policy that magically makes us a peaceful, crime-free society. Living, as I unfortunately must, in the real world, I'm not too worried about my job security. That being said, budget shortfalls in my state are leading to fewer police officers and certainly also to an increase in crime rates. Today I chased down a shoplifter and was assaulted in the process. That's part of my job. Today the federal government spent more than $410 million on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the year 2011, Seattle taxpayers alone will contribute $36.9 million to these two wars- enough to pay for more than 4,000 police officers, or 48,000 university scholarships. These wars were started- and continue to be waged- under the pretext of fighting "evil". I may not believe in evil the same way that many people seem to, but I think much more good might be done with that money, in my city, in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Making the tough decisions about how this money is spent is your job, Mr. President, and I think it is one area with plenty of room for improvement. You can't make people good, or even ensure that they always make good choices. Mistakes and bad judgement and selfishness are unfortunate realities that no government can solve. However, there is a lot more we could do to make our society healthier and safer, and these wars don't seem to be doing much of either.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Day 258- Corn Sugar

Dear Mr. President,

"Corn Sugar" might be my new phrase for anything attempting to improve its image with a benign name. Like Blackwater becoming Xe or torture becoming "enhanced interrogation", the high-fructose corn syrup industry would like to have their product renamed into something slightly more suggestive of sunshine and real food. I'm not really a huge fan of marketing in general, but especially not when it comes to food. The deceptive practices many companies use to encourage consumption are incredibly manipulative. While ultimately we are all responsible for the food choices we make, I don't think companies should make it harder for a consumer to know what, exactly, is in the food they are consuming. That being said, I really don't care what HFCS is called.

HFCS is used primarily in items I don't consume; processed foods, sweetened beverages, and the kinds of candy I didn't even like as a child. I've still never had a Coca Cola, but popular opinion among my well-traveled friends is that Coke tastes better in countries where cane sugar is still used to sweeten it. While one might not have to look very far to see the potential health risks of HFCS consumption, my objection to the substance has nothing to do with it being better or worse for you than sugar. HFCS is popular with the makers of processed food because it is cheap and it is cheap because of the way corn is grown and subsidized in this country. HFCS's real danger is not in its consumption but its environmental, social and economic impacts. When it costs less and is more convenient for me to buy a jar of tomato sauce sweetened with corn than a decent-tasting tomato, well, that's when I get really angry. (Friends can surely attest that I take my tomatoes way too seriously.)

Our nation's health would surely improve if we lowered the amount of sweeteners we consumed overall. Our planet's health would likewise benefit from a complete overhaul in the way we raise our crops. If changing the name from corn syrup to "planet-killing cancer-causing death juice" is the way to accomplish that, well, I'll be the first to start editing the Wikipedia page. I think an informed consumer doesn't need to worry about what a substance is named, so long as they have all the information available to understand the impact their purchase will have on their own health and the health of the planet. What we need more than anything is a national food system that makes healthy food choices the easiest and least expensive options, that encourages sustainable agricultural practices and fair wages for agricultural workers. A food system that places the overall health of our nation above efficiency and profit. Until we change the way we produce and consume food as a society, we're just going to keep getting fatter and sicker while the planet gets hotter and the poor get poorer. Anything else is just corn sugar.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Day 257- Failure

Dear Mr. President,

I don't often fail. I say this not to be arrogant, but to highlight the safe and even calculated way I have lived up until now. I was consistently an A student, one of the valedictorians at my graduation. I haven't always gotten A's in college, but I've never failed anything important. This academic success is partially to my credit, but largely due to an avoidance of any courses too far outside my intellectual comfort zone. My life isn't where I want it to be; I haven't been as successful or as efficient as I would have preferred, and all of this is due not to failure but to living in fear of it. Today I believe I finally experienced failure. I could not access and apply a skill I should have. I set my mind to a task I could not accomplish. I don't think this is more unsettling to me because of my relatively safe existence up until now. Surely every one feels this way when they find themselves unable to rise to their own expectations. I'm lost, shaken up, disappointed, and angry. I'm also dimly aware that this might have been good for me. Realizing that failure isn't the end of the world, feeling it fully and intensely and still not giving up will help me take risks like this in the future. I knew taking that test yesterday was a risk, which is why it's taken me so long. It's been four years since I studied Arabic and it wasn't going to get any easier if I waited any longer. Every time I had to take a break from college, I felt more terrified that I would one day return only to find I was no longer qualified to continue. So I took a chance, the worst happened, and now I have to figure a way out.

If I had not taken the test I might not have numeric, quantifiable proof of my failure, but I would still be afraid. I would still be just as far away from my goal with nothing to spur me toward changing. Maybe this is all consolation for a feeling I'm still not entirely sure how to manage. Maybe I'm making excuses for my own mistakes, but at least I feel less afraid than I did yesterday.

I know one test might seem small compared to something like an election. I hope that the midterms aren't a failure for progressives. I am sure that, should the Democrats fail, this is how the story will be told. They were too far left. They were out of touch with the values of the American people. These lies will be spread by the right and accepted as conventional wisdom. And maybe it will finally push Democrats past their fear and force us to stand up and say enough. Because the Grand Old Party of hate and fear might be better at claiming victory, but Democrats haven't failed until they've gotten too afraid to stand up for what's right, for what's important. I hope none of the chatter about the left's impending failure scares those running for office in 2010 away from making the right choices, or scares you away from asking them to. And, should we lose power on election day, let it only compel us to be braver, to take more risks. Failing might not feel great, but it sure beats the hell out of living in fear.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Monday, September 13, 2010

Day 256- Back to school

Dear Mr. President,

In just over eight hours I'll be taking the most important test of my undergraduate life. I've spent the day in various cafes, a library and 4 different city buses trying to cram 15 chapters of the Arabic language back into the easily accessible parts of my brain. I tried to relax a bit by listening to my ipod while walking home, and found myself trying to translate "dirt off your shoulder" into Arabic. I'm starting to think about Maha and Khalid like they're my real cousins. My fear of the lowercase letter e is becoming concerning. I have consumed a truly unhealthy amount of caffeine.

For these reasons, I thought it advisable to keep my letter to you quite short. I noticed you gave a back to school speech in Pennsylvania today (proving, once more, that it never stops paying to be a swing state) and I thought I'd channel my test anxiety into a relevant comment on education. Foreign languages should be taught in primary education. You've already said this, and been criticized for it (naturally,) even expressing your own embarrassment at being monolingual. While it may be an unfair stereotype to suggest that Americans can't speak multiple languages, I think the mere fact that some people find it outrageous that you would suggest we ought to learn a second language as children demonstrates it certainly isn't a cultural value in America they way it is in many other parts of the world. This is more difficult to change, of course, but I think that Americans in general do want to see their children grow to be successful and well-educated, and multilingual graduates will likely also be more employable, should there ever again be jobs available.

Maybe I'm just saying this since I'm scared out of my mind that my whole life will be over if I don't pas my placement test tomorrow, but I feel like the ability to communicate with non-English speakers would go a long way toward easing the hostility that some Americans feel about foreigners. And we could certainly do with less xenophobia in our foreign relations and immigration policies. Even if I pass this test tomorrow and spend another year devoted to learning Arabic, my best hope is to graduate with the vocabulary of an overly formal third grader. Had I spent elementary school studying Arabic, or really any language, this might not be such a Hurculean task. At this point, having 100% of high school graduates fluent in English might still seem daunting, but I think an earlier and more consistent emphasis on a second language might help in that area, as well. At least more High school graduates would, in theory, know what a verb is.

While I was searching the internet to find out if you spoke a foreign language, I found the headline "Does Obama speak Arabic?" I was really hopeful that the answer would be yes, so that maybe I could write you a letter in Arabic at some point, but then I saw that the article was from The Weekly Standard. Our media does this country so proud. Anyway, I'm going to continue studying. It's too late for me, by the time you read this letter the die will be cast, my fate will be decided and my hopes of attaining a third-grade vocabulary in Arabic secured or dashed forever. But there are a whole generation of American children starting school this week who might still hope to graduate with the ability to communicate eloquently in more than one language. You're right, Mr. President, only speaking one language is embarrassing. I hope that the next generation are given a better shot at overcoming it.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Day 255-Tea Partying

Dear Mr. President,

It's 9/12, so I suppose I should talk about the Tea Party. I'm not feeling particularly funny this evening, so I think I'll pass on the obvious opportunities to make jokes about their diversity, average age, fashion sense, or their confusion about American history. The Tea Party may not be much more than a fringe movement of angry white people, but it has an incredibly powerful media outlet representing it and spewing a worldview conforming to the Tea Party's narrative (or, more accurately, responsible for the shape of the Tea Party's narrative.) The Tea Party has gotten so much press in the last year that it seems like the whole country must have gone conservative. I think that's why so many Democrats are running scared. While their outlook for the midterms may not be so optimistic, I have to wonder if their poll numbers started dropping because of a conservative resurgence, or because they started legislating like they were afraid of one.

I've heard lots of ideas about reforming the Democratic party. Granted, most of what I hear (and most of what I think) comes from the left. The left would like to see Democrats act with courage, to stop governing like they've got to apologize for winning the election by pandering to the people who didn't vote for them. To stop compromising to no end. To take the gloves off when criticizing the obstructionist, hypocritical, xenophobic classism of the Republicans. I think this might save a few seats on our side of the aisle come November. But I don't think it's a party strategy that you (or your chief of staff) would take particularly seriously.

I think this is why the Tea Party is so popular. Not because the country is too far left, but because it is too stagnante and slow. The Tea Party might not have great ideas, but they're unscripted and unexpected. I think most of their candidates are even worse than the establishment Republicans they ran against in the primaries- but they resemble the kind of third-party shakeup of the system that our country needs (though preferably from a saner source with less corporate sponsorship.) So while I don't like them, agree with them, or even respect them, I do understand why they came about. People are waiting on a word I'm sure you've got to be sick of hearing by now-change. Actual change. Change that makes voting feel less like an exercise in futility.

Several fellow bloggers are starting a movement to publicly burn ballots on election day. One of the things they would like to see changed is a requirement that each race have a "none of the above" option that, should it receive the most votes, would require a new election with new candidates. I admire the spirit behind this protest, even if I am not going to participate. For one thing, I am a supporter of Senator Murray and I do want to see her re-elected. I will not waste my chance to ensure (hopefully once and for all) that Dino Rossi isn't allowed to represent my state in National office. For another I'm not sure that refusing to vote is a way to be taken seriously by the government. But I understand the intent. The government shouldn't be allowed to ignore us and not take us seriously. The government should be terrified of us. This protest, just like the Tea Party, comes from the deep sense that the American people are not being listened to. That we are manipulated to keep the rich and powerful richer and more powerful. I believe in the values of the Democratic party. I want to be proud of this. I want to call myself a Democrat. Right now, all that seems to mean is centrist, compromising, cowardly and even, in some cases, corrupt. The Tea Party might have changed the Republican Party a little, but it's made the Democratic Party downright unrecognizable. We've got to stop running to the right every time we get frightened of it. The Tea Party has had its time, it has made its mark. But it isn't nearly as powerful or influential enough to justify the fear Democrats are showing this year.

So it's 9/12. Forget the polls. Forget FOX news. Forget the Tea Party. Forget the fear. Lead a Democratic Party that people in this country are proud to vote for and maybe this November won't be quite the massacre everyone is so worried about.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Day 254- What we choose to remember

Dear Mr. President,

Nine years ago I was a sophomore in high school. I woke up before my alarm clock. I remember I was having a dream about drowning. On any other day I probably would have forgotten the last wisps of this dream as the rest of my morning routine replaced it. I went downstairs and ate a bowl of cereal, squinting at the TV because I hadn't bothered to put in my contact lenses. My stepmother told me a plane had hit the twin towers. The rest of the morning was a series of stories, some true, some false, some never to be properly accounted for later. I was safely on the other side of the country from what was happening, but all morning long I could see my own turbulent emotional reactions in the faces of my classmates. We all felt the magnitude of what was going on; even if we didn't yet understand it, even if we didn't experience it the same way that people in New York and DC did. I remember I heard boys just 16 years old calling for blood, wanting to enlist that day and kill whoever had planned the attack.

Nine years later I still remember the images we all saw on TV. I still remember the haunted way my coworkers at the Washington DC bookstore sounded when they told their own tales of that day. I still think about the havoc we rained down upon millions of innocent people in response. I remember the lives we have ruined and displaced, the hundreds of thousands we have murdered. I can't talk about 9/11 without also talking about these shattered lives. There was no number of Afghan or Iraqi civillians we might have killed to bring back those lost on American soil 9 years ago today. Every time I hear 9/11 used to justify these wars we wage as acts of vengeance, I feel tired in a way that I don't think I'm old enough to feel. It all seems so pointless, so tragically, miserably heart breaking and pointless.

You have asked us today to remember the tragic events of 9 years ago. We might choose to remember this day in isolation, to recall nothing of what came before or since, and I understand why many choose this. This day was so shocking, so traumatizing and devastating to so many that I can't ask any one to do more than what they feel they can. But I think we should not choose to remember this day in a vacuum. I think that, no matter how painful its memory is, we should not feel entitled to the belief that we were alone in suffering it, or numb ourselves to the pain so many others were forced to feel as a result. Today I remember the dead, I honor the dead, but I do not imagine that the death toll of September the 11th ended on our shores. I choose to remember all who have died since and all those who continue to suffer for it. Nine years of suffering has not made this day any less tragic. We are nine years older, our hands are nine years bloodier and the death toll just keeps rising.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Friday, September 10, 2010

Day 253- For you, JP

Dear Mr. President,

My dear friend JP works at an ice cream shop in our neighborhood. I'm writing to you from his shop as he finishes closing. Tonight I asked him what he'd like me to write about and he suggested I discuss the solar panel that environmental activists brought to the White House. That you declined to place the near-ancient solar panel on the White House roof is not what bothers him. The activists bringing you the panel were doing so, I'd imagine, for a symbolic and not a practical purpose. The security and logistical issues involved in placing something of that size on the White House roof are surely greater than the energy saving potential of such an old device.

But in a year when your administration has backed down on comprehensive energy legislation, maybe a little symbolic good will to the green movement was in order. Accepting the solar panel for a museum, or for the OEOB or another office building might have at least demonstrated that you took the offering in good spirits, that you had respect for the group and their cause. A commitment to make the White House more energy efficient- or even to answer questions about its energy efficiency- would have left the activists feeling like they'd accomplished something.

Perhaps you didn't want this. Perhaps you viewed their "stunt" as something that should not be rewarded with good will from your office. I can see the logic behind this, I suppose. At a time when lobbyists have unprecedented power and influence in Washington, when votes in congress can be openly purchased by special interest donations, is it really such a bad thing to indulge a "stunt" from an organization without a particularly loud voice on the Hill? If you really want to change the culture of corruption in Washington, maybe you should stop rewarding those who know how to play the game best. Yesterday, I engaged in a debate with a conservative friend and fellow blogger who criticized those on the left for insisting Islam to be a "religion of peace" while asking that nutcase in Florida not to do something that might trigger violence from Muslims. I argued that you were speaking to the majority of Muslims who would have reacted to this man's hateful actions with nothing more than words. Reassuring them that, even if their quiet speech was drown out by the shouts and violence of the fringe, you could still hear them. My point was about the importance of acknowledging the silent majority, of empowering them so that shouting (or violence) doesn't become the only way to be noticed.

Powerlessness is an awful feeling. I often imagine that the only way for some one like me to be noticed by those in power is to become wealthy, to have something tragic happen to me, or to do something horrible. For me, the act of writing to you, the act of speaking, is much more important than the act of being heard. I don't need you to know that I exist or what I feel strongly about, so much as I need to articulate these things to myself. But others don't feel that way. Others do need to be heard. And so much of your time is spent dealing with tragedy or chaos or violence that is may occur to some as the best way to get your attention. I'm not saying you should accept the solar panel in order to avoid ecoterrorism or anything like that, just that empowering people so passionate about moving our country away from our worst and most consumptive practices is more productive than discouraging them. We need committed environmentalists and your administration needs them to feel respected and listened to if you want their support. In a year when you have done precious little to remind them why they elected you, would it have been that hard just to admit your own shortcomings and listen to their ideas for improvement? Especially when it costs you nothing, I think accepting their criticism gracefully and demonstrating your willingness to work with them would have been a much smarter move.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Day 252-Hype

Dear Mr. President,

After I posted yesterday's letter I received several disheartening responses. "Is this meant to be serious? " one reader asked, "That President Obama could influence these people to reconsider their actions? You must understand that a direct statement from him on this gives these people the profile they so desperately crave to do what they do in front of the largest possible audience." This morning you gave an interview in which you clearly expressed your disapproval for the planned event, without elvating your opponent. Thank you for this. Such a balance is a difficult one to strike and, given the volatility of the situation, I thought your words were well chosen. I don't know if you changed the man's mind or if his better nature is stronger than I give it credit for. I don't think I was off base yesterday in implying that you had the ability to appeal to this man's humanity, or that, at the very least, it was worth a try.

Since he has announced the suspension of the event, much discussion by the media has focused on the accusations that this story was blown out of proportion by the media. I considered the well-made point of my cynical reader's comment about the risk of granting this man's clear desire for attention, but I stand by what I wrote and what I asked of you. For one thing, yesterday was several weeks past the point of hushing this story up and hoping no one would notice. The outraged protests set off by the Danish cartoons several years back came months after the cartoons had been published- when apologies were basically useless. Had this "Koran Burning Day" come to light months later, it would have caused considerably more uproar. If 50 people had burned Qur'ans and no one had noticed, I concede that no actual harm would have resulted in the symbolic action. But, by the time I heard about the event it was on CNN; the damage was pretty much done. I'm glad that things seemed to have calmed down (and also that Imam Rauf is refusing to negotiate the location of Park 51,) and I believe much of that credit goes to your leadership.

I don't know the best way to handle these stories in general. On one hand, it does elevate crazy people to give them national news coverage. On the other hand, the media didn't say anything untruthful, and it was part of a larger trend of anti-Islam incidents in the last few weeks. I can see why it was relevant to the news. It also gave Americans a chance to publicly demonstrate our opposition to this behavior, and for people of all faiths to intervene on behalf of Muslims- a symbolism far more powerful than the most heartfelt apology might have sounded should the story have been told after the fact. Consider, also, that while this man's church may have only had 50 members, the "International Koran Burning Day" facebook page now has 15,000 fans. That may be nothing compared to the group opposing it, which has 10 times as many, but it shows that these 50 people were not acting alone. (Especially considering the number of people who feel this way and can't work facebook, which can't be inconsiderable.) This small man and his small band of followers had the support many more Americans who agreed with them. Taking this chance to show the world that they don't speak for all Americans, especially not our government, was absolutely the right thing to do. Thank you.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Day 251- Leadership

Dear Mr. President,

I generally do not hold you accountable for the actions and beliefs of those who support you. Martin Peretz, for example, may be a prominent member of the media and a self-described democratic loyalist, but when he expresses his view that Muslims have no claim to first Amendment rights, I don't blame you for that. I do, however, expect you to speak out. I do expect you to show the rest of the world that America cannot accurately be represented by cult leaders in Florida or racists in The New Republic. I expect you to speak out because the world is watching these people and it is watching you.

I don't expect that you act alone. I think that you should get every prominent and influential politician in this country, Republican and Democrat, to collectively issue a condemnation for these hateful acts and words. To challenge Americans to rise above this, to be better than these small-minded men and women would represent us to be. I can imagine the power of you, both former Presidents Bush, President and Secretary Clinton standing together to make this request. I may not have agreed with President Bush, but he has an obligation to speak to the parts of the country still irrationally enraged at Muslims over 9/11. A tangible demonstration from current and former GOP leaders might go a long way toward calming down the violent Islamophobia on the right, just as you, Bill and Hillary Clinton might do for the left. I believe that silence in the face of these dangerous swells of anger is tantamount to complicity.

We expect our leaders to stand up in moments like these. I'm not asking that you outlaw the perfectly legal actions of these groups (no matter how reprehensible or dangerous they might be.) This isn't a legal issue but a moral one and you still wield enough influence over any audience you speak to that a few words from you might yet summon the humanity in these people to make them reconsider their actions. At the very least, it will demonstrate clearly that they do not act in the name of all Americans. This morning all I could think about were the young boys and old men in Palestine who asked me over and over again to tell my country they were not terrorists. Their own helplessness in the face of a media narrative that could not be stopped was deeply moving. I think I finally understand what they felt like. I want to write a letter to the world and say, please, believe me, American's aren't racists, we're not bigots, we're not violent and hateful and irrational. Please don't judge us by the actions of a few crazy people who act in our name.

So I hope that before Saturday you and every other influential American with access to a microphone has taken to the airwaves or written in the papers or published on the internet an unequivocal denunciation of the Qur'an burning and the rallying cries against Islam as a religion and Muslims as people. We must show the world that this is not who we are, and that has to start with our leaders. I think that few days in recent memory have as much power to transform as this year's eleventh of September has; I don't want to wake up Sunday morning and wonder what country I'm living in.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Day 250- Internet connections

Dear Mr. President,

In recent months I have cautiously forayed into the realm of internet dating sites in an attempt to get past an increasingly long string of failed romantic endeavors. For better or worse, meeting people online has introduced me to several interesting and intelligent men I would never have otherwise encountered. That I connect with them initially through the internet doesn't bother me, though it makes several of my friends uncomfortable. I do understand the inherent risk, and also the capacity for deception, that goes along with any virtual communication. I've been chatting online since the early days of AOL, I've had livejournal accounts, myspace and facebook pages, and now I have this blog, which often consumes a considerable amount of my time and energy. I have friends I met online who I have never spoken to in person, and friends I met online who became friends outside of the internet, and more than a few friends who I relate to differently online than I do in person. (I do not tweet. I'm sure, in time, I will succumb to it, but for now it is the one craze I have yet to find any interest in.) Because so much of my time is spent on the internet, I'm inclined to disagree with those who discount any communication, interaction or relationship that occurs online as inauthentic. I have been lied to online, but I have also been lied to by people I love who look me in the eye when they lie to me. I think any interaction with another human requires a certain amount of faith and results in a certain amount of disappointment, regardless of where or how that interaction takes place. The person I am online, the person who writes these letters and rants about the issues that matter to me and who even sometimes speaks in humiliatingly bad blank verse that should be kept to myself, is just as much of who I am as the person you'd encounter if you met me. Words I say are not any more authentic than words I type.

Every now and then, however, I encounter online behavior that really makes me question the dichotomy of our actual selves and our online selves. The NRCC aide who posted home addresses for a Democratic candidates staff on Twitter, for example. Would this man have gone on Television and announced the home addresses of these other staffers? Would he have shouted them out at a rally? Furthermore, is such irresponsible behavior the product of the internet's illusion of anonymity or is this a reflection of the aide's true nature? Some politicians don't seem to have this problem. Vice President Biden, for example, surely is more likely to exercise restraint when he writes something online, (perhaps giving him the chance to consider if "big fucking deal" is really the descriptive phrase most appropriate.) I have no doubt that Sarah Palin's speaking style lends itself well to the 140-character limit and fluid spelling laws of Twitter, which is why her tweets sound (marginally) more coherent than anything she's ever said in an unscripted TV interview. If I could not hide behind the screen of my laptop, or easily revise my words, would my letters to you be different?

At the end of the day I don't think it matters if one version of me is more real than the other. So much of our interaction now takes place or relates to the internet that whatever distortion of personality or character it may create is irrelevant. I am accountable for my actions, just like the men I meet online or the friends I chat with online or the politicians who campaign online. While your campaign may have successfully used the internet as a means to connect with a younger generation of voters, that no longer seems to be the case. You once posted on DailyKos, your campaign's organizing efforts were legitimately grassroots and unique. Now it seems like the same generic intern-composed junk mail in my inbox day in and day out. It seems like you've cut out the blogging community and limited e-mail communication to re-worked versions of the same request for money. The authenticity is lacking, not because it's the internet, but because the efforts are stilted and hollow. Once, you seemed to understand the power of connecting with the voters through any media. You can reach so many voters online if you're willing to expend the same kind of personal energy that you do in campaign speeches or town hall meetings that reach only those lucky enough to live in a targeted area. Other members of your administration seem to be using the internet as an effective means of communicating with Americans; I hope that you reconsider your own efforts to ease the enthusiasm gap on the left in time for the election. A little sincerity could go a long way.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Monday, September 6, 2010

Day 249-Third party

Dear Mr. President,

In Arizona, a Republican candidate has taken to recruiting homeless men to run as Green Party candidates in hopes they will attract votes away from the Democrats they run against. This seems to be pretty low, even for the GOP. I'm generally in favor of third-party candidates, but not when it requires the exploitation of vulnerable populations. If these homeless men really wanted to run for office as members of the Green Party then I have no cause for objection to this and neither does any one else. Somehow I doubt that the anti-tax candidate for State Senate who calles himself "Grandpa" and thinks we should have more God in the public school system is really emblematic of the Green Party platform.

I think what bothers me the most about this is that it plays on the ignorance of voters who see "Green Party" and look no further at a candidate's qualifications or policy positions. That this ploy might be successful undermines my faith in the voters (even in the State of Arizona,) and makes me even less hopeful for a unified and politically capable alternative to Democrats on the left. (I confess, I've long hoped that a viable third party might emerge, if only to make my conscience a little lighter on election day.)

Instead we get candidates like Goodspaceguy, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. I know that as the standard-bearer of the Democratic party, you have no obligation to worry about or cultivate a serious third party alternative, especially one that would take away voters on the left. But it is in your interest to protect yourself and other Democrats from a damaging third-party challenge, and the day will come when more serious candidates than Perot or even Goodpaceguy will emerge. Unifying the liberal base of the Democratic party can only be done by allowing us to be represented in the party's mainstream. Until that happens, tricks like the one in Arizona will continue to be effective. Not because the left is stupid and uninformed, but because we are so tired of voting for the cowardly centrists who lay claim to our loyalty on the mere basis of being the lesser of two evils. Real progressive candidates with serious credentials and gravitas will make their way onto the ballot one way or another, Mr. President; Democrats need to decide now if, when that day comes, they'll be the ones running them, or if they'll be stuck running against them.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Day 248- 10.2.2010

Dear Mr. President,

We on the left aren't usually content to be outdone by Glenn Beck, especially now that he fancies himself a Televangelist. So progressives are having their own march on Washington. I hope that the One Nation march manages to generate the excitement many progressives will need to show up on election day. It isn't an enthusiastic or well-organized Republican base that worries me, it is the return to apathy that many on the left had been quick to make once holding your administration to its promises got hard. Will a unity rally in DC make it all better? I suppose it probably can't make things worse.

But an election shouldn't have to have the hype of a music festival to get people to turn up for it. Voting should be something every American does out of a sense of their own responsibility to participate in our democracy. I suppose this is why I get so irritated at the patronizing OFA e-mails asking me to pledge that I will vote. I vote because it is in my interest to do so and I don't need a flashy patronizing campaign to convince me to do it. I have many friends who feel differently. Several didn't vote in 2008 and, when I reacted to this information with my characteristic tactlessness, they grew quite defensive. One even tried to convince me that voting was playing into the hands of those in power. I guess OFA might have their work cut out for them.

I think if you want to turn people out on election day you've got to prove to them that their vote actually matters. No amount of youtube videos or t-shirts or clever campaign slogans will energize voters like evidence that they are actually being listend to would. Have one honest and unscripted conversation with the American people and watch how quickly they show up to tell you what they think of it. Talk to us like we're informed adults and maybe we'll start voting like it.

Tonight on CNN I saw a headline that stopped my heart for a moment. "Peace Corps Volunteer killed in Africa" it read. And for the eternity it took the full story to load and inform me the tragedy took place in Lesotho and not where my best friend is serving, I could do nothing but worry. Once it was cleared up, I got angry. Would you see a similar headline for Asia or Europe or North America? No! Had the victim died on any other continent, the headline likely would have specified a country. This may be due to the fact that CNN assumes its audience has no idea where Lesotho is. Whenever I see the media, or a campaign, dumbing things down to a level it anticipates its readers to be more comfortable with, I feel offended. Expect us to know where Lesotho is, and we will learn. Expect us to understand the complexity of your policies and we will. Expect us to vote because it is our responsibility as Americans and we will vote. Stop treating Americans like we are only as good as our worst tendencies.

I hope that the One Nation rally is a success. I hope that the midterms are somewhat less of a tragedy than expected. Most of all, I hope you find a way to speak to the American people the way you used to. It's the only way you'll ever inspire the kind of support you'll need to win re-election.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Day 247- Hunger Games

Dear Mr. President,

The last two days I've been completely taken in by a work of fiction in that all-consuming way that still manges to surprise me when it comes in the form of a young adult novel. The Hunger Games series, by Suzanne Collins has had me reading by lamplight far past my bedtime and trying to shut out any nonfictional news of the real world. I had been mostly successful but, alas, enough reality has crept in that I'm aware something terrible must have happened to my college football team. (Thanks, Facebook.) Once my joyful shelter of fiction had been cracked I gave in and read the news.

Frank Rich's column on Iraq was maybe the wrong thing to read after nearly two full days engulfed in a world where the class divide is so extreme the rich and powerful force the poor to offer up their children to fight each other to the death to keep the rest of the population entertained or afraid. Several days ago I wrote to you about the end of the war in Iraq and an old friend responded angrily. He told me something that I had not known; a mutual friend who served in Iraq during the wars early years was in fact being redeployed there. The war, he was saying, is not over. Our friends are still being taken from us. I feel like Frank Rich was sending you a similar message.

I'll own that at first I was stung, stunned, unsure what to call what I felt. Was I angry? At myself for being naive? At you for being misleading? At my friend for pointing it out? I felt something close to guilt, as well, as though my eagerness to take you at your word was the reason that our friend was being sent back. Both friends are, for various and complicated reasons, people I have valued and cared for from afar, keeping their generous natures as far from me as my arms can manage. Perhaps my guilty conscience had more to do with the distance I have forced us to maintain, then, and not related to the war at all. I haven't been particularly close to any other soldiers; perhaps it is the personal cost I manage to keep abstract most of the time. I don't have to be particularly close to any of the men and women serving in Iraq or Afghanistan to feel like I know them. They could be my sisters or my nephew, my cousins or my friends and neighbors. They're someone's children, and they're sent off to kill or to be killed by someone else's children. What do we have to show for it? Two countries full of grieving parents and a number of very wealthy military contractors. I think, Mr. President, that my earlier letter to you was wrong.

Frank Rich and my friend from long ago got it right while I missed the point. You haven't ended the war, you have changed the name. The war will end when the mentality and values system that sent us to war in the first place change. I don't blame you, Sir. You were one of the earliest and most eloquent opponents of the war. When its command passed to you I am sure that necessity required you to compromise some of your more abstract positions. But the war was never an abstraction or a policy position to the people suffering in it. The half of me that feels angry would like to personally track down Cheney and Rumsfeld and John Bolton and all the other neocon architects of this conflict and ask them if they've had their fill of entertainment. The half of me that feels guilty wonders how much my own fear and its resulting inaction is to blame and how much yours is. Tonight, as I think of all the lives we've lost, all that we have irreparably destroyed, I know that there can be no escaping it with a new name or even a convincing work of fiction.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Friday, September 3, 2010

Day 246- Labor Day

Dear Mr. President,

Thanks for declaring Monday Labor Day. I know you didn't make up the Holiday, and the Presidential Proclamation is almost entirely ceremonial. But thank you. You might think that, as a member of America's workforce, I appreciate the holiday you've proclaimed for us. I guess the part of me that values symbolism and whimsy does, sort of. The rest of me just remembers that this is pushing back payday an extra 24 hours since the payroll department and the bank all have a day off. Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge my cubicle-bound brethren their 3-day weekend; just because I am a part-time employee and not qualified for a paid holiday doesn't mean every one else shouldn't have a special weekend. My real problem with Labor Day is that it reminds me how truly sad the current state of the American worker actually is.

A study conducted in 2007 found that the US is the only country out of the top 21 richest that does not require by law paid vacation time for workers.
As a result, 1 in 4 U.S. workers do not receive any paid vacation or paid holidays. The lack of paid vacation and paid holidays in the U.S. is particularly acute for lower-wage and part-time workers, and for employees of small businesses.
I'm not an expert or anything, but if we all had paid time off, wouldn't we have more time to stay healthy, recover from illness or injury, connect with our families, raise our children, travel, shop, learn, and be creative? I think most people need more of most of those things in their lives and our society would definitely benefit from more of these activities. Also, if workers were mandated paid time off, more workers would be needed to do the same amount of work and wouldn't that lower unemployment?

I do understand that if the Federal Government can't secure health insurance for every American worker, paid time off might be a fantastic stretch of the imagination. While I have had jobs with paid vacations, this was a benefit only applicable to select "full-time" employees, even when many designated "part-time" worked as many or more hours. Starbucks is the notable exception to this and I think their entire benefit package for part-time workers is truly one of the most commendable examples from an American company of its size. I think that Starbucks grasps something that more companies might benefit from understanding: employees are often the best customers. Keeping employees healthy and sane and comfortable benefits the employer, and it benefits society as a whole.

Maybe it's just my resentment at not getting a three day weekend. Maybe asking for paid time off is unforgivably socialist of me in a time when you're getting called much worse for doing far less. I am grateful for the victories secured by workers of this country and they are worth remembering. But, in a time when the desperation and fear of so many workers just barely scraping by is exploited to increase the profit margins and bonuses of the rich executives, when so many of us lack health insurance or even paid sick time and are constantly told to just feel lucky we have jobs at all, maybe asking us to celebrate on Monday is asking too much.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Day 245-Pumpkin chocolate-chip cookies




Dear Mr. President,

The night of the 2008 election, after my best friend shattered two glasses full of beer toasting too enthusiastically with the man who would, months later, become her boyfriend but before we joined the gleeful crowd of celebrating Seattlites in the 6-mile walk to Capitol hill, we went into a 24-hour QFC. We were there to take pictures with the arugula and to send them to every McCain supporter we knew. While there, Chev found pumpkin-chocolate chip cookies in the bakery section. To me, those cookies have tasted like election night ever since. They're only a seasonal offering at the bakery and these days they don't ever seem to be made properly, so I've developed my own recipe for whenever I need to remember that feeling.

Buying pumpkin outside of fall is an inexplicably difficult thing to do. Strawberries from New Zealand that taste like nothing can be purchased in December and yet canned pumpkin is a "seasonal" item at most grocery stores. Sometimes I really don't get our national food system. Anyway, I managed to find some and so I've been making pumpkin desserts for weeks now. I'm making them tonight, the memories they inspire lifting my spirits and making me miss my best friend more than ever. Also the fact that I can manage to smell cloves and cinnamon means my cold probably isn't going to kill me before it goes away.

I'm baking because I'm worried. Not about dying from a cold (because that would be silly, right?) but about the oil rig explosion, the poll showing that Dino Rossi has a pretty good chance at being the next Washington State junior senator, and the fragile peace talks between Abbas and Netanyahu. I'm worried and so I'm baking. I'm blending spices and chopping up chocolate and making a huge mess with my Kitchen Aid mixer. It's great. I have taken all of my anxiety over things I can't control and I'm making something that will make my writers group tonight a little sweeter. It isn't fixing anything, but sometimes keeping calm is the most I can ask of myself. My kitchen smells like election night tastes. Nothing against QFC, but I think that this version might be even better, actually. I'm not giving up on Patty Murray or on keeping the House or on keeping the White House in 2012. Winning just tastes too good.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Yes we can! Pumpkin Chocolate-Chip Cookies

Adapted from allrecipes.

Ingredients

2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon baking powder
1 teaspoon baking soda
2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon ground nutmeg
1 teaspoon ground cloves
1 teaspoon ground ginger
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 cup butter, softened
1 cup white sugar
1/4 cup maple syrup
1 can pumpkin puree (15 oz)
1 egg
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
8-12oz chocolate chips or chopped very dark chocolate

Preheat oven to 350. Sift together flour, baking powder, baking soda, cinnamon, nutmeg, ground cloves, ginger and salt; set aside.
In a mixer, cream together the 1/2 cup of butter, maple syrup and sugar. Add pumpkin, egg, and 1 teaspoon vanilla to butter mixture, and beat until creamy. Mix in dry ingredients and then add chocolate.
Bake for 15 to 20 minutes.