Update: It turns out due to an error earlier in the year this should actually be called "99 days" oh well. Live and learn, eh?
Dear Mr. President,
The measure of a presidency is often taken by the accomplishments of the first 100 days. I think this is silly. You've got to allow at least a few days to find all the light switches and figure out how to navigate the west wing, right? Not to mention all the the thanking people for their help getting you elected, the waiting for congress to remember that no one in the country knows who they are after election season ends, and, of course, the post-victory poll numbers can't be taken that seriously. But I have 100 days left to write to you this year, and I want to make my last 100 letters count. In 100 days, I want to think that my country will be different. I want to think it will be stronger, economically, and that the Bush-era tax cus will be allowed to expire. I want to think that it will be a freer, and more fair country, where gay and lesbian Americans will be allowed to openly serve in our military and marry whomever they please. I want to think that our image abroad will be improved by the closure of Guantanamo bay, the end of combat in Afghanistan, and that truly fair-minded American leadership in the Palestinian/Israeli peace talks will help create a stable, free and secure Palestinian state. We might also be a greener nation, with an end to harmful agricultural subsidies, a robust new energy policy and heavier federal investment in making our national infrastructure more environmentally friendly. Every single one of these things is possible in 100 days. (I may also wish for socialized health care and higher education, but I recognize those things can't happen in 100 days.) All of this can happen. And while my cynical, realistic side believes that none of these things will be accomplished in so little time, the part of me that still hopes for a better future believes that your next 100 days can be just as important and productive as your first 100 days, or the 100 days that will come after December 31st. And, while I have 100 letters left to write, you can bet that I'm going to bug your more than ever about every single one of these goals.
2010 has been kind of a rough year for you and your presidency. But it's got 100 days left, and that's plenty of time to turn things around and change the way this year and your administration is remembered by history. I hope you make them count.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label clean energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clean energy. Show all posts
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Day 253- For you, JP
Dear Mr. President,
My dear friend JP works at an ice cream shop in our neighborhood. I'm writing to you from his shop as he finishes closing. Tonight I asked him what he'd like me to write about and he suggested I discuss the solar panel that environmental activists brought to the White House. That you declined to place the near-ancient solar panel on the White House roof is not what bothers him. The activists bringing you the panel were doing so, I'd imagine, for a symbolic and not a practical purpose. The security and logistical issues involved in placing something of that size on the White House roof are surely greater than the energy saving potential of such an old device.
But in a year when your administration has backed down on comprehensive energy legislation, maybe a little symbolic good will to the green movement was in order. Accepting the solar panel for a museum, or for the OEOB or another office building might have at least demonstrated that you took the offering in good spirits, that you had respect for the group and their cause. A commitment to make the White House more energy efficient- or even to answer questions about its energy efficiency- would have left the activists feeling like they'd accomplished something.
Perhaps you didn't want this. Perhaps you viewed their "stunt" as something that should not be rewarded with good will from your office. I can see the logic behind this, I suppose. At a time when lobbyists have unprecedented power and influence in Washington, when votes in congress can be openly purchased by special interest donations, is it really such a bad thing to indulge a "stunt" from an organization without a particularly loud voice on the Hill? If you really want to change the culture of corruption in Washington, maybe you should stop rewarding those who know how to play the game best. Yesterday, I engaged in a debate with a conservative friend and fellow blogger who criticized those on the left for insisting Islam to be a "religion of peace" while asking that nutcase in Florida not to do something that might trigger violence from Muslims. I argued that you were speaking to the majority of Muslims who would have reacted to this man's hateful actions with nothing more than words. Reassuring them that, even if their quiet speech was drown out by the shouts and violence of the fringe, you could still hear them. My point was about the importance of acknowledging the silent majority, of empowering them so that shouting (or violence) doesn't become the only way to be noticed.
Powerlessness is an awful feeling. I often imagine that the only way for some one like me to be noticed by those in power is to become wealthy, to have something tragic happen to me, or to do something horrible. For me, the act of writing to you, the act of speaking, is much more important than the act of being heard. I don't need you to know that I exist or what I feel strongly about, so much as I need to articulate these things to myself. But others don't feel that way. Others do need to be heard. And so much of your time is spent dealing with tragedy or chaos or violence that is may occur to some as the best way to get your attention. I'm not saying you should accept the solar panel in order to avoid ecoterrorism or anything like that, just that empowering people so passionate about moving our country away from our worst and most consumptive practices is more productive than discouraging them. We need committed environmentalists and your administration needs them to feel respected and listened to if you want their support. In a year when you have done precious little to remind them why they elected you, would it have been that hard just to admit your own shortcomings and listen to their ideas for improvement? Especially when it costs you nothing, I think accepting their criticism gracefully and demonstrating your willingness to work with them would have been a much smarter move.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
My dear friend JP works at an ice cream shop in our neighborhood. I'm writing to you from his shop as he finishes closing. Tonight I asked him what he'd like me to write about and he suggested I discuss the solar panel that environmental activists brought to the White House. That you declined to place the near-ancient solar panel on the White House roof is not what bothers him. The activists bringing you the panel were doing so, I'd imagine, for a symbolic and not a practical purpose. The security and logistical issues involved in placing something of that size on the White House roof are surely greater than the energy saving potential of such an old device.
But in a year when your administration has backed down on comprehensive energy legislation, maybe a little symbolic good will to the green movement was in order. Accepting the solar panel for a museum, or for the OEOB or another office building might have at least demonstrated that you took the offering in good spirits, that you had respect for the group and their cause. A commitment to make the White House more energy efficient- or even to answer questions about its energy efficiency- would have left the activists feeling like they'd accomplished something.
Perhaps you didn't want this. Perhaps you viewed their "stunt" as something that should not be rewarded with good will from your office. I can see the logic behind this, I suppose. At a time when lobbyists have unprecedented power and influence in Washington, when votes in congress can be openly purchased by special interest donations, is it really such a bad thing to indulge a "stunt" from an organization without a particularly loud voice on the Hill? If you really want to change the culture of corruption in Washington, maybe you should stop rewarding those who know how to play the game best. Yesterday, I engaged in a debate with a conservative friend and fellow blogger who criticized those on the left for insisting Islam to be a "religion of peace" while asking that nutcase in Florida not to do something that might trigger violence from Muslims. I argued that you were speaking to the majority of Muslims who would have reacted to this man's hateful actions with nothing more than words. Reassuring them that, even if their quiet speech was drown out by the shouts and violence of the fringe, you could still hear them. My point was about the importance of acknowledging the silent majority, of empowering them so that shouting (or violence) doesn't become the only way to be noticed.
Powerlessness is an awful feeling. I often imagine that the only way for some one like me to be noticed by those in power is to become wealthy, to have something tragic happen to me, or to do something horrible. For me, the act of writing to you, the act of speaking, is much more important than the act of being heard. I don't need you to know that I exist or what I feel strongly about, so much as I need to articulate these things to myself. But others don't feel that way. Others do need to be heard. And so much of your time is spent dealing with tragedy or chaos or violence that is may occur to some as the best way to get your attention. I'm not saying you should accept the solar panel in order to avoid ecoterrorism or anything like that, just that empowering people so passionate about moving our country away from our worst and most consumptive practices is more productive than discouraging them. We need committed environmentalists and your administration needs them to feel respected and listened to if you want their support. In a year when you have done precious little to remind them why they elected you, would it have been that hard just to admit your own shortcomings and listen to their ideas for improvement? Especially when it costs you nothing, I think accepting their criticism gracefully and demonstrating your willingness to work with them would have been a much smarter move.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, August 23, 2010
Day 235-Eggs and the North Pole and the end of the world
Dear Mr. President,
As I read about the half-billion eggs being recalled, and the melting pack ice at the North Pole, I'm getting a familiar feeling of panic. "Globally, 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record." This line from the New York Times piece on the coming effects of climate change has been echoing in my mind since I read it to my roommate this morning. The article isn't even about preventing these disasters but about preparing for them in order to mitigate their destructive capacity. I guess you could say I'm confused. Don't we want to eat eggs without worrying that they have diseases? Don't we want a world that's safe for us and for the next generation? A world where oil doesn't gush into the Gulf of Mexico because of an accident? It seems like these costs of our lifestyles are far worse than the cost of reforming our currents systems to prevent disasters like this. Are we so afraid of the inconveniences of change that we'd rather go down with the ship than save ourselves?
A friend and I were recently talking about our post-apocalypse survival skills. (Jam-making, at least, we've got covered.) He's as committed as I am to decreasing the destructive impact we have on the world, but he's much more resigned to the idea that we're too far lost to avoid the disastrous end we have coming. I don't entirely disagree; if we can't talk people into spending a little more for their food (and consuming a little less of the products with the most harmful production processes) how can we talk them into making the big and society-wide changes that it is going to take to turn things around? Is it even too late to try? I generally don't like giving in to my fears and accepting that we're doomed, but I'm having a difficult time finding hope in our prospects.
Anticipating these apocalyptic fires and floods and droughts doesn't do much more than raise my blood pressure. However, just as I can't stop injustice by hiding from horrible news of it, I'm sure it doesn't do me any good to ignore the possibilities. Reforming our food system, getting the political will for actual clean energy legislation and a widespread alteration in our priorities when making every day decisions might all still save us- but I've just gotten too cynical to believe we can do it. So I'm going to keep trying to be better about my own negative impact on the climate, especially when it comes to the foods I purchase, but I'm also going to keep brushing up on those skills for the apocalypse. After all, I'll probably need more than jam when the times comes.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
As I read about the half-billion eggs being recalled, and the melting pack ice at the North Pole, I'm getting a familiar feeling of panic. "Globally, 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record." This line from the New York Times piece on the coming effects of climate change has been echoing in my mind since I read it to my roommate this morning. The article isn't even about preventing these disasters but about preparing for them in order to mitigate their destructive capacity. I guess you could say I'm confused. Don't we want to eat eggs without worrying that they have diseases? Don't we want a world that's safe for us and for the next generation? A world where oil doesn't gush into the Gulf of Mexico because of an accident? It seems like these costs of our lifestyles are far worse than the cost of reforming our currents systems to prevent disasters like this. Are we so afraid of the inconveniences of change that we'd rather go down with the ship than save ourselves?
A friend and I were recently talking about our post-apocalypse survival skills. (Jam-making, at least, we've got covered.) He's as committed as I am to decreasing the destructive impact we have on the world, but he's much more resigned to the idea that we're too far lost to avoid the disastrous end we have coming. I don't entirely disagree; if we can't talk people into spending a little more for their food (and consuming a little less of the products with the most harmful production processes) how can we talk them into making the big and society-wide changes that it is going to take to turn things around? Is it even too late to try? I generally don't like giving in to my fears and accepting that we're doomed, but I'm having a difficult time finding hope in our prospects.
Anticipating these apocalyptic fires and floods and droughts doesn't do much more than raise my blood pressure. However, just as I can't stop injustice by hiding from horrible news of it, I'm sure it doesn't do me any good to ignore the possibilities. Reforming our food system, getting the political will for actual clean energy legislation and a widespread alteration in our priorities when making every day decisions might all still save us- but I've just gotten too cynical to believe we can do it. So I'm going to keep trying to be better about my own negative impact on the climate, especially when it comes to the foods I purchase, but I'm also going to keep brushing up on those skills for the apocalypse. After all, I'll probably need more than jam when the times comes.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, July 2, 2010
Day 183- All at once
****Update for those of you who don't read my facebook or Chev's: Chev is totally fine and safe, the Peace Corps volunteers are only being evacuated from the Northern regions of Burkina Faso, and so they will be reassigned to southern villages that are safer. Yay for good news!
Dear Mr. President,
I have a soft spot for certain "celebrity" chefs. Jamie Oliver. Molly Wizenberg and, perhaps ironically, given his position on all things vegetarian, Anthony Bourdain. While at work, I glanced through a few passages from Bourdain's latest book, Medium Raw, in which he expresses his inexplicable mix of dislike and respect for Alice Waters. Bourdain, who himself insists upon fresh, organic food for his own family, has several problems with the way Waters has advocated these practices for all Americans. His first problem is with the reality of modern farming, which he, perhaps correctly, insists could not be simultaneously organic, sustainable, and affordable. His next contention, that few Americans want to do the hard work that kind of farming requires and must therefor rely upon immigrant labor or machines to do it for them, reminded me of two articles I'd stumbled upon lately. The first was a Freakonomics piece by James McWilliams on fair trade coffee and economic reality, and the second was an interview with a United Farm Workers of America VP Erik Nicholson discussing agricultural practices, in which Nicholson asserts that the convergence of sustainable small farms, labor and immigration issues make any real progress politically problematic.
Reading these pieces and contemplating the many ways that reality frustrates idealism, I realized that this issue is more than just labor and immigration and sustainability; it's healthcare and our energy future and our environmental policy. What we eat, how we produce our food, will involve and impact every major (and especially contentious) domestic policy issue we face. I was once again reminded of how overwhelmed I felt in Costco the other day, sure that all of my good intentions were for nothing. I don't see how we can possibly remake our entire agricultural system in the image of Waters' utopian ideal, but neither do I have quite so cynical a perspective as Bourdain. We may not have a surplus of Americans willing to return to agricultural labor, at least not the way it is now or has been done in the past, but it isn't as though all Americans are strangers to hard labor. I, for one, (and I doubt very much that I'm alone in this) would much rather have tended fields or picked fruit than toiled away as a food service employee for all the years I spent in unskilled positions. The problem is simultaneous change. We need more people to grow food that is safer and more nutritious, for themselves and for their communities, and to do that we need more people to work in agriculture, and to do that we need to have better wages and working conditions, which means the use of pesticides and factory farming practices would have to change. Immigration, food prices, import and export practices, the environment; everything would be affected. Everything would have to change at once for any of it to work, and I've lived too long to believe that we're capable of that.
So will organic, sustainably grown food continue to be a luxury for the rich, or favorably located, or fervently committed, forever subject to the economic realities that link scaling up these practices with the degradation of the very principles they were founded upon? I want to believe that we can reform ourselves, but I don't know that I, or you, or even Alice Waters, has the solution. In the last few days, I've seen major discussions on healthcare, immigration, energy and environmental policies from the White House, and so I know that your administration still has faith that we can make the necessary changes in all of these areas. For myself, I don't imagine that the solution lies in regressing to the practices that once sustained us; our society has become far too urban, far too disconnected from the land our food comes from to ever fully revert back to the kind of farming I associate with John Steinbeck's novels. I think our best hope is yet to be discovered, but that it will require us all to involve ourselves, however unappealing some may find it, in the sources of our food and to demand better conditions for the people who provide it for us.
Anyway, on Monday I'll be putting myself to the test and see how well my rhetoric stands up against reality. More on that, to come.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
I have a soft spot for certain "celebrity" chefs. Jamie Oliver. Molly Wizenberg and, perhaps ironically, given his position on all things vegetarian, Anthony Bourdain. While at work, I glanced through a few passages from Bourdain's latest book, Medium Raw, in which he expresses his inexplicable mix of dislike and respect for Alice Waters. Bourdain, who himself insists upon fresh, organic food for his own family, has several problems with the way Waters has advocated these practices for all Americans. His first problem is with the reality of modern farming, which he, perhaps correctly, insists could not be simultaneously organic, sustainable, and affordable. His next contention, that few Americans want to do the hard work that kind of farming requires and must therefor rely upon immigrant labor or machines to do it for them, reminded me of two articles I'd stumbled upon lately. The first was a Freakonomics piece by James McWilliams on fair trade coffee and economic reality, and the second was an interview with a United Farm Workers of America VP Erik Nicholson discussing agricultural practices, in which Nicholson asserts that the convergence of sustainable small farms, labor and immigration issues make any real progress politically problematic.
Reading these pieces and contemplating the many ways that reality frustrates idealism, I realized that this issue is more than just labor and immigration and sustainability; it's healthcare and our energy future and our environmental policy. What we eat, how we produce our food, will involve and impact every major (and especially contentious) domestic policy issue we face. I was once again reminded of how overwhelmed I felt in Costco the other day, sure that all of my good intentions were for nothing. I don't see how we can possibly remake our entire agricultural system in the image of Waters' utopian ideal, but neither do I have quite so cynical a perspective as Bourdain. We may not have a surplus of Americans willing to return to agricultural labor, at least not the way it is now or has been done in the past, but it isn't as though all Americans are strangers to hard labor. I, for one, (and I doubt very much that I'm alone in this) would much rather have tended fields or picked fruit than toiled away as a food service employee for all the years I spent in unskilled positions. The problem is simultaneous change. We need more people to grow food that is safer and more nutritious, for themselves and for their communities, and to do that we need more people to work in agriculture, and to do that we need to have better wages and working conditions, which means the use of pesticides and factory farming practices would have to change. Immigration, food prices, import and export practices, the environment; everything would be affected. Everything would have to change at once for any of it to work, and I've lived too long to believe that we're capable of that.
So will organic, sustainably grown food continue to be a luxury for the rich, or favorably located, or fervently committed, forever subject to the economic realities that link scaling up these practices with the degradation of the very principles they were founded upon? I want to believe that we can reform ourselves, but I don't know that I, or you, or even Alice Waters, has the solution. In the last few days, I've seen major discussions on healthcare, immigration, energy and environmental policies from the White House, and so I know that your administration still has faith that we can make the necessary changes in all of these areas. For myself, I don't imagine that the solution lies in regressing to the practices that once sustained us; our society has become far too urban, far too disconnected from the land our food comes from to ever fully revert back to the kind of farming I associate with John Steinbeck's novels. I think our best hope is yet to be discovered, but that it will require us all to involve ourselves, however unappealing some may find it, in the sources of our food and to demand better conditions for the people who provide it for us.
Anyway, on Monday I'll be putting myself to the test and see how well my rhetoric stands up against reality. More on that, to come.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Day 140- Blame
Dear Mr. President,
The images coming out of Louisiana's wetlands are frightening. I can't imagine the environmental and economic repercussions that this disaster will have, long-term. BP must be held accountable, and it is good that you're demanding they pay for the mess they created. But you're forgetting to address the group of people who deserve most of the blame. The ones who, in their constant demand for more and cheaper oil, are truly the cause of this oil spill. The American people.
It's not popular to blame us for anything. It's easy to target those in power or those who make their money from this industry. But it's our fault. We use too much oil; we use it recklessly, we use it wastefully and we use it without any consideration for the consequences. Speaking hard truths to the people who put you in office is sort of your job, Mr. President, and the truth is that we're the ones to blame. We ought to pay, not for the clean-up, which should be the responsibility of the private companies who caused it, but for ensuring that something like this does not happen again. We need a higher gas tax; that money should go toward the research and development of alternative, sustainable energy sources, and it should start right away. We've all contributed to this national addiction, and we all must work together to break away from it. Paying more for gasoline is the only way we will ever use less of it.
It will not be popular. Republicans will go crazy. Proposing a new tax, especially one that would affect every single American, will never be a great way to get votes. But we have to look past the political expediency of the present and focus on the long-term needs of our society. Right now, while the whole country is still reeling from the magnitude of this spill, this moment may be the only one in which the country would accept it as their obligation, as the right thing to do. Don't speak to us like we are children who need to be protected from this; we caused this and we have to be part of the solution. This is what divides us from the generation of Americans we called the greatest; we do not participate in the work, the struggle or the sacrifice unless we are asked to. Ask us. Ask of us to pay more, to use less, to make conscious, daily efforts towards reducing our use of oil. Make sure we see the pictures of those wetlands, hear the stories of all the fisherman facing financial ruin, witness all the destruction wrought by our own willingness to take what is easy and cheap over what is better for us.
Even more than a gas tax, we need a national campaign that reframes this, not as an environmental issue, but as a question of our values. Do we value our way of life? Our industries, our communities, our wildlife and natural beauty? The world we will be leaving to our children? Is cheap oil worth that much? This is a moment when the best parts of the American people need to be called upon, when we can be rallied to do our part to make up for the mistakes we've made and the damages we've caused.
Please, Mr. President, don't spare us any of the blame we have coming.
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
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Day 119- Strung out
Dear Mr. President,
The oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico has prompted a number of questions about our off-shore drilling policy. I think it's tragic that it takes the loss of 11 lives, a looming environmental crisis and a direct threat to the economies of coastal states for people to begin to seriously question the system of consumption we've created. We're like addicts begging for one more fix; we've just got to finish this bottle or this carton or this last source of oil, and then we'll get clean, no, really, we'll stop using and develop alternative energy this time, we promise. We can't lie to ourselves anymore; we have a problem. It's a dangerous descending spiral, one which will leave us, at best, ill-equipped to compete in the global economy, and, at worst, unable to support basic agriculture, transportation and defense.
It is time for real solutions; clean energy is not an abstract issue, it is a national security issue, a prosperity issue, an environmental issue, and a values issue. We must fund research and development in this field, accordingly. If the government does not take an active role in this, it will not happen fast enough- we've seen, in this latest crisis, just how much obfuscation the oil companies are capable of if in the name of protecting their own interests. The only way to decrease the dangerous and damaging oil drilling operations around the world is to eliminate demand through alternative solutions; this will not happen overnight, either. We must start, today, with an increased effort that demands the contributions of all of us, be those in the form of higher taxes on energy consumption, more sacrifices of convenience for conservation, and the diverting of funds from other areas towards developing cleaner, more sustainable energy sources.
A mine collapse in West Virginia and an oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico should not be required to wake America up to the dangers of our short-sighted, arrogant lifestyles. We cannot continue living the way we always have, and we all must accept the responsibility for making the necessary changes in our energy policy. If we are very lucky, this, right now, is our rock bottom. Please, Mr. President, do not allow these tragedies to continue in vain. Circumstances are demanding change, and you have to lead us to it, before it is too late.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
The oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico has prompted a number of questions about our off-shore drilling policy. I think it's tragic that it takes the loss of 11 lives, a looming environmental crisis and a direct threat to the economies of coastal states for people to begin to seriously question the system of consumption we've created. We're like addicts begging for one more fix; we've just got to finish this bottle or this carton or this last source of oil, and then we'll get clean, no, really, we'll stop using and develop alternative energy this time, we promise. We can't lie to ourselves anymore; we have a problem. It's a dangerous descending spiral, one which will leave us, at best, ill-equipped to compete in the global economy, and, at worst, unable to support basic agriculture, transportation and defense.
It is time for real solutions; clean energy is not an abstract issue, it is a national security issue, a prosperity issue, an environmental issue, and a values issue. We must fund research and development in this field, accordingly. If the government does not take an active role in this, it will not happen fast enough- we've seen, in this latest crisis, just how much obfuscation the oil companies are capable of if in the name of protecting their own interests. The only way to decrease the dangerous and damaging oil drilling operations around the world is to eliminate demand through alternative solutions; this will not happen overnight, either. We must start, today, with an increased effort that demands the contributions of all of us, be those in the form of higher taxes on energy consumption, more sacrifices of convenience for conservation, and the diverting of funds from other areas towards developing cleaner, more sustainable energy sources.
A mine collapse in West Virginia and an oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico should not be required to wake America up to the dangers of our short-sighted, arrogant lifestyles. We cannot continue living the way we always have, and we all must accept the responsibility for making the necessary changes in our energy policy. If we are very lucky, this, right now, is our rock bottom. Please, Mr. President, do not allow these tragedies to continue in vain. Circumstances are demanding change, and you have to lead us to it, before it is too late.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Day 118- Do and Don't
Dear Mr. President,
The midterm election strategy for Democrats, to own the mantle of practical action and to highlight how this contrasts with the GOP's party of no, may have helped nudge Senate Republicans toward allowing debate on financial reform today. Even if we lose a significant number of our 2010 races, I hope that this strategy encourages voters to put pressure on Republicans to take a more active role in participating, rather than just rejecting, attempts to govern.
That being said, Democrats need to work hard to show that we will try to do difficult things, even if we fail. Tough, fair, immigration reform; clean energy and environmental protection, honest progress toward equality for gay and lesbian soldiers and couples, all of these issues have Democrats on the same side as the majority of the American people. We may jeopardize vulnerable seats, but we ought to push hard for all of these reforms, even if they die in the Senate. Demonstrating our commitment to act and not to be content with the tired game of cautious defense that helps only to preserve the status quo is important if many Democrats are going to live up to the ambitious campaign strategy. We need courageous leaders, leaders who aren't afraid to take positions that are locally unpopular, when its the right thing to do. Voters will always respect gutsy, ambitious policy more than pandering that accomplishes nothing.
The summer should be spent governing, not campaigning. Democrats must prove that the party still has values it is willing to stand and fight for, other than the defense of our tenuous majority. A record of accomplishments, no matter how controversial, is better to defend than a list of excuses for doing nothing.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
The midterm election strategy for Democrats, to own the mantle of practical action and to highlight how this contrasts with the GOP's party of no, may have helped nudge Senate Republicans toward allowing debate on financial reform today. Even if we lose a significant number of our 2010 races, I hope that this strategy encourages voters to put pressure on Republicans to take a more active role in participating, rather than just rejecting, attempts to govern.
That being said, Democrats need to work hard to show that we will try to do difficult things, even if we fail. Tough, fair, immigration reform; clean energy and environmental protection, honest progress toward equality for gay and lesbian soldiers and couples, all of these issues have Democrats on the same side as the majority of the American people. We may jeopardize vulnerable seats, but we ought to push hard for all of these reforms, even if they die in the Senate. Demonstrating our commitment to act and not to be content with the tired game of cautious defense that helps only to preserve the status quo is important if many Democrats are going to live up to the ambitious campaign strategy. We need courageous leaders, leaders who aren't afraid to take positions that are locally unpopular, when its the right thing to do. Voters will always respect gutsy, ambitious policy more than pandering that accomplishes nothing.
The summer should be spent governing, not campaigning. Democrats must prove that the party still has values it is willing to stand and fight for, other than the defense of our tenuous majority. A record of accomplishments, no matter how controversial, is better to defend than a list of excuses for doing nothing.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Day 89
Dear Mr. President,
The announcement that the US is going to resume off-shore oil drilling is truly disappointing. It is difficult to see this concession to the right as anything other than a political ploy to avert the 'disaster' of public discontentment at a coming rise in oil prices. Mr. President, you know that off-shore drilling will not change the basic reality that we use too much oil and that it will one day run out. We have to find viable alternatives and the majority of Americans will not support the endeavor to find such alternatives unless the price of oil goes up. We simply do not act unless it is in our immediate interest to do so, and I don't think it is unrealistically cynical to believe that the political will of much of America is more directly related to present economic realities than it is to our long term best interests.
If this move is, in reality, an attempt to demonstrate the urgency for energy alternatives by showing Americans that off-shore drilling won't alleviate rising oil prices quickly or significantly enough, or to preemptively combat the idea that your administration isn't exhausting all of our options, than I am sorry that the cost of such a strategy is so high. Instead of turning to a quick and simple solution (which, we both know, is no solution at all) we ought to be telling the hard truths; our current system in unsustainable. Our public works, agricultural and transportation systems are too important to depend on a resource that will not last. Either the systems or their dependence must be changes. This will be far less popular than continuing to tear through the Atlantic ocean in hopes of extending our fix a few more years, but future generations will never forgive us if we do not do these difficult things now, before it is too late.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
The announcement that the US is going to resume off-shore oil drilling is truly disappointing. It is difficult to see this concession to the right as anything other than a political ploy to avert the 'disaster' of public discontentment at a coming rise in oil prices. Mr. President, you know that off-shore drilling will not change the basic reality that we use too much oil and that it will one day run out. We have to find viable alternatives and the majority of Americans will not support the endeavor to find such alternatives unless the price of oil goes up. We simply do not act unless it is in our immediate interest to do so, and I don't think it is unrealistically cynical to believe that the political will of much of America is more directly related to present economic realities than it is to our long term best interests.
If this move is, in reality, an attempt to demonstrate the urgency for energy alternatives by showing Americans that off-shore drilling won't alleviate rising oil prices quickly or significantly enough, or to preemptively combat the idea that your administration isn't exhausting all of our options, than I am sorry that the cost of such a strategy is so high. Instead of turning to a quick and simple solution (which, we both know, is no solution at all) we ought to be telling the hard truths; our current system in unsustainable. Our public works, agricultural and transportation systems are too important to depend on a resource that will not last. Either the systems or their dependence must be changes. This will be far less popular than continuing to tear through the Atlantic ocean in hopes of extending our fix a few more years, but future generations will never forgive us if we do not do these difficult things now, before it is too late.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Day 47
Dear Mr. President,
*insert poorly-reasoned joke about global warming here* Thomas Friedman writes in today's NY times about the disappointing lack of understanding, and the inevitable bad jokes that result, with regards to the nature of climate change. Friedman proposes that the experts release "a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes." While former Vice-President Gore has gone a long way towards making climate change data simple and accessible to the larger public, he is too contentious a political figure to ever convince the people who don't already agree with him. Friedman may be on to a reasonable alternative.
You've made clean energy a clear priority for your administration. The concessions you've made with regards to nuclear energy, which I personally find concerning, should be enough for those still drinking the Lyndon LaRouche kool-aid to take down the pictures of you with a Hitler mustache. Nuclear energy, like some areas of foreign policy, is an area where I am willing to defer my judgment to your own, if only because I have faith in your administration's superior access to experts and information. That being said, I know that nuclear energy has its limitations, and I hope that your administration continues to push for the safer, more sustainable sources of energy.
Sadly, until then, you, Thomas Friedman and the rest of us who recognize that the decades of research backing up climate change will not be undone by one snowstorm, will probably have to put up with a number of jokes, tweets, and other self-congratulation from climate change-deniers. I think that it would ultimately be in our interest if something like the report Mr. Friedman proposes were funded and published in a thoroughly non-partisan way. As much as I'd like to pretend the deniers are irrelevant, we're still Democrats, and persuading those who disagree with us, rather than just legislating around them, is really more our style.
Anyway, enjoy the "snow-ver kill" or whatever they're calling it these days.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
*insert poorly-reasoned joke about global warming here* Thomas Friedman writes in today's NY times about the disappointing lack of understanding, and the inevitable bad jokes that result, with regards to the nature of climate change. Friedman proposes that the experts release "a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes." While former Vice-President Gore has gone a long way towards making climate change data simple and accessible to the larger public, he is too contentious a political figure to ever convince the people who don't already agree with him. Friedman may be on to a reasonable alternative.
You've made clean energy a clear priority for your administration. The concessions you've made with regards to nuclear energy, which I personally find concerning, should be enough for those still drinking the Lyndon LaRouche kool-aid to take down the pictures of you with a Hitler mustache. Nuclear energy, like some areas of foreign policy, is an area where I am willing to defer my judgment to your own, if only because I have faith in your administration's superior access to experts and information. That being said, I know that nuclear energy has its limitations, and I hope that your administration continues to push for the safer, more sustainable sources of energy.
Sadly, until then, you, Thomas Friedman and the rest of us who recognize that the decades of research backing up climate change will not be undone by one snowstorm, will probably have to put up with a number of jokes, tweets, and other self-congratulation from climate change-deniers. I think that it would ultimately be in our interest if something like the report Mr. Friedman proposes were funded and published in a thoroughly non-partisan way. As much as I'd like to pretend the deniers are irrelevant, we're still Democrats, and persuading those who disagree with us, rather than just legislating around them, is really more our style.
Anyway, enjoy the "snow-ver kill" or whatever they're calling it these days.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Day 35
Dear Mr. President,
Today I'm watching my nephew, Asher, who will be two years old in May. He saw my copy of The Audacity of Hope and pointed to your face on the cover. I tried to teach him how to say "President Obama", but so far all he's got is "bama." I try to think about the America that Asher will know, if he'll come of age just as lost and disillusioned as my generation has, or if he will face an entirely new set of challenges. I appreciate the discussion of what we're leaving for the next generation- the deficit, clean energy, new industry, and the environmental impact. I know you have young children, yourself, and will therefor need no personal face to remind you of how important your legacy will be. Just know that there's a little boy in Seattle trying to master his ABC's, refine his utensil-wielding skills, and say his President's name. He's not worried about having clean water, or job security, living in a safer, more peaceful world, but his aunt is.
The problem with me is that I may have gotten the hang of my ABC's, but I still don't know what I'm supposed to be doing to improve things. I work for a corporate bookstore. I enjoy the work immensely, I love reading and recommending books, and the community of knowledge that my coworkers and customers create when we talk about reading. That being said, I'm not wild about many of the business practices of my company, and our future prospects aren't great, as more of the market is being taken over by online retailers and e-books. I've tentatively started to look for new jobs, sent in a few resumes, but wasn't generally troubled by the lack of response. Until this week. I've gotten a couple of solid prospects, positions with better salaries, better benefits, and better long-term opportunities. Unfortunately, none of them are with bookstores. I'm torn between doing work I love for a company I don't, or working for better pay & better conditions, doing something I'm less than passionate about.
I think, whichever job I take, I'm only treading water, so to speak, while I continue my education. Once I finish school, I'll have to push myself to discover my potential; find my purpose, define my goals. Right now it's OK to be a sales girl or a receptionist or a barista, because later I'll find a "real job." Or so I tell myself. The trouble is, i don't have the answers, or even a clear idea of the right questions, about my future. For now, I get by, reminding myself to be content that I have a job, at all. Still, sometimes I wish my ambitions were easier to quantify.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today I'm watching my nephew, Asher, who will be two years old in May. He saw my copy of The Audacity of Hope and pointed to your face on the cover. I tried to teach him how to say "President Obama", but so far all he's got is "bama." I try to think about the America that Asher will know, if he'll come of age just as lost and disillusioned as my generation has, or if he will face an entirely new set of challenges. I appreciate the discussion of what we're leaving for the next generation- the deficit, clean energy, new industry, and the environmental impact. I know you have young children, yourself, and will therefor need no personal face to remind you of how important your legacy will be. Just know that there's a little boy in Seattle trying to master his ABC's, refine his utensil-wielding skills, and say his President's name. He's not worried about having clean water, or job security, living in a safer, more peaceful world, but his aunt is.
The problem with me is that I may have gotten the hang of my ABC's, but I still don't know what I'm supposed to be doing to improve things. I work for a corporate bookstore. I enjoy the work immensely, I love reading and recommending books, and the community of knowledge that my coworkers and customers create when we talk about reading. That being said, I'm not wild about many of the business practices of my company, and our future prospects aren't great, as more of the market is being taken over by online retailers and e-books. I've tentatively started to look for new jobs, sent in a few resumes, but wasn't generally troubled by the lack of response. Until this week. I've gotten a couple of solid prospects, positions with better salaries, better benefits, and better long-term opportunities. Unfortunately, none of them are with bookstores. I'm torn between doing work I love for a company I don't, or working for better pay & better conditions, doing something I'm less than passionate about.
I think, whichever job I take, I'm only treading water, so to speak, while I continue my education. Once I finish school, I'll have to push myself to discover my potential; find my purpose, define my goals. Right now it's OK to be a sales girl or a receptionist or a barista, because later I'll find a "real job." Or so I tell myself. The trouble is, i don't have the answers, or even a clear idea of the right questions, about my future. For now, I get by, reminding myself to be content that I have a job, at all. Still, sometimes I wish my ambitions were easier to quantify.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
