Day 228- Net Neutrality, or how I wax poetic about the Internet

For those who don't read my facebook and want a good laugh check out these comments from yesterday and Day 205. I'm gettin' schooled by a "real American"




OFA seems really concerned that I might not vote. For the record, even if I think this pledge is absurd, I encourage all of my readers to vote in every election, and I will be voting in 2010. If only OFA could provide some decently progressive candidates for me to vote for....


Dear Mr. President,

The amount of information we put out about ourselves on the internet makes it possible to feel like the people online might actually understand who we are. I often make the mistake of forgetting how easily I can be misunderstood, or how easily I can be found by those I would rather not find me. What we post on the internet feels anonymous, even as we risk exposure we cannot control. Angry, thoughtless words, outrageous opinions, even revealing photos all sent out for public consumption, haunting us when we least expect it. I believe these risks are the price I pay for whatever small role I play in the great abyss of the online community. For my connection to that unimaginably immense world. As your campaign continues to demonstrate, the internet can also be a powerful tool to organize, to bring people together. It's ability to empower individuals even when they are isolated physically to connect with others, to teach and learn from one another, has forever altered the way we approach the world.

Whatever the internet is or represents, its neutrality should not be threatened. The internet should not be governed by corporations, access should not be dictated by money or influence. Defending net neutrality was an important promise of your campaign and one you cannot afford to break. Congressman Jay Inslee has come out strongly in defense of net neutrality while discussing the recent Google/Verizon deal:

Google and Verizon are businesses trying to make a buck -- I guess that's their job. But it's now time members of Congress stand with me and tell the FCC to do its job.

Mr. Inslee is right- private companies have to tend to their profits, not to the interests of the people. The internet is too personal to be manipulated this way. This is a topic that has been explored far more eloquently by several (better-informed) writers than myself, and I hope that you are paying attention to them, and to laymen like me who just want to add our voices to the demand that our access continue without manipulation. As I'm sure you know, this isn't just the right thing to do; a grassroots group like Organizing for America couldn't capitalize on the power of individuals connecting and organizing online if corporations are allowed to bid for the best access to that power. Net neutrality is essential to a modern and free America- and I'm sure you know that re-election in 2012 will not be possible for you without it.

The internet is complex and challenging and maybe the most important technology of our time. Whatever it is, and whatever it will be, its power and beauty is a direct reflection of humanity's diverse and complicated nature, the unique strength, talent and genius that every person has to contribute. Keeping access to innovation and information free and equal is essential to keeping all of us free and equal. I have almost lost hope that we can wrest even this small part of our lives away from complete corporate exploitation; that money and power can't control the truth. If we trade away this freedom piece by piece to the highest bidder we will never get it back. We elected you to make sure this doesn't happen, and I hope that you don't let us down.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 144- Green, Pink and (Red)

Dear Mr. President,

Twice in the last two days I've encountered the term "greenwashing," a concept with which I was previously unfamiliar. Greenwashing, the practice of a company promoting false or exaggerated environmental claims in order to increase profits, can also be applied to other causes exploited for corporate game; KFC has recently been accused of pinkwashing, while (Red)washing charges have been leveled at Gap and Apple. My own employer is often accused of such practices, which is the context in which I first learned this term.

I'm struggling with this. I don't like the idea of exploiting consumer idealism for profit; my last employer did this on a regular basis, on a much smaller scale. We'd often be told to organize book drives for local charities, in order to increase the number of books (or toys) our customers purchased. However, we would not accept donations that customers brought in or purchased elsewhere. Every time I'd head complaints about this, however, I'd have to ask, do the children receiving these donations care if the company sending them had ulterior motives? Also, a struggling company is always going to try to convince customers to spend more; if they can't appeal to anything but a customer's charitable instincts, doesn't that do more good than finding a way to convince them to spend more on themselves?

When it comes to campaigns like product (Red), detractors claim that marketing the trendiness or sex appeal of social causes does more to increase the profits for the corporations, than it does for the charities they partner with. This criticism seems foolish; Bono's entire pitch for corporations participating in (Red) is based on the idea that participating in the fight against AIDS can help businesses. If these companies aren't donating enough of their profits for the satisfaction of some critics, boycotting these products isn't likely to encourage them to donate more. I think that any money generated by such campaigns is better than no money at all; it's impossible to gauge how much awareness this creates, as well. Will a consumer who has spent a little more for a product that donates to a social cause feel that they've done enough, and stop donating, or feel good, and donate more in order to continue feeling good? What is the harm in encouraging our consumption to be directed in ways that are, even marginally, mitigating to the damage our way of life does to the earth and the developing world?

Of course, there are other examples of harmful practices that are cloaked in claims of corporate responsibility. KFC's partnership to help breast cancer research, for example, encourages behavior that probably leads to breast cancer, (and is, inarguably, unhealthy.) BP's "Beyond Petroleum" ad campaign was deceitful, at best, even before the oil spill. And corporations aren't the only ones guilty of this; Israel's 60-year anniversary spawned an ad campaign to encourage tourism with the unconscionably insensitive slogan "No one belongs here more than you." When advertising is so disingenuous that it actively encourages purchases or behavior that is outright harmful to the buyer or to others, especially when it is done in the name of charity, conservation or any good cause, I think it crosses the line.

What would you say, Mr. President? Would you rather Americans bought fair-trade, shade-grown coffee from Starbucks and product (red) shirts from Gap, or that we saved our money, purchased less, and donated to these causes directly? Do we have to bring down corporations for their harmful practices, or pressure them, through our spending, to change their ways? Is a good deed less "good" if it is done for selfish reasons?

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 102- Faith in the voters

Dear Mr. President,

The rumors of the campaign finance reform legislation soon to be proposed by congressional Democrats seem like the first good news since the Supreme court decision earlier this year. This push for greater transparency in the way donations are disclosed puts the responsibility for real reform to the voters. If we can't regulate the way donations are given, at least we can ensure that voters know who, exactly, is funding candidates and parties. Despite the cynical thoughts that tell me otherwise, I have to believe that voters can recognize corruption and will act to correct it.

Passing this legislation must be about more than putting Democrats on the popular side of a national issue before the election. There just isn't a way to ever completely prevent corporations and organizations from wielding greater power and influence over elected officials; our best hope is to expose such corruption to the voters and to hope they make the right choices. This is why any legislative battle must be coupled with significant and effective promotion of the issue to the public.

I know it is a common and unfair stereotype that Democrats do a poor job of communicating or selling our issues to the American people, but the health care debate demonstrated we certainly have a great deal of room for improvement. I think, if we are going to have any chance at staunching the flow of corporate campaign donations allowed by the Supreme Court's decision, we have to do a better job of uniting our members behind this issue and calling out the corrupt politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who compromise their integrity for the sake of the powerful interests funding their campaigns.

I hope that, with your leadership on this issue, congress is able to effectively demonstrate to the American public the necessity of this reform. Giving voters all the information they need to make informed choices at the ballot is all that the government can do to protect us from corruption; the rest has to be up to us.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 63- A great step into the unkown

Dear Mr. President,

I quit my job today. I'll be taking a position with another company, a company I respect. Still, I am heartbroken to be leaving behind my life as a bookseller, to say goodbye to so many of my friends and coworkers, and even my bosses, for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect. In many ways, I was too comfortable at my job, too content with what I had to push myself to achieve more.

In anticipation of the separation from my store, I signed up for a library card. The Seattle Library is a truly awe-inspiring building, rivaling the skyscrapers in grandeur, but open to all. Inside, I am reminded of the great things that government stands for, the collective good served by institutions like this one. I sit at a computer, surrounded by Seattlites of all ages, races and backgrounds. Some are looking for work. Some are learning. Some are just killing time. But we are united, in a small way, by this shared experience, this service we receive from our community.

I think libraries are a great example of how government programs can coexist with private industry. My bookstore will not go out of business or suffer because of competition from libraries. Many will continue to choose to pay for the ownership of clean, crisp new books, the day they are published. But for those who cannot afford to buy every book they would like to read, the government, recognizing that society is stronger when every one can access the stores of human knowledge, has provided an alternative.

I hope that I made the right choice today, Mr. President. I know you can offer me no assurance to that end. Facing the unknown consequences of our choices is the price we pay for the freedom to make them. I will enjoy my new job, but as I sit here, overcome with gratitude at my own good fortune and that such a place as this library exists, I know that I need to start giving back to the greater good. I'm making a commitment to you, in this letter, on day 63 of this year, to find a way to better serve my community, as well.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 41- Small businesses

Dear Mr. President,

I'm not an economist. I don't know how small businesses are defined, or how they affect the economy or anything like that. I don't know what taxes hurt them or which policies help them. Today, I went to the cafe down the street from my house, which is owned by 3 sisters. They've been open for a year, but they've been making coffee in Seattle since before I was born. They love their customers, good beer, and loud music. The cafe has a bar, a ping-pong table, and video games; it's a local haunt for university kids and a friendly space for LGBTQ gatherings. It's one of my favorite places to go. One of the owners and I got into a conversation about the difference between working for yourself, as she does, and working for a large corporation, like I do. My job might be considered "safer" than hers, or at least, I have much less to lose than she does, but we agreed that her interactions with people are more genuine and more meaningful because of the sense of community created by a small business.

I know small business are important to you, and I'm grateful for that. I may not work for one, but when I shop, I always try to shop local, or to support small business, when I can. My favorite coffee shops, my grocery store, the best restaurants and bars are all small, locally-owned institutions. They are a source of pride. I'm glad you're willing to advocate for small business, to defend these last vestiges of local color in a world increasingly smeared with strip malls full of the the same corporate logos. I know you'll do your part, legislatively. I think people need to be reminded of their own responsibility, their own power as consumers. If we don't want every one in our community to work at Wal-Mart, then we shouldn't shop there just because it's more convenient than making many stops. We must sometimes be willing to forgo the cold efficiency and lower costs of the corporate model.

As the cafe owner and I were talking, she began to talk about the obstacles faced by small business owners. Her greatest concern wasn't the government, it wasn't taxes, it wasn't even corporations. It was consumers. People who would rather have the consistency of corporate coffee served by clean-cut youth in collard shirts. She may have found her niche, may have enough customers who love the informality, the out-of-this-world espresso and the smart-mouthed bar tenders, but she knows she's one of the lucky ones. It is, once again, proof that the quest for the cheapest, most convenient things in life has a hidden cost, a toll taken on all who forgo complexity and contradiction for thoughtless repetition. Thank you for advocating for small businesses, Mr. President, and I hope that you keep reminding Americans how important they are.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 27

The post is a reflection of my own opinion and certainly does not represent an official statement on the behalf of my employer.

Dear Mr. President,

As eager as I am to listen to the State of the Union tonight, I can't help but be distracted by the looming rumors of layoffs at my work. Some news sources are reporting that up to 15% of employees will be laid off tomorrow. I'm on vacation this week, and likely won't know if this is true, who will be going, or if this is the end of it, until I return to work on Monday. I'm afraid for my job, I'm afraid for my coworkers' jobs, and I'm angry at our erstwhile CEO who earned millions driving our company to near-bankruptcy and has just left for a higher-paying job with another corporation.

This CEO may have felt he was doing his best to save our company. I don't pretend to know what went through his mind this year. I can say this; while dramatically increasing demands for performance, he cut hours, benefits and eliminated performance-based pay raises for employees. There are hard truths to be faced; some of what he did was necessary. Some employees needed to be pushed to work harder and deliver more concrete results. Some had to be let go. But some of his expectations, some of his decisions and investments were obviously, unforgivably, appallingly unwise. When this man visited my store, he humiliated a coworker of mine in front of other employees and customers. That was not necessary or helpful. The cuts in benefits and payroll may have helped in the short run, but drove away qualified employees and alienated customers. We, the underpaid working class with no safety net and often no insurance, we are the face of this company, the part of it that interacts with customers and the part that represents our brand to the world. How is demoralizing and downsizing us going to help anything?

The writing of this letter was just interrupted by a phone call. It was my coworker and roommate, who is, not for the first time since I've known her, being taken to the ER for an asthma attack. She has no insurance. Would regular preventative care and access to the medications that control asthma help her? I'm not a doctor, but common sense tells me that it would. I'm going to cut this letter short to go meet her, but, if you are reading this, sir, please spend a moment to think of my roommate, a 23-year old woman from Hawaii, who is in the emergency room today because she cannot breathe, and whose first concern now is how she will pay for her prescriptions to keep another attack at bay. I'm asking you to think of her, because I know our CEO won't be.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey