Dear Mr. President,
I should probably preface this letter with a warning; I haven't slept much at all this week, finals are making me crazy, and I'm currently getting my kicks by deliberately misleading the rude customers who keep approaching me in the cafe and treating me like I work here. (Ok, I do work here. But they don't know that. I'm just trying to study and drink coffee in peace. I am not a directory.) I'm a little off today, and more than a little sick of most of the human race. Perhaps it is this black humor that has me so enjoying the latest Daily Show segment on your approval rating of the American people.
That's right. Your rating of us. Right now it has to be pretty low. We're capricious, apathetic, lazy (physically and intellectually) we want you to do everything and we don't want to have to pay for any of it. Also, we're all right, all of the time. Even when we disagree with each other (and ours past or future selves.) While Jon Stewart & crew's point seems to be about public whims over health care and taxes, I read an op-ed today from Roger Cohen that says basically the same thing about foreign policy. "President Barack Obama had virtually no domestic constituency for his attempt to denounce the continued growth of settlements as unacceptable and as undermining a two-state peace at its core: land."
While I do think that some of the blame belongs to you and probably even more belongs to congress, I'm a big fan of the blame-the-voters-for-being-idiots strategy, too. And not just because they keep confusing the cafe counter with the information desk and being rude about it to boot. Because our economy couldn't possibly be this bad, our military this extended into wars this ridiculous, our jails this full and our reality TV shows this popular if a significant part of the population wasn't quite so dumb. (Before my libertarian friends get all upset, I know there are "good liberals" in the stupid category as well. I've met them. One of them called me a fucking zionist whore in comments on this blog.) So, yes, it's our fault, too. You probably shouldn't take our opinions or our approval too seriously, since clearly we don't know what the hell we're doing. We can't even distinguish a counter full of people eating and drinking coffee from a staffed information desk.
Ok, this letter has clearly veered far enough outside of seriousness for me to go back to studying. I guess what I mean to say is don't let the stupidity, the caprice, the apathy and the ignorance get you down. It could be worse; you could be working retail.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label Bad jokes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bad jokes. Show all posts
Friday, December 10, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Day 334- The perfect storm
Dear Mr. President,
Call me crazy, but I suspect that most Americans would pay a few cents more for food if it decreases the likelihood that that food doesn't have e. coli, salmonella, or any number of potentially deadly food-borne contaminants. Personally, I'm willing to pay quite a bit more for food that (besides being generally non-toxic) is also produced with as little harm to living things and to the environment as possible. (I know, I know, that's just mind-blowingly leftist of me to say.) So when congress passed the Food Safety Act today (and you applauded them for it) I figured that this would cause little excitement from the right. Turns out I'm not getting any less naive with age, because Glenn Beck called this "criminal" and suggested that "the perfect storm" is upon us and it's time to "close the bunker door."
I have to say, as much as I appreciate Mr. Beck for giving Jon Stewart something funny to do most nights, I'm really underwhelmed by his sustained hysteria. Food safety? REALLY, Mr. Beck? REALLY? The problem, of course, is that no matter how little credibility I may believe Mr. Beck has, people do take him seriously. Lots of people. People I can't dismiss out of hand because some of them are surely related to me, and all of them probably have loved ones who think they are rational enough human beings. And when Mr. Beck uses words like "criminal" and implies that a relatively modest expansion of government oversight for massive national industries that people trust with their health, (and the health of their children,) is tantamount to a natural disaster, well, people who take him seriously are going to get upset.
Mr. Beck's language implies physical, immediate danger. Storms don't think or reason; they destroy. Storms wreak senseless havoc. Instead of engaging in honest discussion about the role of government in agriculture and food production, Mr. Beck wants his audience to panic, to react with fear and instinct and emotion. Because escaping a storm isn't about reasonable discourse it's about survival; it justifies all kinds of conduct that would not otherwise be acceptable.
I think one of the fundamental divides in this country is between those of us who are willing to turn something as benign as a food safety bill (or really any political disagreement) into a harbinger of the apocalypse, and those of us who are committed to more reasonable, saner discussion of the issues. I think that you fall into the latter category, which is why I respect you and, unfortunately, also probably why you "lose" many of the contrived news-cycle battles with the ever-hysterical right. I'm glad that you don't sink to that level, and I like to think that winning re-election won't require it of you.
Then again, I've already demonstrated a really unhealthy amount of naive good faith in people, so maybe you should break out the end days language and start invoking life-or-death stakes for every legislative battle you face. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. The perfect storm is upon us.
Or something.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Call me crazy, but I suspect that most Americans would pay a few cents more for food if it decreases the likelihood that that food doesn't have e. coli, salmonella, or any number of potentially deadly food-borne contaminants. Personally, I'm willing to pay quite a bit more for food that (besides being generally non-toxic) is also produced with as little harm to living things and to the environment as possible. (I know, I know, that's just mind-blowingly leftist of me to say.) So when congress passed the Food Safety Act today (and you applauded them for it) I figured that this would cause little excitement from the right. Turns out I'm not getting any less naive with age, because Glenn Beck called this "criminal" and suggested that "the perfect storm" is upon us and it's time to "close the bunker door."
I have to say, as much as I appreciate Mr. Beck for giving Jon Stewart something funny to do most nights, I'm really underwhelmed by his sustained hysteria. Food safety? REALLY, Mr. Beck? REALLY? The problem, of course, is that no matter how little credibility I may believe Mr. Beck has, people do take him seriously. Lots of people. People I can't dismiss out of hand because some of them are surely related to me, and all of them probably have loved ones who think they are rational enough human beings. And when Mr. Beck uses words like "criminal" and implies that a relatively modest expansion of government oversight for massive national industries that people trust with their health, (and the health of their children,) is tantamount to a natural disaster, well, people who take him seriously are going to get upset.
Mr. Beck's language implies physical, immediate danger. Storms don't think or reason; they destroy. Storms wreak senseless havoc. Instead of engaging in honest discussion about the role of government in agriculture and food production, Mr. Beck wants his audience to panic, to react with fear and instinct and emotion. Because escaping a storm isn't about reasonable discourse it's about survival; it justifies all kinds of conduct that would not otherwise be acceptable.
I think one of the fundamental divides in this country is between those of us who are willing to turn something as benign as a food safety bill (or really any political disagreement) into a harbinger of the apocalypse, and those of us who are committed to more reasonable, saner discussion of the issues. I think that you fall into the latter category, which is why I respect you and, unfortunately, also probably why you "lose" many of the contrived news-cycle battles with the ever-hysterical right. I'm glad that you don't sink to that level, and I like to think that winning re-election won't require it of you.
Then again, I've already demonstrated a really unhealthy amount of naive good faith in people, so maybe you should break out the end days language and start invoking life-or-death stakes for every legislative battle you face. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. The perfect storm is upon us.
Or something.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Day 328- On Turkeys
Dear Mr. President,
Today you pardoned Apple and Cider, two turkeys who will be spared the Thanksgiving slaughter. Unlike most of the turkeys Americans will eat on Thanksgiving, these two were raised on a ranch with plenty of space to run around, and they'll spend the rest of their days in a petting zoo. But their less-fortunate, factory farmed, destined for dinner brethren aside, there is another glaring irony here. In your time as President you have pardoned 4 turkeys and exactly 0 humans. My vegetarian sensibilities about the relative value of human and animal life aside, I think this is a pretty embarrassing statistic.
While I appreciate the spirit and the levity of the traditional turkey pardoning, I would hope that, in the other 364 days a year you get to issue pardons, that you consider some of the many, many worthy human candidates. They may not be heading off to dinner, but many languishing behind bars in the American prison system are subject to unfair sentencing minimums, deplorable, dangerous conditions and are prevented from turning their lives around into something positive. I think that today ought to remind you of them.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Day 325- Murder and Masculinity
So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our families can sleep safely at night?
Dear Mr. President,
I hope that you have not heard of Bryan Fischer, the moronic right-wing blogger for the American Family Association, but if you have, I'm sure you also heard about his recent lament about "the feminization of the Medal of Honor." Fischer, while acknowledging the heroism of Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta, cites Giunta's life-saving efforts as proof that we just don't reward killing the way we used to. While I, rather predictably, think this man is out of his mind, I was particularly surprised to see the comments on his original post. Without exception, the responses were negative, ranging from "I'll pray that you stop being such an ignorant person" to "You are actually evil and I hate you." A few even acknowledged the near-uniform blowback, pointing out that rage at Bryan Fischer is the most united the right and the left have been since 9/11. Fischer attempted to clarify his remarks (twice, actually) and seemed to genuinely believe that no one who actually understood what he was saying would be offended. But in all three posts, rewarding life-saving action (or not rewarding aggressive action,) was described as feminine.
The implication that killing is masculine and aversion to killing is feminine is really fine by me. As a woman, I have no problem with the heroic actions of (or the decision to honor) Staff Sgt. Giunta being described as feminine. However, it seems problematic to so closely link masculinity with the taking of life or the celebration of the taking of life. For one thing, most men in America would not qualify as "masculine" under this definition. Most men I know haven't killed any one and don't generally wish to see more of it. Perhaps I surround myself with especially effeminate men? I think some of my loss-prevention colleagues might object to this. I know a number of people (male and female) with really incredible numbers of killed aliens, zombies and other video-game creatures, but I don't know that most of them would meet Fischer's idea of traditional masculinity. Defining masculinity this way just makes it so much harder to feel manly in a world that increasingly frowns upon killing.
I'm not Christian, so when Fischer cites scripture as evidence that Jesus, even in crucifixion, was actually aggressively killing the forces of evil, I really don't have any basis to object. (Though I'm sure my Christian friends could probably find some problems with this argument.) My objection comes at the comparison of Christ vanquishing the forces of evil with US soldiers killing Afghan soldiers. Especially in light of a recent study demonstrating a vast majority of Afghans don't know about 9/11 or America's use of it as justification for war against the Taliban. We've been fighting for nine years against an enemy that has no idea why we invaded their country and killed so many innocent civilians. I just don't quite see the decision to take up arms against an invading army (especially when you have absolutely no idea why they are invading) as equal to the Dark Forces of Evil and Sin.
Which isn't to say I think we should do a better job of explaining to people why we're going to kill them before we kill them, but that maybe, just maybe, killing isn't the most effective way to keep ourselves safe. Maybe we're not only fighting the wrong enemy but fighting it the wrong way. I don't see there being all that much glory in the killing of some of the poorest and least-educated people on the planet by the most fearsome, best-quipped military on the planet. It certainly doesn't seem all that manly. And my family, for one, doesn't sleep any easier knowing it's being done. Would it be too feminine to suggest that maybe building schools and infrastructure and economic development might not have been a more effective way to make the world a little safer? I don't get to make these decisions, and neither do the men and women that you send to do all of the killing and dying that Fischer and his ilk see as so manly and Christlike. In that situation, doing your best to keep your fellow soldiers from getting killed certainly seems like an act of (completely gender-neutral) heroism. So I'll sleep tonight, grateful to Giunta and all of the other soldiers trying to protect their fellows in battle, because any one working for less death and destruction is pretty badass, in my humble opinion. I'll be content with the knowledge that most Christians (at least the ones commenting on the AFA website) think that Fischer is full of it. And I will wish for the promotion American concept masculinity based not on the destruction of life but the protection of it.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Day 307- It's called a break-up because it's broken
Dear Mr. President,
So this morning my promised renewal of hope and optimism in the face of setbacks has not emerged. It could be that the demands of my school schedule this week have made "morning" a purely sunlight-relative term with little correlation to actual sleep. It could be the lingering questions as ballots are slowly processed in my home state. It could be denial, a malaise delaying the inevitable grief I can't yet allow myself to feel the full force of. I did like your speech today, and I thought you made several important points about the need to fundamentally change parts of our governing system.
I'm sure I won't be the first, last or most important person to say this, but I don't think this election means you should back down. Your agenda shouldn't change, shouldn't be compromised and should not be tempered. (Which is not say that compromise won't eventually be necessary.) Democrats should not give up on comprehensive energy, immigration, campaign finance and tax reform. For one thing, conceding too much at this point will only further weaken our positions once legislative battles really get underway. For another thing, i still think we're right; our policies are better, and our plan for America is the best one. Refusing to compromise our fundamental values is the only way to ensure that losing the house doesn't translate into losing the White House. This isn't to say that we shouldn't work with the Republican leadership, only that we should not be meek about demonstrating our goals and ideals to the American people.
A friend compared the way we feel this morning to the way we feel after a bad breakup. I think his metaphor is an apt one. After a break-up, you may re-examine your choices and your mistakes in the course of a relationship, but you don't change your identity in hopes that you won't get dumped again. Democrats need to work on our communication skills, our self-confidence, our willingness to assert ourselves. We might need to lose 5 lbs and reconsider our highlight strategy. Our wardrobe could probably use an update. But we do not change who we are, fundamentally. The things we believe, the things we value, all of the things that make us different from the opposition, those should not change. In the meantime, if you want to stay in bed and watch soap operas while eating chocolate ice cream in your pajamas for a day or so, well, you do whatever it takes to get through this. I know I will.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
So this morning my promised renewal of hope and optimism in the face of setbacks has not emerged. It could be that the demands of my school schedule this week have made "morning" a purely sunlight-relative term with little correlation to actual sleep. It could be the lingering questions as ballots are slowly processed in my home state. It could be denial, a malaise delaying the inevitable grief I can't yet allow myself to feel the full force of. I did like your speech today, and I thought you made several important points about the need to fundamentally change parts of our governing system.
I'm sure I won't be the first, last or most important person to say this, but I don't think this election means you should back down. Your agenda shouldn't change, shouldn't be compromised and should not be tempered. (Which is not say that compromise won't eventually be necessary.) Democrats should not give up on comprehensive energy, immigration, campaign finance and tax reform. For one thing, conceding too much at this point will only further weaken our positions once legislative battles really get underway. For another thing, i still think we're right; our policies are better, and our plan for America is the best one. Refusing to compromise our fundamental values is the only way to ensure that losing the house doesn't translate into losing the White House. This isn't to say that we shouldn't work with the Republican leadership, only that we should not be meek about demonstrating our goals and ideals to the American people.
A friend compared the way we feel this morning to the way we feel after a bad breakup. I think his metaphor is an apt one. After a break-up, you may re-examine your choices and your mistakes in the course of a relationship, but you don't change your identity in hopes that you won't get dumped again. Democrats need to work on our communication skills, our self-confidence, our willingness to assert ourselves. We might need to lose 5 lbs and reconsider our highlight strategy. Our wardrobe could probably use an update. But we do not change who we are, fundamentally. The things we believe, the things we value, all of the things that make us different from the opposition, those should not change. In the meantime, if you want to stay in bed and watch soap operas while eating chocolate ice cream in your pajamas for a day or so, well, you do whatever it takes to get through this. I know I will.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, November 1, 2010
Day 305-Man up for Midterms
Dear Mr. President,
I think if I read one more poll I will actually lose my mind. Whatever happens tomorrow is set in motion, and sadly I'm swamped with an entirely different kind of midterms. I can't read any more analysis. I can't consider any more predictions. If another Dino Rossi pop-up ad starts talking to me while I post this entry I will scream.
We're all going to get out of bed on Wednesday and go to work or school or breakfast. We will get through tomorrow and we will live with the outcome, no matter what. Or, at least, this is what I'm telling myself. Because Nate Silver might love numbers and polls and hypotheticals but he's making me crazy tonight. And the Huffington Post might be obsessed with absurd weather/natural disaster metaphors, but it won't do any good at this point. The most I can hope for tomorrow, is what my friend Ralph reminded me of earlier: that CNN has hologram people. Because an election night without hologram people on CNN is just not enough for me any more.
Seriously though, I've got essays to write and very little sleep in my near future or recent past. If any one who reads this hasn't voted yet, do so. (Also, why are you reading a political blog if you don't vote?) If you want my suggestions on who to vote for in Washington State, if you're in any way ambivalent about the Senate race, or if you actually don't care, please vote for Patty Murray. She's excellent, and Dino Rossi eats puppies and cheats on his taxes. If you're reading from out of state, I'm sorry you don't live somewhere cool enough to have mail-in elections, but don't let the weather, the lines at the polls, the annoying political ads, errands or apathy stop you from voting. Man up, America, and get out that vote.
Mr. President, I hope that we both survive our respective midterms tomorrow without too much of the suffering every one seems to be anticipating. Wednesday will come for all of us, and I think we'll probably make it there in one piece.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I think if I read one more poll I will actually lose my mind. Whatever happens tomorrow is set in motion, and sadly I'm swamped with an entirely different kind of midterms. I can't read any more analysis. I can't consider any more predictions. If another Dino Rossi pop-up ad starts talking to me while I post this entry I will scream.
We're all going to get out of bed on Wednesday and go to work or school or breakfast. We will get through tomorrow and we will live with the outcome, no matter what. Or, at least, this is what I'm telling myself. Because Nate Silver might love numbers and polls and hypotheticals but he's making me crazy tonight. And the Huffington Post might be obsessed with absurd weather/natural disaster metaphors, but it won't do any good at this point. The most I can hope for tomorrow, is what my friend Ralph reminded me of earlier: that CNN has hologram people. Because an election night without hologram people on CNN is just not enough for me any more.
Seriously though, I've got essays to write and very little sleep in my near future or recent past. If any one who reads this hasn't voted yet, do so. (Also, why are you reading a political blog if you don't vote?) If you want my suggestions on who to vote for in Washington State, if you're in any way ambivalent about the Senate race, or if you actually don't care, please vote for Patty Murray. She's excellent, and Dino Rossi eats puppies and cheats on his taxes. If you're reading from out of state, I'm sorry you don't live somewhere cool enough to have mail-in elections, but don't let the weather, the lines at the polls, the annoying political ads, errands or apathy stop you from voting. Man up, America, and get out that vote.
Mr. President, I hope that we both survive our respective midterms tomorrow without too much of the suffering every one seems to be anticipating. Wednesday will come for all of us, and I think we'll probably make it there in one piece.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Day 292- Superheroes and soup
Dear Mr. President,
Growing up I often wished I could be Catwoman. The fact that she's kind of a villain never bothered me. She was a cat. That was cool enough. I'm still mad that my mother wouldn't let me go see Bat,am Returns. (Never mind that I was 6 at the time and probably would have had nightmares. Totally irrelevant. That's right, mom, I know you're reading this.) I certainly can't claim the same level of childhood fascination with superhero mythology that most of my friends can, but I have a healthy enough appreciation for the world of superheroes that I was pleased to see the Islamic world is sending us 99 more. I was even happier to see you recognize this effort to present an alternative face of Islam to youth of this country and, perhaps just as importantly, to Islamic youth.
Predictably, the racist, bigoted radical right has problems with this. Lots of problems. Hilarious amounts of problems. So many problems that Muslim superheroes are now a bigger threat than Campbell's soup. Can Pam Geller, Robert Spencer and all of their ilk just give up the charade and admit that they don't like Islam in any form? Because superheroes and soup are pretty harmless things to start with, and making them halal isn't going to lead to the Islamic Republic of America. My favorite quote of all this hysteria is from Carol A Taber, president of Family Security Matters who says
Hilarious. The level of backlash to these 99 superheroes (each named for one of the 99 attributes of God,) and the dogged insistance by the right that you are advancing a radical Islamic agenda would be funnier if it wasn't so catching among voters of a certain political persuasion. Because people who believe that you're helping the terrorists or that you're a secret Muslim or that Campbell's soup supports Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood unfortunately are just as good (and sometimes better) at making it to the polls on election day as those of us who know this is all absurd, and that is frightening. I don't know how to change their minds, I don't know how to talk to them, I don't know what the answer is for dealing with people like that. I like to think charitably, that every one is generally reasonable and good and trying to do the right thing. And then I read the news.
How do you maintain your faith in the American people when faced with the overwhelming influence of people like Taber and Geller and Spencer and Beck? Have you kept that faith intact these last two years?
If you have, I think the only rational explanation is that you must have some kind of superpower yourself.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Growing up I often wished I could be Catwoman. The fact that she's kind of a villain never bothered me. She was a cat. That was cool enough. I'm still mad that my mother wouldn't let me go see Bat,am Returns. (Never mind that I was 6 at the time and probably would have had nightmares. Totally irrelevant. That's right, mom, I know you're reading this.) I certainly can't claim the same level of childhood fascination with superhero mythology that most of my friends can, but I have a healthy enough appreciation for the world of superheroes that I was pleased to see the Islamic world is sending us 99 more. I was even happier to see you recognize this effort to present an alternative face of Islam to youth of this country and, perhaps just as importantly, to Islamic youth.
Predictably, the racist, bigoted radical right has problems with this. Lots of problems. Hilarious amounts of problems. So many problems that Muslim superheroes are now a bigger threat than Campbell's soup. Can Pam Geller, Robert Spencer and all of their ilk just give up the charade and admit that they don't like Islam in any form? Because superheroes and soup are pretty harmless things to start with, and making them halal isn't going to lead to the Islamic Republic of America. My favorite quote of all this hysteria is from Carol A Taber, president of Family Security Matters who says
It was Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Bolshevik party, who said, "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." The election of our dhimmi president guaranteed the forces of radical Islam at least four years to sow their seeds
Hilarious. The level of backlash to these 99 superheroes (each named for one of the 99 attributes of God,) and the dogged insistance by the right that you are advancing a radical Islamic agenda would be funnier if it wasn't so catching among voters of a certain political persuasion. Because people who believe that you're helping the terrorists or that you're a secret Muslim or that Campbell's soup supports Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood unfortunately are just as good (and sometimes better) at making it to the polls on election day as those of us who know this is all absurd, and that is frightening. I don't know how to change their minds, I don't know how to talk to them, I don't know what the answer is for dealing with people like that. I like to think charitably, that every one is generally reasonable and good and trying to do the right thing. And then I read the news.
How do you maintain your faith in the American people when faced with the overwhelming influence of people like Taber and Geller and Spencer and Beck? Have you kept that faith intact these last two years?
If you have, I think the only rational explanation is that you must have some kind of superpower yourself.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Day 289- A bit late
Dear Mr. President,
It's much later than I usually post my letter to you. Since it won't, at all, affect the time you receive the letter, I'm sure this will go unnoticed. I like to think my excuse- I was playing my oft-repeated role as Designated Driver for a few friends who'd had way too much to drink- is worthy enough that those who do read this online won't judge me for missing midnight by several hours. I spent the evening around people I care about, people I respect, people who have achieved the kind of goals in life I'm supposed to be setting for myself- graduate degrees, successful careers, marriage, family- and found very little to make me want any of it. Through it all I felt incredibly out of place, unable to relate to the things that make them happy or even the things they find important. By the end of the night, as I was attempting to herd drunk friend into safe modes of transportation and get them home, I'd been thinking a lot about the midterms.
I started the night out with a clear agenda, an ambitious idea of how the night would go and what was important to me. l was quickly forced to compromise. The conflicting agendas of others, the logistical complications, the whole evening began to feel a lot like I've always imagined negotiating a piece of legislation through congress would feel. By the time I was struggling with drunk friends to keep them safe and get them home, I felt like I was fighting the forces of gravity just to hold my sanity together. Forget about my agenda; it had been lost for hours. Not to belittle the complexity of your current political situation, by comparing to to a bunch of drunk kids at a bar, or anything. You're a big fan of the responsible-driver vs. the republicans metaphor, and tonight i regretted ever cynically complaining about how overused that particular fable has become in your stump speech. The whole country handed you the keys and said they were just going to have a couple beers. You look around now and every one is screaming about marxism and your birth certificate and Obamacare and you have to wonder why you agreed to stay sober in the first place. No one will listen to you, or take your advice, or let you just fix things the way you want to. Even when inebriated, we Americans tend to be pretty protective of the idea of our own superior judgement as individuals.
I don't imagine that I've done anything more tonight than found a small my-life-sized analogy to the massive problems and struggles you face. But I think you're making the right call. Because, for a moment, I leaned back against my friend's car to appreciate the stars, and thought about the absurdity of it all. I almost laughed, because the night had already gotten so far away from funny that there was nothing else to do. I don't know if it helped me at all, but I can say that at least no one got hurt, and at least every one got to a safe place to sleep. You may have had the most tedious night of your life and be surrounded on all sides by fellow Democrats stumbling and senseless with the fear of the whims of a capricious public, but you're still criss-crossing the campaign trail, making your case, recognizing that even if you can't keep your agenda you can at least get every one home in one piece.
It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it. Tonight, I am immensely grateful that it's you and not me.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
It's much later than I usually post my letter to you. Since it won't, at all, affect the time you receive the letter, I'm sure this will go unnoticed. I like to think my excuse- I was playing my oft-repeated role as Designated Driver for a few friends who'd had way too much to drink- is worthy enough that those who do read this online won't judge me for missing midnight by several hours. I spent the evening around people I care about, people I respect, people who have achieved the kind of goals in life I'm supposed to be setting for myself- graduate degrees, successful careers, marriage, family- and found very little to make me want any of it. Through it all I felt incredibly out of place, unable to relate to the things that make them happy or even the things they find important. By the end of the night, as I was attempting to herd drunk friend into safe modes of transportation and get them home, I'd been thinking a lot about the midterms.
I started the night out with a clear agenda, an ambitious idea of how the night would go and what was important to me. l was quickly forced to compromise. The conflicting agendas of others, the logistical complications, the whole evening began to feel a lot like I've always imagined negotiating a piece of legislation through congress would feel. By the time I was struggling with drunk friends to keep them safe and get them home, I felt like I was fighting the forces of gravity just to hold my sanity together. Forget about my agenda; it had been lost for hours. Not to belittle the complexity of your current political situation, by comparing to to a bunch of drunk kids at a bar, or anything. You're a big fan of the responsible-driver vs. the republicans metaphor, and tonight i regretted ever cynically complaining about how overused that particular fable has become in your stump speech. The whole country handed you the keys and said they were just going to have a couple beers. You look around now and every one is screaming about marxism and your birth certificate and Obamacare and you have to wonder why you agreed to stay sober in the first place. No one will listen to you, or take your advice, or let you just fix things the way you want to. Even when inebriated, we Americans tend to be pretty protective of the idea of our own superior judgement as individuals.
I don't imagine that I've done anything more tonight than found a small my-life-sized analogy to the massive problems and struggles you face. But I think you're making the right call. Because, for a moment, I leaned back against my friend's car to appreciate the stars, and thought about the absurdity of it all. I almost laughed, because the night had already gotten so far away from funny that there was nothing else to do. I don't know if it helped me at all, but I can say that at least no one got hurt, and at least every one got to a safe place to sleep. You may have had the most tedious night of your life and be surrounded on all sides by fellow Democrats stumbling and senseless with the fear of the whims of a capricious public, but you're still criss-crossing the campaign trail, making your case, recognizing that even if you can't keep your agenda you can at least get every one home in one piece.
It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it. Tonight, I am immensely grateful that it's you and not me.
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
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
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
-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 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
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
Monday, August 30, 2010
Day 242- Difference of opinion
Dear Mr. President,
Tonight I saw a movie with friends. Upon exiting, we all had vastly, radically different reactions. Some hated it, the others loved it. Few were in between. The ensuing shouting match, which might charitably be described as a debate, revealed both camps to be intractable. Luckily, we were arguing over Piranha 3-D and not health care, the environment, or anything that actually matters. I understand having different tastes in entertainment, but the stark contrast between those who loved what they saw and those who hated it reminded me of the kinds of shouting matches that political debate usually devolves into. How is it that we can have such differences of perception, even over verifiable facts?
Lately I've been cringing at the all-too-fresh memory of a situation I badly misjudged and, as a result, badly mishandled. I was so sure, so confidently convinced about my perceptions that, once I was slapped back into reality, it was as though the ground below me shifted. This is probably just another aspect of my control-freak personality disorder, but being so wrong about something I was so sure of has thrown me into intense self-doubt. What else am I sure about today that will seem laughably off-base tomorrow? If I'm capable of being so self-deceived, what other perceptions of mine are false?
This kind of doubt is actually good for me. It keeps me from the kind of arrogance that I am often prone to and it keeps me asking questions that need to be asked. In the end, it also often confirms my views, giving me stronger faith in the things I believe and helping me to articulate these beliefs more clearly in the future. I learn not to be so sure of anything that I can't process contrary evidence. I think that maybe a little self doubt might be good for some of the more ideologically entrenched in government. Our society is facing so many problems that we all ought to be wondering what beliefs we've falsely clung to, what choices we've badly made, and how we can change these as we go forward. I think this especially applies to those in government (particularly career incumbents) who continue to do what has always been done without wondering why; to declare the earth isn't getting warmer no matter how much new evidence comes to light, or to define family and citizenship and education in the same tired old terms. Evolution cannot happen without recognizing our mistakes and reaffirming what is important to us.
You have always struck me to be a contemplative individual. Mr. President, I know that flip-flopping is not something a political figure likes to admit to, but have you honestly re-evaluated any of your positions since the campaign? Has the work of government changed the way you view certain issues? How can we reward public servants with the courage to change their mind when presented with new information or alternate views, and encourage more of it in those who lack it?
I suppose for now I'm going to take comfort in the things I am certain about. Like the fact that Piranha 3-d is the worst movie ever made. No matter what Eric says.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tonight I saw a movie with friends. Upon exiting, we all had vastly, radically different reactions. Some hated it, the others loved it. Few were in between. The ensuing shouting match, which might charitably be described as a debate, revealed both camps to be intractable. Luckily, we were arguing over Piranha 3-D and not health care, the environment, or anything that actually matters. I understand having different tastes in entertainment, but the stark contrast between those who loved what they saw and those who hated it reminded me of the kinds of shouting matches that political debate usually devolves into. How is it that we can have such differences of perception, even over verifiable facts?
Lately I've been cringing at the all-too-fresh memory of a situation I badly misjudged and, as a result, badly mishandled. I was so sure, so confidently convinced about my perceptions that, once I was slapped back into reality, it was as though the ground below me shifted. This is probably just another aspect of my control-freak personality disorder, but being so wrong about something I was so sure of has thrown me into intense self-doubt. What else am I sure about today that will seem laughably off-base tomorrow? If I'm capable of being so self-deceived, what other perceptions of mine are false?
This kind of doubt is actually good for me. It keeps me from the kind of arrogance that I am often prone to and it keeps me asking questions that need to be asked. In the end, it also often confirms my views, giving me stronger faith in the things I believe and helping me to articulate these beliefs more clearly in the future. I learn not to be so sure of anything that I can't process contrary evidence. I think that maybe a little self doubt might be good for some of the more ideologically entrenched in government. Our society is facing so many problems that we all ought to be wondering what beliefs we've falsely clung to, what choices we've badly made, and how we can change these as we go forward. I think this especially applies to those in government (particularly career incumbents) who continue to do what has always been done without wondering why; to declare the earth isn't getting warmer no matter how much new evidence comes to light, or to define family and citizenship and education in the same tired old terms. Evolution cannot happen without recognizing our mistakes and reaffirming what is important to us.
You have always struck me to be a contemplative individual. Mr. President, I know that flip-flopping is not something a political figure likes to admit to, but have you honestly re-evaluated any of your positions since the campaign? Has the work of government changed the way you view certain issues? How can we reward public servants with the courage to change their mind when presented with new information or alternate views, and encourage more of it in those who lack it?
I suppose for now I'm going to take comfort in the things I am certain about. Like the fact that Piranha 3-d is the worst movie ever made. No matter what Eric says.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, August 27, 2010
Day 239- Comfort reading and baiting Glenn Beck fans
Dear Mr. President,
My friend and coworker wrote a short piece on the reliable pleasure of reading Kurt Vonnegut for our bookstore's blog. Comfort reading, returning to a familiar author for the needed reminder of why I read, is something I often find myself in need of. His post recalled my own affection for Vonnegut, and my sadness at his passing. Vonnegut's writing shaped the way that many of my generation approached the world; his humanism and his compassion are certainly things that I strive to emulate in my own life. As Jon Stewart told him once, he made adolescence bearable. Thinking about him today I couldn't help but wonder how he would feel about our country as it is now. How disappointed he might be with us, and how much easier and more absurd the horrible things would all seem if he were still here to comment on them.
If comfort reading is how I escape temporary frustrations with the written word, than I certainly spent my morning occupied with its political equivalent. Sometimes, when the political world gets too frustrating, too disgusting or too bleak, I turn to the familiar comfort and reliable entertainment of baiting Glenn Beck fans. It isn't a nice thing to do, I suppose, and probably not enough of an intellectual exercise to even make it good practice for real debate, but I feel like I'm allowed a certain amount of pleasure on what is definitely one of the toughest days I've had in a while. And so, when confronted with the question "how is Glenn Beck a racist?" by one of his groupies, I felt compelled to answer.
I think what comforts me about arguing with Beck's ilk is that it offers a clear opportunity to articulate my opinions and positions to a clear opponent. Beck's divisive, bigoted and ignorant rants are exactly the sort of thing I stand in opposition to. They are an affront to my values, a poison to our political discourse and one of the last havens for the idea that Real America is the birthright of the white, english-speaking, Judeo-Christian middle class. And, despite all of this, I still believe Beck has every right to say the hateful and stupid things that he says (even, unfortunately, in the historical shadow of much better men.) This feeling is a comforting reminder that I have not lost all perspective for the sake of my partisan beliefs. That I still see the struggle between Right and Left in ideological and not apocalyptic terms. In short, as petty as it may seem, I am merely reassuring myself that for all the comfort of a clearly identified opponent, I have not yet sunk to his level. That Mr. Vonnegut taught me well, and his lessons have not been drown out by my impassioned, emotional reactions.
So much of my time discussing politics feels like war. Two (or more) sides stubbornly entrenched and unwilling to even consider their opposition to be human. Willfully entering a fight like this, just to remind myself that it can be fun, keeps me from sinking into the combative mentality too deeply. Maybe that's unforgivably smug and self-satisfied. I think, so long as Mr. Beck enjoys the right to keep spewing his nonsense, I will enjoy my right to challenge those who are buying into it.
I hope that tomorrow doesn't devolve into something really awful, that Mr. Beck and his supporters remember the great men who stood in that place before them and act accordingly. If not, well, as Mr. Vonnegut said, so it goes.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
My friend and coworker wrote a short piece on the reliable pleasure of reading Kurt Vonnegut for our bookstore's blog. Comfort reading, returning to a familiar author for the needed reminder of why I read, is something I often find myself in need of. His post recalled my own affection for Vonnegut, and my sadness at his passing. Vonnegut's writing shaped the way that many of my generation approached the world; his humanism and his compassion are certainly things that I strive to emulate in my own life. As Jon Stewart told him once, he made adolescence bearable. Thinking about him today I couldn't help but wonder how he would feel about our country as it is now. How disappointed he might be with us, and how much easier and more absurd the horrible things would all seem if he were still here to comment on them.
If comfort reading is how I escape temporary frustrations with the written word, than I certainly spent my morning occupied with its political equivalent. Sometimes, when the political world gets too frustrating, too disgusting or too bleak, I turn to the familiar comfort and reliable entertainment of baiting Glenn Beck fans. It isn't a nice thing to do, I suppose, and probably not enough of an intellectual exercise to even make it good practice for real debate, but I feel like I'm allowed a certain amount of pleasure on what is definitely one of the toughest days I've had in a while. And so, when confronted with the question "how is Glenn Beck a racist?" by one of his groupies, I felt compelled to answer.
I think what comforts me about arguing with Beck's ilk is that it offers a clear opportunity to articulate my opinions and positions to a clear opponent. Beck's divisive, bigoted and ignorant rants are exactly the sort of thing I stand in opposition to. They are an affront to my values, a poison to our political discourse and one of the last havens for the idea that Real America is the birthright of the white, english-speaking, Judeo-Christian middle class. And, despite all of this, I still believe Beck has every right to say the hateful and stupid things that he says (even, unfortunately, in the historical shadow of much better men.) This feeling is a comforting reminder that I have not lost all perspective for the sake of my partisan beliefs. That I still see the struggle between Right and Left in ideological and not apocalyptic terms. In short, as petty as it may seem, I am merely reassuring myself that for all the comfort of a clearly identified opponent, I have not yet sunk to his level. That Mr. Vonnegut taught me well, and his lessons have not been drown out by my impassioned, emotional reactions.
So much of my time discussing politics feels like war. Two (or more) sides stubbornly entrenched and unwilling to even consider their opposition to be human. Willfully entering a fight like this, just to remind myself that it can be fun, keeps me from sinking into the combative mentality too deeply. Maybe that's unforgivably smug and self-satisfied. I think, so long as Mr. Beck enjoys the right to keep spewing his nonsense, I will enjoy my right to challenge those who are buying into it.
I hope that tomorrow doesn't devolve into something really awful, that Mr. Beck and his supporters remember the great men who stood in that place before them and act accordingly. If not, well, as Mr. Vonnegut said, so it goes.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Day 223- The Professional Left
Dear Mr. President,
A number of people are upset with Robert Gibbs for his comments about the "professional left." I'll admit, when I first read Mr. Gibbs' remarks, I was hurt. It seems like a cheap shot to call out the segment of the political spectrum responsible for Mr. Gibbs' employment, especially when the promises made by your campaign to the left have been so ostentatiously delayed, compromised or outright broken. Several members of your senior staff, including Rahm Emanuel, have made remarks disparaging progressive voters. The left is crazy. The left is unreasonable. The left uses drugs. Due respect, sir, but without the left you never would have been elected. Without our energy, our hope, our lofty expectations, John McCain would be President and Robert Gibbs would have a gig as a talking head on MSNBC.
I don't understand what your administration hopes to gain by dismissing those who aren't willing to lower our expectations of you just because this job is difficult. Yes, the economy is in trouble. Yes, wars can't simply be walked away from. Yes, the health care reform battle was long and bloody. But without those of us willing to call for more progress, better government, and more social justice, you're never going to accomplish the goals that I know you have for your own Presidency. And your senior staff mocks us? I'm not saying you ought to bow to every whim of the ideological left, but you could at least treat us with the respect any public servant owes his constituents. It's easy to earn points looking centrist by betraying your friends and allies, but it won't win you elections and it won't give you a Presidency you can look back on with pride.
We've never been the most popular kids in class, Mr. President, but none of the cheerleaders are going to date you just for making fun of us. Show the political courage, or at least the common decency to be as respectful of those on the left as you are of your opponents on the right. We're not a joke, and it would be a true shame for you to realize that on the loosing side of election day. I think you should ask Mr. Gibbs to apologize, Mr. President, and I think your entire administration ought to do a better job remember who its friends are.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
A number of people are upset with Robert Gibbs for his comments about the "professional left." I'll admit, when I first read Mr. Gibbs' remarks, I was hurt. It seems like a cheap shot to call out the segment of the political spectrum responsible for Mr. Gibbs' employment, especially when the promises made by your campaign to the left have been so ostentatiously delayed, compromised or outright broken. Several members of your senior staff, including Rahm Emanuel, have made remarks disparaging progressive voters. The left is crazy. The left is unreasonable. The left uses drugs. Due respect, sir, but without the left you never would have been elected. Without our energy, our hope, our lofty expectations, John McCain would be President and Robert Gibbs would have a gig as a talking head on MSNBC.
I don't understand what your administration hopes to gain by dismissing those who aren't willing to lower our expectations of you just because this job is difficult. Yes, the economy is in trouble. Yes, wars can't simply be walked away from. Yes, the health care reform battle was long and bloody. But without those of us willing to call for more progress, better government, and more social justice, you're never going to accomplish the goals that I know you have for your own Presidency. And your senior staff mocks us? I'm not saying you ought to bow to every whim of the ideological left, but you could at least treat us with the respect any public servant owes his constituents. It's easy to earn points looking centrist by betraying your friends and allies, but it won't win you elections and it won't give you a Presidency you can look back on with pride.
We've never been the most popular kids in class, Mr. President, but none of the cheerleaders are going to date you just for making fun of us. Show the political courage, or at least the common decency to be as respectful of those on the left as you are of your opponents on the right. We're not a joke, and it would be a true shame for you to realize that on the loosing side of election day. I think you should ask Mr. Gibbs to apologize, Mr. President, and I think your entire administration ought to do a better job remember who its friends are.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Day 217- Talking the talk
Dear Mr. President,
Glenn Beck thinks you're like Lucifer. I really hope some one in the press office shows you the clip, because you had to spend your birthday away from your family and so I think you're entitled to some diversion. Also, you've given us another Supreme Court Justice, so you've earned a good laugh at the expense of your most absurd critics. And, while his years of public service make him deserving of more respect than a man like Mr. Beck, Newt Gingrich is adding his voice to the chorus of hysteria. If he and Sarah Palin both challenge you in 2012 it might be the funniest Republican primary in history.
I'm not sure how you're supposed to fight back against people like this. You can't stoop to their level; calling Glenn Beck the Devil is giving him way too much credit. Ignoring it might be the high road, but I wonder how effective it will be, considering the size of FOX's audience and the number of people who take Beck seriously. Does considering him a threat elevate him too much? Certainly the media narrative (for which he may not be wholly responsible for, but certainly plays his role,) has contributed to sentiments of many that your administration has not accomplished anything, or, worse, that you've taken our country down the road of socialism.
I suppose the high road is really the only one available. It may not make the administration popular, and saying absurd, inflammatory things will always get Glenn Beck ratings, (and, sadly, more than a few Republican votes,) but it would be hard to be proud of the things you accomplish if you had to act like these men in order to accomplish them. So congratulations on the Supreme Court Justice, and congratulations for keeping your cool. Most of all, congratulations for keeping these sad, clownish little men so very angry at you. I'm very proud to have a President like you.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Glenn Beck thinks you're like Lucifer. I really hope some one in the press office shows you the clip, because you had to spend your birthday away from your family and so I think you're entitled to some diversion. Also, you've given us another Supreme Court Justice, so you've earned a good laugh at the expense of your most absurd critics. And, while his years of public service make him deserving of more respect than a man like Mr. Beck, Newt Gingrich is adding his voice to the chorus of hysteria. If he and Sarah Palin both challenge you in 2012 it might be the funniest Republican primary in history.
I'm not sure how you're supposed to fight back against people like this. You can't stoop to their level; calling Glenn Beck the Devil is giving him way too much credit. Ignoring it might be the high road, but I wonder how effective it will be, considering the size of FOX's audience and the number of people who take Beck seriously. Does considering him a threat elevate him too much? Certainly the media narrative (for which he may not be wholly responsible for, but certainly plays his role,) has contributed to sentiments of many that your administration has not accomplished anything, or, worse, that you've taken our country down the road of socialism.
I suppose the high road is really the only one available. It may not make the administration popular, and saying absurd, inflammatory things will always get Glenn Beck ratings, (and, sadly, more than a few Republican votes,) but it would be hard to be proud of the things you accomplish if you had to act like these men in order to accomplish them. So congratulations on the Supreme Court Justice, and congratulations for keeping your cool. Most of all, congratulations for keeping these sad, clownish little men so very angry at you. I'm very proud to have a President like you.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Day 213- Why I need to date an economist
Dear Mr. President,
The sun over Seattle was an odd but not unpleasant orange for most of the evening. When I got off work at 5, I thought it interesting enough to compel me to walk through the park on my way home in order to extend my time outdoors. I saw a mural being painted, a giant face and brilliantly colored shapes. It's beautiful, and eye-catching, and generally an improvement over the formerly solid-red wall surrounding the massive light rail construction area near the park. This got me thinking about the WPA and the ways that investing in public art could help unemployment. Once I got home, I read up on the WPA and thought of a number of complications that make it perhaps not the most practical solution to our current problems. Also, I saw Sarah Palin talking about the Bush tax cuts. All of this made me realize that my next boyfriend, for sure, is going to be an economist. I figure my poor luck with choosing dates based on attraction means I should probably start dating men who can help fill gaps in my education, and economics is one enormous gap. I suppose being friends with an economist would also work, so long as I could call them at the slightest provocation and ask for help understanding things like depression-era social programs.
Luckily, Fareed Zakaria is basically
And so, while I fully admit my own lack of anything resembling expertise when it comes to this, I hope that the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, and that future stimulus projects go toward extending unemployment benefits (or even funding murals-painting, road-fixing and other public works projects.) Even Alan Greenspan agrees with this, which makes me think that the logic is probably sound. I understand why Republicans feel the need to fight for a tax policy that favors their supporters, but I think it is clear that such a policy would be contrary to our country's immediate needs and long-term interests. Your administration has had to make a number of compromises in the process of passing important legislation for the sake of politics, but I hope that, in this case, what is best for our nation is allowed to take precedent over what is going to please top campaign contributors. Also, just in case I'm not the only one having a hard time understanding this debate, Democrats might want to work on explaining things as clearly (though, hopefully, less ridiculously) than Sarah Palin.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Day 202- One new national foundation- only $5!
Dear Mr. President,
I got an email from OFA today, or, if I'm to take it seriously, from you. It's actually more personalized than most of the form letters I've gotten in the mail. This was my favorite part:
You and I did not build this movement to win one election. We did not come together to pass one single piece of legislation. We are fighting for nothing less than a new foundation for our country -- and that work is not complete. As we face the challenges ahead, I am relying on you to stand with me.
Please donate $5 or more today:
I know there isn't really a way to send a mass e-mail asking for money and not come across as, well, kind of tacky. I get these OFA emails every few days and, I have to admit, that attempt to make me feel important and part of the club, it comes across as completely phony. I don't like being patronized. I don't need to have my sense of importance inflated. I don't think these methods actually get you more money.
I donated anyway. I think that OFA is doing good work, and that, even if my donation counts only as $10 against the Tea Party and the Republicans who serve them, it's worth it. I don't think imagine it will buy me influence, or even a marginal improvement in the policies or practices of your administration. But I believe it's a start. I think the 2008 election was a victory for many of the poor, disenfranchised and forgotten; a demonstration of the power that those of us non-millionaires still have over our national destiny. My $10 might not buy this country a new foundation, it might not get me a signed photo or a handshake or even a less annoying OFA email, but it's probably better spent promoting liberal(ish) candidates than buying me a week's worth of Americanos.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Readers: If my cynicism isn't too catching, you, too, can buy a new foundation for our country by donating to Organizing For America.
I got an email from OFA today, or, if I'm to take it seriously, from you. It's actually more personalized than most of the form letters I've gotten in the mail. This was my favorite part:
You and I did not build this movement to win one election. We did not come together to pass one single piece of legislation. We are fighting for nothing less than a new foundation for our country -- and that work is not complete. As we face the challenges ahead, I am relying on you to stand with me.
Please donate $5 or more today:
I know there isn't really a way to send a mass e-mail asking for money and not come across as, well, kind of tacky. I get these OFA emails every few days and, I have to admit, that attempt to make me feel important and part of the club, it comes across as completely phony. I don't like being patronized. I don't need to have my sense of importance inflated. I don't think these methods actually get you more money.
I donated anyway. I think that OFA is doing good work, and that, even if my donation counts only as $10 against the Tea Party and the Republicans who serve them, it's worth it. I don't think imagine it will buy me influence, or even a marginal improvement in the policies or practices of your administration. But I believe it's a start. I think the 2008 election was a victory for many of the poor, disenfranchised and forgotten; a demonstration of the power that those of us non-millionaires still have over our national destiny. My $10 might not buy this country a new foundation, it might not get me a signed photo or a handshake or even a less annoying OFA email, but it's probably better spent promoting liberal(ish) candidates than buying me a week's worth of Americanos.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Readers: If my cynicism isn't too catching, you, too, can buy a new foundation for our country by donating to Organizing For America.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Day 199- Palin for President
Dear Mr. President,
I'm officially signing on as a supporter of Sarah Palin's presidential bid. This may come as a shock to many who know me, but I've given it a lot of thought, and I've realized that she's all about compassion. Compassion for New Yorkers, who, apparently, since 9/11 can no longer bear the sight or sound of anything relating to Islam. And, Mrs. Palin knows that the best forum for expressing compassion is twitter. As pointed out in a comment on the New York Times article, no one would have objected to the building of a church 2 blocks away from the Oklahoma City bomb site. But Sarah knows better. Sarah understands the difference between domestic and foreign terror is that, while it would just be ridiculous to start being afraid of all the white male anti-government Christians in this country, there are a small enough number of Muslims to make fearing them as convenient as a drive-thru. And Sarah knows that in this country, we even like our phobias value-sized and made-to-order.
The mosque, which she asks peace-seeking Muslims to reject "in the interest of healing," is simply too difficult for New Yorkers to look at. I can relate. One time I was shoved by an Asian woman in the street, and now I can't eat Thai food without having terrible flashbacks. I'm just glad that courageous people like Sarah Palin are willing to spend 140 characters defending the traumatized psyche of xenophobes.
But there are other benefits to a Palin presidential run. Remember the good old days, before you were President, when the left was united against Bush, and had the added benefit of being able to blame our lack of accomplishments on our complete lack of power? It was a lot easier to call myself a Democrat or a liberal in those days. I didn't worry about getting torn apart from the left and the right. The left agreed with me. The right had all the power and didn't feel they had to apologize for it, so they didn't bother to disagree with me. That kind of harmony, that peace and stability that drove the economy into the ground, started two wars and really boosted the sale of backpack-sized Canadian flags, you know, I get all misty just thinking about it. I think that Sarah Palin could really bring that back. And, let's face it, most Democrats would rather rage helplessly against the status quo than be strapped with the impossible task of changing it. I think I could build a decent sized coalition around this.
Just think, Mr. President, you could probably take a vacation without every one and their co-anchor flipping out about it. Sounds pretty good, eh?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I'm officially signing on as a supporter of Sarah Palin's presidential bid. This may come as a shock to many who know me, but I've given it a lot of thought, and I've realized that she's all about compassion. Compassion for New Yorkers, who, apparently, since 9/11 can no longer bear the sight or sound of anything relating to Islam. And, Mrs. Palin knows that the best forum for expressing compassion is twitter. As pointed out in a comment on the New York Times article, no one would have objected to the building of a church 2 blocks away from the Oklahoma City bomb site. But Sarah knows better. Sarah understands the difference between domestic and foreign terror is that, while it would just be ridiculous to start being afraid of all the white male anti-government Christians in this country, there are a small enough number of Muslims to make fearing them as convenient as a drive-thru. And Sarah knows that in this country, we even like our phobias value-sized and made-to-order.
The mosque, which she asks peace-seeking Muslims to reject "in the interest of healing," is simply too difficult for New Yorkers to look at. I can relate. One time I was shoved by an Asian woman in the street, and now I can't eat Thai food without having terrible flashbacks. I'm just glad that courageous people like Sarah Palin are willing to spend 140 characters defending the traumatized psyche of xenophobes.
But there are other benefits to a Palin presidential run. Remember the good old days, before you were President, when the left was united against Bush, and had the added benefit of being able to blame our lack of accomplishments on our complete lack of power? It was a lot easier to call myself a Democrat or a liberal in those days. I didn't worry about getting torn apart from the left and the right. The left agreed with me. The right had all the power and didn't feel they had to apologize for it, so they didn't bother to disagree with me. That kind of harmony, that peace and stability that drove the economy into the ground, started two wars and really boosted the sale of backpack-sized Canadian flags, you know, I get all misty just thinking about it. I think that Sarah Palin could really bring that back. And, let's face it, most Democrats would rather rage helplessly against the status quo than be strapped with the impossible task of changing it. I think I could build a decent sized coalition around this.
Just think, Mr. President, you could probably take a vacation without every one and their co-anchor flipping out about it. Sounds pretty good, eh?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, July 16, 2010
Day 197- 3 kinds of ironic
Dear Mr. President,
Today you issued a proclamation. I wanted to use today'd letter to comment on this, but I thought I'd let your words speak for themselves. (I think you'll see where I'm going with this.)
For Immediate Release July 16, 2010
Presidential Proclamation--Captive Nations Week
CAPTIVE NATIONS WEEK, 2010
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
In 1959, President Eisenhower issued the first Captive Nations Proclamation in solidarity with those living without personal or political autonomy behind the Iron Curtain. Since that time, once-captive nations have broken free to establish civil liberties, open markets, and allow their people access to information. However, even as more nations have embraced self governance and basic human rights, there remain regimes that use violence, threats, and isolation to suppress the aspirations of their people.
The Cold War is over, but its history holds lessons for us today. In the face of cynicism and stifled opportunity, the world saw daring individuals who held fast to the idea that the world can change and walls could come down. Their courageous struggles and ultimate success and the enduring conviction of all who keep the light of freedom alive remind us that human destiny will be what we make of it.
The journey towards worldwide freedom and democracy sought in 1959 remains unfinished. Today, we still observe the profound differences between governments that reflect the will of their people, and those that sustain power by force; between nations striving for equal justice and rule of law, and those that deny their citizens freedom of religion, expression, and peaceful assembly; and between states that are open and accountable, and those that restrict the flow of ideas and information. The United States has a special responsibility to bear witness to those whose voices are silenced, and to stand alongside those who yearn to exercise their universal human rights.
In partnership with like-minded governments, we must reinforce multilateral institutions and international partnerships that safeguard human rights and democratic values. We must empower embattled civil societies and help their people connect with one another and the global community through new technologies. And, with faith in the future, we must always stand with the courageous advocates, organizations, and ordinary citizens around the world who fearlessly fight for limitless opportunity and unfettered freedom.
The Congress, by Joint Resolution, approved July 17, 1959 (73 Stat. 212), has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation designating the third week of July of each year as "Captive Nations Week."
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim July 18 through July 24, 2010, as Captive Nations Week. I call upon the people of the United States to reaffirm our deep commitment to all those working for human rights and dignity around the globe.
Mr. President, those were some powerful words. I would very much like to live in a country that could live up to these promises.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Day 180- Lions and burgers and fries- Oh my!
Dear Mr. President,
An exotic meat restaurant in Arizona is coming under fire for serving lion burgers in honor of the world cup. I think this discussion highlights an amusing sort of hypocrisy in our culture, the squeamishness people develop when faced with the ugly consequences of behavior we try to tell ourselves is harmless. I suppose food is harder to swallow when it's got the face of cuddly cartoon creatures acting out their own version of Hamlet. But eating Simba, or Nala, or even Mickey and Minnie, is no worse than eating any of the millions of nameless, long-suffering factory farmed cows or chickens or pigs that are sold and consumed every day. I believe there are ways to respectfully and healthily raise animals for food, and that the healthier the animals, the healthier the resulting food. My moral objections to eating animals is because of their mistreatment in the current system, not because of their cuteness. I think any one who can eat a chicken should have no problem eating a lion. Or, for that matter, a dog.
Our belief in the greater value of some life, life we find familiar or attractive, manifests itself in far more sinister ways than objections to certain types of food. I think it is this same sense of differentiated value that makes us believe an American life is worth more than an Iraqi or Afghani or Palestinian life. That allows us to condemn a 15-year old boy to Guantanamo bay for 8 years of torture without a trial on allegations of killing an armed, armored and uniformed soldier of an invading army in the middle of a war. That makes us crow with victory at the hanging of an old man, or to find ways to legalize torture, so long as we don't call it that. Who are we to determine the value of a person's life based on the language they speak, the country they're born in, or the God they pray to? What criteria must a person or animal meet for their death to matter? To be called a crime?
Every living thing will have its share of suffering. I think that our goal ought to be to avoid making more of this, whenever possible. I don't think we can create world peace, or eradicate injustice or suffering for all. But I think that it's a noble end to work toward. The way Americans live, the things we eat and the things we buy and the violence we export, have a terrible cost that most of us will never have to face. I don't know if this is avoidable, and I don't want to tell people how to live, but I think if we start by refusing to hide from reality, either in the guise of meaningless labels like collateral damage or enemy combatant or in the glossed-over realities of the origins of dinner, we'd all make better choices.
These values have to come from those that lead us, as well. Instead of spinning the truth into something more palatable, more acceptable to our sensibilities, our government has to tell us the hard truth about the consequences of our decisions, at the ballot box, in the battlefield, and in the supermarket. I think that real leadership doesn't shy away from reality, even when it's hard to stomach.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
An exotic meat restaurant in Arizona is coming under fire for serving lion burgers in honor of the world cup. I think this discussion highlights an amusing sort of hypocrisy in our culture, the squeamishness people develop when faced with the ugly consequences of behavior we try to tell ourselves is harmless. I suppose food is harder to swallow when it's got the face of cuddly cartoon creatures acting out their own version of Hamlet. But eating Simba, or Nala, or even Mickey and Minnie, is no worse than eating any of the millions of nameless, long-suffering factory farmed cows or chickens or pigs that are sold and consumed every day. I believe there are ways to respectfully and healthily raise animals for food, and that the healthier the animals, the healthier the resulting food. My moral objections to eating animals is because of their mistreatment in the current system, not because of their cuteness. I think any one who can eat a chicken should have no problem eating a lion. Or, for that matter, a dog.
Our belief in the greater value of some life, life we find familiar or attractive, manifests itself in far more sinister ways than objections to certain types of food. I think it is this same sense of differentiated value that makes us believe an American life is worth more than an Iraqi or Afghani or Palestinian life. That allows us to condemn a 15-year old boy to Guantanamo bay for 8 years of torture without a trial on allegations of killing an armed, armored and uniformed soldier of an invading army in the middle of a war. That makes us crow with victory at the hanging of an old man, or to find ways to legalize torture, so long as we don't call it that. Who are we to determine the value of a person's life based on the language they speak, the country they're born in, or the God they pray to? What criteria must a person or animal meet for their death to matter? To be called a crime?
Every living thing will have its share of suffering. I think that our goal ought to be to avoid making more of this, whenever possible. I don't think we can create world peace, or eradicate injustice or suffering for all. But I think that it's a noble end to work toward. The way Americans live, the things we eat and the things we buy and the violence we export, have a terrible cost that most of us will never have to face. I don't know if this is avoidable, and I don't want to tell people how to live, but I think if we start by refusing to hide from reality, either in the guise of meaningless labels like collateral damage or enemy combatant or in the glossed-over realities of the origins of dinner, we'd all make better choices.
These values have to come from those that lead us, as well. Instead of spinning the truth into something more palatable, more acceptable to our sensibilities, our government has to tell us the hard truth about the consequences of our decisions, at the ballot box, in the battlefield, and in the supermarket. I think that real leadership doesn't shy away from reality, even when it's hard to stomach.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
