Dear Mr. President,
Today's New York Times Op-ed about the National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative discusses the difficult balance between personal liberty and national security sought by your administration. It made me think of my own work in loss prevention. Generally speaking, all of the activities that might indicate a person is planning a terrorist attack are legal; prevention requires law enforcement or intelligence officers to respond to legal activities that arouse suspicion. This, of course, can lead to abuse and civil rights violations against innocent people who have no intention of committing a crime at all. On a much smaller scale, my line of work requires a similar impossible balance. No one can be caught for theft without first doing several other perfectly legal things. I have to witness a person select the item and watch them continuously until they leave my store without it. Until they leave the store they have usually done nothing wrong. Suspicious behavior is my only way to begin to predict who will steal. But looking around warily, hiding from staff, or wearing clothing that facilitates concealment of merchandise aren't, in themselves, illegal acts. My job therefore requires that I attempt to prevent theft by monitoring the perfectly legal activity of shoppers who often turn out to be no threat whatsoever.
Does my suspicion infringe upon their civil liberties? I'm sure there are people who don't enjoy being watched as they shop, but most never notice I'm watching them. Have I done them harm by thinking it might be possible that they could steal? I suppose it's my parents' influence that inclines me to the belief that an innocent person has nothing to fear from investigation, but the liberal I've grown up to be recognizes that preemptive suspicion, even without tangible legal consequences, can violate a person's civil rights. I experienced the other side of this when flying out of Tel Aviv and being interrogated and strip-searched because of my tattoo in Arabic. Nothing about my tattoo is harmful or potentially harmful to others, nor does it logically indicate extremist tendencies on my part. (Tattoos are, to my understanding, haram, or at least frowned upon making it unlikely that a tattoo like mine would indicate extreme religious convictions.) That I was interrogated in the airport by Israeli officials was entirely unsurprising, but it wasn't at all based on logic or effective law enforcement. This suspicion did violate my civil liberties because it resulted in an invasive search, unlike my own suspicion of shoplifters which never results in a search or detention unless the selection and removal of the item has been witnessed directly.
Obviously terrorism can't be compared so easily to shoplifting; I wait until a crime has been committed before taking any action at all, and such precaution can lead to the loss of innocent lives in the case of terrorism. That being said, I still believe that civil liberties are more important to our well-being than the illusion of safety. I appreciate the NSARI's intention; data collection and analysis does need to be reworked and our counter terror efforts ought to be based on behavior/activity rather than race, religion or nature of origin. I appreciate the difficult nature of this attempt by your administration. What must be paramount is the absolute assurance that any investigation resulting from suspicious but legal activity be conducted respectfully and without the intention to humiliate or intimidate suspects. Maybe we can never be safe, but we will certainly not become safer by denying the basic humanity of those we fear.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Monday, September 27, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Day 254- What we choose to remember
Dear Mr. President,
Nine years ago I was a sophomore in high school. I woke up before my alarm clock. I remember I was having a dream about drowning. On any other day I probably would have forgotten the last wisps of this dream as the rest of my morning routine replaced it. I went downstairs and ate a bowl of cereal, squinting at the TV because I hadn't bothered to put in my contact lenses. My stepmother told me a plane had hit the twin towers. The rest of the morning was a series of stories, some true, some false, some never to be properly accounted for later. I was safely on the other side of the country from what was happening, but all morning long I could see my own turbulent emotional reactions in the faces of my classmates. We all felt the magnitude of what was going on; even if we didn't yet understand it, even if we didn't experience it the same way that people in New York and DC did. I remember I heard boys just 16 years old calling for blood, wanting to enlist that day and kill whoever had planned the attack.
Nine years later I still remember the images we all saw on TV. I still remember the haunted way my coworkers at the Washington DC bookstore sounded when they told their own tales of that day. I still think about the havoc we rained down upon millions of innocent people in response. I remember the lives we have ruined and displaced, the hundreds of thousands we have murdered. I can't talk about 9/11 without also talking about these shattered lives. There was no number of Afghan or Iraqi civillians we might have killed to bring back those lost on American soil 9 years ago today. Every time I hear 9/11 used to justify these wars we wage as acts of vengeance, I feel tired in a way that I don't think I'm old enough to feel. It all seems so pointless, so tragically, miserably heart breaking and pointless.
You have asked us today to remember the tragic events of 9 years ago. We might choose to remember this day in isolation, to recall nothing of what came before or since, and I understand why many choose this. This day was so shocking, so traumatizing and devastating to so many that I can't ask any one to do more than what they feel they can. But I think we should not choose to remember this day in a vacuum. I think that, no matter how painful its memory is, we should not feel entitled to the belief that we were alone in suffering it, or numb ourselves to the pain so many others were forced to feel as a result. Today I remember the dead, I honor the dead, but I do not imagine that the death toll of September the 11th ended on our shores. I choose to remember all who have died since and all those who continue to suffer for it. Nine years of suffering has not made this day any less tragic. We are nine years older, our hands are nine years bloodier and the death toll just keeps rising.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Nine years ago I was a sophomore in high school. I woke up before my alarm clock. I remember I was having a dream about drowning. On any other day I probably would have forgotten the last wisps of this dream as the rest of my morning routine replaced it. I went downstairs and ate a bowl of cereal, squinting at the TV because I hadn't bothered to put in my contact lenses. My stepmother told me a plane had hit the twin towers. The rest of the morning was a series of stories, some true, some false, some never to be properly accounted for later. I was safely on the other side of the country from what was happening, but all morning long I could see my own turbulent emotional reactions in the faces of my classmates. We all felt the magnitude of what was going on; even if we didn't yet understand it, even if we didn't experience it the same way that people in New York and DC did. I remember I heard boys just 16 years old calling for blood, wanting to enlist that day and kill whoever had planned the attack.
Nine years later I still remember the images we all saw on TV. I still remember the haunted way my coworkers at the Washington DC bookstore sounded when they told their own tales of that day. I still think about the havoc we rained down upon millions of innocent people in response. I remember the lives we have ruined and displaced, the hundreds of thousands we have murdered. I can't talk about 9/11 without also talking about these shattered lives. There was no number of Afghan or Iraqi civillians we might have killed to bring back those lost on American soil 9 years ago today. Every time I hear 9/11 used to justify these wars we wage as acts of vengeance, I feel tired in a way that I don't think I'm old enough to feel. It all seems so pointless, so tragically, miserably heart breaking and pointless.
You have asked us today to remember the tragic events of 9 years ago. We might choose to remember this day in isolation, to recall nothing of what came before or since, and I understand why many choose this. This day was so shocking, so traumatizing and devastating to so many that I can't ask any one to do more than what they feel they can. But I think we should not choose to remember this day in a vacuum. I think that, no matter how painful its memory is, we should not feel entitled to the belief that we were alone in suffering it, or numb ourselves to the pain so many others were forced to feel as a result. Today I remember the dead, I honor the dead, but I do not imagine that the death toll of September the 11th ended on our shores. I choose to remember all who have died since and all those who continue to suffer for it. Nine years of suffering has not made this day any less tragic. We are nine years older, our hands are nine years bloodier and the death toll just keeps rising.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Day 227- Defense spending
Should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings when America's military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds? Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners? Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China? Defense Secretary Robert Gates
Dear Mr. President,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has proposed cuts to the defense budget that would amount to a savings of $100 billion over five years. This is, predictably, leading to more than a little hysteria from conservatives on the hill. Senator Saxby Chambliss (demonstrating exactly why the Senate has gone from somber, dignified statesmen to cartoonish, angry old men who are difficult to take seriously) actually claimed that the White House is "willing to sacrifice the lives of American military men and women for the sake of domestic programs." As though cutting 100 billion of a 3.5 trillion budget is going to cost lives. As though lives are not depending upon essential domestic programs. I'm not sure I ever had much respect for Mr. Chambliss, but he certainly isn't demonstrating the kind of tempered wisdom that I'd expect from a member of the US Senate. (Yes, I managed to keep a straight face while typing that last sentence.)
Concern for the deficit is perfectly reasonable. The necessary cuts to spending must be applied across the board and the defense budget should be no exception. There can be no incentive for a more peaceful world when so much of our economy and our federal budget is tied up in the tools of war. Al-Queda pulled off 9/11 with 19 plane tickets and 99-cent box cutters. In this world, there is no amount of money that can ever make us completely safe. We have to have a smarter and more modernized military, and that is exactly what Secretary Gates is proposing. We have to look for alternative ways to defend ourselves; all the weapons money can buy won't do us half as much good as better diplomatic relations, stable global allies and more education at home and abroad. We simply cannot kill our way to a more peaceful world.
I applaud Secretary Gates' efforts to curtail the reckless defense spending that has plagued the federal budget for decades. In a time when congress cites budget issues as cause to hold up funding for treating 9/11 responders' lingering health problems, extending unemployment benefits that sustain individuals and families through the recession, or even ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable healthcare, how can we justify spending so much money on an outdated defense strategy? The way we spend our money reflects our values as a society, and, clearly, those need to be reexamined. Mr. President, please don't allow the hysterics from conservatives to prevent Mr. Gates from implementing these necessary cuts.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has proposed cuts to the defense budget that would amount to a savings of $100 billion over five years. This is, predictably, leading to more than a little hysteria from conservatives on the hill. Senator Saxby Chambliss (demonstrating exactly why the Senate has gone from somber, dignified statesmen to cartoonish, angry old men who are difficult to take seriously) actually claimed that the White House is "willing to sacrifice the lives of American military men and women for the sake of domestic programs." As though cutting 100 billion of a 3.5 trillion budget is going to cost lives. As though lives are not depending upon essential domestic programs. I'm not sure I ever had much respect for Mr. Chambliss, but he certainly isn't demonstrating the kind of tempered wisdom that I'd expect from a member of the US Senate. (Yes, I managed to keep a straight face while typing that last sentence.)
Concern for the deficit is perfectly reasonable. The necessary cuts to spending must be applied across the board and the defense budget should be no exception. There can be no incentive for a more peaceful world when so much of our economy and our federal budget is tied up in the tools of war. Al-Queda pulled off 9/11 with 19 plane tickets and 99-cent box cutters. In this world, there is no amount of money that can ever make us completely safe. We have to have a smarter and more modernized military, and that is exactly what Secretary Gates is proposing. We have to look for alternative ways to defend ourselves; all the weapons money can buy won't do us half as much good as better diplomatic relations, stable global allies and more education at home and abroad. We simply cannot kill our way to a more peaceful world.
I applaud Secretary Gates' efforts to curtail the reckless defense spending that has plagued the federal budget for decades. In a time when congress cites budget issues as cause to hold up funding for treating 9/11 responders' lingering health problems, extending unemployment benefits that sustain individuals and families through the recession, or even ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable healthcare, how can we justify spending so much money on an outdated defense strategy? The way we spend our money reflects our values as a society, and, clearly, those need to be reexamined. Mr. President, please don't allow the hysterics from conservatives to prevent Mr. Gates from implementing these necessary cuts.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Day 201- Charity
Dear Mr. President,
Ghassan Elashi. I'd like you to know his name. He is the father of six children, and he is serving a 65-year prison sentence, allowed no visits with his children and only 2 phone calls a month. His crime is not murder or rape or theft, but charity; what you would call material support. He is one of the "Holy Land Five," convicted of sending money to Palestinian charities run by Hamas. The prosecution, which relied upon the testimony of an Israeli intelligence officer to make their case, does not believe that one dollar of the money Ghassan sent to Palestine went toward violence or acts of terror, but, as the hospitals and schools and food it bought were linked to Hamas, the good will it may have garnered is, apparently, just as dangerous.
I want to live in the real world. I try to be pragmatic, I try to understand the complexity and nuance of cases like this. I find fault with much of Hamas's charter, with their goals and with their methods. But what options have we given them? Hamas has done charity and community service work, they have honored cease-fires, they have participated in legitimate elections and won. Leaders of Hamas have indicated that their stance on Israel is softening. What do they have to do to gain international legitimacy without sacrificing domestic credibility? These projects funded by the Holy Land Foundation were helping some of the poorest people on earth just to survive and have access to basic services. It doesn't make Hamas' violent past all better, but it doesn't make every member of the party terrorists. How can we ignore the complexity of this situation? How can we look at this work, that by any other group, in any other place, you would praise as God's own, and call it a crime?
Ghassan Elashi. Please remember that while you call on Americans to give our time and our money to the betterment of those less fortunate, that this man will sit in prison for 65 years because he tried to help.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Ghassan Elashi. I'd like you to know his name. He is the father of six children, and he is serving a 65-year prison sentence, allowed no visits with his children and only 2 phone calls a month. His crime is not murder or rape or theft, but charity; what you would call material support. He is one of the "Holy Land Five," convicted of sending money to Palestinian charities run by Hamas. The prosecution, which relied upon the testimony of an Israeli intelligence officer to make their case, does not believe that one dollar of the money Ghassan sent to Palestine went toward violence or acts of terror, but, as the hospitals and schools and food it bought were linked to Hamas, the good will it may have garnered is, apparently, just as dangerous.
I want to live in the real world. I try to be pragmatic, I try to understand the complexity and nuance of cases like this. I find fault with much of Hamas's charter, with their goals and with their methods. But what options have we given them? Hamas has done charity and community service work, they have honored cease-fires, they have participated in legitimate elections and won. Leaders of Hamas have indicated that their stance on Israel is softening. What do they have to do to gain international legitimacy without sacrificing domestic credibility? These projects funded by the Holy Land Foundation were helping some of the poorest people on earth just to survive and have access to basic services. It doesn't make Hamas' violent past all better, but it doesn't make every member of the party terrorists. How can we ignore the complexity of this situation? How can we look at this work, that by any other group, in any other place, you would praise as God's own, and call it a crime?
Ghassan Elashi. Please remember that while you call on Americans to give our time and our money to the betterment of those less fortunate, that this man will sit in prison for 65 years because he tried to help.
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
Sunday, July 11, 2010
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
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
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Day 182- Control
Dear Mr. President,
I'm a control freak. I like to be in control of myself, my emotions, and the things that happen around me. Psychologically, this is probably due to the amount of time I spent feeling not in control of what what happening to me or what I was feeling as a child. I recognize that this is often problematic, as I can't control things like Al-Qaeda, or a person's access to a phone, or the time difference between here and Africa. My best friend, who has been in Burkina Faso for only a little more than a week, is being evacuated with the other Peace Corps volunteers. I'm assuming that this is related to the AP story I read earlier today, describing kidnapping threats from AQIM against westerners in Mali and northern Burkina Faso, though this is only speculation. Before she was evacuated, my friend was able to send me a text from a borrowed phone, and assure me that she is OK.
That was 9 hours ago. I have no reason to believe that she is not still safe, but, of course, my lack of control over the amount of information I'm receiving has me anxious and worried. Her friends and family have had sort of a phone circle going, making contact for the sake of our own comfort, as no one has any new information yet. It's funny the way that fear changes us. I've been angrier about this than I ever expected to be. Al-Qaeda's ability to disrupt and terrorize with just a threat is so frustrating. Also, while I believe that the wars we're fighting, the prisons we've built, and the murders we have sanctioned, ostensibly intended to keep us safe from these threats, are actually making the world more dangerous for Americans, I have no clear idea of what a solution would look like. I don't have any respect for the rhetoric, methods or goals of Al-Qaeda, but I do not believe that its members are wholly irrational beings, or that American foreign policy is not responsible for much of the antipathy that generates more Al-Qaeda members. What is most upsetting is that the people who will ultimately suffer in all of this are not the members of Al-Qaeda or the men making the decisions they find so objectionable, but those soldiers, civilians and volunteers like my friend who are caught in between.
I know that the US government will do everything in its power to make sure that my friend and the other volunteers are kept safe, or brought home, and I am grateful for this. I hope that it also finds a way to make more of the world safe for Americans who travel and work abroad- a goal that no amount of military might can achieve. We can't always help the way the Al-Qaedas of the world feels about us, but, speaking as a control freak, I think we'd win a great deal more good will if we accepted that there are some things we can't, and shouldn't, try to control.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I'm a control freak. I like to be in control of myself, my emotions, and the things that happen around me. Psychologically, this is probably due to the amount of time I spent feeling not in control of what what happening to me or what I was feeling as a child. I recognize that this is often problematic, as I can't control things like Al-Qaeda, or a person's access to a phone, or the time difference between here and Africa. My best friend, who has been in Burkina Faso for only a little more than a week, is being evacuated with the other Peace Corps volunteers. I'm assuming that this is related to the AP story I read earlier today, describing kidnapping threats from AQIM against westerners in Mali and northern Burkina Faso, though this is only speculation. Before she was evacuated, my friend was able to send me a text from a borrowed phone, and assure me that she is OK.
That was 9 hours ago. I have no reason to believe that she is not still safe, but, of course, my lack of control over the amount of information I'm receiving has me anxious and worried. Her friends and family have had sort of a phone circle going, making contact for the sake of our own comfort, as no one has any new information yet. It's funny the way that fear changes us. I've been angrier about this than I ever expected to be. Al-Qaeda's ability to disrupt and terrorize with just a threat is so frustrating. Also, while I believe that the wars we're fighting, the prisons we've built, and the murders we have sanctioned, ostensibly intended to keep us safe from these threats, are actually making the world more dangerous for Americans, I have no clear idea of what a solution would look like. I don't have any respect for the rhetoric, methods or goals of Al-Qaeda, but I do not believe that its members are wholly irrational beings, or that American foreign policy is not responsible for much of the antipathy that generates more Al-Qaeda members. What is most upsetting is that the people who will ultimately suffer in all of this are not the members of Al-Qaeda or the men making the decisions they find so objectionable, but those soldiers, civilians and volunteers like my friend who are caught in between.
I know that the US government will do everything in its power to make sure that my friend and the other volunteers are kept safe, or brought home, and I am grateful for this. I hope that it also finds a way to make more of the world safe for Americans who travel and work abroad- a goal that no amount of military might can achieve. We can't always help the way the Al-Qaedas of the world feels about us, but, speaking as a control freak, I think we'd win a great deal more good will if we accepted that there are some things we can't, and shouldn't, try to control.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Day 174-Secretary of War
Dear Mr. President,
I think that replacing General McChrystal was a necessary thing. The war in Afghanistan does not seem to be going well, and much of our own conduct has been unacceptable. I don't know that General Petraeus is the best man to replace him, but, as I'm not a military officer, and am in no way qualified to comment on the best way to wage a war I fundamentally oppose, I have no particularly strong feelings about this choice. I hope that, if nothing else, the change in leadership provides an opportunity for us to seriously reconsider and reexamine our entire strategy in Afghanistan. What is our goal? Safety? Stability? I do not see how more weapons, more violence, more destruction, will help achieve these ends. What real purpose is our mission there serving? Do we seek to gain strategic global positioning? Is it conflict for conflict's sake, a vain attempt to slake the bloodthirst that we can't even admit to having? Is it the same death throe delusion that has taken down empire after empire daring to set its sights on this land? Or is it just old-guard military men who want to beat the Soviets, even at empire, hell-bent on completing their cold-war victory even all these decades later? Because, Mr. President, and I confess I am no expert, it does not appear, at least, that we are doing anything more than strengthening the terrorists we claim to be fighting. Osama Bin Laden has not been caught, and even if he is, it does not matter. Our invasion has spread one man's delusion beyond his loyal band of followers and made them a global political and military force to be reckoned with. Were we just looking for another challenge? I don't know what is true, I don't know what I believe, and I don't know what the best solution is. I feel certain, however, that there is more motivating our actions than self-defense. Be it vengeance or greed or a need for chaos, I am uneasy, as an American, being represented that way to the rest of the world.
Today a friend asked about the Secretary of War, a position he read about in Lincoln's cabinet. He was curious as to what it had become. Did the men who decided to change the name of that position think that it would mean less war? Or did they just find the name too impolite for modern sensibilities? We can call it defense, or even homeland security, but war has certainly not become any less fashionable. I may be less involved, and asked to sacrifice even less, than the generations of American civilians who committed their whole selves to the national war efforts, but still I am tired. I am so tired of this war, and I have not been fighting it. I have not been dying or suffering in it, either. Bombs are not dropping in my neighborhood, as they are for countless Afghan civilians, but I am still tired of their sound. This war is exhausting, because it has no clear objective and it has not clear imperative. This war is exhausting because it strengthens the forces we claim to oppose, extending and provoking and ensuring that another generation will pick up the kalashnikovs their fathers are dropping as we gun them down. Because each life lost leads only to more lives lost; the overwhelming suffering and destruction leads only to more suffering and destruction. We are better than this, Mr. President; better than our conduct in this war, better than the petty despots we've propped up, the violence we've perpetuated, or the viciousness of those who attacked us. I know there is a significant and vocal portion of our population that equate war with patriotism and justice and righteousness, but I also know that we are better than that, too.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I think that replacing General McChrystal was a necessary thing. The war in Afghanistan does not seem to be going well, and much of our own conduct has been unacceptable. I don't know that General Petraeus is the best man to replace him, but, as I'm not a military officer, and am in no way qualified to comment on the best way to wage a war I fundamentally oppose, I have no particularly strong feelings about this choice. I hope that, if nothing else, the change in leadership provides an opportunity for us to seriously reconsider and reexamine our entire strategy in Afghanistan. What is our goal? Safety? Stability? I do not see how more weapons, more violence, more destruction, will help achieve these ends. What real purpose is our mission there serving? Do we seek to gain strategic global positioning? Is it conflict for conflict's sake, a vain attempt to slake the bloodthirst that we can't even admit to having? Is it the same death throe delusion that has taken down empire after empire daring to set its sights on this land? Or is it just old-guard military men who want to beat the Soviets, even at empire, hell-bent on completing their cold-war victory even all these decades later? Because, Mr. President, and I confess I am no expert, it does not appear, at least, that we are doing anything more than strengthening the terrorists we claim to be fighting. Osama Bin Laden has not been caught, and even if he is, it does not matter. Our invasion has spread one man's delusion beyond his loyal band of followers and made them a global political and military force to be reckoned with. Were we just looking for another challenge? I don't know what is true, I don't know what I believe, and I don't know what the best solution is. I feel certain, however, that there is more motivating our actions than self-defense. Be it vengeance or greed or a need for chaos, I am uneasy, as an American, being represented that way to the rest of the world.
Today a friend asked about the Secretary of War, a position he read about in Lincoln's cabinet. He was curious as to what it had become. Did the men who decided to change the name of that position think that it would mean less war? Or did they just find the name too impolite for modern sensibilities? We can call it defense, or even homeland security, but war has certainly not become any less fashionable. I may be less involved, and asked to sacrifice even less, than the generations of American civilians who committed their whole selves to the national war efforts, but still I am tired. I am so tired of this war, and I have not been fighting it. I have not been dying or suffering in it, either. Bombs are not dropping in my neighborhood, as they are for countless Afghan civilians, but I am still tired of their sound. This war is exhausting, because it has no clear objective and it has not clear imperative. This war is exhausting because it strengthens the forces we claim to oppose, extending and provoking and ensuring that another generation will pick up the kalashnikovs their fathers are dropping as we gun them down. Because each life lost leads only to more lives lost; the overwhelming suffering and destruction leads only to more suffering and destruction. We are better than this, Mr. President; better than our conduct in this war, better than the petty despots we've propped up, the violence we've perpetuated, or the viciousness of those who attacked us. I know there is a significant and vocal portion of our population that equate war with patriotism and justice and righteousness, but I also know that we are better than that, too.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Day 146-We gave peace a chance, and this is what we got
Dear Mr. President,
In 2003 my family went to New York City for the first time. I wanted to attend NYU, and so I visited the campus. We saw a broadway show. We went shopping. Because our trip fell just before the 2nd anniversary of 9/11, we went to ground zero. I remember the silence started several blocks away. On the wall near the site of the attack, people had written messages; one message stuck with me. "We gave peace a chance," it said, "and this is what we got." At the time, a senor in a high school that didn't teach world history much past WWII, I couldn't explain, exactly, why this bothered me. Overcome by the despair in these scrawled letters, I snapped a photograph, and did not give it much further thought. What struck me, next, were the rows and rows of vendors selling Ground Zero merchandise, some blaring that awful Enya remix from stereo systems, tugging at the heat and purse strings of tourists. It did not feel like a memorial site, so much as an open wound, still raw and oozing, still ambivalent as to what kind of scar it would become.
Now, years later, the debate over the sacred nature of this place has taken an ugly turn. An Islamic community center, proposed too close to the site, for some, has sparked objections based solely in hatred and ignorance. I don't know what Ground Zero is; shrine or grave or tourist trap, it is only one thing that every one can agree upon, and that is American. Our values have a place here, as anywhere, and those values would not allow us to keep Muslims out because of their religion. Mr. President, I think you should speak out about this. I think you should show that Americans stand with our Muslim communities, that we do not think there are any places in this country where one particular religion is not welcome. Whether or not we had before 9/11, we cannot, now, make the mistake of dividing our country along religious lines. American Muslims are just as American and American Christians, or Americans of any religion. Welcoming them into communities, encouraging them to participate in the stewardship of their communities, and even to bear witness to the healing of the great trauma that they, as Americans and as New Yorkers, undoubtedly shared, will only help us move forward a stronger nation.
Were we, in fact, punished for giving peace a chance? I'm not going to comment on what actions or inactions may have contributed to 9/11. In my opinion, whatever legitimate grievances the attackers may have had with our country became irrelevant the moment the hijacked those planes. Whatever reasonable points of criticism they might have made were silenced forever in the roar of engines and impacts and fire. I do think that if we allow these acts to change us into something unrecognizable, to a place where some religions are simply not accepted, than we surrender far more than they ever could have taken from us by force.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Day 145- Tin-foil hats and Scud missiles
Dear Mr. President,
Is something happening to Lebanon soon? I don't mean to sound like some crazy, tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist, but I couldn't help but notice you and Vice-President Biden have reached out to Prime Minister Hariri twice in as many days. This seemed odd, in and of its self, but then I read about the missile drills Israel is staging this week, which are being taken by the Lebanese government as preparation for war. Hizbollah's ties to Iran might also indicate that something is possibly about to happen to Iran, instead. Either way, I hope I'm just being paranoid. If I'm not, just in case it doesn't go without saying, I'm hoping that you exhaust all of our options to help avoid another conflict that will only cause the innocent to suffer.
When I worked at Borders in downtown Washington, I once rang up a woman for all of our remaining copies of Killing Mr. Lebanon, a book about the assassination of Rafik Hariri. Her distress was evident, and so I asked her about Mr. Hariri, who, she said, had been her boss. She tearfully told me about working in his government, how much she'd admired him, and how much she missed him still. It was moving to see her affection for this man, both on a personal and on a political level. Her grief came, in part, at the immense loss her country had suffered. This was not long after the 2006 war that destroyed so many lives and so much of her country. Maybe it's easy to say this, when the tragic history of this place is given a face in my memory, but I think Lebanon has been through enough. We (and, more importantly, our allies,) could maybe let Beirut stand for more than 4 years before trying to knock it all down, again.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, May 14, 2010
Day 134- One of us
Dear Mr. President,
John McCain really changed my mind about things, once I saw his new ad. If we build a wall along our entire border, we'll never have problems with drug trafficking or home invasions ever again. Build the wall, higher, stronger, and more formidable than any wall ever seen on this planet, and it will keep out all of those miscreants who risk their lives to sneak across our borders just to cause mischief. I was going to oppose the wall, me being a bleeding heart who thinks that all human life, regardless of geographic location, is equal, but John McCain set me straight.
My one concern with the wall is that it doesn't really stop the people in boats. I mean, people in boats sneak into this country all the time, so maybe we could wall off the coastlines, too? It might hurt tourism, but think of all the environmental benefits if humans were no longer allowed on any American beaches! And then there's Canada. Did I ever tell you how I crossed into the US from Canada illegally? It was on the Pacific Crest Trail, and I was 15. Let me tell you, it was way too easy. We should probably build a wall through there, too. It might hurt a few trees, upset a few migratory animals, but in the long run, it's what we have to do to keep the terrorists out.
One last concern; airplanes. I know, closing the airports to international flights seems like an easy fix, but what about parachutes? I don't want Mexicans HALO dropping into this country at night; they might make it past all of those lame desert states in the south and start taking our jobs here in the north. I'd imagine the Star Wars missile defense technology could help us here, but I'm not sure it's fully operational yet, so maybe we could make due with some giant trampolines? Or those spikes we put on window ledges to keep off the birds? My roommates want me to point out that electrifying the fence is an important step, but if Jurassic Park teaches us anything, it should be that we need a much more effective back-up system in the event of any power failures.
Once we've been effectively locked down, we'll have to go after the illegals already among us. (Especially once our import/export abilities are cut off by the coastal wall.) Maybe we could set up roadside stations, check every one's papers before we let them through? It might get kind of overwhelming for local law enforcement to do this alone, so we should probably staff these checkpoints with soldiers. (Actually, checkpoints is kind of an ugly, contentious word with all sorts of bad connotations, so let's call them "Citizenship defense stations.")
Anyway, what do you think? Are these the kind of comprehensive immigration solutions that will keep us safe from the dangerous onslaught of non-English-speaking killers flooding across into Arizona? Do you think that John McCain will let us be part of his club, now?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Day 131
Dear Mr. President,
I applied to go back to school today. After running out of viable alternatives to complete my degree (night school, bank robbery, insurance fraud, etc.) I've finally concluded that I have to face my fear and go back full-time. What is unusual about this situation is that, instead of fearing the unknown, I know exactly what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of the stress, the inevitable choice between being a good employee and being a good student, (or, put another way, of having the means to support myself or the kind of grades I expect,) of the endless bureaucracy of attending a large school, my own deteriorating academic skills and my failure to measure up to classes growing younger as I age. I've been through it, before, and I do not look forward to doing it again, for an entire year. I've put it off for so long, because of the calculated risks, feeling as though I know, already, that I will fail, and so it is not worth trying. But business as usual isn't acceptable; my life is not what I want it to be, my career, my contribution to my community, nothing about my station in life is acceptable and so I have to put aside my habits and self-doubt and even my pride, and I have to do what is difficult.
Lately I feel like your administration has faced a similar struggle. It's as though you can't seem to break out of the same patterns that force you to perpetuate a status quo you know to be unacceptable. Why, for example, is the White House rallying for incumbent Democrats who don't support your legislative agenda? Why do we continue to prop up Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, or accept defeat when it comes to new energy policy? Our problems are similar, Mr. President, in that we both have the power and will to improve, but somehow find ourselves bogged down in the day-to-day. I understand; it's difficult to get aggressive on your legislative agenda when it's flooding in Tennessee and oil is spilling into the Gulf; when bombs, (or, at least, fair attempts at bombs) are being left in Times Square and Arizona seems ready to replace its law enforcement with a modern-era manifestation of the Glanton gang. But time is slipping away from both of us, and, before you know it, the midterms will be over and it will be time to run again. Your approval rating may be creeping up, but you know that the years will be long gone before you're able to accomplish what you set out to if you wait for the political will to come to you.
Neither of us can afford to waste our time in mediocrity, in half-hearted attempts born of fear. I hope that your administration musters all of its courage and finds new approaches to solving the problems of our day; that you take the difficult paths and fight for your beliefs, without compromising before you even reach the negotiation. You ought to re-evaluate the promises you made to the electorate during your campaign and the progress made so far toward those ends. I worry that four years will pass before you look around and realize you haven't fought hard enough, for fear of failure, or that you've been bogged down with day-by-day crisis management and never got to take on enough of the big picture. A constant reflection on the goals of your administration is essential to the necessary sense of urgency your office requires. Like me, you still have so many people who believe in you, and I know you, too, want that faith to be rewarded.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I applied to go back to school today. After running out of viable alternatives to complete my degree (night school, bank robbery, insurance fraud, etc.) I've finally concluded that I have to face my fear and go back full-time. What is unusual about this situation is that, instead of fearing the unknown, I know exactly what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of the stress, the inevitable choice between being a good employee and being a good student, (or, put another way, of having the means to support myself or the kind of grades I expect,) of the endless bureaucracy of attending a large school, my own deteriorating academic skills and my failure to measure up to classes growing younger as I age. I've been through it, before, and I do not look forward to doing it again, for an entire year. I've put it off for so long, because of the calculated risks, feeling as though I know, already, that I will fail, and so it is not worth trying. But business as usual isn't acceptable; my life is not what I want it to be, my career, my contribution to my community, nothing about my station in life is acceptable and so I have to put aside my habits and self-doubt and even my pride, and I have to do what is difficult.
Lately I feel like your administration has faced a similar struggle. It's as though you can't seem to break out of the same patterns that force you to perpetuate a status quo you know to be unacceptable. Why, for example, is the White House rallying for incumbent Democrats who don't support your legislative agenda? Why do we continue to prop up Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, or accept defeat when it comes to new energy policy? Our problems are similar, Mr. President, in that we both have the power and will to improve, but somehow find ourselves bogged down in the day-to-day. I understand; it's difficult to get aggressive on your legislative agenda when it's flooding in Tennessee and oil is spilling into the Gulf; when bombs, (or, at least, fair attempts at bombs) are being left in Times Square and Arizona seems ready to replace its law enforcement with a modern-era manifestation of the Glanton gang. But time is slipping away from both of us, and, before you know it, the midterms will be over and it will be time to run again. Your approval rating may be creeping up, but you know that the years will be long gone before you're able to accomplish what you set out to if you wait for the political will to come to you.
Neither of us can afford to waste our time in mediocrity, in half-hearted attempts born of fear. I hope that your administration musters all of its courage and finds new approaches to solving the problems of our day; that you take the difficult paths and fight for your beliefs, without compromising before you even reach the negotiation. You ought to re-evaluate the promises you made to the electorate during your campaign and the progress made so far toward those ends. I worry that four years will pass before you look around and realize you haven't fought hard enough, for fear of failure, or that you've been bogged down with day-by-day crisis management and never got to take on enough of the big picture. A constant reflection on the goals of your administration is essential to the necessary sense of urgency your office requires. Like me, you still have so many people who believe in you, and I know you, too, want that faith to be rewarded.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, May 7, 2010
Day 127- Omar Khadr
Dear Mr. President,
I don't know Omar Khadr. I don't know his crimes, his history or the circumstances surrounding his arrest and detention. I don't have any opinion about his guilt or innocence. I know one thing, only one thing for sure, about Omar Khadr; on the day of his arrest by US soldiers 8 years ago, he was 15 years old. I don't need to know anything else, Mr. President. I don't need to know who he allegedly killed or how he confessed to the crime of participating in the losing side of an ugly war. I don't need to know these things because it is simply inexcusable for us to treat a child this way. A child who was wounded and nearly dead when we arrested him and tortured him and convinced him that he would suffer even worse if he did not confess.
I've been 15. We've all been 15. And I'm not claiming that going to war or throwing grenades is just some adolescent stage that Khadr would have outgrown, but, by now, he has certainly lost his best chance at growing up into something better. There are legal and political arguments to be made about the rules of war and what is acceptable conduct, but we're talking about a child, who was surrounded by political upheaval, facing an invading army (right or wrong, it is what we are,) with better weapons and better armor and better training, and who, allegedly, threw a grenade; there is a higher moral argument to be made against calling that a "war crime." He should have spent the last eight years in school, not in prison. While his actions have consequences that must be acknowledged, this country has a moral obligation to demonstrate, to the world, the way a responsible superpower conducts itself. I don't believe for a second that you need to be told this, sir, but a responsible superpower does not behave this way toward children. There is simply no crime this boy could have committed to warrant the treatment he has received at American hands. This is why people hate us. It makes us less safe, it generates more anti-American sentiment, and it's just wrong.
You promised to close Guantanamo Bay, and that has not happened. We have had no explanation for this failure, no apology for the broken promise, and no indication that it will be fulfilled in the future. The people who voted for you are entitled to these answers, Mr. President, and if you cannot give them, you can at least ensure that Omar Khadr's treatment and trial are fair, just, and conducted with due consideration of his age at the time of his arrest. It is a small mercy that should be given, not out of symbolism or political expediency, but because, in this instance, we have behaved appallingly, and there will be no rectifying it until we say so.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I don't know Omar Khadr. I don't know his crimes, his history or the circumstances surrounding his arrest and detention. I don't have any opinion about his guilt or innocence. I know one thing, only one thing for sure, about Omar Khadr; on the day of his arrest by US soldiers 8 years ago, he was 15 years old. I don't need to know anything else, Mr. President. I don't need to know who he allegedly killed or how he confessed to the crime of participating in the losing side of an ugly war. I don't need to know these things because it is simply inexcusable for us to treat a child this way. A child who was wounded and nearly dead when we arrested him and tortured him and convinced him that he would suffer even worse if he did not confess.
I've been 15. We've all been 15. And I'm not claiming that going to war or throwing grenades is just some adolescent stage that Khadr would have outgrown, but, by now, he has certainly lost his best chance at growing up into something better. There are legal and political arguments to be made about the rules of war and what is acceptable conduct, but we're talking about a child, who was surrounded by political upheaval, facing an invading army (right or wrong, it is what we are,) with better weapons and better armor and better training, and who, allegedly, threw a grenade; there is a higher moral argument to be made against calling that a "war crime." He should have spent the last eight years in school, not in prison. While his actions have consequences that must be acknowledged, this country has a moral obligation to demonstrate, to the world, the way a responsible superpower conducts itself. I don't believe for a second that you need to be told this, sir, but a responsible superpower does not behave this way toward children. There is simply no crime this boy could have committed to warrant the treatment he has received at American hands. This is why people hate us. It makes us less safe, it generates more anti-American sentiment, and it's just wrong.
You promised to close Guantanamo Bay, and that has not happened. We have had no explanation for this failure, no apology for the broken promise, and no indication that it will be fulfilled in the future. The people who voted for you are entitled to these answers, Mr. President, and if you cannot give them, you can at least ensure that Omar Khadr's treatment and trial are fair, just, and conducted with due consideration of his age at the time of his arrest. It is a small mercy that should be given, not out of symbolism or political expediency, but because, in this instance, we have behaved appallingly, and there will be no rectifying it until we say so.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Day 126- Timothy McVeigh died an American
Dear Mr. President,
Joe Lieberman's bill aiming to revoke the citizenship of anyone who associates with foreign terror groups who attack the the US or its allies makes me more fearful of my government than I have ever been before. To begin with, Senator Lieberman has made it clear that his bill targets those joining Islamic groups above all others; Timothy McVeigh, were he alive today, would have nothing to fear from this bill. Neither would the Hutaree militia. Why should plotting to overthrow our government be more of a crime, or some one suspected of it be eligible for less legal protection, if it involves foreign terrorist organizations and not domestic ones? This bill doesn't even require proof that the citizen is planning an act of violence; affiliation is grounds enough to revoke a person's citizenship.
Our citizenship is not based upon our behavior. Child molesters, rapists, serial killers, Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, even Dick Cheney all get to keep their status as citizens, regardless of the scale of their crimes against this country or their intent to commit more. The true test of the rights and legal protections we have as citizens is when they must be applied even to the worst among us. The bill Mr. Lieberman is proposing would do more to harm the fabric and character of our national values than any act of violence ever could.
Moral arguments aside, I fail to see the legal or political advantages to this bill. For starters, isn't prosecuting non-citizens who commit crimes against the United States infinitely more complicated than prosecuting our own citizens? Any trials and convictions are far more likely to withstand legal challenge if the utmost precaution was taken to avoid infringing upon the legal rights of the defendant. Having those legal rights clearly defined helps prevent them from being violated. Yes, it's easier to break down the door of a murder suspect and start looking for evidence than to wait and obtain a search warrant. But if the evidence is thrown out in court or on appeal, a killer goes free. We're all made safer when the rights and protections guaranteed to us by the constitution are respected for every one.
Perhaps this legislation upsets me so much because I see how, with only the smallest stretches, it could be applied to me. I've traveled to Palestine, and I've sent money, both to charitable organizations and educational institutions. The way Palestinian groups are viewed by my government is often quite extreme; you yourself had to circumvent some of the more draconian anti-Palestinian legislation in the service of our own national security interests. I have little doubt that Senator Lieberman and my own definition of appropriate groups to affiliate myself with may be different, in this part of the world. In addition, I have written, both in letters to you and in other places, about doubting the morality of remaining in America while my tax dollars pay for the Israeli occupation. Would this be grounds enough to demonstrate intent to renounce my citizenship? I'm not a lawyer, Mr. President, but it seems to me that this bill might easily be applied to mean that, without a shred of violent intent towards any American, I could be viewed as unworthy of my rights as an American citizen.
Please, sir, do not support this legislation. Walk back the support of those in your administration, like Secretary Clinton, who would, in their zeal to fight terror, do more harm to this country than any they bomb ever could. We cannot turn on our own citizens; the greatest threats to civil liberties have historically come in the name of protection from enemies inside and out. Remember, Mr. President, your power, and Senator Lieberman's power, comes from the citizens of this country who granted it to you. We trusted you to defend and uphold those codified rights that are older than any of us and will outlast us all. No amount of fear will ever make it acceptable for those rights to be taken away.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Joe Lieberman's bill aiming to revoke the citizenship of anyone who associates with foreign terror groups who attack the the US or its allies makes me more fearful of my government than I have ever been before. To begin with, Senator Lieberman has made it clear that his bill targets those joining Islamic groups above all others; Timothy McVeigh, were he alive today, would have nothing to fear from this bill. Neither would the Hutaree militia. Why should plotting to overthrow our government be more of a crime, or some one suspected of it be eligible for less legal protection, if it involves foreign terrorist organizations and not domestic ones? This bill doesn't even require proof that the citizen is planning an act of violence; affiliation is grounds enough to revoke a person's citizenship.
Our citizenship is not based upon our behavior. Child molesters, rapists, serial killers, Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, even Dick Cheney all get to keep their status as citizens, regardless of the scale of their crimes against this country or their intent to commit more. The true test of the rights and legal protections we have as citizens is when they must be applied even to the worst among us. The bill Mr. Lieberman is proposing would do more to harm the fabric and character of our national values than any act of violence ever could.
Moral arguments aside, I fail to see the legal or political advantages to this bill. For starters, isn't prosecuting non-citizens who commit crimes against the United States infinitely more complicated than prosecuting our own citizens? Any trials and convictions are far more likely to withstand legal challenge if the utmost precaution was taken to avoid infringing upon the legal rights of the defendant. Having those legal rights clearly defined helps prevent them from being violated. Yes, it's easier to break down the door of a murder suspect and start looking for evidence than to wait and obtain a search warrant. But if the evidence is thrown out in court or on appeal, a killer goes free. We're all made safer when the rights and protections guaranteed to us by the constitution are respected for every one.
Perhaps this legislation upsets me so much because I see how, with only the smallest stretches, it could be applied to me. I've traveled to Palestine, and I've sent money, both to charitable organizations and educational institutions. The way Palestinian groups are viewed by my government is often quite extreme; you yourself had to circumvent some of the more draconian anti-Palestinian legislation in the service of our own national security interests. I have little doubt that Senator Lieberman and my own definition of appropriate groups to affiliate myself with may be different, in this part of the world. In addition, I have written, both in letters to you and in other places, about doubting the morality of remaining in America while my tax dollars pay for the Israeli occupation. Would this be grounds enough to demonstrate intent to renounce my citizenship? I'm not a lawyer, Mr. President, but it seems to me that this bill might easily be applied to mean that, without a shred of violent intent towards any American, I could be viewed as unworthy of my rights as an American citizen.
Please, sir, do not support this legislation. Walk back the support of those in your administration, like Secretary Clinton, who would, in their zeal to fight terror, do more harm to this country than any they bomb ever could. We cannot turn on our own citizens; the greatest threats to civil liberties have historically come in the name of protection from enemies inside and out. Remember, Mr. President, your power, and Senator Lieberman's power, comes from the citizens of this country who granted it to you. We trusted you to defend and uphold those codified rights that are older than any of us and will outlast us all. No amount of fear will ever make it acceptable for those rights to be taken away.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, March 29, 2010
Day 88
This is for all of you. Also, for those of you following it, Barbra Boxer's re-election race is heating up, she's polling within the margin of error against both republican front runners, and Carly Fiorina (of demon sheep/ giant blimp ad fame) is leading in the republican primary. If you know California voters, encourage them to get out the vote. The Senate might be funnier with Carly Fiorina in it, but I don't think congress needs any more of her particular brand of crazy.
Dear Mr. President,
The arrests in Michigan of militia members plotting to kill police officers reveals a deeply unsettling movement that seems to be growing. The recent rise in violent anti-government sentiments is frightening, the rhetoric of hate groups across the country, groups who often use religion or nationalism as a disguise echoed in the hysteria of the Tea Party movement and even by some members of the Republican party. This is not to say conservatives are to blame. I grew up in a part of Washington State (a blue state if ever there were) where survivalist militias, cults, and truly horrifying acts of hatred occurred under national leadership from Republicans or Democrats; I recognize that this kind of extremism co-opts the conservative opposition to government and subverts it into violence much in the same way the suicide bombers in Moscow twist their Islamic faith into justification for their crimes.
I don't know what the solution is. My fear-based reaction would be to call for stricter federal regulation of these groups, but I understand that it would only fuel their rhetoric and make all Americans less safe and less free. We cannot protect ourselves by infringing upon the rights of others. The arrest of these extremists in Michigan proves that the current system works; their plans were disrupted by the authorities and lives were saved.
I'm glad that the police were successful in preventing this group from carrying out their plans. My heart is heavy at the loss of life in Russia, as well. I'm sure there are many struggling to make sense of the anger that leads people to this kind of violence, and I have faith that your administration will not take advantage of this struggle to increase its power, as President Bush's did. I sincerely hope that politicians across the political spectrum recognize the power their words have over people, and tone down the rhetoric that is fueling these violent sentiments.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
The arrests in Michigan of militia members plotting to kill police officers reveals a deeply unsettling movement that seems to be growing. The recent rise in violent anti-government sentiments is frightening, the rhetoric of hate groups across the country, groups who often use religion or nationalism as a disguise echoed in the hysteria of the Tea Party movement and even by some members of the Republican party. This is not to say conservatives are to blame. I grew up in a part of Washington State (a blue state if ever there were) where survivalist militias, cults, and truly horrifying acts of hatred occurred under national leadership from Republicans or Democrats; I recognize that this kind of extremism co-opts the conservative opposition to government and subverts it into violence much in the same way the suicide bombers in Moscow twist their Islamic faith into justification for their crimes.
I don't know what the solution is. My fear-based reaction would be to call for stricter federal regulation of these groups, but I understand that it would only fuel their rhetoric and make all Americans less safe and less free. We cannot protect ourselves by infringing upon the rights of others. The arrest of these extremists in Michigan proves that the current system works; their plans were disrupted by the authorities and lives were saved.
I'm glad that the police were successful in preventing this group from carrying out their plans. My heart is heavy at the loss of life in Russia, as well. I'm sure there are many struggling to make sense of the anger that leads people to this kind of violence, and I have faith that your administration will not take advantage of this struggle to increase its power, as President Bush's did. I sincerely hope that politicians across the political spectrum recognize the power their words have over people, and tone down the rhetoric that is fueling these violent sentiments.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Day 75- Sunshine Week
Dear Mr. President,
I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the importance you've placed on transparency in government. Having an administration I can trust to be open and honest about their conduct is even more important to me than having an administration that agrees with me. In fact, 6 of the 10 form letters I've received from your office have included sections on the importance of transparency in government. The whitehouse.gov website is easier to navigate and full of more relevant content than it's ever been. Thank you for your efforts to these ends.
As some one who clearly appreciates the difficulties of balancing the need to protect the powers of the executive with gaining the trust of the people who empowered you in the first place, I hope that this logic can be extrapolated to other sectors of administration policy. National security is important, and some secrecy will always be required in order to protect ourselves, but, especially when it comes to the detention, treatment, and trials of our enemies, I hope we move toward greater openness with the public. Our reputation as a place that respects the rights of all, even those who hate us, must be restored. It is the true promise of America; upholding these principles in full public scrutiny is the only way to defy those who would scare us back into darkness.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the importance you've placed on transparency in government. Having an administration I can trust to be open and honest about their conduct is even more important to me than having an administration that agrees with me. In fact, 6 of the 10 form letters I've received from your office have included sections on the importance of transparency in government. The whitehouse.gov website is easier to navigate and full of more relevant content than it's ever been. Thank you for your efforts to these ends.
As some one who clearly appreciates the difficulties of balancing the need to protect the powers of the executive with gaining the trust of the people who empowered you in the first place, I hope that this logic can be extrapolated to other sectors of administration policy. National security is important, and some secrecy will always be required in order to protect ourselves, but, especially when it comes to the detention, treatment, and trials of our enemies, I hope we move toward greater openness with the public. Our reputation as a place that respects the rights of all, even those who hate us, must be restored. It is the true promise of America; upholding these principles in full public scrutiny is the only way to defy those who would scare us back into darkness.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, March 15, 2010
Day 74
UPDATE: Carly Fiorina of the Demon Sheep fame is at it again, with a new ad featuring Senator Barbara Boxer's head as a giant, California-attacking blimp.
Dear Mr. President,
The news of the murders in Juarez were deeply upsetting. Fighting the corruption and violence of Drug trafficking is an important part of treating America's drug problem. I see firsthand the effects of addiction on the urban poor, the homeless and often mentally ill population that migrate through all parts of the city, from my neighborhood to my downtown bookstore. Drug addictions lead to theft, assault and other crimes. But I have friends who routinely use drugs, as well, some in responsible, non-harmful ways. Certainly it is hard to get past the moral implications of the system they support when they buy drugs- they may pay a dealer, but, somewhere, a drug lord is the one making the profit.
My own life has been affected by drugs in many ways. In Boise, I saw the dangerous affects of methamphetamine on a co-worker and neighbor who started a fire in our building one night. While sober, he was a soft-spoken man, grateful for the second chance offered to him by his job and new apartment. When he was using, however, he became violent and paranoid, so convinced that I had slighted him that he came after me with a gun. I was saved by the protection of my boss and the intervention of our neighbors, but it was the first time I understood the dangers of addiction. My young nephew's father also struggles with addiction, stealing from his employers and choosing heroin over his own children. We haven't seen or heard from him in over a year, and, because of his choices, his son will grow up knowing another father entirely. The number of shoplifters I have caught, in Seattle and in DC, who stole books and movies to sell for drug money demonstrate the desperation addiction causes and the violence this can result in.
So how can I reconcile the "recreational" use of drugs by my friends with the dangers and downsides? I think the easiest way to take power away from the drug cartels is to reform the way Americans consume drugs. I think marijuana needs to be legalized, so that it can be domestically produced, taxed, and regulated. The effects of marijuana are less harmful than tobacco an alcohol abuse, and the greatest harm is caused by its illegality, not its use. I think the argument that it can be a gateway drug actually supports legalization- a marijuana user today has already decided to do so in the face of the law, and so trying other illegal drugs does not require much additional risk. If marijuana were legal, I'd imagine that users would be less likely to take the risk of moving on to illegal drugs. A user today already has a dealer, a connection even by proxy to the world of illegal drugs. Allowing them to go through legal sources would cut down on the prevalence of illegal dealers, limiting sources for other drugs. I don't know any one who chooses not to use pot because it is illegal. Many people, (like myself) choose not to use it for reasons unrelated to the law. Personally I find it pretty disgusting, and that isn't going to change if it becomes legal.
We can't win the "war on drugs" while we fund both sides, just as we can't win the war on terror by perpetuating the oppressive practices that fuel recruiting efforts and anti-American sentiments. We may be better-armed, better-trained and better-funded, but so long as we have to win and the other side just has to stay alive, we'll never be able to stop fighting. (An aside, and perhaps worth an entirely separate letter, but if we can try Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla in Federal court, why can't we try terror suspects? Zambada-Niebla is surely as much an enemy combatant as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and no one is claiming he should be denied due process.) We must accept that we cannot win within the current paradigm, and changing the system is the only way to make real progress at addressing the terrible effects of the drug trade on our country and the world.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
The news of the murders in Juarez were deeply upsetting. Fighting the corruption and violence of Drug trafficking is an important part of treating America's drug problem. I see firsthand the effects of addiction on the urban poor, the homeless and often mentally ill population that migrate through all parts of the city, from my neighborhood to my downtown bookstore. Drug addictions lead to theft, assault and other crimes. But I have friends who routinely use drugs, as well, some in responsible, non-harmful ways. Certainly it is hard to get past the moral implications of the system they support when they buy drugs- they may pay a dealer, but, somewhere, a drug lord is the one making the profit.
My own life has been affected by drugs in many ways. In Boise, I saw the dangerous affects of methamphetamine on a co-worker and neighbor who started a fire in our building one night. While sober, he was a soft-spoken man, grateful for the second chance offered to him by his job and new apartment. When he was using, however, he became violent and paranoid, so convinced that I had slighted him that he came after me with a gun. I was saved by the protection of my boss and the intervention of our neighbors, but it was the first time I understood the dangers of addiction. My young nephew's father also struggles with addiction, stealing from his employers and choosing heroin over his own children. We haven't seen or heard from him in over a year, and, because of his choices, his son will grow up knowing another father entirely. The number of shoplifters I have caught, in Seattle and in DC, who stole books and movies to sell for drug money demonstrate the desperation addiction causes and the violence this can result in.
So how can I reconcile the "recreational" use of drugs by my friends with the dangers and downsides? I think the easiest way to take power away from the drug cartels is to reform the way Americans consume drugs. I think marijuana needs to be legalized, so that it can be domestically produced, taxed, and regulated. The effects of marijuana are less harmful than tobacco an alcohol abuse, and the greatest harm is caused by its illegality, not its use. I think the argument that it can be a gateway drug actually supports legalization- a marijuana user today has already decided to do so in the face of the law, and so trying other illegal drugs does not require much additional risk. If marijuana were legal, I'd imagine that users would be less likely to take the risk of moving on to illegal drugs. A user today already has a dealer, a connection even by proxy to the world of illegal drugs. Allowing them to go through legal sources would cut down on the prevalence of illegal dealers, limiting sources for other drugs. I don't know any one who chooses not to use pot because it is illegal. Many people, (like myself) choose not to use it for reasons unrelated to the law. Personally I find it pretty disgusting, and that isn't going to change if it becomes legal.
We can't win the "war on drugs" while we fund both sides, just as we can't win the war on terror by perpetuating the oppressive practices that fuel recruiting efforts and anti-American sentiments. We may be better-armed, better-trained and better-funded, but so long as we have to win and the other side just has to stay alive, we'll never be able to stop fighting. (An aside, and perhaps worth an entirely separate letter, but if we can try Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla in Federal court, why can't we try terror suspects? Zambada-Niebla is surely as much an enemy combatant as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and no one is claiming he should be denied due process.) We must accept that we cannot win within the current paradigm, and changing the system is the only way to make real progress at addressing the terrible effects of the drug trade on our country and the world.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Day 70 - For you, Liberalviewer
Dear Mr. President,
While it has lately become a rallying cry for the right to oppose jury trials for terror suspects, I'm writing today to ask you to respect the constitution- a document I know you revered even before you swore to uphold and protect it as President- and ensure that all suspected criminals are given the due process our constitution outlines. The constitution is not a suicide pact, but nor was it written for easy, peaceful times. It was written to see us through trying times such as these, to remind us that the value of our idealism is greater than our fear. The rights codified within it were not to protect the innocent, but the guilty, as well as the credibility and integrity of the system itself. Denying even the worst criminals their rights jeopardizes the soundness of the entire legal system, and is a risk I beg you not take.
Trials are slow, trials are expensive, trials can be frustrating. But the swift, secret justice being called for is not justice at all. I would rather bear the expense, the risk, and the wait, to ensure that the constitutional rights of all involved were respected. Do not bend to political pressure from those looking for vengeance or for the impossible illusion of safety. These trials must be held in the light of day, subject to public scrutiny, and must respect the letter & spirit of the law. I believe we can and should protect the constitution above all else- even our personal safety. This may sound extreme, but I think that, in a world as unpredictable and dangerous as ours, we cannot ever truly guarantee our safety. We can take precautions, we can foster awareness, and we can prosecute and punish criminals to the full extent of the law; but we can never become safer by giving up our rights to proper legal procedure and protection for all. Please, sir, do not allow this essential American institution to be suspended for any one, regardless of their crimes.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
While it has lately become a rallying cry for the right to oppose jury trials for terror suspects, I'm writing today to ask you to respect the constitution- a document I know you revered even before you swore to uphold and protect it as President- and ensure that all suspected criminals are given the due process our constitution outlines. The constitution is not a suicide pact, but nor was it written for easy, peaceful times. It was written to see us through trying times such as these, to remind us that the value of our idealism is greater than our fear. The rights codified within it were not to protect the innocent, but the guilty, as well as the credibility and integrity of the system itself. Denying even the worst criminals their rights jeopardizes the soundness of the entire legal system, and is a risk I beg you not take.
Trials are slow, trials are expensive, trials can be frustrating. But the swift, secret justice being called for is not justice at all. I would rather bear the expense, the risk, and the wait, to ensure that the constitutional rights of all involved were respected. Do not bend to political pressure from those looking for vengeance or for the impossible illusion of safety. These trials must be held in the light of day, subject to public scrutiny, and must respect the letter & spirit of the law. I believe we can and should protect the constitution above all else- even our personal safety. This may sound extreme, but I think that, in a world as unpredictable and dangerous as ours, we cannot ever truly guarantee our safety. We can take precautions, we can foster awareness, and we can prosecute and punish criminals to the full extent of the law; but we can never become safer by giving up our rights to proper legal procedure and protection for all. Please, sir, do not allow this essential American institution to be suspended for any one, regardless of their crimes.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Day 49
Dear Mr. President,
I was sorry to hear about the disturbed man in Texas today. While I often find myself reacting emotionally to such stories, I try to separate myself from the coverage of the story and put myself in the individual's shoes. One thing I never can reconcile is the degree of anger one must feel in order to commit such a violent act. I get angry, I get emotional, I get enraged at the decisions made by this government, and I often feel that I have no means of redressing these mistakes. Voting sometimes feels like an exercise in futility, and certainly running for office myself is not a viable option (nor, as Senator Bayh so eloquently illustrated, always an effective means of changing the system.) I have joined demonstrations against war and occupation; in my indignation at the suppression of basic human rights, I have even wished to march on Washington. I'll admit I admire the nerve and strength of character of Rachel Corrie, the young Washington girl who died at the hands of the IDF defending a home set for demolition in Gaza. I could devote my life, even perhaps my death, to a political cause.
But I could not kill for it.
I could not pick up a weapon, or launch a missile or crash a vehicle into a building. I cannot find the empathy to understand why some one would do this. I understand desperation and I understand self-defense, but I do not understand this kind of attack. Clearly, to some extent, it is by nature incomprehensible. The madness of the perpetrator makes rationalizing his behavior near impossible. But I know that I cannot comfort myself with the simple answer that this man was ill, end of story. This man did not think himself irrational. This clearly took planning and preparation, this clearly took a degree of reasoning. I had never even heard of the tax law that this man found so upsetting it drove him to violence. I'm reluctant to even follow the path of searching for justification too far, because the man may have had some very legitimate points about the problematic nature of this law, but any validity to his arguments is lost, forever, in the burning wreckage of that plane.
I don't know what to think. I don't know what to say. Today, we have no simple answer.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I was sorry to hear about the disturbed man in Texas today. While I often find myself reacting emotionally to such stories, I try to separate myself from the coverage of the story and put myself in the individual's shoes. One thing I never can reconcile is the degree of anger one must feel in order to commit such a violent act. I get angry, I get emotional, I get enraged at the decisions made by this government, and I often feel that I have no means of redressing these mistakes. Voting sometimes feels like an exercise in futility, and certainly running for office myself is not a viable option (nor, as Senator Bayh so eloquently illustrated, always an effective means of changing the system.) I have joined demonstrations against war and occupation; in my indignation at the suppression of basic human rights, I have even wished to march on Washington. I'll admit I admire the nerve and strength of character of Rachel Corrie, the young Washington girl who died at the hands of the IDF defending a home set for demolition in Gaza. I could devote my life, even perhaps my death, to a political cause.
But I could not kill for it.
I could not pick up a weapon, or launch a missile or crash a vehicle into a building. I cannot find the empathy to understand why some one would do this. I understand desperation and I understand self-defense, but I do not understand this kind of attack. Clearly, to some extent, it is by nature incomprehensible. The madness of the perpetrator makes rationalizing his behavior near impossible. But I know that I cannot comfort myself with the simple answer that this man was ill, end of story. This man did not think himself irrational. This clearly took planning and preparation, this clearly took a degree of reasoning. I had never even heard of the tax law that this man found so upsetting it drove him to violence. I'm reluctant to even follow the path of searching for justification too far, because the man may have had some very legitimate points about the problematic nature of this law, but any validity to his arguments is lost, forever, in the burning wreckage of that plane.
I don't know what to think. I don't know what to say. Today, we have no simple answer.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, January 11, 2010
Day 11
Or "The enemies of Success"
Dear Mr. President,
Today I prepared the books that will be released tomorrow morning for their displays. One of them (which actually comes out today) is Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's Game Change. I am unspeakably giddy about reading this book (though it will have to come after Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope) as the 2008 election is one I would happily relive. Sadly, the other book that caught my attention is called, (with a truly admirable amount of subtlety and nuance) The War on Success. Maybe I'm being judgmental, maybe I should look past the bullet holes on the cover, the Conservative Book Club recommendation, and the quote on the back that actually suggests any reader not inspired by the books "has already surrendered to the enemies of success." I won't lie, I'm probably not going to look past those things. According to the subtitle, you, Mr. President, are an "enemy of success", and I wonder how you feel about that. Surely, you've been called more ridiculous and more insulting things, but is there really a significant portion of the population who believes that their president doesn't want them, his citizens and constituents, not to succeed? Significant enough to convince some one to write a book about it, and a number of others to agree to publish it?
The world is a mind-boggling place, sometimes. Working in a bookstore, I encounter a wide spectrum of readers, and while I often find myself puzzling over those buying books by Glenn Beck or Robert Spencer, I suppose that there is a place for every kind of book. Today I had a woman angrily return a book I'd suggested she read. It was The Iron Cage by Rashid Khalidi. She is traveling to Israel soon, and was looking for "a more balanced" perspective on the conflict with Palestine than what she knew from her "crazy orthodox" relatives. I don't know this woman well enough to know what balanced means to her, but she seemed interested in hearing from a Palestinian perspective, and so I suggested Mr. Khalidi's book, as I respect him as an intellectual. I warned her that I was quite strongly in support of a free Palestine, and that Khalidi was considered, by some, to be quite radical in his opinions. I also encouraged her to visit the West Bank on her trip, as I feel first-hand experience will offer the most "balanced" idea of what it is like to live in Palestine. I didn't get a chance to ask her what about the book made her so angry, but I try to keep my political views away from my conduct at work. (I confess, when Vice President Cheney used to come into my store in DC, I would excuse myself from the sales floor to avoid an encounter. Some jobs aren't worth keeping silent.)
When I logged on my laptop during my lunch break, however, I saw something that may explain the woman's anger. Cnn.com's headline is "Sources: Israeli shelling kills three in Gaza". This headline runs beneath a photo of armed men in ski masks, the black bands of Islamic Jihad around their foreheads. On December 26, three men were killed in Nablus. Their story did not make headline news on CNN. The photos of these men, and their mourning families, can be found (along with their names) here, in a story by Bridget Chappell. If these men had been militants, it is presumed, they might have made the front page at CNN.com. All 6 were killed by the IDF, all 6 were people with names and families. Why is it that the only image most of America will see is of faceless figures carrying automatic weapons? In the mainstream American media, Palestinians are rarely depicted as anything besides terrorists or statistics. That, I must conclude, is why my customer was so angry that I would dare suggest she read something written by one.
Clearly, I'm just as much of a hypocrite. I may actually have to give The War On Success a chance, now.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
Today I prepared the books that will be released tomorrow morning for their displays. One of them (which actually comes out today) is Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's Game Change. I am unspeakably giddy about reading this book (though it will have to come after Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope) as the 2008 election is one I would happily relive. Sadly, the other book that caught my attention is called, (with a truly admirable amount of subtlety and nuance) The War on Success. Maybe I'm being judgmental, maybe I should look past the bullet holes on the cover, the Conservative Book Club recommendation, and the quote on the back that actually suggests any reader not inspired by the books "has already surrendered to the enemies of success." I won't lie, I'm probably not going to look past those things. According to the subtitle, you, Mr. President, are an "enemy of success", and I wonder how you feel about that. Surely, you've been called more ridiculous and more insulting things, but is there really a significant portion of the population who believes that their president doesn't want them, his citizens and constituents, not to succeed? Significant enough to convince some one to write a book about it, and a number of others to agree to publish it?
The world is a mind-boggling place, sometimes. Working in a bookstore, I encounter a wide spectrum of readers, and while I often find myself puzzling over those buying books by Glenn Beck or Robert Spencer, I suppose that there is a place for every kind of book. Today I had a woman angrily return a book I'd suggested she read. It was The Iron Cage by Rashid Khalidi. She is traveling to Israel soon, and was looking for "a more balanced" perspective on the conflict with Palestine than what she knew from her "crazy orthodox" relatives. I don't know this woman well enough to know what balanced means to her, but she seemed interested in hearing from a Palestinian perspective, and so I suggested Mr. Khalidi's book, as I respect him as an intellectual. I warned her that I was quite strongly in support of a free Palestine, and that Khalidi was considered, by some, to be quite radical in his opinions. I also encouraged her to visit the West Bank on her trip, as I feel first-hand experience will offer the most "balanced" idea of what it is like to live in Palestine. I didn't get a chance to ask her what about the book made her so angry, but I try to keep my political views away from my conduct at work. (I confess, when Vice President Cheney used to come into my store in DC, I would excuse myself from the sales floor to avoid an encounter. Some jobs aren't worth keeping silent.)
When I logged on my laptop during my lunch break, however, I saw something that may explain the woman's anger. Cnn.com's headline is "Sources: Israeli shelling kills three in Gaza". This headline runs beneath a photo of armed men in ski masks, the black bands of Islamic Jihad around their foreheads. On December 26, three men were killed in Nablus. Their story did not make headline news on CNN. The photos of these men, and their mourning families, can be found (along with their names) here, in a story by Bridget Chappell. If these men had been militants, it is presumed, they might have made the front page at CNN.com. All 6 were killed by the IDF, all 6 were people with names and families. Why is it that the only image most of America will see is of faceless figures carrying automatic weapons? In the mainstream American media, Palestinians are rarely depicted as anything besides terrorists or statistics. That, I must conclude, is why my customer was so angry that I would dare suggest she read something written by one.
Clearly, I'm just as much of a hypocrite. I may actually have to give The War On Success a chance, now.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
