Dear Mr. President,
Today I saw an op-ed in the Washington Post by two men who claim to be Democrats who don't think you should run for re-election in 2012. (I say "claim to be" because there is some question about their actual party affiliation.) I should probably remind every one that I'm not a professional political operative. I don't exactly have the resumé to argue with these hacks. But I think this is just about the worst advice I've heard any one offer you in a while.
I don't think that removing yourself now from the 2012 campaign would, as these pundits suggest, force the republicans in congress to make concessions. I think that backing down now would be the ultimate sign of defeat. Republicans would sieze the opportunity to legislate like they controlled all three branches of government. And I don't say this as a political expert (which I am not) but as a girl who has only gone on first dates for basically an entire year (which I am.) I go on first dates, and sometimes guys just aren't into me, and sometimes I'm just not into them, and sometimes circumstances just aren't right for the two of us. But this doesn't mean I give up entirely on the prospect of dating or ever finding some one to love me. Some of your decisions haven't been popular, some of what the country thinks it wants (social services funded by magic instead of taxes!) isn't what you're able or willing to give and some of your problems are just circumstance.
Running in 2012 demonstrates that you're not looking to escape because it's hard. It is what separates you from Sarah Palin (besides, of course, your grasp of the English language, basic knowledge of geography, economics and history.) To give up would be to tell voters, for sure, that Democrats aren't cut out for leading the country during challenging times. I have no idea who these strategists are or why they are so deluded as to think that appeasing the unreasonable demands of republican leaders is the best way to secure bipartisan cooperation, but I sincerely hope they are not people who get taken seriously in any official capacity.
Mr. President, I have disagreed with many of your decisions as President. I have my issues with your policy compromises and many of your centrist ideas. But I would rather see you in office in 2012 than any Republican. I want to see you listen ultimately to your own values and instincts and not to opinion polls and political pundits, to govern ambitiously and unapologetically, and with the courage of your convictions. ( I would also like you to be able to govern for a while longer without having to worry about reelection, but that ship sailed.)
You've got my vote in 2012, sir. Of the two of us, you're probably the more likely to make the most of a second date.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Friday, November 12, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Day 287- Misogyny
Dear Mr. President,
In my many years at various bookstores in various cities, I've encountered more than a few authors and politicians I disliked. Dick Cheney shopped at one store I worked in, which also hosted signings by conservatives like James Baker and Ann Coulter. Some authors are just rude- a historian I previously had nothing against once turned me off of his World War Two books forever by yelling at me over his book's not-quite-prominent-enough location. Glenn Beck was scheduled to do an event at my Seattle Borders, but luckily re-routed his tour and was unable to make it. I'm usually pretty good at staying calm even when I don't like an author's politics, or when they turn out to be completely arrogant and self-absorbed. For every Philippa Gregory or Alex Kershaw there are the Margaret Atwoods, Laurie Notaros and Don Cheadles, who have enough grace and good humor to make up for it. Tonight, an author who seems to make his money demeaning women was in my store signing for a huge crowd of frat boys and, sadly, more than a few women. I dont understand what women possibly see in this man's humor that would make them want his autograph. (I wanted to punch him in the face just for looking at me, but, luckily for him, it's a recession and my job is worth slightly more than that.)
I watched the line twist down the staircase, and between the large groups of (largely white) gym-toned and fake-tanned frat boys, I'd catch glimpses of the girls. They all seemed to be a variation on the same theme of long hair, heavy make up, too-short shorts or too-tight dresses with designer bags and long artificial nails. With impossibly thin limbs and shimmering highlights, they wore expressions of affected disinterest as they texted on phones in one hand and clutched copies of his books in the other. On the paperback of his first memoir, the author stands pointing at a blonde under his arm, her features replaced with the words "your face here". I've often longed to be more beautiful, but tonight, watching these lovely, sad creatures in all of their splendor, I have never been so happy to be homely.
While considering the mystery of this man's appeal, I came across this article on political misogyny. The recent popularity of anti-choice female candidates like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Christine O'Donnell has given me serious pause about my desire to see more women in high office. I would like my gender to have more representation in government- but not by the political equivalent of those tanned, bleached and very thin girls standing in line to meet Tucker Max. I'll fully own my nerdy plain girl's mistrust of those who make being pretty their full-time jobs, but I think that there is a significant difference, for example, in the politics of Senator Snowe and those of the Palin/O'Donnell crowd. American women are far too diverse to ever be expected to vote for the same party, but it is so difficult to understand women who don't stand up against the subjugation of other women. Women who don't even take themselves seriously, let alone offer voters reason enough to. I want to feel the bonds of sisterhood, some common struggle that connects me with women like this, but I just don't. Does that make me just as bad as Tucker Max? I think in some ways it must. I don't know what kind of feminism there might be that could possibly include all of us, but I know for sure we're never going to find it worshipping men like him.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
In my many years at various bookstores in various cities, I've encountered more than a few authors and politicians I disliked. Dick Cheney shopped at one store I worked in, which also hosted signings by conservatives like James Baker and Ann Coulter. Some authors are just rude- a historian I previously had nothing against once turned me off of his World War Two books forever by yelling at me over his book's not-quite-prominent-enough location. Glenn Beck was scheduled to do an event at my Seattle Borders, but luckily re-routed his tour and was unable to make it. I'm usually pretty good at staying calm even when I don't like an author's politics, or when they turn out to be completely arrogant and self-absorbed. For every Philippa Gregory or Alex Kershaw there are the Margaret Atwoods, Laurie Notaros and Don Cheadles, who have enough grace and good humor to make up for it. Tonight, an author who seems to make his money demeaning women was in my store signing for a huge crowd of frat boys and, sadly, more than a few women. I dont understand what women possibly see in this man's humor that would make them want his autograph. (I wanted to punch him in the face just for looking at me, but, luckily for him, it's a recession and my job is worth slightly more than that.)
I watched the line twist down the staircase, and between the large groups of (largely white) gym-toned and fake-tanned frat boys, I'd catch glimpses of the girls. They all seemed to be a variation on the same theme of long hair, heavy make up, too-short shorts or too-tight dresses with designer bags and long artificial nails. With impossibly thin limbs and shimmering highlights, they wore expressions of affected disinterest as they texted on phones in one hand and clutched copies of his books in the other. On the paperback of his first memoir, the author stands pointing at a blonde under his arm, her features replaced with the words "your face here". I've often longed to be more beautiful, but tonight, watching these lovely, sad creatures in all of their splendor, I have never been so happy to be homely.
While considering the mystery of this man's appeal, I came across this article on political misogyny. The recent popularity of anti-choice female candidates like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Christine O'Donnell has given me serious pause about my desire to see more women in high office. I would like my gender to have more representation in government- but not by the political equivalent of those tanned, bleached and very thin girls standing in line to meet Tucker Max. I'll fully own my nerdy plain girl's mistrust of those who make being pretty their full-time jobs, but I think that there is a significant difference, for example, in the politics of Senator Snowe and those of the Palin/O'Donnell crowd. American women are far too diverse to ever be expected to vote for the same party, but it is so difficult to understand women who don't stand up against the subjugation of other women. Women who don't even take themselves seriously, let alone offer voters reason enough to. I want to feel the bonds of sisterhood, some common struggle that connects me with women like this, but I just don't. Does that make me just as bad as Tucker Max? I think in some ways it must. I don't know what kind of feminism there might be that could possibly include all of us, but I know for sure we're never going to find it worshipping men like him.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Day 250- Internet connections
Dear Mr. President,
In recent months I have cautiously forayed into the realm of internet dating sites in an attempt to get past an increasingly long string of failed romantic endeavors. For better or worse, meeting people online has introduced me to several interesting and intelligent men I would never have otherwise encountered. That I connect with them initially through the internet doesn't bother me, though it makes several of my friends uncomfortable. I do understand the inherent risk, and also the capacity for deception, that goes along with any virtual communication. I've been chatting online since the early days of AOL, I've had livejournal accounts, myspace and facebook pages, and now I have this blog, which often consumes a considerable amount of my time and energy. I have friends I met online who I have never spoken to in person, and friends I met online who became friends outside of the internet, and more than a few friends who I relate to differently online than I do in person. (I do not tweet. I'm sure, in time, I will succumb to it, but for now it is the one craze I have yet to find any interest in.) Because so much of my time is spent on the internet, I'm inclined to disagree with those who discount any communication, interaction or relationship that occurs online as inauthentic. I have been lied to online, but I have also been lied to by people I love who look me in the eye when they lie to me. I think any interaction with another human requires a certain amount of faith and results in a certain amount of disappointment, regardless of where or how that interaction takes place. The person I am online, the person who writes these letters and rants about the issues that matter to me and who even sometimes speaks in humiliatingly bad blank verse that should be kept to myself, is just as much of who I am as the person you'd encounter if you met me. Words I say are not any more authentic than words I type.
Every now and then, however, I encounter online behavior that really makes me question the dichotomy of our actual selves and our online selves. The NRCC aide who posted home addresses for a Democratic candidates staff on Twitter, for example. Would this man have gone on Television and announced the home addresses of these other staffers? Would he have shouted them out at a rally? Furthermore, is such irresponsible behavior the product of the internet's illusion of anonymity or is this a reflection of the aide's true nature? Some politicians don't seem to have this problem. Vice President Biden, for example, surely is more likely to exercise restraint when he writes something online, (perhaps giving him the chance to consider if "big fucking deal" is really the descriptive phrase most appropriate.) I have no doubt that Sarah Palin's speaking style lends itself well to the 140-character limit and fluid spelling laws of Twitter, which is why her tweets sound (marginally) more coherent than anything she's ever said in an unscripted TV interview. If I could not hide behind the screen of my laptop, or easily revise my words, would my letters to you be different?
At the end of the day I don't think it matters if one version of me is more real than the other. So much of our interaction now takes place or relates to the internet that whatever distortion of personality or character it may create is irrelevant. I am accountable for my actions, just like the men I meet online or the friends I chat with online or the politicians who campaign online. While your campaign may have successfully used the internet as a means to connect with a younger generation of voters, that no longer seems to be the case. You once posted on DailyKos, your campaign's organizing efforts were legitimately grassroots and unique. Now it seems like the same generic intern-composed junk mail in my inbox day in and day out. It seems like you've cut out the blogging community and limited e-mail communication to re-worked versions of the same request for money. The authenticity is lacking, not because it's the internet, but because the efforts are stilted and hollow. Once, you seemed to understand the power of connecting with the voters through any media. You can reach so many voters online if you're willing to expend the same kind of personal energy that you do in campaign speeches or town hall meetings that reach only those lucky enough to live in a targeted area. Other members of your administration seem to be using the internet as an effective means of communicating with Americans; I hope that you reconsider your own efforts to ease the enthusiasm gap on the left in time for the election. A little sincerity could go a long way.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
In recent months I have cautiously forayed into the realm of internet dating sites in an attempt to get past an increasingly long string of failed romantic endeavors. For better or worse, meeting people online has introduced me to several interesting and intelligent men I would never have otherwise encountered. That I connect with them initially through the internet doesn't bother me, though it makes several of my friends uncomfortable. I do understand the inherent risk, and also the capacity for deception, that goes along with any virtual communication. I've been chatting online since the early days of AOL, I've had livejournal accounts, myspace and facebook pages, and now I have this blog, which often consumes a considerable amount of my time and energy. I have friends I met online who I have never spoken to in person, and friends I met online who became friends outside of the internet, and more than a few friends who I relate to differently online than I do in person. (I do not tweet. I'm sure, in time, I will succumb to it, but for now it is the one craze I have yet to find any interest in.) Because so much of my time is spent on the internet, I'm inclined to disagree with those who discount any communication, interaction or relationship that occurs online as inauthentic. I have been lied to online, but I have also been lied to by people I love who look me in the eye when they lie to me. I think any interaction with another human requires a certain amount of faith and results in a certain amount of disappointment, regardless of where or how that interaction takes place. The person I am online, the person who writes these letters and rants about the issues that matter to me and who even sometimes speaks in humiliatingly bad blank verse that should be kept to myself, is just as much of who I am as the person you'd encounter if you met me. Words I say are not any more authentic than words I type.
Every now and then, however, I encounter online behavior that really makes me question the dichotomy of our actual selves and our online selves. The NRCC aide who posted home addresses for a Democratic candidates staff on Twitter, for example. Would this man have gone on Television and announced the home addresses of these other staffers? Would he have shouted them out at a rally? Furthermore, is such irresponsible behavior the product of the internet's illusion of anonymity or is this a reflection of the aide's true nature? Some politicians don't seem to have this problem. Vice President Biden, for example, surely is more likely to exercise restraint when he writes something online, (perhaps giving him the chance to consider if "big fucking deal" is really the descriptive phrase most appropriate.) I have no doubt that Sarah Palin's speaking style lends itself well to the 140-character limit and fluid spelling laws of Twitter, which is why her tweets sound (marginally) more coherent than anything she's ever said in an unscripted TV interview. If I could not hide behind the screen of my laptop, or easily revise my words, would my letters to you be different?
At the end of the day I don't think it matters if one version of me is more real than the other. So much of our interaction now takes place or relates to the internet that whatever distortion of personality or character it may create is irrelevant. I am accountable for my actions, just like the men I meet online or the friends I chat with online or the politicians who campaign online. While your campaign may have successfully used the internet as a means to connect with a younger generation of voters, that no longer seems to be the case. You once posted on DailyKos, your campaign's organizing efforts were legitimately grassroots and unique. Now it seems like the same generic intern-composed junk mail in my inbox day in and day out. It seems like you've cut out the blogging community and limited e-mail communication to re-worked versions of the same request for money. The authenticity is lacking, not because it's the internet, but because the efforts are stilted and hollow. Once, you seemed to understand the power of connecting with the voters through any media. You can reach so many voters online if you're willing to expend the same kind of personal energy that you do in campaign speeches or town hall meetings that reach only those lucky enough to live in a targeted area. Other members of your administration seem to be using the internet as an effective means of communicating with Americans; I hope that you reconsider your own efforts to ease the enthusiasm gap on the left in time for the election. A little sincerity could go a long way.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Day 213- Why I need to date an economist
Dear Mr. President,
The sun over Seattle was an odd but not unpleasant orange for most of the evening. When I got off work at 5, I thought it interesting enough to compel me to walk through the park on my way home in order to extend my time outdoors. I saw a mural being painted, a giant face and brilliantly colored shapes. It's beautiful, and eye-catching, and generally an improvement over the formerly solid-red wall surrounding the massive light rail construction area near the park. This got me thinking about the WPA and the ways that investing in public art could help unemployment. Once I got home, I read up on the WPA and thought of a number of complications that make it perhaps not the most practical solution to our current problems. Also, I saw Sarah Palin talking about the Bush tax cuts. All of this made me realize that my next boyfriend, for sure, is going to be an economist. I figure my poor luck with choosing dates based on attraction means I should probably start dating men who can help fill gaps in my education, and economics is one enormous gap. I suppose being friends with an economist would also work, so long as I could call them at the slightest provocation and ask for help understanding things like depression-era social programs.
Luckily, Fareed Zakaria is basically
And so, while I fully admit my own lack of anything resembling expertise when it comes to this, I hope that the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, and that future stimulus projects go toward extending unemployment benefits (or even funding murals-painting, road-fixing and other public works projects.) Even Alan Greenspan agrees with this, which makes me think that the logic is probably sound. I understand why Republicans feel the need to fight for a tax policy that favors their supporters, but I think it is clear that such a policy would be contrary to our country's immediate needs and long-term interests. Your administration has had to make a number of compromises in the process of passing important legislation for the sake of politics, but I hope that, in this case, what is best for our nation is allowed to take precedent over what is going to please top campaign contributors. Also, just in case I'm not the only one having a hard time understanding this debate, Democrats might want to work on explaining things as clearly (though, hopefully, less ridiculously) than Sarah Palin.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Day 199- Palin for President
Dear Mr. President,
I'm officially signing on as a supporter of Sarah Palin's presidential bid. This may come as a shock to many who know me, but I've given it a lot of thought, and I've realized that she's all about compassion. Compassion for New Yorkers, who, apparently, since 9/11 can no longer bear the sight or sound of anything relating to Islam. And, Mrs. Palin knows that the best forum for expressing compassion is twitter. As pointed out in a comment on the New York Times article, no one would have objected to the building of a church 2 blocks away from the Oklahoma City bomb site. But Sarah knows better. Sarah understands the difference between domestic and foreign terror is that, while it would just be ridiculous to start being afraid of all the white male anti-government Christians in this country, there are a small enough number of Muslims to make fearing them as convenient as a drive-thru. And Sarah knows that in this country, we even like our phobias value-sized and made-to-order.
The mosque, which she asks peace-seeking Muslims to reject "in the interest of healing," is simply too difficult for New Yorkers to look at. I can relate. One time I was shoved by an Asian woman in the street, and now I can't eat Thai food without having terrible flashbacks. I'm just glad that courageous people like Sarah Palin are willing to spend 140 characters defending the traumatized psyche of xenophobes.
But there are other benefits to a Palin presidential run. Remember the good old days, before you were President, when the left was united against Bush, and had the added benefit of being able to blame our lack of accomplishments on our complete lack of power? It was a lot easier to call myself a Democrat or a liberal in those days. I didn't worry about getting torn apart from the left and the right. The left agreed with me. The right had all the power and didn't feel they had to apologize for it, so they didn't bother to disagree with me. That kind of harmony, that peace and stability that drove the economy into the ground, started two wars and really boosted the sale of backpack-sized Canadian flags, you know, I get all misty just thinking about it. I think that Sarah Palin could really bring that back. And, let's face it, most Democrats would rather rage helplessly against the status quo than be strapped with the impossible task of changing it. I think I could build a decent sized coalition around this.
Just think, Mr. President, you could probably take a vacation without every one and their co-anchor flipping out about it. Sounds pretty good, eh?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I'm officially signing on as a supporter of Sarah Palin's presidential bid. This may come as a shock to many who know me, but I've given it a lot of thought, and I've realized that she's all about compassion. Compassion for New Yorkers, who, apparently, since 9/11 can no longer bear the sight or sound of anything relating to Islam. And, Mrs. Palin knows that the best forum for expressing compassion is twitter. As pointed out in a comment on the New York Times article, no one would have objected to the building of a church 2 blocks away from the Oklahoma City bomb site. But Sarah knows better. Sarah understands the difference between domestic and foreign terror is that, while it would just be ridiculous to start being afraid of all the white male anti-government Christians in this country, there are a small enough number of Muslims to make fearing them as convenient as a drive-thru. And Sarah knows that in this country, we even like our phobias value-sized and made-to-order.
The mosque, which she asks peace-seeking Muslims to reject "in the interest of healing," is simply too difficult for New Yorkers to look at. I can relate. One time I was shoved by an Asian woman in the street, and now I can't eat Thai food without having terrible flashbacks. I'm just glad that courageous people like Sarah Palin are willing to spend 140 characters defending the traumatized psyche of xenophobes.
But there are other benefits to a Palin presidential run. Remember the good old days, before you were President, when the left was united against Bush, and had the added benefit of being able to blame our lack of accomplishments on our complete lack of power? It was a lot easier to call myself a Democrat or a liberal in those days. I didn't worry about getting torn apart from the left and the right. The left agreed with me. The right had all the power and didn't feel they had to apologize for it, so they didn't bother to disagree with me. That kind of harmony, that peace and stability that drove the economy into the ground, started two wars and really boosted the sale of backpack-sized Canadian flags, you know, I get all misty just thinking about it. I think that Sarah Palin could really bring that back. And, let's face it, most Democrats would rather rage helplessly against the status quo than be strapped with the impossible task of changing it. I think I could build a decent sized coalition around this.
Just think, Mr. President, you could probably take a vacation without every one and their co-anchor flipping out about it. Sounds pretty good, eh?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, April 23, 2010
Day 113- Ghosts of 2008
Dear Mr. President,
I'm glad that you've publicly addressed the injustice of the racist immigration law recently passed by the state of Arizona. I'm at a complete loss; I can't fathom how in this day and age such legislation could be seriously discussed, let alone signed into law. We need comprehensive national reform, and in the meantime the Arizona legislation ought to be fought by the courts and by the voters. My roommate, a member of the Hidatsa-Mandan tribe, joined in our outrage at this legislation, despite having, better than any of us, a historical claim to this land. We're a nation of immigrants, outside of the reservations. Where are the small-government conservatives now? Where's the libertarian outrage at this massive infringement on individual liberty? How does John McCain, who supports this bill, even look at himself in the mirror?
You've already spoken forcefully about your objections to this legislation, so I'll waste no further time preaching to the choir. As I read through the day's news, another story raised my blood pressure. Try as I might, I cannot seem to effectively ignore Sarah Palin. Pretending she doesn't exist in the hopes that she'll stop talking and go back to Alaska doesn't seem to be effective, so I thought I'd point out yet another example of her glaring hypocrisy. Today, in response to the news that Franklin Graham was uninvited from the national day of prayer ceremony, Palin said, "Are we really so hyper-politically correct that we can’t abide a Christian minister who expresses his views on matters of faith? What a shame. " This, from the same woman who thought that the controversial views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright should have been reason for voters to mistrust you in 2008. While I may not have been as offended by Reverend Wright's remarks as I was by Graham's, I'm sure that I many were. Mrs. Palin needs to decide; either political correctness extends past the church doors or it doesn't. I think the real disconnect between the two situations in Palin's mind is that one condemnation was of America (actually, the American government, but I'm not sure that she makes that distinction unless there's a Democrat in the White House), the other was the entire Islamic faith. Palin believes that one of these is acceptable to criticize, condemn and even insult; the other is not. I think that a certain level of respect in public discourse, especially from religious leaders who claim to be men of God, is not too much to ask. However, I think that expressing the outrage of centuries of racial oppression and government abuse in melodramatic anti-American rhetoric is far less troublesome than calling an entire religion "wicked" or "evil."
I think if Arizona has taught us anything today it is that hatred, bigotry, and hypocrisy may never go out of style in this country, they don't look good on any one.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I'm glad that you've publicly addressed the injustice of the racist immigration law recently passed by the state of Arizona. I'm at a complete loss; I can't fathom how in this day and age such legislation could be seriously discussed, let alone signed into law. We need comprehensive national reform, and in the meantime the Arizona legislation ought to be fought by the courts and by the voters. My roommate, a member of the Hidatsa-Mandan tribe, joined in our outrage at this legislation, despite having, better than any of us, a historical claim to this land. We're a nation of immigrants, outside of the reservations. Where are the small-government conservatives now? Where's the libertarian outrage at this massive infringement on individual liberty? How does John McCain, who supports this bill, even look at himself in the mirror?
You've already spoken forcefully about your objections to this legislation, so I'll waste no further time preaching to the choir. As I read through the day's news, another story raised my blood pressure. Try as I might, I cannot seem to effectively ignore Sarah Palin. Pretending she doesn't exist in the hopes that she'll stop talking and go back to Alaska doesn't seem to be effective, so I thought I'd point out yet another example of her glaring hypocrisy. Today, in response to the news that Franklin Graham was uninvited from the national day of prayer ceremony, Palin said, "Are we really so hyper-politically correct that we can’t abide a Christian minister who expresses his views on matters of faith? What a shame. " This, from the same woman who thought that the controversial views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright should have been reason for voters to mistrust you in 2008. While I may not have been as offended by Reverend Wright's remarks as I was by Graham's, I'm sure that I many were. Mrs. Palin needs to decide; either political correctness extends past the church doors or it doesn't. I think the real disconnect between the two situations in Palin's mind is that one condemnation was of America (actually, the American government, but I'm not sure that she makes that distinction unless there's a Democrat in the White House), the other was the entire Islamic faith. Palin believes that one of these is acceptable to criticize, condemn and even insult; the other is not. I think that a certain level of respect in public discourse, especially from religious leaders who claim to be men of God, is not too much to ask. However, I think that expressing the outrage of centuries of racial oppression and government abuse in melodramatic anti-American rhetoric is far less troublesome than calling an entire religion "wicked" or "evil."
I think if Arizona has taught us anything today it is that hatred, bigotry, and hypocrisy may never go out of style in this country, they don't look good on any one.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Day 108-Fwd:
"I wanted to give you all some disturbing information on our wonderful president. I work with the Catch-A-Dream Foundation which provides hunting and fishing trips to children with life-threatening illnesses. This past weekend we had our annual banquet / fundraiser event in Starkville. "As a part of our program we had scheduled Sgt. 1st Class Greg Stube a highly decorated U.S. Army Green Beret and inspirational speaker who was severely injured while deployed overseas and was thought that he didn't have much of a chance for survival to come. Greg is stationed at Ft. Bragg and received permission from his commanding officer to come speak at our function. Everything was on go until Obama made a policy that NO U.S. SERVICEMAN CAN SPEAK AT ANY FAITH-BASED PUBLIC EVENTS ANYMORE. Needless to say Greg had to cancel his speaking event with us. Didn't know if anyone else was aware of this new policy. Wonder what kind of news we all will receive next. You're just starting to see the Obamanation. Your religion is on the list next."
-A chain e-mail sent to my mother.
So today's letter is a bit silly. It's been a dark, depressing news week(/month/year) and nothing cheers me up like a good e-mail from the crazy part of Michigan. Does any one out there know of any equivalent crazy talk emails from the left? Do we do that? If so, how do I get them?
Dear Mr. President,
My mother has a friend from her high school days who regularly forwards her e-mails full of right-wing nonsense. She has resisted, many times, the urge to respond to these e-mails with logic or facts that would contradict them. At my request, she often sends me the most absurd, because we enjoy a good laugh. Mother-daughter bonding, you might call it. Today's e-mail is about your apparent intervention to prevent members of the armed forces from speaking at faith-based events, an assertion repudiated by even the most cursory fact-checking. Though laughable, this e-mail is mild in comparison to many that circulated during the campaign. One memorable message from the same woman, with the subject "Can Muslims be good Americans?", insisted that you worshiped "Allah, the moon god of Arabia." More than a few suggested you might be the Antichrist, a claim I found particularly unsettling, as it involved convincing self-proclaimed Christians that the book of Revelation described the coming of a Muslim man in his 40's. I looked into this further, not so curious as to how people could believe this, (after all, once you're willing to believe in the Antichrist, it probably isn't wholly out of the realm of possibility for it to be any one,) but as to how they could be misled about the text that is central to their religion, an item so ubiquitous that it can be found and read in more places than any book besides Harry Potter. Didn't any one think, before they forwarded the message on, to open their copy of the Bible and see if that was really what it said?
I don't like to think that people act without logic or rationale. I may disagree with them, but I want to believe that people are fundamentally motivated by the same basic needs and desires. The internet constantly provides ample material to make me seriously doubt this conviction. Clearly, these rumors aren't something you can really fight, no one who believes you're a faith-hating/Socialist/Muslim/ The Antichrist, is going to be persuaded by a public denial. How would one prove or disprove any of it? (Maybe you could read Revelation at a press conference? They might think you changed it. Also, they probably don't watch presidential press conferences.) Dignifying it with a response, at all, is clearly not the right course. I suppose this is all the other side of the Presidential coin; you may be reviled by crazy people on the internet, but you still get to have JK Rowling at the Easter Egg roll.
The problem, of course, is that the people who send and believe these e-mails aren't abstractions. They're our high school friends or our grandparents; they're voters or taxpayers or citizens. They can't be reasoned with or persuaded. They pass it on, by clicking forward, or by telling their children, or by changing the text books for an entire state. How are willful lies about your birth certificate or religion any different than the misinformation Michele Bachmann spread about the Census? Or Mitch McConnell, about your financial reform proposals?
Some days, these e-mails stop being funny and just become disturbing and very, very sad. I'd like to have more respect for my fellow Americans, but it seems that many are willing and even eager to believe the worst and most absurd things they are told.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, April 9, 2010
Day 99
Dear Mr. President,
This week, the national conversation about nuclear proliferation has fractured (predictably) along party lines. That there might be reasonable disagreement about an issue as complex as the START treaty and nuclear arms is not surprising; that the criticism from some on the right deviates so sharply from reality is mildly impressive. Your response to Sarah Palin's criticism made me incredibly proud to have voted for you. I trust your judgment and your good intentions when it comes to this kind of arms control; I would like to live in a world where there are no nuclear weapons, but, for now, we have to live in the real world.
The news that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will not be attending next week's summit on nuclear security is disappointing. That he is so afraid of confronting, directly, the criticism from Egypt, Turkey, and other nations, about Israel's unacknowledged nuclear capabilities speaks volumes, both about the courage of his convictions and the hypocrisy of Israel's (and, for that matter, our own) position on Iran. Israel's nuclear program, (which, by the way, poses a legitimate threat to Iran and, might, conceivably, have something to do with Iran's own nuclear ambitions,) their refusal to sign the nonproliferation treaty, and their reluctance (as demonstrated by PM Netanyahu) to have frank discussions about the reality of their status as a nuclear power ought to elicit criticism from the US. That we offer nothing but complicit silence or even support undermines our leadership and credibility when discouraging other states from gaining their own nuclear weapons.
Israel is a country that, at the time of its creation, had legitimate cause to fear for its own survival. This simply is not the political reality of the present. Israel has long exaggerated the threat posed by the Palestinians and hostile neighboring countries; it has an incredibly capable military and weapons unrivaled by any other country in the Middle East, and its existence is, frankly, a forgone conclusion. Even Hamas officials have walked back the rhetoric, indicating that they would acknowledge Israel's right to exist were the sentiment reciprocated for Palestinians. While Israel may have had very real fears driving it to become a nuclear power in years past, we have to live in the real world now; acknowledging the threat that Israel itself poses to its neighbors is an important step in maintaining our credibility on arms control issues. We ought to use our influence with Israel to encourage responsible conduct as a nuclear power, so that we can continue to lead the world toward a nuclear-free future.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
This week, the national conversation about nuclear proliferation has fractured (predictably) along party lines. That there might be reasonable disagreement about an issue as complex as the START treaty and nuclear arms is not surprising; that the criticism from some on the right deviates so sharply from reality is mildly impressive. Your response to Sarah Palin's criticism made me incredibly proud to have voted for you. I trust your judgment and your good intentions when it comes to this kind of arms control; I would like to live in a world where there are no nuclear weapons, but, for now, we have to live in the real world.
The news that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will not be attending next week's summit on nuclear security is disappointing. That he is so afraid of confronting, directly, the criticism from Egypt, Turkey, and other nations, about Israel's unacknowledged nuclear capabilities speaks volumes, both about the courage of his convictions and the hypocrisy of Israel's (and, for that matter, our own) position on Iran. Israel's nuclear program, (which, by the way, poses a legitimate threat to Iran and, might, conceivably, have something to do with Iran's own nuclear ambitions,) their refusal to sign the nonproliferation treaty, and their reluctance (as demonstrated by PM Netanyahu) to have frank discussions about the reality of their status as a nuclear power ought to elicit criticism from the US. That we offer nothing but complicit silence or even support undermines our leadership and credibility when discouraging other states from gaining their own nuclear weapons.
Israel is a country that, at the time of its creation, had legitimate cause to fear for its own survival. This simply is not the political reality of the present. Israel has long exaggerated the threat posed by the Palestinians and hostile neighboring countries; it has an incredibly capable military and weapons unrivaled by any other country in the Middle East, and its existence is, frankly, a forgone conclusion. Even Hamas officials have walked back the rhetoric, indicating that they would acknowledge Israel's right to exist were the sentiment reciprocated for Palestinians. While Israel may have had very real fears driving it to become a nuclear power in years past, we have to live in the real world now; acknowledging the threat that Israel itself poses to its neighbors is an important step in maintaining our credibility on arms control issues. We ought to use our influence with Israel to encourage responsible conduct as a nuclear power, so that we can continue to lead the world toward a nuclear-free future.
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
Friday, February 5, 2010
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
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
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Day 12- Why I love push polls
Dear Mr. President,
My mother, who has been a Democrat as long as I've known her, was surprised to receive the "2009 Obama Agenda Survey" from RNC chairman Michael Steele. She was kind enough to share it with me, knowing I, too, enjoy a good laugh. It has me musing on the things that make me a Democrat. The thought that Democrats don't send out surveys this absurd (or, if we do, that we at least have a more professional editor,) is particularly comforting.
An example question:
"Do you agree with Barack Obama's budget plan that will lead to a $23.1 trillion national debt over the next ten years?"
My response options are "yes", "no", and "no opinion". First of all, the 2010 budget is 2.381 trillion dollars and 140 pages of information so dull I can't stay awake to read the table of contents. Do I agree with all of it? I don't even understand all of it! If I did, how could I have a one-word opinion about something so complex? How many people, looking at this survey question, have read enough of, or even about, the budget to be able to answer that question intelligently? Even if given a week to study, and an unlimited word count with which to respond, I could not feel confident about answering that question completely, so the idea of checking a box next to "yes" or "no" is laughable. Do the people this survey was intended to reach not recognize that they are being manipulated to provide meaningless statistics to support equally meaningless talking points? And don't even get me started on the wording. I may have had no love and little respect for President Bush, but I always referred him as such, and Chairman Steele should know better than to sign his name to something that doesn't respect, at least, the office of the Presidency.
Last night I watched the 60 minutes report on the revelations Game Change provides about the 2008 campaign. A friend had expressed his shock at Steve Schmidt's treatment of Sarah Palin during the interview, which made me curious to see it. I thought it was courageous. Clearly, Mr. Schmidt is not worried about his own reputation. Anderson Cooper obliquely calls him out on putting politics ahead of patriotism by selecting some one Schmidt himself sees as obviously unqualified for the VP nominee, but Schmidt can always just call that "gotcha journalism." What's truly brave about his interview is how fearlessly he risks his future as a campaign director. I know if I were a Republican running for office in 2010, I'd want some one who at least waits for the concession speech to finish before he find the nearest camera and starts telling the liberal media elites how it was all my fault that we lost. Seriously, is this man what passes for a professional political operative these days? Has he never seen an episode of West Wing?
As a Democrat and die-hard Tina Fey fan, I'll admit I was sad to hear that Sarah Palin will be joining the Fox 'news' team and unlikely to pursue the 2012 Presidential nomination. As much as I appreciate a race with some elements of suspense, the sight of you and her on the same debate stage would make for an entertaining evening. The erstwhile governor of Alaska represents everything that is wrong with the GOP. She's an insubstantial reactionary who talks in soundbites and bumper sticker slogans. "We've got room in Alaska for all of God's creatures- right next to the mashed potatoes!" Seriously, does she know she ripped that off from some one's T-shirt or does she think she made it up?
Palin or no, the Republicans don't have a serious contender for 2012. Yet. They seem to be counting on Democrats to provide the tools of our own destruction, by angering their base enough to get them to organize against you. Now, I can't claim to have done much to help you get elected. I voted, wrote a blog on Daily Kos, and spent a few hours calling voters in Washington and Montana. This time around, even if I'm not the most impressed with your presidency thus far, even if you accomplish absolutely nothing for the next 3 years, I swear to God, if the RNC keeps sending this anti-intellectual BS to my mother, I'll go door-to-door in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida for your re-election. And I hate Florida. Which, I suppose, is to say that, between being their own worst enemies and eating their young for a chance to meet Anderson Cooper, the Republicans may have more in common with Democrats than any of us would like to admit. As much as I'd like to see the congressional Democrats take a few pages from the Bush-era playbook on party unity and efficiency, I'll comfort myself with the fact that we control the House, the Senate, the White House, and they're giving new meaning to the term "sore loser" and sending out push-polls that reek of desperation.
All joking aside, I'd really like 2012 to be about more than just beating the Republicans. If I promise to spend the next 3 years learning more about the budget, do you think you could promise to spend them making 2008's victory mean something more concrete? I'll probably need better material for the swing states.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
My mother, who has been a Democrat as long as I've known her, was surprised to receive the "2009 Obama Agenda Survey" from RNC chairman Michael Steele. She was kind enough to share it with me, knowing I, too, enjoy a good laugh. It has me musing on the things that make me a Democrat. The thought that Democrats don't send out surveys this absurd (or, if we do, that we at least have a more professional editor,) is particularly comforting.
An example question:
"Do you agree with Barack Obama's budget plan that will lead to a $23.1 trillion national debt over the next ten years?"
My response options are "yes", "no", and "no opinion". First of all, the 2010 budget is 2.381 trillion dollars and 140 pages of information so dull I can't stay awake to read the table of contents. Do I agree with all of it? I don't even understand all of it! If I did, how could I have a one-word opinion about something so complex? How many people, looking at this survey question, have read enough of, or even about, the budget to be able to answer that question intelligently? Even if given a week to study, and an unlimited word count with which to respond, I could not feel confident about answering that question completely, so the idea of checking a box next to "yes" or "no" is laughable. Do the people this survey was intended to reach not recognize that they are being manipulated to provide meaningless statistics to support equally meaningless talking points? And don't even get me started on the wording. I may have had no love and little respect for President Bush, but I always referred him as such, and Chairman Steele should know better than to sign his name to something that doesn't respect, at least, the office of the Presidency.
Last night I watched the 60 minutes report on the revelations Game Change provides about the 2008 campaign. A friend had expressed his shock at Steve Schmidt's treatment of Sarah Palin during the interview, which made me curious to see it. I thought it was courageous. Clearly, Mr. Schmidt is not worried about his own reputation. Anderson Cooper obliquely calls him out on putting politics ahead of patriotism by selecting some one Schmidt himself sees as obviously unqualified for the VP nominee, but Schmidt can always just call that "gotcha journalism." What's truly brave about his interview is how fearlessly he risks his future as a campaign director. I know if I were a Republican running for office in 2010, I'd want some one who at least waits for the concession speech to finish before he find the nearest camera and starts telling the liberal media elites how it was all my fault that we lost. Seriously, is this man what passes for a professional political operative these days? Has he never seen an episode of West Wing?
As a Democrat and die-hard Tina Fey fan, I'll admit I was sad to hear that Sarah Palin will be joining the Fox 'news' team and unlikely to pursue the 2012 Presidential nomination. As much as I appreciate a race with some elements of suspense, the sight of you and her on the same debate stage would make for an entertaining evening. The erstwhile governor of Alaska represents everything that is wrong with the GOP. She's an insubstantial reactionary who talks in soundbites and bumper sticker slogans. "We've got room in Alaska for all of God's creatures- right next to the mashed potatoes!" Seriously, does she know she ripped that off from some one's T-shirt or does she think she made it up?
Palin or no, the Republicans don't have a serious contender for 2012. Yet. They seem to be counting on Democrats to provide the tools of our own destruction, by angering their base enough to get them to organize against you. Now, I can't claim to have done much to help you get elected. I voted, wrote a blog on Daily Kos, and spent a few hours calling voters in Washington and Montana. This time around, even if I'm not the most impressed with your presidency thus far, even if you accomplish absolutely nothing for the next 3 years, I swear to God, if the RNC keeps sending this anti-intellectual BS to my mother, I'll go door-to-door in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida for your re-election. And I hate Florida. Which, I suppose, is to say that, between being their own worst enemies and eating their young for a chance to meet Anderson Cooper, the Republicans may have more in common with Democrats than any of us would like to admit. As much as I'd like to see the congressional Democrats take a few pages from the Bush-era playbook on party unity and efficiency, I'll comfort myself with the fact that we control the House, the Senate, the White House, and they're giving new meaning to the term "sore loser" and sending out push-polls that reek of desperation.
All joking aside, I'd really like 2012 to be about more than just beating the Republicans. If I promise to spend the next 3 years learning more about the budget, do you think you could promise to spend them making 2008's victory mean something more concrete? I'll probably need better material for the swing states.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
