Dear Mr. President,
After 365 letters I suppose I should be running out of things to say. Is a year enough distance to gain any perspective on all that has changed and all that still waits to? Tonight I hoped to make sense of it all; the personal and the political, the minutiae, the mundane, the profound, all of the things I've written about this year. As I look back through this year of letters, of one-sided conversations about issues and actions that defined 2010, I don't have any clue what it all means. I am still tired, still frustrated, still impatient with the progress we've made and the way you govern. But I'm still more like the girl I was in November 2008- stone sober and still too drunk off of election night euphoria- than I ever thought I could be. For all of the disappointments and frustration I have been so proud this year to call you my President. I don't imagine your job is easy, nor do I think I could do it better myself. I am often wrong. I am often too emotional. I use far too many commas.
For all of my shortcomings, I am still a voter and still a citizen and still, I believe, entitled to tell you what I think. Personally, I feel that the great tragedy of the disconnect between the people and our government in this country is not the disparity of money or even power but the way we converse. You do not speak or listen to people like me. When you do talk to me it is in form letters and speeches and talking points- language so polished as to be devoid of any real meaning. We do not have frank conversations. We do not hear one another. I listen to your Sunday addresses, your press conferences and your speeches and all I can say I know for sure is what you want me to think or feel, not what you actually think or feel. Perhaps the most important domestic issue is what you called the deficit of trust. This year has shown me, more clearly than I ever might have seen otherwise, how little trust our government has in the people or we have in it and how damaging this deficit is to all involved.
Deep down I still think that you are well-intentioned. If your caution and moderation do not always sit well with my hot head or bleeding heart, I can accept that you at least believe you are doing the right thing. That is what prompted me to vote for you, to phone bank for you, to write you 365 letters and to hope that I might cast my ballot in 2012 for you, again. Beyond your good intentions, I believe that you are capable of great things, that, should you overcome your fear and find the courage to make really the necessary, difficult decisions that will save this country from some of our worst tendencies, you will be re-elected and likely remembered well. I would not say that I'm a person with any tremendous amount of faith in anything, but I do have faith in you. 2010 didn't change that, and I hope to say the same about 2011.
Happy New Year, Mr. President. Good Luck.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
To all of my awesome readers:
Thank you so much for all of your support this year. I will have a much more articulate and coherent reflective piece in the coming days, as well as some suggestions for reading, a bonus letter to President Obama from a guest blogger and information about the Espresso book I'll be making. I hope you all have a fun and safe New Year's Eve! See you in 2011!
Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Day 357- Busses and bulldozers
Dear Mr. President,
I wrote a few days ago about the upcoming ad campaign in protest of the Israeli occupation of Palestine on buses here in Seattle. Even as I expressed my trepidation at the prospect of seeing my opinion represented I was hesitant about, I was, in a small way, a bit thrilled to see the campaign taking up the tools of our opposition to spread awareness. Since then, however, several things have happened. First, the David Horowitz Freedom Center (the name likely offers all the necessary explanation as to the group's purpose, but for my readers unfamiliar with David Horowitz, he's the despicable mind behind such classics as "The 101 most dangerous academics in America" and other twists on the idea of freedom.) proposed matching the 12 pro-Palestine buses and raising it to 25 busses bearing signs that say "Palestinian War Crimes: your tax dollars at work." Then King County Metro decided maybe the whole thing was a terrible idea and banned all non-commercial ads.
Ok. I have to get my head around the fact that David Horowitz is a bigoted, racist scumbag. I need a minute. All right, I'm mostly over that. His disciples, in inverting the message of the original ad, have not only created something that doesn't make even a little sense, they've demonstrated exactly why I don't like this form of outreach. One of my coworkers put it quite well tonight, saying that the venue didn't allow for the nuanced discussion necessary to change any one's mind. Beyond that, while I'm disappointed to see the city caving to backlash, I understand why public transit might not be the best battleground for the Israel/Palestine debate in America.
My frustration is mainly with the feeling that support for the Palestinian cause, something that can't be found in the White House, the State Department, congress or on any ballot, that has been stigmatized to be tantamount to anti-semitism, terrorism, extremism, is so inflammatory it can't even be presented to the public without causing a controversy. The Israeli occupation is bolstered when we go shopping, when we pay our taxes when we cast our votes. Israel is the 16th wealthiest country on the planet, the largest recipient of US foreign aid (more than the rest of the world combined) protected by US veto power at the UN, and still a sign on the side of a bus (or 12) in Seattle is too much of a threat for the occupation's fiercest advocates to permit.
So the busses will keep selling us movies or clothes or hamburgers. The bulldozers will keep demolishing houses. The settlements will sprawl. Maybe an ad campaign can't change that, either, but I don't believe that silencing discussion and dissent is going to help solve a situation that cannot continue for long. As President, you probably don't care what's happening on local transit advertisement, but I think that this incident speaks to a larger, national fear of approaching this issue. So long as our White House continues to stifle frank conversations and to lead with the example of avoidance, impotence and spineless complicity in the human rights abuses carried out by our ally, I don't see how individuals or grass roots organizations will ever find the an appropriate forum to say what needs to be said.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I wrote a few days ago about the upcoming ad campaign in protest of the Israeli occupation of Palestine on buses here in Seattle. Even as I expressed my trepidation at the prospect of seeing my opinion represented I was hesitant about, I was, in a small way, a bit thrilled to see the campaign taking up the tools of our opposition to spread awareness. Since then, however, several things have happened. First, the David Horowitz Freedom Center (the name likely offers all the necessary explanation as to the group's purpose, but for my readers unfamiliar with David Horowitz, he's the despicable mind behind such classics as "The 101 most dangerous academics in America" and other twists on the idea of freedom.) proposed matching the 12 pro-Palestine buses and raising it to 25 busses bearing signs that say "Palestinian War Crimes: your tax dollars at work." Then King County Metro decided maybe the whole thing was a terrible idea and banned all non-commercial ads.
Ok. I have to get my head around the fact that David Horowitz is a bigoted, racist scumbag. I need a minute. All right, I'm mostly over that. His disciples, in inverting the message of the original ad, have not only created something that doesn't make even a little sense, they've demonstrated exactly why I don't like this form of outreach. One of my coworkers put it quite well tonight, saying that the venue didn't allow for the nuanced discussion necessary to change any one's mind. Beyond that, while I'm disappointed to see the city caving to backlash, I understand why public transit might not be the best battleground for the Israel/Palestine debate in America.
My frustration is mainly with the feeling that support for the Palestinian cause, something that can't be found in the White House, the State Department, congress or on any ballot, that has been stigmatized to be tantamount to anti-semitism, terrorism, extremism, is so inflammatory it can't even be presented to the public without causing a controversy. The Israeli occupation is bolstered when we go shopping, when we pay our taxes when we cast our votes. Israel is the 16th wealthiest country on the planet, the largest recipient of US foreign aid (more than the rest of the world combined) protected by US veto power at the UN, and still a sign on the side of a bus (or 12) in Seattle is too much of a threat for the occupation's fiercest advocates to permit.
So the busses will keep selling us movies or clothes or hamburgers. The bulldozers will keep demolishing houses. The settlements will sprawl. Maybe an ad campaign can't change that, either, but I don't believe that silencing discussion and dissent is going to help solve a situation that cannot continue for long. As President, you probably don't care what's happening on local transit advertisement, but I think that this incident speaks to a larger, national fear of approaching this issue. So long as our White House continues to stifle frank conversations and to lead with the example of avoidance, impotence and spineless complicity in the human rights abuses carried out by our ally, I don't see how individuals or grass roots organizations will ever find the an appropriate forum to say what needs to be said.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, December 17, 2010
Day 351- Celery
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Mike Huckabee Extended Interview | ||||
| ||||
Dear Mr. President,
Watching The Daily Show last night, I felt like cheering when Mike Huckabee suggested that Democrats were making health benefits for 9/11 first responders a political battle and Jon Stewart retorted "honestly, to their discredit, they haven't." Stewart goes on to compare the situation to the Democrats being handed a feast of a political win on a silver platter and refusing it in order to sit in a corner and eat celery. His entire show seemed to beg the question "hey, where's your outrage now?" of every 9/11-invoking Republican, FOX news pundit and mosque-protesting bigot. Because honoring those who died on (and continue to die from) 9/11 is about more than keeping Islamic community centers outside of a 10-block radius of ground zero. Mr. Stewart, after the rally to restore sanity, forcefully reminded Rachel Maddow that unlike pundits representing real news networks, he doesn't have any skin in the game, he doesn't play so much as shout drunkenly from the stands. I think yesterday's show demonstrated rather clearly why that isn't always true. It must be frustrating to watch a comedian out-articulate you with a message that Democrats ought to have been owning since the Republican filibuster began.
Another silver platter story arrived in the form of the Republican opposition to the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010. House Republicans voted against the bill (even some who co-sponsored it) citing fiscal concerns and bizarre fears that such legislation could increase abortions. I just want to tear my hair out at the horrifying logic being used to justify this. Where is the family-values outrage now?
(See that Cat? See the Cradle? )
I understand the desire to live in merry bipartisan bliss, especially now that every one is in the spirit of the holidays. But Jon Stewart is right. Enough celery! Democrats ought to be finding every TV camera they can and repeating some version of the same line about honoring 9/11's heroes and protecting vulnerable children from exploitation in the name of marriage. The race for 2012 starts any day now (if not yesterday) and voters across the country need to know that voting Republican is tantamount to saying it's OK to let 9/11 first responders suffer and struggle and die, that it's OK to quibble about the global gag rule while 12-year old girls are forced to marry men old enough to be their grandfathers.
Put down the celery Mr. President, it's time for a more satisfying entree.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Day 324-Storytelling
Dear Mr. President,
Lately I've been thinking a lot about the way we tell stories, and especially about the things the telling teaches about the teller. Most of the people in my life are storytellers. A number of them are writers as well, and tell their best stories without speaking. Others have to be heard, their tales never sounding quite right without their pauses, inflection and gestures. Regardless if they are speaker or writers, or if their stories are fiction or fact, I have a tendency to judge people by the way they tell their own stories.
Some (and I think I often must, unfortunately, include myself in this category) tell stories to impress. We talk about our achievements and often exaggerate (or selectively edit) details in order to cast ourselves in the best light. While I like to think I know when to stop short of bragging or outright lying, I'm sure this inclination is not as effective as I imagine it to be. When I meet a person who is the hero in all of their own stories, I tend to get wary about them. Honesty can be subjective, of course, but the compulsive need to be liked is always a dangerous indication.
Others speak with more concern for their audience than for themselves. A few of my friends have this astounding, uncanny ability to entertain or move or capture a listener with their (written, spoken, fictional or nonfictional) tales. They know exactly which words to choose, which details to paint, to craft their stories to elicit laughter or emotion or connection with whoever they speak to. I could listen to these friends for hours as they cast themselves as heroes, fools or removed observers, placing the telling of the story above the way it reflects upon themselves. The details of any given story are never as important as the way it is told. These are people I tend to admire, to seek to surround myself with and learn from.
One of my favorite storytellers outside of my circle of people I actually know is a writer for The Stranger, Paul Constant. Recently he wrote a piece comparing Tucker Max's memoir Assholes finish first with former President Bush's Decision Points. In it, he points out the self-aggrandizing way each man ignores the consequences of his actions and imagines his own heroics while, (with no small amount of sadness) also noting that Max, unlike President Bush, at least manages to muster the smallest amount of self-critical reflection by the end. Reading Constant's review and considering the way I judge people by the way they tell their own stories, I considered your own writing, and especially the way you tell your story to the American people. I have to say, Mr. President, that even when I do not agree with you, I always appreciate the way you explain things. Your honesty and self-reflection make me trust you, and I think that you have that rare ability to tell truth with more concern for how the audience will feel about it than how it will make them think of you. This sets you apart from your predecessor and also reminds me why you were able to reach out to so many people across the political spectrum.
I hope that when you get around to writing your own memoir of your time in the White House that you are able to do so with more self-reflection and awareness than President Bush. The story of your Presidency will not be about what you accomplished or what you decided, the battles you won or the times you were right. I believe that the telling, and not the tale, will be the most important and most revealing, even should events take a turn for the highly unlikely and leave you just as desperate to rewrite history as your predecessor.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Lately I've been thinking a lot about the way we tell stories, and especially about the things the telling teaches about the teller. Most of the people in my life are storytellers. A number of them are writers as well, and tell their best stories without speaking. Others have to be heard, their tales never sounding quite right without their pauses, inflection and gestures. Regardless if they are speaker or writers, or if their stories are fiction or fact, I have a tendency to judge people by the way they tell their own stories.
Some (and I think I often must, unfortunately, include myself in this category) tell stories to impress. We talk about our achievements and often exaggerate (or selectively edit) details in order to cast ourselves in the best light. While I like to think I know when to stop short of bragging or outright lying, I'm sure this inclination is not as effective as I imagine it to be. When I meet a person who is the hero in all of their own stories, I tend to get wary about them. Honesty can be subjective, of course, but the compulsive need to be liked is always a dangerous indication.
Others speak with more concern for their audience than for themselves. A few of my friends have this astounding, uncanny ability to entertain or move or capture a listener with their (written, spoken, fictional or nonfictional) tales. They know exactly which words to choose, which details to paint, to craft their stories to elicit laughter or emotion or connection with whoever they speak to. I could listen to these friends for hours as they cast themselves as heroes, fools or removed observers, placing the telling of the story above the way it reflects upon themselves. The details of any given story are never as important as the way it is told. These are people I tend to admire, to seek to surround myself with and learn from.
One of my favorite storytellers outside of my circle of people I actually know is a writer for The Stranger, Paul Constant. Recently he wrote a piece comparing Tucker Max's memoir Assholes finish first with former President Bush's Decision Points. In it, he points out the self-aggrandizing way each man ignores the consequences of his actions and imagines his own heroics while, (with no small amount of sadness) also noting that Max, unlike President Bush, at least manages to muster the smallest amount of self-critical reflection by the end. Reading Constant's review and considering the way I judge people by the way they tell their own stories, I considered your own writing, and especially the way you tell your story to the American people. I have to say, Mr. President, that even when I do not agree with you, I always appreciate the way you explain things. Your honesty and self-reflection make me trust you, and I think that you have that rare ability to tell truth with more concern for how the audience will feel about it than how it will make them think of you. This sets you apart from your predecessor and also reminds me why you were able to reach out to so many people across the political spectrum.
I hope that when you get around to writing your own memoir of your time in the White House that you are able to do so with more self-reflection and awareness than President Bush. The story of your Presidency will not be about what you accomplished or what you decided, the battles you won or the times you were right. I believe that the telling, and not the tale, will be the most important and most revealing, even should events take a turn for the highly unlikely and leave you just as desperate to rewrite history as your predecessor.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Day 318-It's not murder, it's a metaphor
Dear Mr. President,
While reading an article about the way our brain reacts similarly to the literal and metaphorical feelings of pain and disgust, I cam across this passage about Palestine and Israel:
This got me thinking about the military aid offered to Israel in exchange for a 90-day extension of the settlement freeze. The terms of the freeze are largely symbolic; settlement construction could continue in East Jerusalem, the ostensible future capitol of a Palestinian state, and no extension of the freeze would be requested after 90 days. The objections to this plan from the Israeli right are largely symbolic, as well. It makes me wonder how much we'd be willing to pay for symbolism. 3 billion a year in aid? Unlimited cover at the UN? What about any potential future peace in the region?
The deal you've offered is trading just that. You've sent a message to the Palestinians that they have 90 days to make peace and after that they are on their own. No US support for Palestinian statehood unless it is on Israel's terms. No US diplomatic pressure to keep the settlements from expanding again in 90 days. The unconditional agreement of those new bombers, which the US will provide to Israel regardless of a peace deal being signed or not. It's an offer so good, it should have it's own infomercial. The unfairness of the whole situation, and the utter absurdity of the Israeli right balking at such an offer is mind-boggling.
Instead of settling for symbolism, why didn't you decide to leverage our special relationship for an agreement that would have practical results? It seems as though you'd settle for the illusion of progress so long as it makes every one (except, of course, the Palestinians) feel better and look good, rather than a less popular, more difficult long-term plan that will actually hold Israel responsible for curtailing settlement activity? Instead of trading away a guarantee to do everything in our (not inconsiderable) power to prevent recognition of Palestinian statehood by international organizations, why wouldn't we threaten to do everything in our power to support it, if Israel doesn't follow international law? I just don't understand.
I would never argue that this conflict is simple or that achieving peace won't be a complicated process. But when lives and homes and the basic human rights are at stake, we can't afford to sacrifice the protection of these things for the sake of symbolism. Water rights, housing demolitions, settlements and security are practical points of disagreement that must be addressed seriously and with respect to the needs of people on all sides. Instead you have practically increased Israel's capacity for violence and symbolically granted the political cover to wield it with impunity. Symbolically, and practically, this was a total failure.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
While reading an article about the way our brain reacts similarly to the literal and metaphorical feelings of pain and disgust, I cam across this passage about Palestine and Israel:
in a world of sheer rationality where the brain didn’t confuse reality with symbols, bringing peace to Israel and Palestine would revolve around things like water rights, placement of borders, and the extent of militarization allowed to Palestinian police. Instead, argues Axelrod, “mutual symbolic concessions” of no material benefit will ultimately make all the difference.
This got me thinking about the military aid offered to Israel in exchange for a 90-day extension of the settlement freeze. The terms of the freeze are largely symbolic; settlement construction could continue in East Jerusalem, the ostensible future capitol of a Palestinian state, and no extension of the freeze would be requested after 90 days. The objections to this plan from the Israeli right are largely symbolic, as well. It makes me wonder how much we'd be willing to pay for symbolism. 3 billion a year in aid? Unlimited cover at the UN? What about any potential future peace in the region?
The deal you've offered is trading just that. You've sent a message to the Palestinians that they have 90 days to make peace and after that they are on their own. No US support for Palestinian statehood unless it is on Israel's terms. No US diplomatic pressure to keep the settlements from expanding again in 90 days. The unconditional agreement of those new bombers, which the US will provide to Israel regardless of a peace deal being signed or not. It's an offer so good, it should have it's own infomercial. The unfairness of the whole situation, and the utter absurdity of the Israeli right balking at such an offer is mind-boggling.
Instead of settling for symbolism, why didn't you decide to leverage our special relationship for an agreement that would have practical results? It seems as though you'd settle for the illusion of progress so long as it makes every one (except, of course, the Palestinians) feel better and look good, rather than a less popular, more difficult long-term plan that will actually hold Israel responsible for curtailing settlement activity? Instead of trading away a guarantee to do everything in our (not inconsiderable) power to prevent recognition of Palestinian statehood by international organizations, why wouldn't we threaten to do everything in our power to support it, if Israel doesn't follow international law? I just don't understand.
I would never argue that this conflict is simple or that achieving peace won't be a complicated process. But when lives and homes and the basic human rights are at stake, we can't afford to sacrifice the protection of these things for the sake of symbolism. Water rights, housing demolitions, settlements and security are practical points of disagreement that must be addressed seriously and with respect to the needs of people on all sides. Instead you have practically increased Israel's capacity for violence and symbolically granted the political cover to wield it with impunity. Symbolically, and practically, this was a total failure.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Day 314-Diplomacy or Professional wrestling?
Dear Mr. President,
Weird things are happening. A few days ago I saw a headline that read "Obama leads world chorus against Israel plan for Jerusalem." I was surprised by the implications of this headline, but I sort of brushed it off as typical media sensationalism. Then I saw the Huffington Post article describing the way you "slammed" the settlement activity. I read over your remarks. Nothing about them evoked the image of a pro-wrestling move, or, for that matter, a chorus of condemnation. Calling the settlements not helpful isn't exactly strong condemnation, or at least not the kind that would warrant this sort of media language.
It is incredibly surreal to see the right wing and the Israeli Prime Minister criticizing you for being too tough on Israeli settlement activity when, from my perspective, you haven't said or done nearly enough. It's one of those stories told so consistently that it begins to make me doubt my own perception. I think it's also indicative of how unacceptable criticism of Israeli policies, (even international law-breaking, immoral, hypocritical policies,) has become in our national discourse.
I think what you said about the settlements in East Jerusalem was right on the mark. Especially while Palestinian homes are being bulldozed in the same part of the city, there should be no new settlement activity. Palestinian leaders have already demonstrated a patient commitment to this peace process, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they do not have equal partners in the Israeli leaders. While Palestinians crack down and temper the extremists in their midst, Israelis are electing and empowering their own.
I know that you place a high importance on the state of US-Israeli relations. I just don't believe that true allies get this up in arms over such small criticism. The Israeli government is never going to make the tough calls necessary to a successful peace without strong urging from the US. I sincerely hope that your remarks indicate a toughening of our line against settlement activity, and a move away from the unconditional support that perpetuates and excuses the kind of oppression preventing peace in a region that needs it so badly.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Weird things are happening. A few days ago I saw a headline that read "Obama leads world chorus against Israel plan for Jerusalem." I was surprised by the implications of this headline, but I sort of brushed it off as typical media sensationalism. Then I saw the Huffington Post article describing the way you "slammed" the settlement activity. I read over your remarks. Nothing about them evoked the image of a pro-wrestling move, or, for that matter, a chorus of condemnation. Calling the settlements not helpful isn't exactly strong condemnation, or at least not the kind that would warrant this sort of media language.
It is incredibly surreal to see the right wing and the Israeli Prime Minister criticizing you for being too tough on Israeli settlement activity when, from my perspective, you haven't said or done nearly enough. It's one of those stories told so consistently that it begins to make me doubt my own perception. I think it's also indicative of how unacceptable criticism of Israeli policies, (even international law-breaking, immoral, hypocritical policies,) has become in our national discourse.
I think what you said about the settlements in East Jerusalem was right on the mark. Especially while Palestinian homes are being bulldozed in the same part of the city, there should be no new settlement activity. Palestinian leaders have already demonstrated a patient commitment to this peace process, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they do not have equal partners in the Israeli leaders. While Palestinians crack down and temper the extremists in their midst, Israelis are electing and empowering their own.
I know that you place a high importance on the state of US-Israeli relations. I just don't believe that true allies get this up in arms over such small criticism. The Israeli government is never going to make the tough calls necessary to a successful peace without strong urging from the US. I sincerely hope that your remarks indicate a toughening of our line against settlement activity, and a move away from the unconditional support that perpetuates and excuses the kind of oppression preventing peace in a region that needs it so badly.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Day 296-Wikileaks (again)
Dear Mr. President,
As the revelations from the latest documents released by Wikileaks continue to come to light, I am having a difficult time feeling surprised. I have to say that the outrage and shock being feigned in the mainstream media upsets me, deeply. It is indisputable that the Iraq war has been waged with unprecedented levels of secrecy. The Bush administration went out of its way to hide the truth behind record levels of private contractors, sweeping new executive powers, and an outright refusal to discuss the Iraqi death toll. What, exactly, did every one think they were hiding? Unicorns, perhaps? A modern President (and I am by no means excluding you from this indictment) doesn't keep secrets unless they are damaging. All of this secrecy was achieved with the tacit approval of the media. There is no way that I, an amateur observer, could have surmised these human rights violations and outright war crimes could have been perpetrated while the mainstream media had no idea. The evidence has been out there all along, and the fact that it took this long to come to wider attention is a shameful reflection of the sorry state of the American news media.
I don't believe that war can be waged without these kinds of abuses and atrocities. This doesn't excuse them; it only, to my mind, demands that we not wage war unnecessarily. The Iraq war was absolutely unnecessary. So while Americans recoil in horror at 104,000 dead, millions displaced and hundreds if not thousands of tortured, mistreated prisoners, I can only sit back and wonder what else they possibly could have expected? In 2003 while our President skipped off toward Baghdad the media and the majority of America stayed silent. The blood and the death and the suffering that ensued came as a direct result of that silence. This country has lost the right to feel surprised when it comes to the crimes of the Bush administration.
Meanwhile, you, Mr. President, have lost the right to lay the blame solely at President Bush's feet. Had our government conducted itself the way we have every right to expect that it should, or had the media investigated and reported with anything resembling a commitment to the truth, Wikileaks would likely not exist. If you want to be angry about this latest release of documents, I suppose that is your prerogative, but the real tragedies in this are the crimes committed and largely ignored, not the fact that some one finally had the courage to bring them to light.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
As the revelations from the latest documents released by Wikileaks continue to come to light, I am having a difficult time feeling surprised. I have to say that the outrage and shock being feigned in the mainstream media upsets me, deeply. It is indisputable that the Iraq war has been waged with unprecedented levels of secrecy. The Bush administration went out of its way to hide the truth behind record levels of private contractors, sweeping new executive powers, and an outright refusal to discuss the Iraqi death toll. What, exactly, did every one think they were hiding? Unicorns, perhaps? A modern President (and I am by no means excluding you from this indictment) doesn't keep secrets unless they are damaging. All of this secrecy was achieved with the tacit approval of the media. There is no way that I, an amateur observer, could have surmised these human rights violations and outright war crimes could have been perpetrated while the mainstream media had no idea. The evidence has been out there all along, and the fact that it took this long to come to wider attention is a shameful reflection of the sorry state of the American news media.
I don't believe that war can be waged without these kinds of abuses and atrocities. This doesn't excuse them; it only, to my mind, demands that we not wage war unnecessarily. The Iraq war was absolutely unnecessary. So while Americans recoil in horror at 104,000 dead, millions displaced and hundreds if not thousands of tortured, mistreated prisoners, I can only sit back and wonder what else they possibly could have expected? In 2003 while our President skipped off toward Baghdad the media and the majority of America stayed silent. The blood and the death and the suffering that ensued came as a direct result of that silence. This country has lost the right to feel surprised when it comes to the crimes of the Bush administration.
Meanwhile, you, Mr. President, have lost the right to lay the blame solely at President Bush's feet. Had our government conducted itself the way we have every right to expect that it should, or had the media investigated and reported with anything resembling a commitment to the truth, Wikileaks would likely not exist. If you want to be angry about this latest release of documents, I suppose that is your prerogative, but the real tragedies in this are the crimes committed and largely ignored, not the fact that some one finally had the courage to bring them to light.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, October 8, 2010
Day 281- Of and For
Dear Mr. President,
I understand why people are upset over recent revelations about Lou Dobbs' shameless hypocrisy. I think that the real shame of the matter is not that undocumented workers were hired by Dobbs' contractors, but that this man who claims to represent the everyday populism of the working class owns horses and an estate large enough to require that many workers for upkeep. The right is notoriously good at pretending to be representative of so-called average America, while hailing from backgrounds of unfathomable wealth and privilege. And while Democrats are often equally wealthy, it seems like they're also more likely to be criticized as "elitist" while they work for policies that are more beneficial to the poor and middle class. I suppose both sides are hypocritical to varying degrees. A system like ours that requires a certain amount of wealth (and, let's face it, a certain shamelessness about asking for money from the rich) while the public increasingly requires our officials to be of the people they represent is basically a recipe for lies and hypocrisy.
Electing those with similar experiences and life history to our own may feel good, but it doesn't guarantee true representation of our interests. The fact that really any poor people vote Republican proves that we often don't vote in our own best interests, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be responsible for governing ourselves. It's our right to vote for candidates we like instead of candidates who will promote policies that are the most beneficial to us; it makes our whole screwed up system kind of beautiful, actually. The problem Democrats have is that, for too long, they have allowed the right to set the terms of the discussion- to make it about faux populism and personality, to force themselves to drink whiskey shots and talk about guns in Pennsylvania (I'm lookin' at you, Hillary) or stage back-yard photo ops to counter the damning perception that a candidate might like arugula. The conversation needs to be changed. Instead of focusing on how of the people they are, Democrats should be doing a better job showing how for the people they are. I'm a liberal because I believe in liberal ideas and I think liberal policies are the best for our society- not because liberals look, act, or live like the same way I do. Instead of wasting time trying to convince me how similar we are, personally, I'd rather hear what a politician honestly believes and what they honestly plan to do in office. Actual straight talk- not the affected, folksy patronizing McCain variety- requires a frankness that has nothing to do with using too many big words or how much a person's haircut costs.
A politician who speaks honestly and bravely will do more good and, I would imagine, ultimately feel better about their campaign, win or lose on election day. I suspect that it will also, ultimately, make them more likable. I still believe that this is the fundamental change that people hoped for when they voted for you in 2008, regardless of their personal ideology. All politicians, all political pundits, even those of us tiny people out here in the blogosphere who just comment on things in quiet anonymity, all of us are Lou Dobbs. We're hypocrites who can never hope to live up to the grandiose ambitions of our best selves. Accepting our own hypocrisy and refusing to run from it or hide behind a more forgivingly crafted identity is the only way we can move forward, the only way we can elect representatives who will actually work in the best interest of all Americans.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
PS this is the second time I've defended Lou Dobbs and I really don't feel great about that.
I understand why people are upset over recent revelations about Lou Dobbs' shameless hypocrisy. I think that the real shame of the matter is not that undocumented workers were hired by Dobbs' contractors, but that this man who claims to represent the everyday populism of the working class owns horses and an estate large enough to require that many workers for upkeep. The right is notoriously good at pretending to be representative of so-called average America, while hailing from backgrounds of unfathomable wealth and privilege. And while Democrats are often equally wealthy, it seems like they're also more likely to be criticized as "elitist" while they work for policies that are more beneficial to the poor and middle class. I suppose both sides are hypocritical to varying degrees. A system like ours that requires a certain amount of wealth (and, let's face it, a certain shamelessness about asking for money from the rich) while the public increasingly requires our officials to be of the people they represent is basically a recipe for lies and hypocrisy.
Electing those with similar experiences and life history to our own may feel good, but it doesn't guarantee true representation of our interests. The fact that really any poor people vote Republican proves that we often don't vote in our own best interests, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be responsible for governing ourselves. It's our right to vote for candidates we like instead of candidates who will promote policies that are the most beneficial to us; it makes our whole screwed up system kind of beautiful, actually. The problem Democrats have is that, for too long, they have allowed the right to set the terms of the discussion- to make it about faux populism and personality, to force themselves to drink whiskey shots and talk about guns in Pennsylvania (I'm lookin' at you, Hillary) or stage back-yard photo ops to counter the damning perception that a candidate might like arugula. The conversation needs to be changed. Instead of focusing on how of the people they are, Democrats should be doing a better job showing how for the people they are. I'm a liberal because I believe in liberal ideas and I think liberal policies are the best for our society- not because liberals look, act, or live like the same way I do. Instead of wasting time trying to convince me how similar we are, personally, I'd rather hear what a politician honestly believes and what they honestly plan to do in office. Actual straight talk- not the affected, folksy patronizing McCain variety- requires a frankness that has nothing to do with using too many big words or how much a person's haircut costs.
A politician who speaks honestly and bravely will do more good and, I would imagine, ultimately feel better about their campaign, win or lose on election day. I suspect that it will also, ultimately, make them more likable. I still believe that this is the fundamental change that people hoped for when they voted for you in 2008, regardless of their personal ideology. All politicians, all political pundits, even those of us tiny people out here in the blogosphere who just comment on things in quiet anonymity, all of us are Lou Dobbs. We're hypocrites who can never hope to live up to the grandiose ambitions of our best selves. Accepting our own hypocrisy and refusing to run from it or hide behind a more forgivingly crafted identity is the only way we can move forward, the only way we can elect representatives who will actually work in the best interest of all Americans.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
PS this is the second time I've defended Lou Dobbs and I really don't feel great about that.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Day 269- Truthiness
Dear Mr. President,
My fangirl enthusiasm for the political comedy of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and their writers is rivaled only by my geeky obsession with international law. Since international law is taking a beating today, I thought I'd write instead about the ventures in to mainstream political discourse Stewart and Colbert have made lately. It can't have slipped your notice that both are holding Glenn Beck-inspired rallies to restore sanity and keep fear alive in Washington DC. While some Democrats have expressed mixed feelings about the event, citing a possible dampening of get out the vote efforts, I think that, as the right embraced Beck and Palin's event in August, Democrats ought to be capitalizing on Stewart's call for moderate, reasonable discourse. Demonstrating a sense of humor about themselves can't possibly hurt their election prospect this fall, and I believe that the rallying cry from a figure widely loved on the left will be more effective than all the possible phone banking and door-knocking that may be missed as a result.
Similarly, the non-controversy controversy over Colbert's testimony before the House seems to be more absurd than the comedian's own schtick. Elmo testified before a House committee; surely the bar for legitimate expertise from witnesses was lowered long before Mr. Colbert was invited to testify. Even if his testimony was compelled for no reason more legitimate than to increase awareness of the hearings and of the "take our jobs" program, than I think there are far more important things to be upset about. That Democrats are joining in this chorus of disapproving voices is deeply disappointing. Colbert and Stewart should be the reasonable answer to Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. Their satire of these clownish right-wing puppets almost always works in the favor of the Democratic party (or, at least the parts of it that still have the the courage to act and talk like Democrats.) Yes, they are comedians. They tell more jokes than they do truth, but still, I think, one would be hard-pressed to find a more effective way of combating the absurd and depressing tactics of the right wing media than by mocking them.
I'm not suggesting Stewart or Colbert run for office or anything ridiculous like that. Their value is in their outsider status- their commentary would not be effective if they were saddled with the responsibility of actual governing. But in their attempts to keep our public servants and the rest of the media honest, I think that they do serve a purpose with even more value than mere entertainment. I hope that Democrats stop disparaging their attempts to rally unenthusiastic young voters and learn to laugh at themselves a bit more.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
My fangirl enthusiasm for the political comedy of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and their writers is rivaled only by my geeky obsession with international law. Since international law is taking a beating today, I thought I'd write instead about the ventures in to mainstream political discourse Stewart and Colbert have made lately. It can't have slipped your notice that both are holding Glenn Beck-inspired rallies to restore sanity and keep fear alive in Washington DC. While some Democrats have expressed mixed feelings about the event, citing a possible dampening of get out the vote efforts, I think that, as the right embraced Beck and Palin's event in August, Democrats ought to be capitalizing on Stewart's call for moderate, reasonable discourse. Demonstrating a sense of humor about themselves can't possibly hurt their election prospect this fall, and I believe that the rallying cry from a figure widely loved on the left will be more effective than all the possible phone banking and door-knocking that may be missed as a result.
Similarly, the non-controversy controversy over Colbert's testimony before the House seems to be more absurd than the comedian's own schtick. Elmo testified before a House committee; surely the bar for legitimate expertise from witnesses was lowered long before Mr. Colbert was invited to testify. Even if his testimony was compelled for no reason more legitimate than to increase awareness of the hearings and of the "take our jobs" program, than I think there are far more important things to be upset about. That Democrats are joining in this chorus of disapproving voices is deeply disappointing. Colbert and Stewart should be the reasonable answer to Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. Their satire of these clownish right-wing puppets almost always works in the favor of the Democratic party (or, at least the parts of it that still have the the courage to act and talk like Democrats.) Yes, they are comedians. They tell more jokes than they do truth, but still, I think, one would be hard-pressed to find a more effective way of combating the absurd and depressing tactics of the right wing media than by mocking them.
I'm not suggesting Stewart or Colbert run for office or anything ridiculous like that. Their value is in their outsider status- their commentary would not be effective if they were saddled with the responsibility of actual governing. But in their attempts to keep our public servants and the rest of the media honest, I think that they do serve a purpose with even more value than mere entertainment. I hope that Democrats stop disparaging their attempts to rally unenthusiastic young voters and learn to laugh at themselves a bit more.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Day 265- Mere Charity
So let’s put to rest the old myth that development is mere charity that does not serve our interests. And let’s reject the cynicism that says certain countries are condemned to perpetual poverty, for the past half century has witnessed more gains in human development than at any time in history. A disease that had ravaged the generations, smallpox, was eradicated. Health care has reached the far corners of the world, saving the lives of millions. From Latin America to Africa to Asia, developing nations have transformed into leaders in the global economy.
-President Barack Obama, 9/22/2010
Dear Mr. President,
In your remarks at the UN today, you made several points about the way that progress toward a stable and more just world for all is prudent for the national security interests of America and wealthy nations everywhere. I think you're right about this. Achieving the Millenium Development Goals is more than a moral obligation- it's in the our own interest. Which is why it is so disappointing to hear words like this in direct contrast with the way we appropriate funds to support these goals. Spending as much as we do each year on wars against two countries that have little to no basic social services, education or infrastructure seems like maybe we've lost sight of the whole idea behind the MDGs. If you really believe that our national interests are served by fighting poverty, suffering and disillusionment, why do you keep spending so much of our national budget on the tools of war?
You're right about the way this discussion needs to be framed- no act of charity is performed without self-interest. Having a frank conversation with the American people about our interests and the best way to serve them is long overdue. Waging wars might make us feel better, it might create the illusion of progress in a society demanding instant gratification, but I think you know it doesn't server our long-term interests. And while you may safely express this sentiment in remarks to the UN, you have little hope of being heard over the din off a Tea Party rally or town hall full of the angry and the afraid. People may not want to be told that they're wrong, that they have to wait to see the results of our current policies, that they have to work and help and change themselves if our country is going to remain in our position of global leadership over the next few generations. But I think people will always respond better to being told the truth, to be spoken to like adults, than coddled and told only what pleases them. Saying to the American people that economic development, increasing access to education and improving the rights and freedoms of people around the world is the best way to fight terrorism requires more than just words; the way we spend our money also has to change if the MDGs are ever going to be achieved or if the world is ever going to believe that America is serious about our commitments to justice, equality and opportunity for those without it.
This logic should also be applied domestically. Welfare, unemployment benefits, health care- none of it is "mere charity". These social services that protect Americans when they are the most vulnerable help keep our economy and our society more stable. This basic principle- that doing right by the least among us makes all of us stronger- is also not something Americans always want to hear. But I don't think you ran for President to lie to us, and I don't think you ran because it sounded like a fun gig. Americans have to learn to wait, to invest in our long-term interests and stop looking for the quick-fix that only makes us feel better. Until we have a leader willing to tell us that we're never going to make the changes necessary to make the goals for 2015 anything more than optimistic fantasy.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
-President Barack Obama, 9/22/2010
Dear Mr. President,
In your remarks at the UN today, you made several points about the way that progress toward a stable and more just world for all is prudent for the national security interests of America and wealthy nations everywhere. I think you're right about this. Achieving the Millenium Development Goals is more than a moral obligation- it's in the our own interest. Which is why it is so disappointing to hear words like this in direct contrast with the way we appropriate funds to support these goals. Spending as much as we do each year on wars against two countries that have little to no basic social services, education or infrastructure seems like maybe we've lost sight of the whole idea behind the MDGs. If you really believe that our national interests are served by fighting poverty, suffering and disillusionment, why do you keep spending so much of our national budget on the tools of war?
You're right about the way this discussion needs to be framed- no act of charity is performed without self-interest. Having a frank conversation with the American people about our interests and the best way to serve them is long overdue. Waging wars might make us feel better, it might create the illusion of progress in a society demanding instant gratification, but I think you know it doesn't server our long-term interests. And while you may safely express this sentiment in remarks to the UN, you have little hope of being heard over the din off a Tea Party rally or town hall full of the angry and the afraid. People may not want to be told that they're wrong, that they have to wait to see the results of our current policies, that they have to work and help and change themselves if our country is going to remain in our position of global leadership over the next few generations. But I think people will always respond better to being told the truth, to be spoken to like adults, than coddled and told only what pleases them. Saying to the American people that economic development, increasing access to education and improving the rights and freedoms of people around the world is the best way to fight terrorism requires more than just words; the way we spend our money also has to change if the MDGs are ever going to be achieved or if the world is ever going to believe that America is serious about our commitments to justice, equality and opportunity for those without it.
This logic should also be applied domestically. Welfare, unemployment benefits, health care- none of it is "mere charity". These social services that protect Americans when they are the most vulnerable help keep our economy and our society more stable. This basic principle- that doing right by the least among us makes all of us stronger- is also not something Americans always want to hear. But I don't think you ran for President to lie to us, and I don't think you ran because it sounded like a fun gig. Americans have to learn to wait, to invest in our long-term interests and stop looking for the quick-fix that only makes us feel better. Until we have a leader willing to tell us that we're never going to make the changes necessary to make the goals for 2015 anything more than optimistic fantasy.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, September 13, 2010
Day 256- Back to school
Dear Mr. President,
In just over eight hours I'll be taking the most important test of my undergraduate life. I've spent the day in various cafes, a library and 4 different city buses trying to cram 15 chapters of the Arabic language back into the easily accessible parts of my brain. I tried to relax a bit by listening to my ipod while walking home, and found myself trying to translate "dirt off your shoulder" into Arabic. I'm starting to think about Maha and Khalid like they're my real cousins. My fear of the lowercase letter e is becoming concerning. I have consumed a truly unhealthy amount of caffeine.
For these reasons, I thought it advisable to keep my letter to you quite short. I noticed you gave a back to school speech in Pennsylvania today (proving, once more, that it never stops paying to be a swing state) and I thought I'd channel my test anxiety into a relevant comment on education. Foreign languages should be taught in primary education. You've already said this, and been criticized for it (naturally,) even expressing your own embarrassment at being monolingual. While it may be an unfair stereotype to suggest that Americans can't speak multiple languages, I think the mere fact that some people find it outrageous that you would suggest we ought to learn a second language as children demonstrates it certainly isn't a cultural value in America they way it is in many other parts of the world. This is more difficult to change, of course, but I think that Americans in general do want to see their children grow to be successful and well-educated, and multilingual graduates will likely also be more employable, should there ever again be jobs available.
Maybe I'm just saying this since I'm scared out of my mind that my whole life will be over if I don't pas my placement test tomorrow, but I feel like the ability to communicate with non-English speakers would go a long way toward easing the hostility that some Americans feel about foreigners. And we could certainly do with less xenophobia in our foreign relations and immigration policies. Even if I pass this test tomorrow and spend another year devoted to learning Arabic, my best hope is to graduate with the vocabulary of an overly formal third grader. Had I spent elementary school studying Arabic, or really any language, this might not be such a Hurculean task. At this point, having 100% of high school graduates fluent in English might still seem daunting, but I think an earlier and more consistent emphasis on a second language might help in that area, as well. At least more High school graduates would, in theory, know what a verb is.
While I was searching the internet to find out if you spoke a foreign language, I found the headline "Does Obama speak Arabic?" I was really hopeful that the answer would be yes, so that maybe I could write you a letter in Arabic at some point, but then I saw that the article was from The Weekly Standard. Our media does this country so proud. Anyway, I'm going to continue studying. It's too late for me, by the time you read this letter the die will be cast, my fate will be decided and my hopes of attaining a third-grade vocabulary in Arabic secured or dashed forever. But there are a whole generation of American children starting school this week who might still hope to graduate with the ability to communicate eloquently in more than one language. You're right, Mr. President, only speaking one language is embarrassing. I hope that the next generation are given a better shot at overcoming it.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
In just over eight hours I'll be taking the most important test of my undergraduate life. I've spent the day in various cafes, a library and 4 different city buses trying to cram 15 chapters of the Arabic language back into the easily accessible parts of my brain. I tried to relax a bit by listening to my ipod while walking home, and found myself trying to translate "dirt off your shoulder" into Arabic. I'm starting to think about Maha and Khalid like they're my real cousins. My fear of the lowercase letter e is becoming concerning. I have consumed a truly unhealthy amount of caffeine.
For these reasons, I thought it advisable to keep my letter to you quite short. I noticed you gave a back to school speech in Pennsylvania today (proving, once more, that it never stops paying to be a swing state) and I thought I'd channel my test anxiety into a relevant comment on education. Foreign languages should be taught in primary education. You've already said this, and been criticized for it (naturally,) even expressing your own embarrassment at being monolingual. While it may be an unfair stereotype to suggest that Americans can't speak multiple languages, I think the mere fact that some people find it outrageous that you would suggest we ought to learn a second language as children demonstrates it certainly isn't a cultural value in America they way it is in many other parts of the world. This is more difficult to change, of course, but I think that Americans in general do want to see their children grow to be successful and well-educated, and multilingual graduates will likely also be more employable, should there ever again be jobs available.
Maybe I'm just saying this since I'm scared out of my mind that my whole life will be over if I don't pas my placement test tomorrow, but I feel like the ability to communicate with non-English speakers would go a long way toward easing the hostility that some Americans feel about foreigners. And we could certainly do with less xenophobia in our foreign relations and immigration policies. Even if I pass this test tomorrow and spend another year devoted to learning Arabic, my best hope is to graduate with the vocabulary of an overly formal third grader. Had I spent elementary school studying Arabic, or really any language, this might not be such a Hurculean task. At this point, having 100% of high school graduates fluent in English might still seem daunting, but I think an earlier and more consistent emphasis on a second language might help in that area, as well. At least more High school graduates would, in theory, know what a verb is.
While I was searching the internet to find out if you spoke a foreign language, I found the headline "Does Obama speak Arabic?" I was really hopeful that the answer would be yes, so that maybe I could write you a letter in Arabic at some point, but then I saw that the article was from The Weekly Standard. Our media does this country so proud. Anyway, I'm going to continue studying. It's too late for me, by the time you read this letter the die will be cast, my fate will be decided and my hopes of attaining a third-grade vocabulary in Arabic secured or dashed forever. But there are a whole generation of American children starting school this week who might still hope to graduate with the ability to communicate eloquently in more than one language. You're right, Mr. President, only speaking one language is embarrassing. I hope that the next generation are given a better shot at overcoming it.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
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
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Day 252-Hype
Dear Mr. President,
After I posted yesterday's letter I received several disheartening responses. "Is this meant to be serious? " one reader asked, "That President Obama could influence these people to reconsider their actions? You must understand that a direct statement from him on this gives these people the profile they so desperately crave to do what they do in front of the largest possible audience." This morning you gave an interview in which you clearly expressed your disapproval for the planned event, without elvating your opponent. Thank you for this. Such a balance is a difficult one to strike and, given the volatility of the situation, I thought your words were well chosen. I don't know if you changed the man's mind or if his better nature is stronger than I give it credit for. I don't think I was off base yesterday in implying that you had the ability to appeal to this man's humanity, or that, at the very least, it was worth a try.
Since he has announced the suspension of the event, much discussion by the media has focused on the accusations that this story was blown out of proportion by the media. I considered the well-made point of my cynical reader's comment about the risk of granting this man's clear desire for attention, but I stand by what I wrote and what I asked of you. For one thing, yesterday was several weeks past the point of hushing this story up and hoping no one would notice. The outraged protests set off by the Danish cartoons several years back came months after the cartoons had been published- when apologies were basically useless. Had this "Koran Burning Day" come to light months later, it would have caused considerably more uproar. If 50 people had burned Qur'ans and no one had noticed, I concede that no actual harm would have resulted in the symbolic action. But, by the time I heard about the event it was on CNN; the damage was pretty much done. I'm glad that things seemed to have calmed down (and also that Imam Rauf is refusing to negotiate the location of Park 51,) and I believe much of that credit goes to your leadership.
I don't know the best way to handle these stories in general. On one hand, it does elevate crazy people to give them national news coverage. On the other hand, the media didn't say anything untruthful, and it was part of a larger trend of anti-Islam incidents in the last few weeks. I can see why it was relevant to the news. It also gave Americans a chance to publicly demonstrate our opposition to this behavior, and for people of all faiths to intervene on behalf of Muslims- a symbolism far more powerful than the most heartfelt apology might have sounded should the story have been told after the fact. Consider, also, that while this man's church may have only had 50 members, the "International Koran Burning Day" facebook page now has 15,000 fans. That may be nothing compared to the group opposing it, which has 10 times as many, but it shows that these 50 people were not acting alone. (Especially considering the number of people who feel this way and can't work facebook, which can't be inconsiderable.) This small man and his small band of followers had the support many more Americans who agreed with them. Taking this chance to show the world that they don't speak for all Americans, especially not our government, was absolutely the right thing to do. Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
After I posted yesterday's letter I received several disheartening responses. "Is this meant to be serious? " one reader asked, "That President Obama could influence these people to reconsider their actions? You must understand that a direct statement from him on this gives these people the profile they so desperately crave to do what they do in front of the largest possible audience." This morning you gave an interview in which you clearly expressed your disapproval for the planned event, without elvating your opponent. Thank you for this. Such a balance is a difficult one to strike and, given the volatility of the situation, I thought your words were well chosen. I don't know if you changed the man's mind or if his better nature is stronger than I give it credit for. I don't think I was off base yesterday in implying that you had the ability to appeal to this man's humanity, or that, at the very least, it was worth a try.
Since he has announced the suspension of the event, much discussion by the media has focused on the accusations that this story was blown out of proportion by the media. I considered the well-made point of my cynical reader's comment about the risk of granting this man's clear desire for attention, but I stand by what I wrote and what I asked of you. For one thing, yesterday was several weeks past the point of hushing this story up and hoping no one would notice. The outraged protests set off by the Danish cartoons several years back came months after the cartoons had been published- when apologies were basically useless. Had this "Koran Burning Day" come to light months later, it would have caused considerably more uproar. If 50 people had burned Qur'ans and no one had noticed, I concede that no actual harm would have resulted in the symbolic action. But, by the time I heard about the event it was on CNN; the damage was pretty much done. I'm glad that things seemed to have calmed down (and also that Imam Rauf is refusing to negotiate the location of Park 51,) and I believe much of that credit goes to your leadership.
I don't know the best way to handle these stories in general. On one hand, it does elevate crazy people to give them national news coverage. On the other hand, the media didn't say anything untruthful, and it was part of a larger trend of anti-Islam incidents in the last few weeks. I can see why it was relevant to the news. It also gave Americans a chance to publicly demonstrate our opposition to this behavior, and for people of all faiths to intervene on behalf of Muslims- a symbolism far more powerful than the most heartfelt apology might have sounded should the story have been told after the fact. Consider, also, that while this man's church may have only had 50 members, the "International Koran Burning Day" facebook page now has 15,000 fans. That may be nothing compared to the group opposing it, which has 10 times as many, but it shows that these 50 people were not acting alone. (Especially considering the number of people who feel this way and can't work facebook, which can't be inconsiderable.) This small man and his small band of followers had the support many more Americans who agreed with them. Taking this chance to show the world that they don't speak for all Americans, especially not our government, was absolutely the right thing to do. Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Day 251- Leadership
Dear Mr. President,
I generally do not hold you accountable for the actions and beliefs of those who support you. Martin Peretz, for example, may be a prominent member of the media and a self-described democratic loyalist, but when he expresses his view that Muslims have no claim to first Amendment rights, I don't blame you for that. I do, however, expect you to speak out. I do expect you to show the rest of the world that America cannot accurately be represented by cult leaders in Florida or racists in The New Republic. I expect you to speak out because the world is watching these people and it is watching you.
I don't expect that you act alone. I think that you should get every prominent and influential politician in this country, Republican and Democrat, to collectively issue a condemnation for these hateful acts and words. To challenge Americans to rise above this, to be better than these small-minded men and women would represent us to be. I can imagine the power of you, both former Presidents Bush, President and Secretary Clinton standing together to make this request. I may not have agreed with President Bush, but he has an obligation to speak to the parts of the country still irrationally enraged at Muslims over 9/11. A tangible demonstration from current and former GOP leaders might go a long way toward calming down the violent Islamophobia on the right, just as you, Bill and Hillary Clinton might do for the left. I believe that silence in the face of these dangerous swells of anger is tantamount to complicity.
We expect our leaders to stand up in moments like these. I'm not asking that you outlaw the perfectly legal actions of these groups (no matter how reprehensible or dangerous they might be.) This isn't a legal issue but a moral one and you still wield enough influence over any audience you speak to that a few words from you might yet summon the humanity in these people to make them reconsider their actions. At the very least, it will demonstrate clearly that they do not act in the name of all Americans. This morning all I could think about were the young boys and old men in Palestine who asked me over and over again to tell my country they were not terrorists. Their own helplessness in the face of a media narrative that could not be stopped was deeply moving. I think I finally understand what they felt like. I want to write a letter to the world and say, please, believe me, American's aren't racists, we're not bigots, we're not violent and hateful and irrational. Please don't judge us by the actions of a few crazy people who act in our name.
So I hope that before Saturday you and every other influential American with access to a microphone has taken to the airwaves or written in the papers or published on the internet an unequivocal denunciation of the Qur'an burning and the rallying cries against Islam as a religion and Muslims as people. We must show the world that this is not who we are, and that has to start with our leaders. I think that few days in recent memory have as much power to transform as this year's eleventh of September has; I don't want to wake up Sunday morning and wonder what country I'm living in.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I generally do not hold you accountable for the actions and beliefs of those who support you. Martin Peretz, for example, may be a prominent member of the media and a self-described democratic loyalist, but when he expresses his view that Muslims have no claim to first Amendment rights, I don't blame you for that. I do, however, expect you to speak out. I do expect you to show the rest of the world that America cannot accurately be represented by cult leaders in Florida or racists in The New Republic. I expect you to speak out because the world is watching these people and it is watching you.
I don't expect that you act alone. I think that you should get every prominent and influential politician in this country, Republican and Democrat, to collectively issue a condemnation for these hateful acts and words. To challenge Americans to rise above this, to be better than these small-minded men and women would represent us to be. I can imagine the power of you, both former Presidents Bush, President and Secretary Clinton standing together to make this request. I may not have agreed with President Bush, but he has an obligation to speak to the parts of the country still irrationally enraged at Muslims over 9/11. A tangible demonstration from current and former GOP leaders might go a long way toward calming down the violent Islamophobia on the right, just as you, Bill and Hillary Clinton might do for the left. I believe that silence in the face of these dangerous swells of anger is tantamount to complicity.
We expect our leaders to stand up in moments like these. I'm not asking that you outlaw the perfectly legal actions of these groups (no matter how reprehensible or dangerous they might be.) This isn't a legal issue but a moral one and you still wield enough influence over any audience you speak to that a few words from you might yet summon the humanity in these people to make them reconsider their actions. At the very least, it will demonstrate clearly that they do not act in the name of all Americans. This morning all I could think about were the young boys and old men in Palestine who asked me over and over again to tell my country they were not terrorists. Their own helplessness in the face of a media narrative that could not be stopped was deeply moving. I think I finally understand what they felt like. I want to write a letter to the world and say, please, believe me, American's aren't racists, we're not bigots, we're not violent and hateful and irrational. Please don't judge us by the actions of a few crazy people who act in our name.
So I hope that before Saturday you and every other influential American with access to a microphone has taken to the airwaves or written in the papers or published on the internet an unequivocal denunciation of the Qur'an burning and the rallying cries against Islam as a religion and Muslims as people. We must show the world that this is not who we are, and that has to start with our leaders. I think that few days in recent memory have as much power to transform as this year's eleventh of September has; I don't want to wake up Sunday morning and wonder what country I'm living in.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Day 250- Internet connections
Dear Mr. President,
In recent months I have cautiously forayed into the realm of internet dating sites in an attempt to get past an increasingly long string of failed romantic endeavors. For better or worse, meeting people online has introduced me to several interesting and intelligent men I would never have otherwise encountered. That I connect with them initially through the internet doesn't bother me, though it makes several of my friends uncomfortable. I do understand the inherent risk, and also the capacity for deception, that goes along with any virtual communication. I've been chatting online since the early days of AOL, I've had livejournal accounts, myspace and facebook pages, and now I have this blog, which often consumes a considerable amount of my time and energy. I have friends I met online who I have never spoken to in person, and friends I met online who became friends outside of the internet, and more than a few friends who I relate to differently online than I do in person. (I do not tweet. I'm sure, in time, I will succumb to it, but for now it is the one craze I have yet to find any interest in.) Because so much of my time is spent on the internet, I'm inclined to disagree with those who discount any communication, interaction or relationship that occurs online as inauthentic. I have been lied to online, but I have also been lied to by people I love who look me in the eye when they lie to me. I think any interaction with another human requires a certain amount of faith and results in a certain amount of disappointment, regardless of where or how that interaction takes place. The person I am online, the person who writes these letters and rants about the issues that matter to me and who even sometimes speaks in humiliatingly bad blank verse that should be kept to myself, is just as much of who I am as the person you'd encounter if you met me. Words I say are not any more authentic than words I type.
Every now and then, however, I encounter online behavior that really makes me question the dichotomy of our actual selves and our online selves. The NRCC aide who posted home addresses for a Democratic candidates staff on Twitter, for example. Would this man have gone on Television and announced the home addresses of these other staffers? Would he have shouted them out at a rally? Furthermore, is such irresponsible behavior the product of the internet's illusion of anonymity or is this a reflection of the aide's true nature? Some politicians don't seem to have this problem. Vice President Biden, for example, surely is more likely to exercise restraint when he writes something online, (perhaps giving him the chance to consider if "big fucking deal" is really the descriptive phrase most appropriate.) I have no doubt that Sarah Palin's speaking style lends itself well to the 140-character limit and fluid spelling laws of Twitter, which is why her tweets sound (marginally) more coherent than anything she's ever said in an unscripted TV interview. If I could not hide behind the screen of my laptop, or easily revise my words, would my letters to you be different?
At the end of the day I don't think it matters if one version of me is more real than the other. So much of our interaction now takes place or relates to the internet that whatever distortion of personality or character it may create is irrelevant. I am accountable for my actions, just like the men I meet online or the friends I chat with online or the politicians who campaign online. While your campaign may have successfully used the internet as a means to connect with a younger generation of voters, that no longer seems to be the case. You once posted on DailyKos, your campaign's organizing efforts were legitimately grassroots and unique. Now it seems like the same generic intern-composed junk mail in my inbox day in and day out. It seems like you've cut out the blogging community and limited e-mail communication to re-worked versions of the same request for money. The authenticity is lacking, not because it's the internet, but because the efforts are stilted and hollow. Once, you seemed to understand the power of connecting with the voters through any media. You can reach so many voters online if you're willing to expend the same kind of personal energy that you do in campaign speeches or town hall meetings that reach only those lucky enough to live in a targeted area. Other members of your administration seem to be using the internet as an effective means of communicating with Americans; I hope that you reconsider your own efforts to ease the enthusiasm gap on the left in time for the election. A little sincerity could go a long way.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
In recent months I have cautiously forayed into the realm of internet dating sites in an attempt to get past an increasingly long string of failed romantic endeavors. For better or worse, meeting people online has introduced me to several interesting and intelligent men I would never have otherwise encountered. That I connect with them initially through the internet doesn't bother me, though it makes several of my friends uncomfortable. I do understand the inherent risk, and also the capacity for deception, that goes along with any virtual communication. I've been chatting online since the early days of AOL, I've had livejournal accounts, myspace and facebook pages, and now I have this blog, which often consumes a considerable amount of my time and energy. I have friends I met online who I have never spoken to in person, and friends I met online who became friends outside of the internet, and more than a few friends who I relate to differently online than I do in person. (I do not tweet. I'm sure, in time, I will succumb to it, but for now it is the one craze I have yet to find any interest in.) Because so much of my time is spent on the internet, I'm inclined to disagree with those who discount any communication, interaction or relationship that occurs online as inauthentic. I have been lied to online, but I have also been lied to by people I love who look me in the eye when they lie to me. I think any interaction with another human requires a certain amount of faith and results in a certain amount of disappointment, regardless of where or how that interaction takes place. The person I am online, the person who writes these letters and rants about the issues that matter to me and who even sometimes speaks in humiliatingly bad blank verse that should be kept to myself, is just as much of who I am as the person you'd encounter if you met me. Words I say are not any more authentic than words I type.
Every now and then, however, I encounter online behavior that really makes me question the dichotomy of our actual selves and our online selves. The NRCC aide who posted home addresses for a Democratic candidates staff on Twitter, for example. Would this man have gone on Television and announced the home addresses of these other staffers? Would he have shouted them out at a rally? Furthermore, is such irresponsible behavior the product of the internet's illusion of anonymity or is this a reflection of the aide's true nature? Some politicians don't seem to have this problem. Vice President Biden, for example, surely is more likely to exercise restraint when he writes something online, (perhaps giving him the chance to consider if "big fucking deal" is really the descriptive phrase most appropriate.) I have no doubt that Sarah Palin's speaking style lends itself well to the 140-character limit and fluid spelling laws of Twitter, which is why her tweets sound (marginally) more coherent than anything she's ever said in an unscripted TV interview. If I could not hide behind the screen of my laptop, or easily revise my words, would my letters to you be different?
At the end of the day I don't think it matters if one version of me is more real than the other. So much of our interaction now takes place or relates to the internet that whatever distortion of personality or character it may create is irrelevant. I am accountable for my actions, just like the men I meet online or the friends I chat with online or the politicians who campaign online. While your campaign may have successfully used the internet as a means to connect with a younger generation of voters, that no longer seems to be the case. You once posted on DailyKos, your campaign's organizing efforts were legitimately grassroots and unique. Now it seems like the same generic intern-composed junk mail in my inbox day in and day out. It seems like you've cut out the blogging community and limited e-mail communication to re-worked versions of the same request for money. The authenticity is lacking, not because it's the internet, but because the efforts are stilted and hollow. Once, you seemed to understand the power of connecting with the voters through any media. You can reach so many voters online if you're willing to expend the same kind of personal energy that you do in campaign speeches or town hall meetings that reach only those lucky enough to live in a targeted area. Other members of your administration seem to be using the internet as an effective means of communicating with Americans; I hope that you reconsider your own efforts to ease the enthusiasm gap on the left in time for the election. A little sincerity could go a long way.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Day 248- 10.2.2010
Dear Mr. President,
We on the left aren't usually content to be outdone by Glenn Beck, especially now that he fancies himself a Televangelist. So progressives are having their own march on Washington. I hope that the One Nation march manages to generate the excitement many progressives will need to show up on election day. It isn't an enthusiastic or well-organized Republican base that worries me, it is the return to apathy that many on the left had been quick to make once holding your administration to its promises got hard. Will a unity rally in DC make it all better? I suppose it probably can't make things worse.
But an election shouldn't have to have the hype of a music festival to get people to turn up for it. Voting should be something every American does out of a sense of their own responsibility to participate in our democracy. I suppose this is why I get so irritated at the patronizing OFA e-mails asking me to pledge that I will vote. I vote because it is in my interest to do so and I don't need a flashy patronizing campaign to convince me to do it. I have many friends who feel differently. Several didn't vote in 2008 and, when I reacted to this information with my characteristic tactlessness, they grew quite defensive. One even tried to convince me that voting was playing into the hands of those in power. I guess OFA might have their work cut out for them.
I think if you want to turn people out on election day you've got to prove to them that their vote actually matters. No amount of youtube videos or t-shirts or clever campaign slogans will energize voters like evidence that they are actually being listend to would. Have one honest and unscripted conversation with the American people and watch how quickly they show up to tell you what they think of it. Talk to us like we're informed adults and maybe we'll start voting like it.
Tonight on CNN I saw a headline that stopped my heart for a moment. "Peace Corps Volunteer killed in Africa" it read. And for the eternity it took the full story to load and inform me the tragedy took place in Lesotho and not where my best friend is serving, I could do nothing but worry. Once it was cleared up, I got angry. Would you see a similar headline for Asia or Europe or North America? No! Had the victim died on any other continent, the headline likely would have specified a country. This may be due to the fact that CNN assumes its audience has no idea where Lesotho is. Whenever I see the media, or a campaign, dumbing things down to a level it anticipates its readers to be more comfortable with, I feel offended. Expect us to know where Lesotho is, and we will learn. Expect us to understand the complexity of your policies and we will. Expect us to vote because it is our responsibility as Americans and we will vote. Stop treating Americans like we are only as good as our worst tendencies.
I hope that the One Nation rally is a success. I hope that the midterms are somewhat less of a tragedy than expected. Most of all, I hope you find a way to speak to the American people the way you used to. It's the only way you'll ever inspire the kind of support you'll need to win re-election.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
We on the left aren't usually content to be outdone by Glenn Beck, especially now that he fancies himself a Televangelist. So progressives are having their own march on Washington. I hope that the One Nation march manages to generate the excitement many progressives will need to show up on election day. It isn't an enthusiastic or well-organized Republican base that worries me, it is the return to apathy that many on the left had been quick to make once holding your administration to its promises got hard. Will a unity rally in DC make it all better? I suppose it probably can't make things worse.
But an election shouldn't have to have the hype of a music festival to get people to turn up for it. Voting should be something every American does out of a sense of their own responsibility to participate in our democracy. I suppose this is why I get so irritated at the patronizing OFA e-mails asking me to pledge that I will vote. I vote because it is in my interest to do so and I don't need a flashy patronizing campaign to convince me to do it. I have many friends who feel differently. Several didn't vote in 2008 and, when I reacted to this information with my characteristic tactlessness, they grew quite defensive. One even tried to convince me that voting was playing into the hands of those in power. I guess OFA might have their work cut out for them.
I think if you want to turn people out on election day you've got to prove to them that their vote actually matters. No amount of youtube videos or t-shirts or clever campaign slogans will energize voters like evidence that they are actually being listend to would. Have one honest and unscripted conversation with the American people and watch how quickly they show up to tell you what they think of it. Talk to us like we're informed adults and maybe we'll start voting like it.
Tonight on CNN I saw a headline that stopped my heart for a moment. "Peace Corps Volunteer killed in Africa" it read. And for the eternity it took the full story to load and inform me the tragedy took place in Lesotho and not where my best friend is serving, I could do nothing but worry. Once it was cleared up, I got angry. Would you see a similar headline for Asia or Europe or North America? No! Had the victim died on any other continent, the headline likely would have specified a country. This may be due to the fact that CNN assumes its audience has no idea where Lesotho is. Whenever I see the media, or a campaign, dumbing things down to a level it anticipates its readers to be more comfortable with, I feel offended. Expect us to know where Lesotho is, and we will learn. Expect us to understand the complexity of your policies and we will. Expect us to vote because it is our responsibility as Americans and we will vote. Stop treating Americans like we are only as good as our worst tendencies.
I hope that the One Nation rally is a success. I hope that the midterms are somewhat less of a tragedy than expected. Most of all, I hope you find a way to speak to the American people the way you used to. It's the only way you'll ever inspire the kind of support you'll need to win re-election.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, August 27, 2010
Day 239- Comfort reading and baiting Glenn Beck fans
Dear Mr. President,
My friend and coworker wrote a short piece on the reliable pleasure of reading Kurt Vonnegut for our bookstore's blog. Comfort reading, returning to a familiar author for the needed reminder of why I read, is something I often find myself in need of. His post recalled my own affection for Vonnegut, and my sadness at his passing. Vonnegut's writing shaped the way that many of my generation approached the world; his humanism and his compassion are certainly things that I strive to emulate in my own life. As Jon Stewart told him once, he made adolescence bearable. Thinking about him today I couldn't help but wonder how he would feel about our country as it is now. How disappointed he might be with us, and how much easier and more absurd the horrible things would all seem if he were still here to comment on them.
If comfort reading is how I escape temporary frustrations with the written word, than I certainly spent my morning occupied with its political equivalent. Sometimes, when the political world gets too frustrating, too disgusting or too bleak, I turn to the familiar comfort and reliable entertainment of baiting Glenn Beck fans. It isn't a nice thing to do, I suppose, and probably not enough of an intellectual exercise to even make it good practice for real debate, but I feel like I'm allowed a certain amount of pleasure on what is definitely one of the toughest days I've had in a while. And so, when confronted with the question "how is Glenn Beck a racist?" by one of his groupies, I felt compelled to answer.
I think what comforts me about arguing with Beck's ilk is that it offers a clear opportunity to articulate my opinions and positions to a clear opponent. Beck's divisive, bigoted and ignorant rants are exactly the sort of thing I stand in opposition to. They are an affront to my values, a poison to our political discourse and one of the last havens for the idea that Real America is the birthright of the white, english-speaking, Judeo-Christian middle class. And, despite all of this, I still believe Beck has every right to say the hateful and stupid things that he says (even, unfortunately, in the historical shadow of much better men.) This feeling is a comforting reminder that I have not lost all perspective for the sake of my partisan beliefs. That I still see the struggle between Right and Left in ideological and not apocalyptic terms. In short, as petty as it may seem, I am merely reassuring myself that for all the comfort of a clearly identified opponent, I have not yet sunk to his level. That Mr. Vonnegut taught me well, and his lessons have not been drown out by my impassioned, emotional reactions.
So much of my time discussing politics feels like war. Two (or more) sides stubbornly entrenched and unwilling to even consider their opposition to be human. Willfully entering a fight like this, just to remind myself that it can be fun, keeps me from sinking into the combative mentality too deeply. Maybe that's unforgivably smug and self-satisfied. I think, so long as Mr. Beck enjoys the right to keep spewing his nonsense, I will enjoy my right to challenge those who are buying into it.
I hope that tomorrow doesn't devolve into something really awful, that Mr. Beck and his supporters remember the great men who stood in that place before them and act accordingly. If not, well, as Mr. Vonnegut said, so it goes.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
My friend and coworker wrote a short piece on the reliable pleasure of reading Kurt Vonnegut for our bookstore's blog. Comfort reading, returning to a familiar author for the needed reminder of why I read, is something I often find myself in need of. His post recalled my own affection for Vonnegut, and my sadness at his passing. Vonnegut's writing shaped the way that many of my generation approached the world; his humanism and his compassion are certainly things that I strive to emulate in my own life. As Jon Stewart told him once, he made adolescence bearable. Thinking about him today I couldn't help but wonder how he would feel about our country as it is now. How disappointed he might be with us, and how much easier and more absurd the horrible things would all seem if he were still here to comment on them.
If comfort reading is how I escape temporary frustrations with the written word, than I certainly spent my morning occupied with its political equivalent. Sometimes, when the political world gets too frustrating, too disgusting or too bleak, I turn to the familiar comfort and reliable entertainment of baiting Glenn Beck fans. It isn't a nice thing to do, I suppose, and probably not enough of an intellectual exercise to even make it good practice for real debate, but I feel like I'm allowed a certain amount of pleasure on what is definitely one of the toughest days I've had in a while. And so, when confronted with the question "how is Glenn Beck a racist?" by one of his groupies, I felt compelled to answer.
I think what comforts me about arguing with Beck's ilk is that it offers a clear opportunity to articulate my opinions and positions to a clear opponent. Beck's divisive, bigoted and ignorant rants are exactly the sort of thing I stand in opposition to. They are an affront to my values, a poison to our political discourse and one of the last havens for the idea that Real America is the birthright of the white, english-speaking, Judeo-Christian middle class. And, despite all of this, I still believe Beck has every right to say the hateful and stupid things that he says (even, unfortunately, in the historical shadow of much better men.) This feeling is a comforting reminder that I have not lost all perspective for the sake of my partisan beliefs. That I still see the struggle between Right and Left in ideological and not apocalyptic terms. In short, as petty as it may seem, I am merely reassuring myself that for all the comfort of a clearly identified opponent, I have not yet sunk to his level. That Mr. Vonnegut taught me well, and his lessons have not been drown out by my impassioned, emotional reactions.
So much of my time discussing politics feels like war. Two (or more) sides stubbornly entrenched and unwilling to even consider their opposition to be human. Willfully entering a fight like this, just to remind myself that it can be fun, keeps me from sinking into the combative mentality too deeply. Maybe that's unforgivably smug and self-satisfied. I think, so long as Mr. Beck enjoys the right to keep spewing his nonsense, I will enjoy my right to challenge those who are buying into it.
I hope that tomorrow doesn't devolve into something really awful, that Mr. Beck and his supporters remember the great men who stood in that place before them and act accordingly. If not, well, as Mr. Vonnegut said, so it goes.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Day 238- Talk
Dear Mr. President,
I talk too much. Ask any one who knows me. I talk out loud, I talk online, I talk in writing. I speak when I should be silent. I process things out loud in conversations with others. Even when there are no answers, even when I have no better option besides wait and see what happens, I will keep talking about things just to keep myself calm. What I mean to say is that in general I am a fan of talking. When it comes to countries talking, especially when talk is substituted for violence or oppression, I'm almost always going to think it's a good idea. I do think that direct talks between Israel and Palestine are necessary and that the steps taken by your administration recently are at least well-intentioned.
Still, I have to say that today's Op-ed from former ambassador Martin Indyk is way off of the mark. His forced optimism about upcoming negotiations is painfully evident in his biased and poorly reasoned argument. He cites as a reason for optimism the low number of Israeli deaths due to terrorism in the last two years, (eight), but neglects to mention the number of Palestinians killed at the hands of Israelis in the same time period, (1,497.) I can see why this information wouldn't fit into his roses and sunshine picture, but that he doesn't even mention the recent decrease in Palestinian deaths (which are down to about 100 since the end of Operation Cast Lead) as a factor is telling that he doesn't consider them to be as significant as the Israeli deaths. Indyk also declares "The demolition of Palestinian houses there is also down compared with recent years." without any supporting evidence or statistics to place such a statement in context. In 2010 about 232 homes have been demolished so far, though that number does not include the four Al-Araqib demolitions. (In case there is any confusion I don't mean 4 houses, I mean the entire Bedouin village has been demolished 4 times.) While that is a significant decrease from the more than 5,000 demolitions in 2009, I think the number is still large enough to make Mr. Indyk's readers uncomfortable with citing it as a hopeful indicator.
I don't want to sound this cynical, and I do hope that these talks find success, however unlikely it may seem. Talking to one another is the best option for all parties. Until the true power dynamics are discussed plainly, however, I fear these talks will be all for show. I think true indicators for optimism would be an end (not just a superficial easing) to the blockade of Gaza, withdrawal of the illegal settlements in Hebron and throughout the West Bank, and anything resembling a workable solution for the long-suffering populations of refugees still living in camps. Those would give me hope that talk might lead to peace. Instead, I think that this is all an elaborate performance designed to boost confidence in your administration's foreign policy and to allay Israeli concerns at their waning American support. I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that this time talk leads to actual change, but I've yet to see any signs to inspire real optimism.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I talk too much. Ask any one who knows me. I talk out loud, I talk online, I talk in writing. I speak when I should be silent. I process things out loud in conversations with others. Even when there are no answers, even when I have no better option besides wait and see what happens, I will keep talking about things just to keep myself calm. What I mean to say is that in general I am a fan of talking. When it comes to countries talking, especially when talk is substituted for violence or oppression, I'm almost always going to think it's a good idea. I do think that direct talks between Israel and Palestine are necessary and that the steps taken by your administration recently are at least well-intentioned.
Still, I have to say that today's Op-ed from former ambassador Martin Indyk is way off of the mark. His forced optimism about upcoming negotiations is painfully evident in his biased and poorly reasoned argument. He cites as a reason for optimism the low number of Israeli deaths due to terrorism in the last two years, (eight), but neglects to mention the number of Palestinians killed at the hands of Israelis in the same time period, (1,497.) I can see why this information wouldn't fit into his roses and sunshine picture, but that he doesn't even mention the recent decrease in Palestinian deaths (which are down to about 100 since the end of Operation Cast Lead) as a factor is telling that he doesn't consider them to be as significant as the Israeli deaths. Indyk also declares "The demolition of Palestinian houses there is also down compared with recent years." without any supporting evidence or statistics to place such a statement in context. In 2010 about 232 homes have been demolished so far, though that number does not include the four Al-Araqib demolitions. (In case there is any confusion I don't mean 4 houses, I mean the entire Bedouin village has been demolished 4 times.) While that is a significant decrease from the more than 5,000 demolitions in 2009, I think the number is still large enough to make Mr. Indyk's readers uncomfortable with citing it as a hopeful indicator.
I don't want to sound this cynical, and I do hope that these talks find success, however unlikely it may seem. Talking to one another is the best option for all parties. Until the true power dynamics are discussed plainly, however, I fear these talks will be all for show. I think true indicators for optimism would be an end (not just a superficial easing) to the blockade of Gaza, withdrawal of the illegal settlements in Hebron and throughout the West Bank, and anything resembling a workable solution for the long-suffering populations of refugees still living in camps. Those would give me hope that talk might lead to peace. Instead, I think that this is all an elaborate performance designed to boost confidence in your administration's foreign policy and to allay Israeli concerns at their waning American support. I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that this time talk leads to actual change, but I've yet to see any signs to inspire real optimism.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Day 236- An Experiment (part 2)
Dear Mr. President,
Today I spent 5 hours standing on the corner of 4th and Pine in downtown, with a sign encouraging people to support Park 51. I had fun. I met a number of interesting people. I heard more 9/11 conspiracy theories than I previously knew existed. One woman suggested I breathe in Christ and stop worshipping Satan. A couple of people got angry enough to curse me out for what my sign said. Part of my message was for you; it said "Dear Mr. President, don't back down!" This got some surprising responses. One woman told me she was happy to see that I still had faith in you. One man said he didn't think you had the strength to stand up to the right. Mostly people just smiled and said "thank you."
I'm not sure that I changed any minds. The ones who wanted to argue usually didn't stop to talk things over. A few people weren't aware of the controversy and listened to me patiently. But I think it would be disingenuous to say that I was out there for them. What made the day great were all of the people who already agreed with me. As strangers, we keep our politics secret, we rarely recognize these important beliefs and values in others. Having it out in public for any one to see means that for 5 hours today I, and those people who saw their own views in what I was saying, felt connected. Even in a country controlled by Democrats, liberals don't always feel like we're part of a larger group. The taking heads on TV, the values proclaimed by many politicians, even the constraints of polite conversation often make it seem like we're the outsiders. I finally get the purpose of these demonstrations- it isn't to change minds, it's to let our allies know that they do not stand alone.
Besides dramatically increasing my chances of getting skin cancer, I don't think I did any one any harm. If I made any one's day just a little bit better, that's great, but I'm certainly convinced this did a world of good for me. I wasn't hiding behind my computer screen, I wasn't shying away from the ones who got angry or from their arguments. I felt confident in what I believe and what I was standing for. Several people suggested that I needed to be part of a group or organization, but I think that I work best when I don't have to worry about representing any one but myself.
Anyway, Mr. President, the only thing I can offer you today is the same boost I got from every shy smile, every thumbs up and high five, every thank you and every stranger who said keep it up, sister. That small promise that however hard the work has become, you don't do it alone, and you don't do it in vain.
So thank you, Mr. President. Keep up the good work. I think that you're brave, and I'm glad that you're doing so much for this country. It makes me hopeful. I don't always agree with you, but I hope you know you're not alone.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
.jpg)
Today I spent 5 hours standing on the corner of 4th and Pine in downtown, with a sign encouraging people to support Park 51. I had fun. I met a number of interesting people. I heard more 9/11 conspiracy theories than I previously knew existed. One woman suggested I breathe in Christ and stop worshipping Satan. A couple of people got angry enough to curse me out for what my sign said. Part of my message was for you; it said "Dear Mr. President, don't back down!" This got some surprising responses. One woman told me she was happy to see that I still had faith in you. One man said he didn't think you had the strength to stand up to the right. Mostly people just smiled and said "thank you."
I'm not sure that I changed any minds. The ones who wanted to argue usually didn't stop to talk things over. A few people weren't aware of the controversy and listened to me patiently. But I think it would be disingenuous to say that I was out there for them. What made the day great were all of the people who already agreed with me. As strangers, we keep our politics secret, we rarely recognize these important beliefs and values in others. Having it out in public for any one to see means that for 5 hours today I, and those people who saw their own views in what I was saying, felt connected. Even in a country controlled by Democrats, liberals don't always feel like we're part of a larger group. The taking heads on TV, the values proclaimed by many politicians, even the constraints of polite conversation often make it seem like we're the outsiders. I finally get the purpose of these demonstrations- it isn't to change minds, it's to let our allies know that they do not stand alone.
Besides dramatically increasing my chances of getting skin cancer, I don't think I did any one any harm. If I made any one's day just a little bit better, that's great, but I'm certainly convinced this did a world of good for me. I wasn't hiding behind my computer screen, I wasn't shying away from the ones who got angry or from their arguments. I felt confident in what I believe and what I was standing for. Several people suggested that I needed to be part of a group or organization, but I think that I work best when I don't have to worry about representing any one but myself.
Anyway, Mr. President, the only thing I can offer you today is the same boost I got from every shy smile, every thumbs up and high five, every thank you and every stranger who said keep it up, sister. That small promise that however hard the work has become, you don't do it alone, and you don't do it in vain.
So thank you, Mr. President. Keep up the good work. I think that you're brave, and I'm glad that you're doing so much for this country. It makes me hopeful. I don't always agree with you, but I hope you know you're not alone.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
.jpg)
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Day 234- An experiment
Hey Seattlites-if you want to see me on Tuesday (8/24) I'm planning on being at Westlake park from whenever I wake up until about 3pm. Come say hi. Don't be surprised if I'm sunburnt and cranky.
Dear Mr. President,
Feeling strongly about an issue or cause will often prompt me to talk or to write about it. I'll sign petitions, write letters to the editor, or (as you've probably noticed) contact elected officials. This is usually the extent of my political activism. When I worked downtown, I often noticed the park across the street from my bookstore full of protestors. They demonstrated in support of, or in opposition to health care, immigration rights, marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, War, the WTO, police brutality, and the economic practices of the federal government or the state of Washington. A few just wanted to let people know that the end times are near and that we should probably repent all of our sins. On one notable occasion, people gathered to show their support for Conan O'Brien. Anyway, I almost always ignored or rolled my eyes at these groups, even the ones I agree with. It just seemed so silly to stand outside all day with little hope of accomplishing anything tangible.
Lately I've been questioning my own lack of tangible accomplishments, feeling like maybe I hide behind my computer screen too much. Sure, I'm brave when it comes to typing really, really angrily, but am I willing to stand up, to show my face, and to physically demonstrate my support for an issue? I honestly don't know. To that end, I'm going to attempt an experiment. In two days, the demonstrators downtown will be getting some company. Tomorrow I'll be making a sign, and maybe some fliers to hand out in explanation of what I'm doing, and Tuesday I'll be out on the street to show my support for Park 51. I've picked this issue in response to the widespread demonstrations against Park 51 and mosques across the country, and because of the disturbing opinion polls that indicate many Americans are actually being persuaded by the right's manipulative rhetoric against Park 51 and its supporters. Religious freedom is an essential American value and I think that even non-New Yorkers need to demonstrate our support for the rights of this organization, if only to counteract the shrill and hateful words of the other side. People in this country and around the world need to know that Americans stand for religious freedom for every one.
Maybe I won't change any minds. Maybe I'll leave Tuesday feeling like I was right about all those other protestors and the futility of their methods. I think I at least need to experience it for myself before I judge others, before I feel confident claiming that my own relatively anonymous attempts at contributing to the political discourse are good enough. If I can't stand up and look people in the eye while I express my beliefs, I probably need to consider how courageous my convictions really are. I know I'm constantly harping on you to have more political courage, to be honest and say things that people don't want to hear; consider this my attempt to practice just a little of what I've been preaching.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
Feeling strongly about an issue or cause will often prompt me to talk or to write about it. I'll sign petitions, write letters to the editor, or (as you've probably noticed) contact elected officials. This is usually the extent of my political activism. When I worked downtown, I often noticed the park across the street from my bookstore full of protestors. They demonstrated in support of, or in opposition to health care, immigration rights, marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, War, the WTO, police brutality, and the economic practices of the federal government or the state of Washington. A few just wanted to let people know that the end times are near and that we should probably repent all of our sins. On one notable occasion, people gathered to show their support for Conan O'Brien. Anyway, I almost always ignored or rolled my eyes at these groups, even the ones I agree with. It just seemed so silly to stand outside all day with little hope of accomplishing anything tangible.
Lately I've been questioning my own lack of tangible accomplishments, feeling like maybe I hide behind my computer screen too much. Sure, I'm brave when it comes to typing really, really angrily, but am I willing to stand up, to show my face, and to physically demonstrate my support for an issue? I honestly don't know. To that end, I'm going to attempt an experiment. In two days, the demonstrators downtown will be getting some company. Tomorrow I'll be making a sign, and maybe some fliers to hand out in explanation of what I'm doing, and Tuesday I'll be out on the street to show my support for Park 51. I've picked this issue in response to the widespread demonstrations against Park 51 and mosques across the country, and because of the disturbing opinion polls that indicate many Americans are actually being persuaded by the right's manipulative rhetoric against Park 51 and its supporters. Religious freedom is an essential American value and I think that even non-New Yorkers need to demonstrate our support for the rights of this organization, if only to counteract the shrill and hateful words of the other side. People in this country and around the world need to know that Americans stand for religious freedom for every one.
Maybe I won't change any minds. Maybe I'll leave Tuesday feeling like I was right about all those other protestors and the futility of their methods. I think I at least need to experience it for myself before I judge others, before I feel confident claiming that my own relatively anonymous attempts at contributing to the political discourse are good enough. If I can't stand up and look people in the eye while I express my beliefs, I probably need to consider how courageous my convictions really are. I know I'm constantly harping on you to have more political courage, to be honest and say things that people don't want to hear; consider this my attempt to practice just a little of what I've been preaching.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
