Day 356- The narrative of the moment

Dear Mr. President,

Yay! You're officially a comeback kid! Did you wake up this week feeling suddenly more powerful than ever before? I ask because the media is abuzz with the story of your late legislative victories, and I can't get rid of this wry smile at the sudden change in narrative. Last week you were ineffective, stymied, your Presidency basically over. Now you're leading congress to more legislative accomplishments, repealing DADT, getting health care benefits for 9/11 first responders, saving the world from the threat of nuclear war with START. You're such a badass. How did things change so quickly?

Thing have not, of course, changed, but the way they are discussed on TV had to change. I'm not sure if this is a reflection of the American public's attention span or just the way the media feels about it, but it can't be a coincidence that every one changed their stories at once. It rings falsely to my ears, anyway. One of my favorite local writers, Paul Constant, agrees, asking that the media "let Bill Clinton's tired "comeback kid" trope molder in the 90s, where it belongs. Things are more complicated now. Don't we deserve a more nuanced media, too?"

Mr. Constant is right when he says "anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that you don't measure a presidency in inches, but these little victories and defeats are what keeps all these unworthy jackasses employed." . His media criticism reminds me of Jon Stewart, who has perfected the art of splicing news clips to show the absurd way one story can be discussed in identical terms. I don't think that you're a different President, that you're working any harder or that you've made any dramatic changes to your approach in the last week. I won't be even a little surprised when, a few weeks or months from now, the narrative changes again and every op-ed writer and pundit is lamenting your stalled/failed/vague/poorly articulated/tone-deaf agenda. As some one with a really unhealthy obsession with political news, I probably find this more annoying than a person who doesn't live and die with these narratives, but I think this practice contributes to our national discourse in an overwhelmingly negative way, encouraging reactionary, short-sighted emotional responses to decisions and events that require more context and perspective.

Just so you know, Mr. President, I'm not buying in to the idea of you being suddenly effective as a leader. For all of my angry, disappointed or nagging letters I've sent this year, I've never stopped appreciating your deliberate, measured approach to things (even when it frustrates the hell out of my hot-headed impulsive side.) I think you're great, but I thought you were great last week, too. I'm proud of what you've achieved and I recognize the magnitude of the work still to be done. This is no time for a victory lap or for complacency. So I hope that you soak up the good press while you've got it, because you know it won't last long.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 344- Approval ratings are overrated

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

Day 309-Conflicted interests

Dear Mr. President,

I have mixed feelings about Keith Olbermann. On one hand, I recognize that he posses a unique combination of honestly liberal values and the courage to express them with pride. However he is prone to the kind of overly-sensationalized borderline hysteria that, I suppose, comes with having your own TV show and constantly trying to compete with FOX for viewers. I am uncomfortable being too critical of a reliably liberal voice in an increasingly conservative media environment, but I think, at his worst, Olbermann was nowhere near as crazy as Glenn Beck on his most rational days. That he has been suspended over personal political donations to candidates he used his show to support is ridiculous. I just cannot believe that $2400 had a more significant impact on the candidates' success, Olbermann's objectivity, or MSNBC's credibility than on Countdown's very public and very uncontroversial promotion of these candidates and their party every single night.

So, apparently, the tea-soaked trifecta of Bachmann, Beck and Limbaugh (among others) are perpetuating the demonstrably false rumor that your trip to India will cost $200 million per day (more than the war effort in Afghanistan- $190 million/day.) This would be funny if the implication wasn't so disgusting. The very idea that quibbling over the price tag of Presidential Protection is acceptable discourse appalls me, especially in the case of Michele Bachmann, as she actually holds public office. I know your trip is not going to cost $2 billion and require 34 warships. I know this. I just want to say, even if it did, I'd still be OK with it. The point is that this outrage and obvious lie was repeated in the right-wing media and then by actual elected officials. How is that not more damaging to the credibility of Beck, Limbaugh and the networks they represent than the personal donations of Keith Olbermann to candidates he publicly endorsed?

And, for all of his faults and missteps, Olbermann was quick to admit mistakes and issue corrections. (Reflection after Jon Stewart's Rally to restore Sanity caused him to suspend one of his show's most famous and inflammatory segments, for example.) Unlike the irresponsibly close relationship between pundits and politicians on the right, Olbermann's words were rarely, if ever, parroted by elected Democrats. (Sadly, many Democrats also lacked much of the courage he showed in speaking out against Islamophobia, homophobia and racism.) After such a tough election cycle I am deeply saddened by the loss of a political ally on the national stage.

I hope that your trip to India is safe and productive, no matter how much it costs. I'm sorry that this controversy may take attention away from the trip's important purpose. I hope that, even without the reliably, unapologetically liberal voice of Mr. Olbermann, you and other Democrats remember that being a liberal, even in the era of FOX News, is nothing to be ashamed of.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey


Hey all, check out what Rachel Maddow had to say about this.

Day 263-Prime Rib

Dear Mr. President,

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

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

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 248- 10.2.2010

Dear Mr. President,

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

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

Day 196- Winning, losing and telling the tale

Dear Mr. President,

I'm not sure what winning is supposed to look like, any more. On day of several ostensible political victories, I've read pieces by Politico and The New York Times that read more like obituaries for your administration. I think that both pieces are poorly written and tend to rely on oversimplification to make their points. Each seem to simultaneously criticize you for overreaching and for doing too little. Little, if any, concession is made toward the overwhelming financial and political obstacles your administration faced due to the previous administration. Is it hopelessly naive of me to think that opinion polling in July isn't necessarily a perfect indicator of what November will hold?

One aspect of the criticisms offered that I do agree with is the folly of your administration's alienation of the media. I think the press can be hostile, self-serving and incredibly cynical. But you can't win the favor of the public without the media. If there has been one consistant victory for the right over the last few years, it has been control of the narrative. We may be winning our fair share of political battles, but we are not the ones writing the history of it. I think that repairing the administration's relationship with the media, and re-engaging directly with the press, could be important steps toward reversing the trend of analysis that casts victories as either meaningless compromises of values or as imposition of the administration's will on a reluctant public, (or, inexplicably, both.)

The left has plenty to be upset about in the compromises that your administration has agreed to, and the issues you've sacrificed without a proper fight. But the progress made in a time of economic distress has been commendable. I don't believe that enough of that story is getting through, or that the right-wing narrative of your secret plan to dominate the globe through back-door socialist revolution is being effectively combated. And while the tone of news coverage certainly matters less to me than the substance of what your administration is doing, I think that re-engaging the press corps (and increasing engagement with the kinds of new media that got you elected in the first place, like bloggers,) would go a long way toward improving the way voters feel about your accomplishments. I'm not an expert or anything, but I don't think that limiting press conferences and basically ignoring new media opportunities to reach an audience that doesn't get its information on CNN or FOX is a communication strategy that will allow you to reach many of those Americans who aren't personally attending your town hall meetings on economic recovery. I still have a great deal of hope for your presidency, and I'm proud of what has been achieved today, but if I were learning about it only from the news coverage, I might wonder why we're all wearing black and talking in the past tense.

Respectfully yours,


Kelsey

Day 192- World cup! (final)

Dear Mr. President,

Today I was more than usually grateful for my new job. For one thing, I'm appreciating every day how interesting and talented my new coworkers are. But today we got to watch the world cup final, which was on the TV screens in several areas. I know it probably isn't fair to get paid to watch the world cup, but I think we managed to stay productive. I was cheering for the Netherlands, for the incredibly insubstantial reason that I've been there, once, and it still holds a place in my heart as my first trip outside of North America. Clearly, it wasn't such a great day for fans of the Dutch soccer team, but it was fun, all the same.

And then I saw the attacks in Uganda and I felt sick. I don't think it's more sinister to attack during a soccer game than at any other time, but it seems so cruel to subvert an event meant to unite people in peace this way. I don't think there's anything to say to make it any better. My sister recently returned from a business trip to Uganda, and, while I am glad she was not there for this, I know many lost their own sisters or brothers today, and my heart goes out to them. I don't know what role our nation can play in easing the suffering and the trauma from this attack, but I hope that we are making every effort to contribute what we can.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 161-Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca

Dear Mr. President,

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

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

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

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

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

Day 104- Death, taxes, and hypocrisy

Dear Mr. President,

I confess, I paid no federal income taxes this year. This seems to be upsetting to a number of people on TV, and Glenn Beck seems to think this means I ought to be drafted into military service. I don't know that I'd make a particularly good soldier, to be honest. I'm happy to contribute to the work of running our government and the costs of social services, infrastructure projects, and national defense, but, in the spirit of full disclosure, I thought I'd let you know what else I didn't do this year.

For starters, I didn't receive a bonus while leading a company that lost money or accepted tax payer money as a bail out. I didn't lay off any employees, cut any one's wages, or slash their benefits. I didn't cheat on my taxes by misrepresenting my income or eligibility for tax credits; I didn't hide my profits in offshore subsidiaries. I didn't bribe legislators into writing loopholes in the tax code to allow me to pay less. I didn't make huge amounts of money creating a financial crisis that devastated the economy. I didn't manipulate consumers with credit card offers or sell them mortgages they couldn't afford; I didn't present a false picture of my financial health in order to dupe my shareholders. I didn't take money from gullible people who trusted me and ruin their retirement or life savings. I didn't start any wars, I didn't commit a single murder, I didn't violate any one's human rights.

My state doesn't have an income tax, so I pay almost 10% in sales tax on everything I buy. I do take public transportation or walk because I can't afford a car. I share a two-bedroom apartment with 3 other girls because we can't afford higher rent. I pay medicare and social security taxes, even though both may be bankrupt by the time I qualify for them. I support local business, local artists, and local farmers, and I help decrease the amount of pesticides and herbicides running off into waterways because I buy organic. I contribute to my company's charitable fund, as well as other charities. I recycle. I try to avoid breaking the law whenever possible. I take on more student debt each year, as tuition (and class sizes) go up. I work for a living, and I support myself as best I can.

I'm not perfect; there is a lot more I can do for my community, and for the world. But I try to increase the good that I do and decrease the bad, as much as possible. If that's not enough for Fox News or Drudge or Glenn Beck, well, I guess I'm just going to have to find a way to live with their disdain.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 100- On death, without exaggeration

Dear Mr. President,

I had planned so much to say in this, my 100th letter to you. A beloved Supreme Court Justice is retiring. Sudan is going to the polls. The lights have been out in Gaza for days. The mining accident in West Virginia demands a new look at the way the industry protects its workers. But my heart is heavy for the people of Poland today. The magnitude of their loss is staggering; I don't understand how a country recovers from such a blow. Everything feels a little less safe, our fragility never more apparent than when tragedy strikes those we want to believe are somehow protected from it. Of course, Presidents are not granted a higher degree of immortality just because they are elected to high office. Of course, death does not care about a person's job, or a country's history of struggles. Of course, tragedy like this can unite divided people and urge nations to stand together despite all that they disagree on. It is the only way we make it through.

And so, humbled by this reminder of our own rapidly approaching ends, frightened by the realization that none of us have power over death, we will light candles and put aside our differences and stand together as the people of Poland grieve, and, slowly, move forward. How lost, they must be feeling, right now. It seems especially unfair that this has struck a country that seems to have, throughout history, had to overcome more than its share of tragedy and despair.

I don't pray, Mr. President, but I often, in my conversations with the universe, wish for your safety and security. I will do so, again, this evening. We would be so lost without you, sir.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

On death, without exaggeration

by Wislawa Szymborska

It can't take a joke,

find a star, make a bridge.
It knows nothing about weaving, mining, farming,
building ships, or baking cakes.

In our planning for tomorrow,
it has the final word,
which is always beside the point.

It can't even get the things done
that are part of its trade:
dig a grave,
make a coffin,
clean up after itself.

Preoccupied with killing,
it does the job awkwardly,
without system or skill.
As though each of us were its first kill.

Oh, it has its triumphs,
but look at its countless defeats,
missed blows,
and repeat attempts!

Sometimes it isn't strong enough
to swat a fly from the air.
Many are the caterpillars
that have outcrawled it.

All those bulbs, pods,
tentacles, fins, tracheae,
nuptial plumage, and winter fur
show that it has fallen behind
with its halfhearted work.

Ill will won't help
and even our lending a hand with wars and coups d'etat
is so far not enough.

Hearts beat inside eggs.
Babies' skeletons grow.
Seeds, hard at work, sprout their first tiny pair of leaves
and sometimes even tall trees fall away.

Whoever claims that it's omnipotent
is himself living proof
that it's not.

There's no life
that couldn't be immortal
if only for a moment.

Death
always arrives by that very moment too late.

In vain it tugs at the knob
of the invisible door.
As far as you've come
can't be undone.

Day 67- Semantics

Dear Mr. President,

Today I'd like to point out yet another example of the appalling anti-Islamic bias in our media. Two articles, about the same tragic incident, caught my attention today. One, linked on the front page of the New York Times website, ran under the headline "Death Toll From Nigeria Violence Hits 500." The other, linked from the front page of CNN.com, ran under the headline "Muslims kill hundreds in Nigeria.". Before comparing the language used in these headlines, I'd like to first say that I am horrified by the violence described by the articles. I'm not insensitive to the superficial nature of the argument I'm about to make, especially when considering the toll this conflict has taken on the lives of so many.

However, these headlines speak to a greater trend, an undercurrent of Islamophobia perpetuated by our media, and, while there may be no statistics available on how many, this certainly has its own grievous toll. The articles, which are about the attack on a largely Christian population by a largely Muslim group, each specify that the attacks were retaliation for an attack in January that left 150 Muslims dead. The NYT article mentions this in the second paragraph, CNN mentions it at the very end of the article. Both quote sources who caution against characterizing the violence as solely based on religion, citing economic, social and ethnic tensions as additional contributory factors. And, (I checked,) in January, both news organizations covered the attack on the Muslims, but neither described it as "Christians kill hundreds in Nigeria." During Operation Cast Lead, no headlines read, "Jews kill thousands in Gaza." Clearly, those headlines would be seen as ridiculous and offensive. Why has it become acceptable to identify criminals as "Muslims", but not by any other religion? I see this time and time again in the way the news is reported. I'm not a Muslim, Mr. President, but I find this reporting style offensive.

I'm writing to you about this because I know you are sensitive to the ways that such perceptions, and the language that supports them, can exacerbate conflict and fear. No religious group should be indicted every time a person claiming to subscribe to it commits a crime. Islam, as you know, does not promote or condone violence and should not be twisted to suit the media's need to simplify the identification of our enemies.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 36-"The thinnest kid at fat camp"

Dear Mr. President,

I watched Jon Stewart on the O'Reilly factor today. I really hate venturing into FOX news territory, even if it is to watch Mr. Stewart. I'm glad that, under your administration, a spade has been called a spade, and we no longer have to play along with the idea that FOX is somehow an objective news organization. I'm sure that offends a great number of FOX's viewers, but I have little patience for any one who can take Glenn Beck seriously. The man is a cartoon.

FOX news is one of the larger problems your administration faces. In my opinion, having the most popular "news" outlet working 24 hours a day to oppose you and your agenda, is almost as bad as having no majorities in the legislative branch. And since Congressional Democrats seem determined to make both a reality, I hope you're up for a challenging 3rd year. Once again, this is a failure of the American people. Too many of us are content to have news shouted at us, to absorb only what comes at us the loudest, the fastest and the easiest to digest. Too few are willing to seek out information, to verify claims even when we agree with them, to educate ourselves instead of allowing ourselves to be indoctrinated. And this applies to many on the left, as well. I have no illusions about the nobility of those who agree with me- many are just as willing to brush aside the complications to the narrative that they embrace.

Why is it that we crave simplicity? The world is complicated! Morally, socially, economically, spiritually complicated. We cannot be dumbed down, simplified to the lowest common denominator and then expect to be governed accordingly. Why resist the complexity of reality? The morally ambiguous, the simultaneous acceptance of contradictory ideas and their constant struggle which we all know, on our most basic level, in our heart of hearts, is the only way to make sense out of it all. Our natural desire to be comfortable and protected even as we are independent, our founding principles, our religious faiths- nothing about America, or humanity, is simple.

I don't understand the desire to have everything fit perfectly into the way I see the world. I can't pretend that all liberals are good, or that all conservative are evil. As passionate as I am about the peace process in Palestine, I can't pretend I'm not horrified by the cartoons of Hamas, or insensitive to the need for Israelis to feel secure. Everything is a balancing act. Presenting the world to us in black and white, or red and blue, is something we should all be resisting with all of our might. But, for reasons surpassing my understanding, Fox wins the ratings games. James Patterson tops the best seller list. Sarah Palin may be the GOP's nominee for the 2012 presidential race. All around me, people reject the complexity of making decisions for themselves based on their own labors of discovery, to surrender their judgment to Oprah or Dr. Phil or Glenn Beck.

Anyway, Mr. President, I know Jon Stewart can be tough on you, but I don't think you'd respect him if he wasn't. He's not your man, any more than you are his, but I think both of you share an enthusiasm for the idiosyncratic, that makes me feel as though, at least in the fight against FOX, we're all on the same team.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 22

Dear Mr. President,

Paul Krugman has some very important things to say about health care in today's New York Times. I agree with his call for Congressional Democrats to "stop whining, and do what needs to be done." He says this needs to happen in the face of poor leadership from the White House. I'm not sure I agree. I thought your speech at the town hall meeting today was a clear demonstration of your commitment to the issue, but I think the State of the Union will be the real test. I don't think you should be shy about telling the American people just exactly what is holding up this reform- their congressional representatives.

Krugman's point about bipartisanship is also a valid one. Once again, the Republicans are demonstrating their superior legislative strategy. The health care reform bill is incredibly conciliatory- I'd imagine there are several moderate republicans who would support it, in principle. Unfortunately their party's goal- to prevent Democrats from appearing effective- is more important than doing right by their constituents. This is something democrats could do a better job of calling them out for. Which party is standing on principle and which is putting politics before the national interest? I don't think Democrats have communicated this well to the public.

Finally, I think that a concession to your own base is probably in order. We've been roughed up the last few weeks, the left is lacking fire and excitement. How about checking off some of the campaign promises you can do without congressional approval? Repealing DADT? making real progress towards closing Guantanamo? These may cost you political capitol with the centrists and the right wing, but it would energize your supporters and remind congressional democrats (many of whom owe their seats to your electoral coattails) that you came to Washington to do more than compromise- and so did they.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 2

Tonight I actually said the words, "No, I can't go out, I have to work on my blog." OK, this is going to be a bigger commitment than I anticipated. Also, I got around to buying stamps which are surprisingly expensive. At first I thought that I would send e-mails, but ultimately decided on letters because it seemed more "authentic" (Whatever the F that means) and more egalitarian. But this is false! Stamps are expensive! Oh well... Also, my handwriting looks like an angry 3rd grader's.

Today's Letter:

Dear Mr. President,

Today I started Dreams From My Father. I was struck by the poetry of your writing style. As a bookstore employee, I may not be the most discerning reader, but I certainly read enough to appreciate the rare quality of your words. I am not as picky about what I read as I am about food, for instance, as a trashy sci-fi novel every now and then probably won't rot my brain as effectively as high-fructose corn syrup, but I find myself more often drawn to fiction, as it is usually more beautiful prose than nonfiction. Your book seems to be proving me wrong in this assumption. Thank you for that.

I watched your address from Saturday online. CNN.com ran it under the headline, "Obama promises justice for Christmas terror plotters," which I found rather off-putting. It brought to mind the false "War on Christmas" that O'Reily and his ilk are so fond of using to divide Christian and non-Christian Americans. I was happy to see that this was not a phrase you used in your speech. After listening to you, I read up on Yemen a bit, as it is not a country I'm comfortably informed about. In reading about the 2004 civil war and 2009 escalation of the insurgency, I felt ashamed that this was completely new information for me.

I think you did a good job of reminding us who the enemy is, however, I feel like this speech also spent too much time focusing on the offensive tactics we were taking militarily and through the intelligence agencies. Yes, there is a childish part of all of us that wants to hear words like "punish" and "justice", but you mentioned the poverty many Yemeni people suffer as well, without expanding upon that idea or even drawing the connection between people suffering and militant groups like Al-Qaeda. That's an important point- a truth that is difficult to admit and impossible to impart to those that will not hear it, but it is essential to understanding the type warfare we ought to engage in.

I guess my point is that, maybe we as Americans should also resolve to learn something about Yemen in 2010?

Anyway, Mr. President, good speech. Not your best, but it got the job done. Thank you for your continued efforts to keep our country safe, and may that job get easier in the coming year.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey