Showing posts with label Campaign Ads. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Campaign Ads. Show all posts
Friday, May 14, 2010
Day 134- One of us
Dear Mr. President,
John McCain really changed my mind about things, once I saw his new ad. If we build a wall along our entire border, we'll never have problems with drug trafficking or home invasions ever again. Build the wall, higher, stronger, and more formidable than any wall ever seen on this planet, and it will keep out all of those miscreants who risk their lives to sneak across our borders just to cause mischief. I was going to oppose the wall, me being a bleeding heart who thinks that all human life, regardless of geographic location, is equal, but John McCain set me straight.
My one concern with the wall is that it doesn't really stop the people in boats. I mean, people in boats sneak into this country all the time, so maybe we could wall off the coastlines, too? It might hurt tourism, but think of all the environmental benefits if humans were no longer allowed on any American beaches! And then there's Canada. Did I ever tell you how I crossed into the US from Canada illegally? It was on the Pacific Crest Trail, and I was 15. Let me tell you, it was way too easy. We should probably build a wall through there, too. It might hurt a few trees, upset a few migratory animals, but in the long run, it's what we have to do to keep the terrorists out.
One last concern; airplanes. I know, closing the airports to international flights seems like an easy fix, but what about parachutes? I don't want Mexicans HALO dropping into this country at night; they might make it past all of those lame desert states in the south and start taking our jobs here in the north. I'd imagine the Star Wars missile defense technology could help us here, but I'm not sure it's fully operational yet, so maybe we could make due with some giant trampolines? Or those spikes we put on window ledges to keep off the birds? My roommates want me to point out that electrifying the fence is an important step, but if Jurassic Park teaches us anything, it should be that we need a much more effective back-up system in the event of any power failures.
Once we've been effectively locked down, we'll have to go after the illegals already among us. (Especially once our import/export abilities are cut off by the coastal wall.) Maybe we could set up roadside stations, check every one's papers before we let them through? It might get kind of overwhelming for local law enforcement to do this alone, so we should probably staff these checkpoints with soldiers. (Actually, checkpoints is kind of an ugly, contentious word with all sorts of bad connotations, so let's call them "Citizenship defense stations.")
Anyway, what do you think? Are these the kind of comprehensive immigration solutions that will keep us safe from the dangerous onslaught of non-English-speaking killers flooding across into Arizona? Do you think that John McCain will let us be part of his club, now?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, April 12, 2010
Day 102- Faith in the voters
Dear Mr. President,
The rumors of the campaign finance reform legislation soon to be proposed by congressional Democrats seem like the first good news since the Supreme court decision earlier this year. This push for greater transparency in the way donations are disclosed puts the responsibility for real reform to the voters. If we can't regulate the way donations are given, at least we can ensure that voters know who, exactly, is funding candidates and parties. Despite the cynical thoughts that tell me otherwise, I have to believe that voters can recognize corruption and will act to correct it.
Passing this legislation must be about more than putting Democrats on the popular side of a national issue before the election. There just isn't a way to ever completely prevent corporations and organizations from wielding greater power and influence over elected officials; our best hope is to expose such corruption to the voters and to hope they make the right choices. This is why any legislative battle must be coupled with significant and effective promotion of the issue to the public.
I know it is a common and unfair stereotype that Democrats do a poor job of communicating or selling our issues to the American people, but the health care debate demonstrated we certainly have a great deal of room for improvement. I think, if we are going to have any chance at staunching the flow of corporate campaign donations allowed by the Supreme Court's decision, we have to do a better job of uniting our members behind this issue and calling out the corrupt politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who compromise their integrity for the sake of the powerful interests funding their campaigns.
I hope that, with your leadership on this issue, congress is able to effectively demonstrate to the American public the necessity of this reform. Giving voters all the information they need to make informed choices at the ballot is all that the government can do to protect us from corruption; the rest has to be up to us.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
The rumors of the campaign finance reform legislation soon to be proposed by congressional Democrats seem like the first good news since the Supreme court decision earlier this year. This push for greater transparency in the way donations are disclosed puts the responsibility for real reform to the voters. If we can't regulate the way donations are given, at least we can ensure that voters know who, exactly, is funding candidates and parties. Despite the cynical thoughts that tell me otherwise, I have to believe that voters can recognize corruption and will act to correct it.
Passing this legislation must be about more than putting Democrats on the popular side of a national issue before the election. There just isn't a way to ever completely prevent corporations and organizations from wielding greater power and influence over elected officials; our best hope is to expose such corruption to the voters and to hope they make the right choices. This is why any legislative battle must be coupled with significant and effective promotion of the issue to the public.
I know it is a common and unfair stereotype that Democrats do a poor job of communicating or selling our issues to the American people, but the health care debate demonstrated we certainly have a great deal of room for improvement. I think, if we are going to have any chance at staunching the flow of corporate campaign donations allowed by the Supreme Court's decision, we have to do a better job of uniting our members behind this issue and calling out the corrupt politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who compromise their integrity for the sake of the powerful interests funding their campaigns.
I hope that, with your leadership on this issue, congress is able to effectively demonstrate to the American public the necessity of this reform. Giving voters all the information they need to make informed choices at the ballot is all that the government can do to protect us from corruption; the rest has to be up to us.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, March 15, 2010
Day 74
UPDATE: Carly Fiorina of the Demon Sheep fame is at it again, with a new ad featuring Senator Barbara Boxer's head as a giant, California-attacking blimp.
Dear Mr. President,
The news of the murders in Juarez were deeply upsetting. Fighting the corruption and violence of Drug trafficking is an important part of treating America's drug problem. I see firsthand the effects of addiction on the urban poor, the homeless and often mentally ill population that migrate through all parts of the city, from my neighborhood to my downtown bookstore. Drug addictions lead to theft, assault and other crimes. But I have friends who routinely use drugs, as well, some in responsible, non-harmful ways. Certainly it is hard to get past the moral implications of the system they support when they buy drugs- they may pay a dealer, but, somewhere, a drug lord is the one making the profit.
My own life has been affected by drugs in many ways. In Boise, I saw the dangerous affects of methamphetamine on a co-worker and neighbor who started a fire in our building one night. While sober, he was a soft-spoken man, grateful for the second chance offered to him by his job and new apartment. When he was using, however, he became violent and paranoid, so convinced that I had slighted him that he came after me with a gun. I was saved by the protection of my boss and the intervention of our neighbors, but it was the first time I understood the dangers of addiction. My young nephew's father also struggles with addiction, stealing from his employers and choosing heroin over his own children. We haven't seen or heard from him in over a year, and, because of his choices, his son will grow up knowing another father entirely. The number of shoplifters I have caught, in Seattle and in DC, who stole books and movies to sell for drug money demonstrate the desperation addiction causes and the violence this can result in.
So how can I reconcile the "recreational" use of drugs by my friends with the dangers and downsides? I think the easiest way to take power away from the drug cartels is to reform the way Americans consume drugs. I think marijuana needs to be legalized, so that it can be domestically produced, taxed, and regulated. The effects of marijuana are less harmful than tobacco an alcohol abuse, and the greatest harm is caused by its illegality, not its use. I think the argument that it can be a gateway drug actually supports legalization- a marijuana user today has already decided to do so in the face of the law, and so trying other illegal drugs does not require much additional risk. If marijuana were legal, I'd imagine that users would be less likely to take the risk of moving on to illegal drugs. A user today already has a dealer, a connection even by proxy to the world of illegal drugs. Allowing them to go through legal sources would cut down on the prevalence of illegal dealers, limiting sources for other drugs. I don't know any one who chooses not to use pot because it is illegal. Many people, (like myself) choose not to use it for reasons unrelated to the law. Personally I find it pretty disgusting, and that isn't going to change if it becomes legal.
We can't win the "war on drugs" while we fund both sides, just as we can't win the war on terror by perpetuating the oppressive practices that fuel recruiting efforts and anti-American sentiments. We may be better-armed, better-trained and better-funded, but so long as we have to win and the other side just has to stay alive, we'll never be able to stop fighting. (An aside, and perhaps worth an entirely separate letter, but if we can try Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla in Federal court, why can't we try terror suspects? Zambada-Niebla is surely as much an enemy combatant as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and no one is claiming he should be denied due process.) We must accept that we cannot win within the current paradigm, and changing the system is the only way to make real progress at addressing the terrible effects of the drug trade on our country and the world.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
The news of the murders in Juarez were deeply upsetting. Fighting the corruption and violence of Drug trafficking is an important part of treating America's drug problem. I see firsthand the effects of addiction on the urban poor, the homeless and often mentally ill population that migrate through all parts of the city, from my neighborhood to my downtown bookstore. Drug addictions lead to theft, assault and other crimes. But I have friends who routinely use drugs, as well, some in responsible, non-harmful ways. Certainly it is hard to get past the moral implications of the system they support when they buy drugs- they may pay a dealer, but, somewhere, a drug lord is the one making the profit.
My own life has been affected by drugs in many ways. In Boise, I saw the dangerous affects of methamphetamine on a co-worker and neighbor who started a fire in our building one night. While sober, he was a soft-spoken man, grateful for the second chance offered to him by his job and new apartment. When he was using, however, he became violent and paranoid, so convinced that I had slighted him that he came after me with a gun. I was saved by the protection of my boss and the intervention of our neighbors, but it was the first time I understood the dangers of addiction. My young nephew's father also struggles with addiction, stealing from his employers and choosing heroin over his own children. We haven't seen or heard from him in over a year, and, because of his choices, his son will grow up knowing another father entirely. The number of shoplifters I have caught, in Seattle and in DC, who stole books and movies to sell for drug money demonstrate the desperation addiction causes and the violence this can result in.
So how can I reconcile the "recreational" use of drugs by my friends with the dangers and downsides? I think the easiest way to take power away from the drug cartels is to reform the way Americans consume drugs. I think marijuana needs to be legalized, so that it can be domestically produced, taxed, and regulated. The effects of marijuana are less harmful than tobacco an alcohol abuse, and the greatest harm is caused by its illegality, not its use. I think the argument that it can be a gateway drug actually supports legalization- a marijuana user today has already decided to do so in the face of the law, and so trying other illegal drugs does not require much additional risk. If marijuana were legal, I'd imagine that users would be less likely to take the risk of moving on to illegal drugs. A user today already has a dealer, a connection even by proxy to the world of illegal drugs. Allowing them to go through legal sources would cut down on the prevalence of illegal dealers, limiting sources for other drugs. I don't know any one who chooses not to use pot because it is illegal. Many people, (like myself) choose not to use it for reasons unrelated to the law. Personally I find it pretty disgusting, and that isn't going to change if it becomes legal.
We can't win the "war on drugs" while we fund both sides, just as we can't win the war on terror by perpetuating the oppressive practices that fuel recruiting efforts and anti-American sentiments. We may be better-armed, better-trained and better-funded, but so long as we have to win and the other side just has to stay alive, we'll never be able to stop fighting. (An aside, and perhaps worth an entirely separate letter, but if we can try Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla in Federal court, why can't we try terror suspects? Zambada-Niebla is surely as much an enemy combatant as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and no one is claiming he should be denied due process.) We must accept that we cannot win within the current paradigm, and changing the system is the only way to make real progress at addressing the terrible effects of the drug trade on our country and the world.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Day 37 Demon Sheep
Dear Mr. President,
Do you think Carly Fiorina's Demon Sheep ad was only approved for the attention it would generate? I truly hope it does not succeed in actually electing her. This reminds me of the ads Senator McCain ran against you in 2008- the Paris Hilton ad, and, (my personal favorite,) the "Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ" ad that featured your campaign's winged logo rising from the red sea.
Television has taken political sensationalism to a whole new level. In my own state of Washington, groups opposing Christine Gregoire ran an ad featuring a man with a can of gasoline igniting a pile of money. This ad continued to run, even after an employee at my college, the University of Washington, doused himself in gasoline and lit himself on fire in front of hundreds of students in the middle of campus.
What is the acceptable threshold? I understand that political ads are the unfortunate by-product of the first amendment, and that the people running the ads have every right to be as distasteful as they wish. Neither John McCain nor Governor Gregoire's opponent, Dino Rossi, were successful in their campaigns. Their ads may or may not have been a factor in their defeat, but I doubt very much that architects of political ads to come will see these failures as a reason for caution or even dignity. Fiorina's campaign certainly didn't. Maybe Television isn't the place to look for an increase in the level of political discourse in this country, but, as it is where most campaign money is spent and, supposedly, most voters are reached, maybe it isn't an unreasonable place to start.
I hope that, in the midterms this fall and in campaigns to come, Democrats air ads that are reasonable, measured, and respectful in tone. I hope that, as the leader of the Democratic Party, you encourage them to follow your campaign's example. This isn't to say I think all campaigns should be exclusively positive, or that attack ads don't have their place, but insulting the intelligence of one's audience with frightening music or demon sheep is probably something both parties should be above. (I'll probably need to be reminded of this if Sarah Palin succeeds in securing the GOP nomination.)
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Do you think Carly Fiorina's Demon Sheep ad was only approved for the attention it would generate? I truly hope it does not succeed in actually electing her. This reminds me of the ads Senator McCain ran against you in 2008- the Paris Hilton ad, and, (my personal favorite,) the "Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ" ad that featured your campaign's winged logo rising from the red sea.
Television has taken political sensationalism to a whole new level. In my own state of Washington, groups opposing Christine Gregoire ran an ad featuring a man with a can of gasoline igniting a pile of money. This ad continued to run, even after an employee at my college, the University of Washington, doused himself in gasoline and lit himself on fire in front of hundreds of students in the middle of campus.
What is the acceptable threshold? I understand that political ads are the unfortunate by-product of the first amendment, and that the people running the ads have every right to be as distasteful as they wish. Neither John McCain nor Governor Gregoire's opponent, Dino Rossi, were successful in their campaigns. Their ads may or may not have been a factor in their defeat, but I doubt very much that architects of political ads to come will see these failures as a reason for caution or even dignity. Fiorina's campaign certainly didn't. Maybe Television isn't the place to look for an increase in the level of political discourse in this country, but, as it is where most campaign money is spent and, supposedly, most voters are reached, maybe it isn't an unreasonable place to start.
I hope that, in the midterms this fall and in campaigns to come, Democrats air ads that are reasonable, measured, and respectful in tone. I hope that, as the leader of the Democratic Party, you encourage them to follow your campaign's example. This isn't to say I think all campaigns should be exclusively positive, or that attack ads don't have their place, but insulting the intelligence of one's audience with frightening music or demon sheep is probably something both parties should be above. (I'll probably need to be reminded of this if Sarah Palin succeeds in securing the GOP nomination.)
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Day 21
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.
Dear Mr. President,
Good luck talking with Congressional leaders about today's Supreme Court decision. I'm in complete agreement with you on this issue, but I have little hope that a congress already so beholden to special interests will be particularly helpful in developing "a forceful response." I think today's ruling would be considerably less effective if large donors were a legitimate political liability for candidates. If being purchased by a company, union or lobby could be more embarrassing and detrimental to a candidate than a sex scandal. I have no problem with politicians who sleep around, unless I'm married to them. I have a considerable problem with politicians who represent special interests and not the voters. Unfortunately, having and affair with a powerful organization will never make quite as many headlines as having an actual affair.
I feel exhausted trying to write this, tonight, but I'm sure it does not begin to rival the exhaustion you feel. Between the arbitrary "one year in office" retrospectives, the election, the supreme court, the economy, and Haiti, I don't know how you haven't collapsed yet. It will get better. It feels like it won't, it feels like we are fighting on too many fronts to prevail, but that must be wrong. At my store, I was chatting with a regular customer and I mentioned you, and she asked me if I still had faith in you. I said that I did, and she cheered out loud. So many of us still have faith in you, sir, don't let our voices get lost in the din. I am struggling to find something meaningful to say, so I will resort to theft. The following is by one of my favorite poets, a Nobel laureate and a woman who survived much darker times.
The Turn of the Century
By Wislawa Szymborska
It was supposed to be better than the others, our 20th century,
But it won't have time to prove it.
Its years are numbered,
its step unsteady,
its breath short.
Already too much has happened
that was not supposed to happen.
What was to come about
has not.
Spring was to be on its way,
and happiness, among other things.
Fear was to leave the mountains and valleys.
The truth was supposed to finish before the lie.
Certain misfortunes
were never to happen again
such as war and hunger and so forth.
These were to be respected:
the defenselessness of the defenseless,
trust and the like.
Whoever wanted to enjoy the world
faces an impossible task.
Stupidity is not funny.
Wisdom isn't jolly.
Hope
Is no longer the same young girl
et cetera. Alas.
God was at last to believe in man:
good and strong,
but good and strong
are still two different people.
How to live--someone asked me this in a letter,
someone I had wanted
to ask that very thing.
Again and as always,
and as seen above
there are no questions more urgent
than the naive ones.
I'll end tonight with a naive question, Mr. President. What can I do?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
Good luck talking with Congressional leaders about today's Supreme Court decision. I'm in complete agreement with you on this issue, but I have little hope that a congress already so beholden to special interests will be particularly helpful in developing "a forceful response." I think today's ruling would be considerably less effective if large donors were a legitimate political liability for candidates. If being purchased by a company, union or lobby could be more embarrassing and detrimental to a candidate than a sex scandal. I have no problem with politicians who sleep around, unless I'm married to them. I have a considerable problem with politicians who represent special interests and not the voters. Unfortunately, having and affair with a powerful organization will never make quite as many headlines as having an actual affair.
I feel exhausted trying to write this, tonight, but I'm sure it does not begin to rival the exhaustion you feel. Between the arbitrary "one year in office" retrospectives, the election, the supreme court, the economy, and Haiti, I don't know how you haven't collapsed yet. It will get better. It feels like it won't, it feels like we are fighting on too many fronts to prevail, but that must be wrong. At my store, I was chatting with a regular customer and I mentioned you, and she asked me if I still had faith in you. I said that I did, and she cheered out loud. So many of us still have faith in you, sir, don't let our voices get lost in the din. I am struggling to find something meaningful to say, so I will resort to theft. The following is by one of my favorite poets, a Nobel laureate and a woman who survived much darker times.
The Turn of the Century
By Wislawa Szymborska
It was supposed to be better than the others, our 20th century,
But it won't have time to prove it.
Its years are numbered,
its step unsteady,
its breath short.
Already too much has happened
that was not supposed to happen.
What was to come about
has not.
Spring was to be on its way,
and happiness, among other things.
Fear was to leave the mountains and valleys.
The truth was supposed to finish before the lie.
Certain misfortunes
were never to happen again
such as war and hunger and so forth.
These were to be respected:
the defenselessness of the defenseless,
trust and the like.
Whoever wanted to enjoy the world
faces an impossible task.
Stupidity is not funny.
Wisdom isn't jolly.
Hope
Is no longer the same young girl
et cetera. Alas.
God was at last to believe in man:
good and strong,
but good and strong
are still two different people.
How to live--someone asked me this in a letter,
someone I had wanted
to ask that very thing.
Again and as always,
and as seen above
there are no questions more urgent
than the naive ones.
I'll end tonight with a naive question, Mr. President. What can I do?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
