Dear Mr. President,
Cults make me uncomfortable. I choke on the corporatespeak they feed us at work. I can't stomach the suspension of disbelief required for organized religion. I'm a skeptical person by nature and I can't shut off the part of me that constantly questions what I am told. I do not often fit in with ideologies, isms or cults of personality. And yet, I drink the Hope Koolaid better than almost any one I know.
It's not that I think you're always right; it's not that I think you always make the best choices or even act with the best of intentions. You're really my last hope, these days. I can't give up, believe the system to be hopelessly corrupt and refuse to participate; that would hand my power as a citizen over to some one else. I can't, honestly, envision a viable third party candidate, especially one who is more representative of my beliefs than you are. I have to believe in your wisdom and in your goodness, because if you're not the person best able to steer our nation right now, I'm at a loss for who the alternative would be.
This is not to say that my support for you is out of a lack of other options. Maybe it's just as irrational and just as naive as any other kind of faith, but it is more than blind loyalty. I do have issues with your policies and some of your beliefs, but I think, even among the Democrats, you're the person I respect the most because of the way you approach problems. I have a tremendous amount of faith in the people of this country; in my generation and the force of demographics to, slowly, move us closer to a fairer, freer and more just nation; I also know I can't change anything acting by myself. I believe that the change you promised us will come, probably long after you've left office, but we have to keep working toward it, more slowly than any one will find acceptable.
I am subject to the system, as are you. The difference, I think, is that I have the capacity to shift it very little, while you seem to have accepted too much of the status quo as inevitable, without consideration of your own, considerably greater, power to change it. You don't have to accept things as they've always been; be it the wars you inherited, the legacy of American imperialism, our backwards and bigoted social policies or the same old blue dog incumbents in the Democratic party. Your campaign empowered so many of the disenfranchised of this nation; it isn't hubris to reject the trappings of the system that disenfranchised them in the first place. The 17 months of your presidency have seen no shortage of missed opportunities to bring about the kind of change you asked us all to hope for; but I'm raising a glass, and keeping the faith, for the two and half years you've got left.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label cults. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cults. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Day 66- Oh no, I'm writing about the Oscars
Dear Mr. President,
I started watching the Academy Awards tonight, but had made other plans in the evening, and decided not to watch the second half. I hear that Hurt Locker beat out Avatar for best picture. I doubt you've seen either movie, but if you have, I hope you'd agree that this was a good call. One movie suggests the audience contemplate, even question their emotional response to the story, the other manipulates and demands certain emotions from its views.
I think what upset me most about Avatar was the false sense of sympathy it would generate in many fans. Of course, the way the story is told, the Innocent Blue Natives must be the sympathetic characters. The audience would see them, like them, and cheer for them in the Epic Battle scene at the end. But then, as the credits rolled and the lights came on, the audience files out, goes about their daily lives, living, as too many of us do, without concern for the consumptive, greedy, materialistic existences we unconsciously lead, or how they affect the rest of the world. I'll admit the ignorant American stereotype is not a fair one, but every year there seems to be one blockbuster extolling the damages of our lifestyles to the rest of the world and to ourselves, and every year we seem happy to pay $8 to ignore the message being spelled out for us.
I do think Americans live in a way that is damaging to the developing world. We ignore the struggles of our own dwindling native population, minimize the crimes committed against them in the early days of our nation, and continue to ignore, condone or even support the oppression and extermination of other native populations by imperial projects around the world. And then we watch multi-million dollar movies about how wrong this is. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
What frustrates me more is that I don't know the answer. I don't know how we could make up for our past crimes, or how we can live better now, or how we can avoid them in the future. It isn't enough to be angry about it, it isn't enough to feel guilty about it, it isn't even enough to write a letter to the President about it. We've got to have a plan.
Tonight I had drinks with a friend, who told me that all white Americans suffer from the same combination of power and privilege. She contends that it makes all of us, to varying degrees, racist, and that the only thing we can do is make a conscious effort to work against the programming. I agree with this, but how responsible are we as individuals to convince others to fight this programming, as well? I suppose this struggle is the same one that religious people go through all the time. I think I know the right way to live, and I can try to do that every day, try to make the right choices and think the right thoughts and work to ensure that my life doesn't come at the expense of others. But I'm only one person. Should I then be attempting to convert others to my way of thinking? I think this is why I'm so bad at religion. I have beliefs, and I'm pretty confident in them, but I'll never be sure enough that I'd want to proselytize others.
This is why cultural phenomena like Avatar are so frustrating; even if this particular film's anti-imperialist message is close to my own political views, its simplification of things, its forcing this nuanced and complex idea into a palatable and didactic doctrine, does not ask its audience to think. We're losing our critical thinking skills, and accepting what we are told, what is forced upon us, because it is simpler and easier and more convenient. I'd like to think, at the end of the day, that is is more important to engage with an issue, to try and understand it from as many perspectives as possible, than to come up with an answer or a conclusion about it.
Anyway, I'm not entirely comfortable pontificating quite this much about an award show. What role, if any, does pop culture play in your own life? You have a healthy appreciation for Harry Potter and Jay-Z, so you can't be completely insulated from these trends, but I'd imagine your job prevents you from being exposed to much of it these days. Do you think that we place too much value on the entertainments that distract us from issues? Or do you think that some degree of escapism is necessary, even healthy?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I started watching the Academy Awards tonight, but had made other plans in the evening, and decided not to watch the second half. I hear that Hurt Locker beat out Avatar for best picture. I doubt you've seen either movie, but if you have, I hope you'd agree that this was a good call. One movie suggests the audience contemplate, even question their emotional response to the story, the other manipulates and demands certain emotions from its views.
I think what upset me most about Avatar was the false sense of sympathy it would generate in many fans. Of course, the way the story is told, the Innocent Blue Natives must be the sympathetic characters. The audience would see them, like them, and cheer for them in the Epic Battle scene at the end. But then, as the credits rolled and the lights came on, the audience files out, goes about their daily lives, living, as too many of us do, without concern for the consumptive, greedy, materialistic existences we unconsciously lead, or how they affect the rest of the world. I'll admit the ignorant American stereotype is not a fair one, but every year there seems to be one blockbuster extolling the damages of our lifestyles to the rest of the world and to ourselves, and every year we seem happy to pay $8 to ignore the message being spelled out for us.
I do think Americans live in a way that is damaging to the developing world. We ignore the struggles of our own dwindling native population, minimize the crimes committed against them in the early days of our nation, and continue to ignore, condone or even support the oppression and extermination of other native populations by imperial projects around the world. And then we watch multi-million dollar movies about how wrong this is. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
What frustrates me more is that I don't know the answer. I don't know how we could make up for our past crimes, or how we can live better now, or how we can avoid them in the future. It isn't enough to be angry about it, it isn't enough to feel guilty about it, it isn't even enough to write a letter to the President about it. We've got to have a plan.
Tonight I had drinks with a friend, who told me that all white Americans suffer from the same combination of power and privilege. She contends that it makes all of us, to varying degrees, racist, and that the only thing we can do is make a conscious effort to work against the programming. I agree with this, but how responsible are we as individuals to convince others to fight this programming, as well? I suppose this struggle is the same one that religious people go through all the time. I think I know the right way to live, and I can try to do that every day, try to make the right choices and think the right thoughts and work to ensure that my life doesn't come at the expense of others. But I'm only one person. Should I then be attempting to convert others to my way of thinking? I think this is why I'm so bad at religion. I have beliefs, and I'm pretty confident in them, but I'll never be sure enough that I'd want to proselytize others.
This is why cultural phenomena like Avatar are so frustrating; even if this particular film's anti-imperialist message is close to my own political views, its simplification of things, its forcing this nuanced and complex idea into a palatable and didactic doctrine, does not ask its audience to think. We're losing our critical thinking skills, and accepting what we are told, what is forced upon us, because it is simpler and easier and more convenient. I'd like to think, at the end of the day, that is is more important to engage with an issue, to try and understand it from as many perspectives as possible, than to come up with an answer or a conclusion about it.
Anyway, I'm not entirely comfortable pontificating quite this much about an award show. What role, if any, does pop culture play in your own life? You have a healthy appreciation for Harry Potter and Jay-Z, so you can't be completely insulated from these trends, but I'd imagine your job prevents you from being exposed to much of it these days. Do you think that we place too much value on the entertainments that distract us from issues? Or do you think that some degree of escapism is necessary, even healthy?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Day 47
Dear Mr. President,
*insert poorly-reasoned joke about global warming here* Thomas Friedman writes in today's NY times about the disappointing lack of understanding, and the inevitable bad jokes that result, with regards to the nature of climate change. Friedman proposes that the experts release "a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes." While former Vice-President Gore has gone a long way towards making climate change data simple and accessible to the larger public, he is too contentious a political figure to ever convince the people who don't already agree with him. Friedman may be on to a reasonable alternative.
You've made clean energy a clear priority for your administration. The concessions you've made with regards to nuclear energy, which I personally find concerning, should be enough for those still drinking the Lyndon LaRouche kool-aid to take down the pictures of you with a Hitler mustache. Nuclear energy, like some areas of foreign policy, is an area where I am willing to defer my judgment to your own, if only because I have faith in your administration's superior access to experts and information. That being said, I know that nuclear energy has its limitations, and I hope that your administration continues to push for the safer, more sustainable sources of energy.
Sadly, until then, you, Thomas Friedman and the rest of us who recognize that the decades of research backing up climate change will not be undone by one snowstorm, will probably have to put up with a number of jokes, tweets, and other self-congratulation from climate change-deniers. I think that it would ultimately be in our interest if something like the report Mr. Friedman proposes were funded and published in a thoroughly non-partisan way. As much as I'd like to pretend the deniers are irrelevant, we're still Democrats, and persuading those who disagree with us, rather than just legislating around them, is really more our style.
Anyway, enjoy the "snow-ver kill" or whatever they're calling it these days.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
*insert poorly-reasoned joke about global warming here* Thomas Friedman writes in today's NY times about the disappointing lack of understanding, and the inevitable bad jokes that result, with regards to the nature of climate change. Friedman proposes that the experts release "a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes." While former Vice-President Gore has gone a long way towards making climate change data simple and accessible to the larger public, he is too contentious a political figure to ever convince the people who don't already agree with him. Friedman may be on to a reasonable alternative.
You've made clean energy a clear priority for your administration. The concessions you've made with regards to nuclear energy, which I personally find concerning, should be enough for those still drinking the Lyndon LaRouche kool-aid to take down the pictures of you with a Hitler mustache. Nuclear energy, like some areas of foreign policy, is an area where I am willing to defer my judgment to your own, if only because I have faith in your administration's superior access to experts and information. That being said, I know that nuclear energy has its limitations, and I hope that your administration continues to push for the safer, more sustainable sources of energy.
Sadly, until then, you, Thomas Friedman and the rest of us who recognize that the decades of research backing up climate change will not be undone by one snowstorm, will probably have to put up with a number of jokes, tweets, and other self-congratulation from climate change-deniers. I think that it would ultimately be in our interest if something like the report Mr. Friedman proposes were funded and published in a thoroughly non-partisan way. As much as I'd like to pretend the deniers are irrelevant, we're still Democrats, and persuading those who disagree with us, rather than just legislating around them, is really more our style.
Anyway, enjoy the "snow-ver kill" or whatever they're calling it these days.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
