Day 358- Ancestry

Dear Mr. President,

Tonight my family had our Christmas celebration a bit early to accommodate our various work schedules. Around a non-traditional (and largely gluten-free, out of respect to my mother and sister's new dietary guidelines) assortment of gourmet foods we kept up the family tradition of being, to a man, loud and incredibly opinionated. Asher, my 2-year old nephew and the only child in our immediate family, seemed to sense that this day was mostly for his benefit, and ran around happily watching cartoons and playing with toys while the grown-ups mulled over boring assessments of roast chicken, maple-glazed squash, mushroom quinoa pilaf and scalloped corn. Gifts came after dinner (but long before the dishes) and we gushed over beautiful new sweaters, intriguing new books and appliances that had the adults even more excited even than Asher at the sight of his giant stuffed dragon.

Spoiled by generous siblings and our mother who never fails to make Christmas just as magical as it was when we were Asher's age, I got a poker chip heart;



Beautiful new scarves and shawls and sweaters:



The tools to marry my two great loves:



even my macbook got a little something:



but the most unexpected gift was a simple family tree from my older sister, and photos of ancestors I'd never even heard of before tonight.









The men and women in these photos are strangers to me. If there are traces of my own features in eyes or noses or cheeks I see no evidence of it. My ancestors came from Germany, Bohemia and England. They married and bore children and died in Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Some settled the west, some owned slaves, some arrived with the Puritans in Massachusetts. My sisters and I kept remarking in surprise at how shockingly American the whole story is. To know that these formally-attired, stiffly-posed subjects of photographs are connected to us is strange for me, especially in my urban tribe of familial bonds forged by forces stronger than blood. What significance, if any, do these lives have on my own? Staring at so much small-scale history makes me feel dizzy with the implications, so much more personal than the characters from my textbooks.

I hope that Christmases to come will feel this way, bright and warm and full to bursting with affection for the people near me. In a few generations, when my sisters, brothers and mother and I are all just tiny branches on some one else's family tree, I know they won't understand nights like this one. They won't know about the way we teased and laughed and talked too loudly as we passed around plates of food. They won't know that three cats and two dogs tread happily around our feet, or sulked angrily under beds. They won't know that my mother's Christmas tree had one string of lights in off-white instead of snow-white and why, exactly, that would bother her. They might see photos of me in my strange clothes and find nothing to connect them to me besides the sharing of some significant amount of genes. I think this gift, more than any of the others, reminded me to pay attention, to take in the details before they were lost in whatever next century's black and white photos will be. To look around at my family and feel connected to them, for all of our differences and for all of our faults. My ancestors' Christmas celebrations looked and sounded very different than my own and certainly meant something very different than this night means to our family now, but I hope that they felt a similarly overwhelmed by the love of those around them.

I hope that you have a good Christmas, Mr. President, and that even your job allows you a few hours of beautifully mundane moments like this to remind you of the sustaining love for and from your family.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 348- Secrets and Lies

Dear Mr. President,

I've never been a particularly good secret-keeper. My face gives away every emotion, every lie I try to tell. This might be why I've never had the stomach for any significant subterfuge. I've been another person's secret too many times and seen it end too badly for them and for me to have any illusion about the nobility of secrecy. If a decision cannot bear the scrutiny of others it is probably not a particularly good choice. Michael Moore recently posted bail for Julian Assange, and in his letter explaining his motivation for this decision he says

Openness, transparency — these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 — after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin — there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

Instead, secrets killed them.

I think that what you once called the "deficit of trust" Americans have in our leaders is brought about by these lies we've been told throughout history. Wikileaks is not the answer to this; a government that doesn't hide behind lies is the answer. Instead of joining the chorus of voices from the right and left calling Wikileaks a terrorist organization, I think that you should take this opportunity to change some of the behaviors you've been so embarrassed to have the rest of the world discover. I think an important (though, for obvious reasons, unsavory) step toward this is to relinquish some of the sweeping expansions made under President Bush to executive powers. Aspects of the PATRIOT ACT, the power to assassinate suspected terrorists without a trial, even the new standards for screening by the TSA all contribute to the sense that the government does not trust the people. It can hardly be a surprise, then, that the people have developed our own system for dealing with a similar mistrust for our leaders. Some one has to blink first. Demonstrating a commitment to responsible, trustworthy leadership is the only way the government can regain our trust.

A friend, while commenting on a previous letter about Wikileaks, pointed out

most of the people whining are old politicians. Our generation has already seen these document releases happen with corporate and personal communication. We have an entire generation (the boomers) that have relied on "security through obscurity", and that doesn't fly in the technological world. This is a rude wake-up call for them.

Perhaps the endearing anecdotes about your addiction to your Blackberry deceived me into thinking you'd be on our side of a generational conflict. Surely the age issue is as false a dichotomy as race or religion or any other of the teams we're told to fight for in life, but I think that my friend is right in identifying an old world view of security and the conflict between those who cling to it and those of us willing to view security in a modern light. Secrets and lies may have worked (at least for a little while) for previous administrations, the unprecedented level of individual access to information simply will not allow it to continue. Secrets and lies have created the current state of international affairs, the mistrust of Americans for actions our government has taken on our behalf and often without our knowledge.

Michael Moore and Julian Assange certainly have their share of faults. They also don't have the complicated, difficult job of running a country or trying to keep the free world safe. But the burdens of your position don't justify the lying and they don't justify defending a system that is based on mistrust of Americans. Even if you can't publicly defend Wikileaks or Assange, you can take steps to change the way our government keeps its secrets and the way it spies on the American people. We can't trust a government that doesn't trust us, and it's up to you to change that.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 268- BDS? Droid Does.

Dear Mr. President,

I got a smartphone because it seemed like a good idea at the time. After owning it for a few weeks, I realized that my already troubling addiction to the internet was getting completely out of hand. I still haven't figured out a reasonable balance, or summoned the self-restraint to limit my usage. Despite my mixed feelings about this technology, I had to smile when I saw the story of the Israeli bloggers against illegal settlements who developed an app to let consumers find out if their purchases come from West Bank settlements.

President Abbas has already warned Israel that the negotiations will fall apart without the continuation of the settlement freeze. These Israeli bloggers are acting responsibly to demonstrate their objection to these illegal settlements by changing the way they spend their money (and by helping others to do the same.) I think a theme of my political philosophy, almost surely lifted shamelessly from your own writing, is that the way we spend our money reflects our values as individuals and as a society. The BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) campaign against the Israeli occupation is an effective, non-violent strategy for expressing opposition to injustice. These same settlements are officially opposed by your administration. Economic sanctions have been used by the US to nonviolently oppose the human rights abuses of unjust regimes around the world. The US should officially adopt a policy making it illegal to import or purchase goods produced by Israeli West Bank settlements, or to provide material support to these settlements which are illegal under international law and a major roadblock to our stated foreign policy goal of a viable, sustainable peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

I was pretty reluctant to type that last sentence. Not because I don't believe it. Not because I don't think you already know it's the right thing to do. I think that if we are serious about our foreign policy goals we ought to write laws and spend our money in a way that reflects this. My reluctance comes from my general preference to leave that choice up to the consumer. I don't enjoy being told where I can and cannot spend my own money, and it isn't something I'd want to impose upon another person, no matter how convinced I am of the necessity of such an imposition. Unfortunately, the difficulty faced by the average consumer trying to determine the origins of their purchases is significant enough to prevent all but the most conscientious from doing so. Official policy is the only way to ensure that consumers are aware of what they are buying and what those purchases support. I call for such a policy without the faintest hope that the political will exists to implement it. Even encouraging consumers to makes this decision on their own would be an act of political suicide. But until your administration is prepared to do more than gently discourage settlement activity, it will continue and it will dismantle any hope of real peace for Palestinians and Israelis. For those of us who aren't willing to wait for our leaders to find the moral courage such a stand would require, well, at least now we've got an app for that.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

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

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 61- 21st Century Education

Today's letter is in response to the question posed by the White House to the public, What does 21st century education mean to you?

Dear Mr. President,

As the 21st century was beginning, I was only starting High School. Sadly, I feel my own education was more a product of the previous century, and I think this has impacted not only my ability to compete for jobs, but also to feel comfortable moving in circles with those who have been properly prepared for the current educational demands. Education in the 21st century must, of course, include competency and even fluency with modern technology; it must expose students to cultures, languages, and lifestyles other than their own; the educational experience ought to include strong emphasis on science and math, without sacrificing any of the liberal arts foundation.

Computers are such an integral part of our daily lives that no student educated in this country ought to leave school without being familiar, comfortable, and confident using computers, the internet, word processing and document presentation, and even basic programming. Ideally, this would occur well before college and high school. I don't feel that my own educational experience failed to prepare me for a world that requires computer literacy, but I owe that almost entirely to the Gates foundation, as my school benefited from the generosity of Mr. Gates's commitment to his home state. I'm not sure that this is true for all of my generation, especially those who come from families unable to afford computers in their own home, or who lived in school districts unable to afford new computers or the instructors to properly utilize them.

One area where I was not so fortunate was exposure to foreign languages. Most students have the option of taking Spanish, French or German in High School. If they are very lucky, Japanese or Russian are also options. Mr. President, we may be lucky enough to live in a time where the entirety of the rest of the world clamors to learn English, but this does us more harm than good if we allow it to make us complacent about educating our children in other languages. Spanish ought to be taught from a much earlier age, along side English in elementary and middle schools. In high school, students should have a wider variety of languages to choose from, and an incentive should be offered to encourage schools to offer languages more relevant to the modern economy. (While it is impossible, even incorrect, to argue the merits of one language over another, it is difficult to deny that the modern student would have a wider variety of career options with a working knowledge of Arabic, Hindi, or Chinese, rather than German.) Multilingual students will not only be better able to communicate with and understand non- Americans, they will posses the skills to more easily learn new languages in the future, making them more adaptable.

Education in the 21st Century must be about more than just learning about other cultures and lifestyles, it must include practical exposure. I feel a greater emphasis should be put on travel and exchange programs, as well as service learning. Students should be required to do service work in their communities as a part of their education. Volunteer work is a great way to gain experience for later careers, but it also fosters a sense of responsibility for one's community. Tying volunteer work closely to education can illuminate areas of study in ways that classroom learning alone cannot.

Math and science are another area in which early exposure- well before high school- will help our schools produce more competent graduates. Liberal Arts educations provide essential critical thinking skills and ought not to be devalued, but practicality demands that we increase our emphasis on math and science if Americans are to remain competitive in the Modern economy.

In my view, education in the 21st century must be about connectivity. Our world is getting smaller and we must eager and enthusiastic about the things that allow us to connect to others- common languages like math, science and technology, as well as empathy and understanding, a willingness to learn new languages, to experience and adapt to the cultures of those who are not like us, wherever they may be found.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey