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
Showing posts with label Elena Kagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elena Kagan. Show all posts
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Day 198- Octavia Nasr
Dear Mr. President,
I wasn't going to write to you about the unfair dismissal of Octavia Nasr from CNN. Your responsibilities may be varied and numerous but, clearly, making HR decisions at CNN is not one of them. Thomas Friedman's column today linked this decision to the Bush-era mentality that requires loyalty over skill or qualification. He asserts that, in a time when we are hindered by our lack of understanding in the the Middle East and Afghanistan, we need people like Octavia Nasr to help us better understand these societies and people. I don't think Mr. Friedman goes far enough; I would extend this indictment beyond the staffing of the Iraqi green zone, to most of our foreign policy decisions, especially toward the Middle East. We prop up or install parties and regimes based on their loyalty to us and not their abilities. The Lebanese cleric Fadlallah, whose death Nasr was fired for publicly mourning, is a perfect example of this. A man who spoke for women's rights in the home and in society; a man who wanted to see the worst beliefs of the organization he founded moderated; this man might have had opinions America disagreed with, and he might have overlooked or even encouraged violence, something that many of us and I personally could not condone. However, by reducing him to a Terrorist, by simplifying and distilling the complexities of this man to a single noun that makes it inexcusable to mourn his passing, we failed to see what we might have learned from him. But this isn't why I changed my mind about writing to you.
What signal are we sending young people? Trim your sails, be politically correct, don’t say anything that will get you flamed by one constituency or another. And if you ever want a job in government, national journalism or as president of Harvard, play it safe and don’t take any intellectual chances that might offend someone. In the age of Google, when everything you say is forever searchable, the future belongs to those who leave no footprints.
This passage changed my mind. I have often joked at my own inability to enter professional politics due to the radical opinions I have expressed as a young person. George Bush could walk away from an undistinguished life story, business failures, drug and alcohol problems, and who knows how many crazy frat stories, because he never said anything too offensive. Elena Kagan has a senate confirmation hearing that is as easy as it is boring, because she has kept her opinions moderate and acceptable, or entirely silent. It reminded me of something my department advisor recently told me, about how a class I'd taken at a previous school was "too political" to count toward my degree.
I think this is why progress seems like such a constant uphill fight. I think we need outspoken, courageous public servants, academics and journalists, even if what they say is challenging and controversial and disagreeable. I think we need to listen, to engage, and learn from those we might otherwise write off as too radical or too extreme. I'd rather disagree honestly than avoid difficult conversations entirely. And, while you probably can't get Octavia Nasr her job back, you can encourage us all to keep the courage of our convictions by demonstrating that you have the courage of yours. As for me, I may change my mind as I get older, but I'm never going to walk away from the mistakes I've made in the past. Even if it means I could never sit in the Oval Office or work for CNN. And, just for the record, I think that Nasr's sentiments were incredibly human and full of compassion. I think a journalist keeping her humanity and appreciation for the complexities of human nature is a minor mirale, but certainly not grounds for dismissal.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I wasn't going to write to you about the unfair dismissal of Octavia Nasr from CNN. Your responsibilities may be varied and numerous but, clearly, making HR decisions at CNN is not one of them. Thomas Friedman's column today linked this decision to the Bush-era mentality that requires loyalty over skill or qualification. He asserts that, in a time when we are hindered by our lack of understanding in the the Middle East and Afghanistan, we need people like Octavia Nasr to help us better understand these societies and people. I don't think Mr. Friedman goes far enough; I would extend this indictment beyond the staffing of the Iraqi green zone, to most of our foreign policy decisions, especially toward the Middle East. We prop up or install parties and regimes based on their loyalty to us and not their abilities. The Lebanese cleric Fadlallah, whose death Nasr was fired for publicly mourning, is a perfect example of this. A man who spoke for women's rights in the home and in society; a man who wanted to see the worst beliefs of the organization he founded moderated; this man might have had opinions America disagreed with, and he might have overlooked or even encouraged violence, something that many of us and I personally could not condone. However, by reducing him to a Terrorist, by simplifying and distilling the complexities of this man to a single noun that makes it inexcusable to mourn his passing, we failed to see what we might have learned from him. But this isn't why I changed my mind about writing to you.
What signal are we sending young people? Trim your sails, be politically correct, don’t say anything that will get you flamed by one constituency or another. And if you ever want a job in government, national journalism or as president of Harvard, play it safe and don’t take any intellectual chances that might offend someone. In the age of Google, when everything you say is forever searchable, the future belongs to those who leave no footprints.
This passage changed my mind. I have often joked at my own inability to enter professional politics due to the radical opinions I have expressed as a young person. George Bush could walk away from an undistinguished life story, business failures, drug and alcohol problems, and who knows how many crazy frat stories, because he never said anything too offensive. Elena Kagan has a senate confirmation hearing that is as easy as it is boring, because she has kept her opinions moderate and acceptable, or entirely silent. It reminded me of something my department advisor recently told me, about how a class I'd taken at a previous school was "too political" to count toward my degree.
I think this is why progress seems like such a constant uphill fight. I think we need outspoken, courageous public servants, academics and journalists, even if what they say is challenging and controversial and disagreeable. I think we need to listen, to engage, and learn from those we might otherwise write off as too radical or too extreme. I'd rather disagree honestly than avoid difficult conversations entirely. And, while you probably can't get Octavia Nasr her job back, you can encourage us all to keep the courage of our convictions by demonstrating that you have the courage of yours. As for me, I may change my mind as I get older, but I'm never going to walk away from the mistakes I've made in the past. Even if it means I could never sit in the Oval Office or work for CNN. And, just for the record, I think that Nasr's sentiments were incredibly human and full of compassion. I think a journalist keeping her humanity and appreciation for the complexities of human nature is a minor mirale, but certainly not grounds for dismissal.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Day 187- Man hands
Dear Mr. President,
In high school, they called me man hands. It sounds cruel, but it was sort of an endearment. I do have big hands. The people who love me best still call me this, occasionally, and I love them for it. But it started earlier than that. It started when I was 4 years old and saw The Neverending Story. I promptly convinced my mother to cut off my long golden curls so that I could look like Atreyu. When my older sister told me Atreyu was a boy, I was pretty skeptical; I identified with the character enough to believe that he must be female, like me. After that, it was being the only girl on the soccer field at recess, or picked first for kickball because, as a 5th grader, my 5'+ frame and size 9 shoes made me awkward and strange, but damn good at kicking a ball. These days, I work in a physical, occasionally dangerous and adrenaline-filled job. While my supervisor is female, she acknowledged to me that I'm the first woman to apply in a long time. So, I suppose, she and I work what some would call a man's job. I don't want to be a mother and I don't want to be some one's wife, but I like romantic movies and make-up and Jane Austen novels as much as the next girl. What does this make me?
Abnormally masculine, according to Pediatric endocrinologist Maria New, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Florida International University. That my aspirations for a life outside of motherhood, marriage and so-called feminine traditions are traits some (ironically, female) doctors would attempt to prevent in utero is kind of horrifying. Considering my upbringing, watching my parents come home from the same work, with the same weapons and tools, knowing that my mother worked just as hard as my father, had more education, made more money than him, outranked him and still had to come home and be responsible for the domestic chores while he relaxed in front of the TV, maybe my abnormality isn't genetic so much as experience? Of course, my father and stepmother tried hard to break me out of my tomboyish tendencies, forbidding certain masculine clothing, encouraging and even emphasizing the importance of cosmetic beauty. But I never outgrew it. I'm not dainty or delicate. I don't aspire to be. I can't change this, any more than I could change the size of my hands. Even my handwriting (as the unfortunate readers of your mail must surely be aware) is undeniably masculine.
If my parents had been given the choice, if they had been offered a pill to take with prenatal vitamins that ensured them a "normal" daughter, would they have taken it? How does a parent justify making decisions about a person's disposition, their preferences and temperament, the things that make up their personality, all without their consent? I think that science is pretty awesome, that genetics and the prenatal prevention of disease are important and fascinating fields. But reading about this research and the reasoning used to justify it, I can't help but wonder who gets to decide what is a problem, an abnormality that needs correction or prevention, and where the checks on that kind of power could possibly come from. What's feminine today is different than 24 years ago, and by the time children receiving this treatment reach their own adulthood, I'm sure it will be even more so. That 4 year old girl who looked back at me from the mirror as our mother cut our hair and turned us into a warrior, she could have grown up to be anything, a mother, a Supreme Court nominee, even a pediatric endocrinologist. So far, all she's become is a loss prevent agent and blogger, a chronically opinionated and ambitious young adult with giant hands. But I'd hate to think that, even before she was born, there could have been a medically sanctioned definition of what the correct choice would be.
Girls of all ages have a role model in Elena Kagan, so thank you for nominating her to the bench. I believe that her life's work is no less valuable than any children she might have born, instead. I am grateful for her and for all of the other abnormal women who have come before me. They have made the world safer for women like me, and improved it for all of us- even Dr. New. I'm not promising that I'll cut my hair to look more like her, but, if she gets a luckdragon name Falkor, it may be cause to reconsider.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
In high school, they called me man hands. It sounds cruel, but it was sort of an endearment. I do have big hands. The people who love me best still call me this, occasionally, and I love them for it. But it started earlier than that. It started when I was 4 years old and saw The Neverending Story. I promptly convinced my mother to cut off my long golden curls so that I could look like Atreyu. When my older sister told me Atreyu was a boy, I was pretty skeptical; I identified with the character enough to believe that he must be female, like me. After that, it was being the only girl on the soccer field at recess, or picked first for kickball because, as a 5th grader, my 5'+ frame and size 9 shoes made me awkward and strange, but damn good at kicking a ball. These days, I work in a physical, occasionally dangerous and adrenaline-filled job. While my supervisor is female, she acknowledged to me that I'm the first woman to apply in a long time. So, I suppose, she and I work what some would call a man's job. I don't want to be a mother and I don't want to be some one's wife, but I like romantic movies and make-up and Jane Austen novels as much as the next girl. What does this make me?
Abnormally masculine, according to Pediatric endocrinologist Maria New, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Florida International University. That my aspirations for a life outside of motherhood, marriage and so-called feminine traditions are traits some (ironically, female) doctors would attempt to prevent in utero is kind of horrifying. Considering my upbringing, watching my parents come home from the same work, with the same weapons and tools, knowing that my mother worked just as hard as my father, had more education, made more money than him, outranked him and still had to come home and be responsible for the domestic chores while he relaxed in front of the TV, maybe my abnormality isn't genetic so much as experience? Of course, my father and stepmother tried hard to break me out of my tomboyish tendencies, forbidding certain masculine clothing, encouraging and even emphasizing the importance of cosmetic beauty. But I never outgrew it. I'm not dainty or delicate. I don't aspire to be. I can't change this, any more than I could change the size of my hands. Even my handwriting (as the unfortunate readers of your mail must surely be aware) is undeniably masculine.
If my parents had been given the choice, if they had been offered a pill to take with prenatal vitamins that ensured them a "normal" daughter, would they have taken it? How does a parent justify making decisions about a person's disposition, their preferences and temperament, the things that make up their personality, all without their consent? I think that science is pretty awesome, that genetics and the prenatal prevention of disease are important and fascinating fields. But reading about this research and the reasoning used to justify it, I can't help but wonder who gets to decide what is a problem, an abnormality that needs correction or prevention, and where the checks on that kind of power could possibly come from. What's feminine today is different than 24 years ago, and by the time children receiving this treatment reach their own adulthood, I'm sure it will be even more so. That 4 year old girl who looked back at me from the mirror as our mother cut our hair and turned us into a warrior, she could have grown up to be anything, a mother, a Supreme Court nominee, even a pediatric endocrinologist. So far, all she's become is a loss prevent agent and blogger, a chronically opinionated and ambitious young adult with giant hands. But I'd hate to think that, even before she was born, there could have been a medically sanctioned definition of what the correct choice would be.
Girls of all ages have a role model in Elena Kagan, so thank you for nominating her to the bench. I believe that her life's work is no less valuable than any children she might have born, instead. I am grateful for her and for all of the other abnormal women who have come before me. They have made the world safer for women like me, and improved it for all of us- even Dr. New. I'm not promising that I'll cut my hair to look more like her, but, if she gets a luckdragon name Falkor, it may be cause to reconsider.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Day 181- Vampires and Werewolves
Dear Mr. President,
On July 21 of 2007, I was dressed as Bellatrix Lestrange and, before an exuberant crowd of over 2,000, I revealed the first copy of the final Harry Potter book, and sold it to the first person in line. Less than an hour later, we'd sold a copy to every person who'd waited in line, and my roommates and I headed into the metro to go home. I'd been at work since 9 am, and it was close to 2:30am. Three men approached us on the platform and, seeing that we were reading the Harry Potter books, offered us $50 a book, cash. So you might see why I wasn't at all surprised to read that Elena Kagan was asked to comment on the Edward v. Jacob "controversy."
I want to be disappointed by this, but I can't help finding it sort of endearing. Don't get me wrong, the Twilight phenomenon has never appealed to me at all, but the young girl who went to the midnight shows of all the Star Wars special editions, or who, (even as a poor 21-year old) refused to sell my $21 copy of the Deathly Hallows for $50 so that I could stay up 12 straight hours reading it, understands those fans, to a point. I can't help but be impressed that these stories, intended to do little more than entertain children, have swept up much of the adult population in a shared experience. The people who hate Twilight, or who joke about it, are as caught up in this phenomenon as those who love it. Maybe the bookseller in me is always gratified to see people excited about reading, but I think it's more than that, too. I think that, having lived in so many places in my life, and always feeling a bit transient, it is comforting to know that we're all looking at the same sky, so to speak. That, on July 22nd, 2007, when I looked around on the metro, I was seeing the same sea of orange covers that friends and strangers alike were encountering on planes, in classrooms and cafes all over the world. That art, which is glorious in its celebration of our differences, the unique experience it offers each of us, also allows us to see how much we have in common.
Certainly, as a bookseller, I have also witnessed those who have been taken in too deeply by their fantasies and fandom, who have lost sight of reality and may never recognize it again. I don't know that fiction can be blamed for offering such an alluring alternative for those who find reality too painful. And, while I respect the Senate and the process of judicial confirmation too much to wish it to appear trite or silly, I am confident that werewolves and vampires will be far from the most ridiculous or undignified things that Kagan will be questioned about in the coming days.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
On July 21 of 2007, I was dressed as Bellatrix Lestrange and, before an exuberant crowd of over 2,000, I revealed the first copy of the final Harry Potter book, and sold it to the first person in line. Less than an hour later, we'd sold a copy to every person who'd waited in line, and my roommates and I headed into the metro to go home. I'd been at work since 9 am, and it was close to 2:30am. Three men approached us on the platform and, seeing that we were reading the Harry Potter books, offered us $50 a book, cash. So you might see why I wasn't at all surprised to read that Elena Kagan was asked to comment on the Edward v. Jacob "controversy."
I want to be disappointed by this, but I can't help finding it sort of endearing. Don't get me wrong, the Twilight phenomenon has never appealed to me at all, but the young girl who went to the midnight shows of all the Star Wars special editions, or who, (even as a poor 21-year old) refused to sell my $21 copy of the Deathly Hallows for $50 so that I could stay up 12 straight hours reading it, understands those fans, to a point. I can't help but be impressed that these stories, intended to do little more than entertain children, have swept up much of the adult population in a shared experience. The people who hate Twilight, or who joke about it, are as caught up in this phenomenon as those who love it. Maybe the bookseller in me is always gratified to see people excited about reading, but I think it's more than that, too. I think that, having lived in so many places in my life, and always feeling a bit transient, it is comforting to know that we're all looking at the same sky, so to speak. That, on July 22nd, 2007, when I looked around on the metro, I was seeing the same sea of orange covers that friends and strangers alike were encountering on planes, in classrooms and cafes all over the world. That art, which is glorious in its celebration of our differences, the unique experience it offers each of us, also allows us to see how much we have in common.
Certainly, as a bookseller, I have also witnessed those who have been taken in too deeply by their fantasies and fandom, who have lost sight of reality and may never recognize it again. I don't know that fiction can be blamed for offering such an alluring alternative for those who find reality too painful. And, while I respect the Senate and the process of judicial confirmation too much to wish it to appear trite or silly, I am confident that werewolves and vampires will be far from the most ridiculous or undignified things that Kagan will be questioned about in the coming days.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Day 138- On beauty
Dear Mr. President,
Our new Miss USA is sparking some unfortunate (if completely unsurprising) ignorance from the far right fringe. I generally (and equally unsurprisingly) don't like beauty pageants. I think they're absurd rituals focusing far too much on a person's physical characteristics and encouraging unrealistic images of the perfect female. I say this, of course, because I will never win any beauty pageants (not even for bloggers) and because that is out of my control, entirely. Also, because many of the most beautiful women I know have a difficult time being taken seriously as the intellectuals and professionals that they are. I think when we glorify the kind of superficial qualities that it takes to win a pageant we perpetuate the idea that those qualities are all that women who look that way have. Still, I find the grounds on which these right-wing bloggers (and the FOX senior beauty pageant analyst who takes them seriously) object to Miss Fakih offensive. To cite her race and her religion as the "PC" or "affirmative action" rationale for her winning is both stupid (even I can concede that, whatever else she may be, Miss Fakih is obviously an exceedingly beautiful woman,) and degrading. It implies that she is less "qualified" for this (exceedingly subjective) honor than her white, Christian, runners-up.
I don't know very much about Miss Fakih, aside from her being beautiful and from Michigan. She may be very bright, she may be rather stupid. I don't think her being Miss America tells us anything conclusive about her personal merit or intelligence. Gretchen Carlson, herself a former Miss America, certainly isn't a stupid woman, even if she does a convincing job playing one on TV. If I have to be represented by a pageant winner, I think that Rima Fakih is just as representative of me and the rest of America as any previous winners; that the history of Miss USA winners is growing more diverse reflects our own growing diversity, well. There will likely be many, many white, Christian winners in years to come, just as there will likely be Miss Americas representing other racial, religious and ethnic minorities. If people are really going to get upset every time the winner's background doesn't match up with their idea of what "American" looks or sounds or acts like, I suppose that's their prerogative.
For me, this debate recalls the sentiments of people who thought you weren't "American" enough to represent us as President. Be these the crazy people who think you were born in Kenya, the crazy people who think you're a Muslim usurper, or the crazy people who think you're against the flag and/or pledge of allegiance and/or Christianity, they all seem to imply that there's an American class of citizens who are more American than others, and that you (and Miss Fakih, and Elena Kagan,) don't belong in it. I'm all for free speech, so I absolutely believe they have a right to say all of this, and whatever other crazy, offensive stuff they can think of, but I don't think that organizations aiming to be taken seriously a news sources ought to cover it as anything other than what it is; racism, plain and simple. There's some strange contradiction in a kind of hatred based largely on physical appearances being directed at the winner of a competition based on the same thing, but I'm not sure it's enough to make either the people or the pageant consider changing their ways.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Our new Miss USA is sparking some unfortunate (if completely unsurprising) ignorance from the far right fringe. I generally (and equally unsurprisingly) don't like beauty pageants. I think they're absurd rituals focusing far too much on a person's physical characteristics and encouraging unrealistic images of the perfect female. I say this, of course, because I will never win any beauty pageants (not even for bloggers) and because that is out of my control, entirely. Also, because many of the most beautiful women I know have a difficult time being taken seriously as the intellectuals and professionals that they are. I think when we glorify the kind of superficial qualities that it takes to win a pageant we perpetuate the idea that those qualities are all that women who look that way have. Still, I find the grounds on which these right-wing bloggers (and the FOX senior beauty pageant analyst who takes them seriously) object to Miss Fakih offensive. To cite her race and her religion as the "PC" or "affirmative action" rationale for her winning is both stupid (even I can concede that, whatever else she may be, Miss Fakih is obviously an exceedingly beautiful woman,) and degrading. It implies that she is less "qualified" for this (exceedingly subjective) honor than her white, Christian, runners-up.
I don't know very much about Miss Fakih, aside from her being beautiful and from Michigan. She may be very bright, she may be rather stupid. I don't think her being Miss America tells us anything conclusive about her personal merit or intelligence. Gretchen Carlson, herself a former Miss America, certainly isn't a stupid woman, even if she does a convincing job playing one on TV. If I have to be represented by a pageant winner, I think that Rima Fakih is just as representative of me and the rest of America as any previous winners; that the history of Miss USA winners is growing more diverse reflects our own growing diversity, well. There will likely be many, many white, Christian winners in years to come, just as there will likely be Miss Americas representing other racial, religious and ethnic minorities. If people are really going to get upset every time the winner's background doesn't match up with their idea of what "American" looks or sounds or acts like, I suppose that's their prerogative.
For me, this debate recalls the sentiments of people who thought you weren't "American" enough to represent us as President. Be these the crazy people who think you were born in Kenya, the crazy people who think you're a Muslim usurper, or the crazy people who think you're against the flag and/or pledge of allegiance and/or Christianity, they all seem to imply that there's an American class of citizens who are more American than others, and that you (and Miss Fakih, and Elena Kagan,) don't belong in it. I'm all for free speech, so I absolutely believe they have a right to say all of this, and whatever other crazy, offensive stuff they can think of, but I don't think that organizations aiming to be taken seriously a news sources ought to cover it as anything other than what it is; racism, plain and simple. There's some strange contradiction in a kind of hatred based largely on physical appearances being directed at the winner of a competition based on the same thing, but I'm not sure it's enough to make either the people or the pageant consider changing their ways.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Day 132- The myth of mainstream
Dear Mr. President,
In today's Washington Post, Kathleen Parker contends that, due to her education and New York City origins, "Elena Kagan is miles away from mainstream America." While her argument, which is based on some pretty impressively weak logic, is artfully refuted by Ed Kilgore at fivethirtyeight, I'd like to discuss why it is acceptable for Ms. Parker to so casually assert the claim that some of us are somehow more American than others. Imagine, for a moment, if she based this claim not on geography, but on race, gender, age, or religion; would the Washington Post still put its name above that? I am so tired of the conservative contention that there is a "real" America and a "liberal" America, and that living in or coming from a certain type of place makes a person more or less representative of quintessential America.
I grew up in a small town, with farms and small businesses and enough Christian republicans with barely a GED in their ancestry to satisfy even Ms. Parker's definition of a "real" American town. I don't think the people I grew up with can be described as any one thing, (other than, maybe, as Arlingtonians,) and certainly not as qualified (or unqualified) for the Supreme Court. Now, however, I live in a city full of vegetarian atheist lesbians who have PHDs and disdain Wal-mart; again, nothing except our geographic location is true for all of us, and, no matter what Ms. Parker (or Ms. Palin) may think, living in a city didn't change the seal on my passport, or my devotion to this country.
This stirs such an emotional response from me because I had a stepmother who constantly told me that my "book smarts" were inferior to the "street smarts" she and her family possessed. That I, as a young teenager, could be more intelligent than her, but I would never have more common sense. I have not finished college, largely because I have had to work a full-time job for the entirety of it, but, were I to go back to my stepmother's house, I would still be classified, in her mind, as numbering among the out-of-touch, academic, elite. Like Kagan, I am somehow less authentically American. I am so angry that my intelligence, which may not be anything better than slightly above average but is still my greatest strength, makes me lesser, in the eyes of this woman and those who think like her. I got a 5 on the AP calculus and English tests; I got a 1490 SATs and I was a National Merit Scholar. I've also flipped burgers, cut pizzas, waited tables, ran cash registers, and, god knows, made lattes. I've lived in rural and urban areas, in suburban cookie-cutter houses, and in tiny, turn-of-the-century apartment buildings. None of this says much about the type of person that I am, or my qualification as an "ordinary" American. I'm an American, so is Elena Kagan, and if my experience is an American experience, so is hers.
The nine men and women who wield the ultimate power of the Judicial branch with lifetime appointments should not be "ordinary." These should be the brightest, most engaged and creative and, yes, educated, individuals we can find. An understanding of how the law affects ordinary Americans (a classification that I think you intended to indicate Americans without direct power in any of the three branches of government, and not their hometown,) does not mean that one has to be average. I can't say much about what I do or do not want a Supreme Court Justice to be; they can come from any state, any religion, any race, any social class. The one thing I know for sure is that I don't want average minds on the Supreme Court. This is not to say that one must be an Ivy league scholar, either, only that I think the strengths and advantages that make a person extraordinary ought to be valued, not disdained.
It is long past time to end the social acceptability of such disdain for education and intelligence, the belief that one's patriotism or empathy is tied, somehow, to what part of the country they come from. Elena Kagan must be evaluated on her merit's as a potential Justice, not on her place of birth.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
In today's Washington Post, Kathleen Parker contends that, due to her education and New York City origins, "Elena Kagan is miles away from mainstream America." While her argument, which is based on some pretty impressively weak logic, is artfully refuted by Ed Kilgore at fivethirtyeight, I'd like to discuss why it is acceptable for Ms. Parker to so casually assert the claim that some of us are somehow more American than others. Imagine, for a moment, if she based this claim not on geography, but on race, gender, age, or religion; would the Washington Post still put its name above that? I am so tired of the conservative contention that there is a "real" America and a "liberal" America, and that living in or coming from a certain type of place makes a person more or less representative of quintessential America.
I grew up in a small town, with farms and small businesses and enough Christian republicans with barely a GED in their ancestry to satisfy even Ms. Parker's definition of a "real" American town. I don't think the people I grew up with can be described as any one thing, (other than, maybe, as Arlingtonians,) and certainly not as qualified (or unqualified) for the Supreme Court. Now, however, I live in a city full of vegetarian atheist lesbians who have PHDs and disdain Wal-mart; again, nothing except our geographic location is true for all of us, and, no matter what Ms. Parker (or Ms. Palin) may think, living in a city didn't change the seal on my passport, or my devotion to this country.
This stirs such an emotional response from me because I had a stepmother who constantly told me that my "book smarts" were inferior to the "street smarts" she and her family possessed. That I, as a young teenager, could be more intelligent than her, but I would never have more common sense. I have not finished college, largely because I have had to work a full-time job for the entirety of it, but, were I to go back to my stepmother's house, I would still be classified, in her mind, as numbering among the out-of-touch, academic, elite. Like Kagan, I am somehow less authentically American. I am so angry that my intelligence, which may not be anything better than slightly above average but is still my greatest strength, makes me lesser, in the eyes of this woman and those who think like her. I got a 5 on the AP calculus and English tests; I got a 1490 SATs and I was a National Merit Scholar. I've also flipped burgers, cut pizzas, waited tables, ran cash registers, and, god knows, made lattes. I've lived in rural and urban areas, in suburban cookie-cutter houses, and in tiny, turn-of-the-century apartment buildings. None of this says much about the type of person that I am, or my qualification as an "ordinary" American. I'm an American, so is Elena Kagan, and if my experience is an American experience, so is hers.
The nine men and women who wield the ultimate power of the Judicial branch with lifetime appointments should not be "ordinary." These should be the brightest, most engaged and creative and, yes, educated, individuals we can find. An understanding of how the law affects ordinary Americans (a classification that I think you intended to indicate Americans without direct power in any of the three branches of government, and not their hometown,) does not mean that one has to be average. I can't say much about what I do or do not want a Supreme Court Justice to be; they can come from any state, any religion, any race, any social class. The one thing I know for sure is that I don't want average minds on the Supreme Court. This is not to say that one must be an Ivy league scholar, either, only that I think the strengths and advantages that make a person extraordinary ought to be valued, not disdained.
It is long past time to end the social acceptability of such disdain for education and intelligence, the belief that one's patriotism or empathy is tied, somehow, to what part of the country they come from. Elena Kagan must be evaluated on her merit's as a potential Justice, not on her place of birth.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, May 10, 2010
Day 130- Out in public
Tonight's letter is in reference to a post on a former coworker's excellent blog Cultural Minefield. While he and I agree on very little, politically, he is the kind of intellectual I can't help but love to disagree with, especially when I know he can out-argue me on just about anything. He is a brilliant and reasonable individual and I miss him dearly. His post was a comment on Elena Kagan's rumored sexual orientation, and cites this article, for those looking to read more.
Dear Mr. President,
Today you announced Elena Kagan as your nominee for the Supreme Court. I am hardly qualified to comment on the virtues of this; while I relish the idea of the gender balance of the court tipping ever so slightly toward a more realistic reflection of the country, I don't value the symbolism of a female justice above the practical questions about her legal philosophies. I think that your familiarity with her and her views are enough for me, for now, to hope for the best. I've heard murmurs in the media, especially on blogs, about Kagan's sexual orientation. That your administration has refused to comment on this is expected and correct; it is certainly Kagan's prerogative to out herself if she chooses. I cannot imagine accepting a position that would require such scrutiny while simultaneously attempting to keep hidden something like sexual orientation, which the press will pursue perhaps even more doggedly than an affair scandal.
One commentator compared her sexual orientation to her religion, saying that while neither were should exclude her from nomination, it was significant that her religion could be openly discussed while her sexuality could not. I don't agree. For one thing, a person's political, moral and social views are influenced by religion, and religious persecution in this country is far less socially acceptable than the homophobia that is law in many states. There is no amendment to any state's constitution banning Jewish marriage. Some questioned the existence of a "secret" spouse who would be, hypothetically, hidden from the public. I find this highly amusing, given that those conservatives speculating about her secret marriage would have public records to confirm their suspicions, were they less successful at preventing lesbians in this country from openly marrying.
I understand why Kagan would want to hide her hypothetical homosexuality; it is perfectly reasonable to fear the reaction of our country's bigoted populace, not to mention the insulting questions and doubt cast on her objectivity sure to arise during her confirmation hearings in the Senate. I don't know that I could endure it, myself. However, if she is a lesbian, I hope she does speak openly about it, and that the White House does not discourage her from doing so. It is long past time that gay and lesbian Americans enjoyed the same rights of any of us, and, while appointing an openly gay Supreme Court Justice might be more symbolic than tangibly beneficial to the gay community, the most valuable consequence might be for the American government to demonstrate it isn't completely out of touch with American values. That, whatever small-minded individuals who might see it as disqualifying may say, the White House and the Senate are determined to confirm the most qualified individual, and believe, as do much of the American public, that a person's sexual orientation is neither a source of shame or basis for criticism. An expression of hope for a day when such facts about a person will actually arose no more interest or controversy from the media than their religion.
I look forward to the confirmation hearing, in the, (dim, I admit) hope that this one will focus more on the nominee's qualifications and legal philosophy than on any absurd "wise Latina" minutiae; should this fantasy not come to pass, I hope that Kagan is prepared for the difficult and undignified road ahead. I wish her luck.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
Today you announced Elena Kagan as your nominee for the Supreme Court. I am hardly qualified to comment on the virtues of this; while I relish the idea of the gender balance of the court tipping ever so slightly toward a more realistic reflection of the country, I don't value the symbolism of a female justice above the practical questions about her legal philosophies. I think that your familiarity with her and her views are enough for me, for now, to hope for the best. I've heard murmurs in the media, especially on blogs, about Kagan's sexual orientation. That your administration has refused to comment on this is expected and correct; it is certainly Kagan's prerogative to out herself if she chooses. I cannot imagine accepting a position that would require such scrutiny while simultaneously attempting to keep hidden something like sexual orientation, which the press will pursue perhaps even more doggedly than an affair scandal.
One commentator compared her sexual orientation to her religion, saying that while neither were should exclude her from nomination, it was significant that her religion could be openly discussed while her sexuality could not. I don't agree. For one thing, a person's political, moral and social views are influenced by religion, and religious persecution in this country is far less socially acceptable than the homophobia that is law in many states. There is no amendment to any state's constitution banning Jewish marriage. Some questioned the existence of a "secret" spouse who would be, hypothetically, hidden from the public. I find this highly amusing, given that those conservatives speculating about her secret marriage would have public records to confirm their suspicions, were they less successful at preventing lesbians in this country from openly marrying.
I understand why Kagan would want to hide her hypothetical homosexuality; it is perfectly reasonable to fear the reaction of our country's bigoted populace, not to mention the insulting questions and doubt cast on her objectivity sure to arise during her confirmation hearings in the Senate. I don't know that I could endure it, myself. However, if she is a lesbian, I hope she does speak openly about it, and that the White House does not discourage her from doing so. It is long past time that gay and lesbian Americans enjoyed the same rights of any of us, and, while appointing an openly gay Supreme Court Justice might be more symbolic than tangibly beneficial to the gay community, the most valuable consequence might be for the American government to demonstrate it isn't completely out of touch with American values. That, whatever small-minded individuals who might see it as disqualifying may say, the White House and the Senate are determined to confirm the most qualified individual, and believe, as do much of the American public, that a person's sexual orientation is neither a source of shame or basis for criticism. An expression of hope for a day when such facts about a person will actually arose no more interest or controversy from the media than their religion.
I look forward to the confirmation hearing, in the, (dim, I admit) hope that this one will focus more on the nominee's qualifications and legal philosophy than on any absurd "wise Latina" minutiae; should this fantasy not come to pass, I hope that Kagan is prepared for the difficult and undignified road ahead. I wish her luck.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
