Dear Mr. President,
This week I'll be applying to join the US Boat to Gaza, (the ship you probably recall is named after your book.) It may not be the most conventional way to spend spring break, but I think that it's exactly as self-indulgent as I'm willing to be. I have no idea what the odds are of me being selected to actually go, but I suspect that I'll always regret it if I don't at least apply.
Even if I don't make it to Gaza in 2011, the discussion of the gaza blockade has taken to the sides of city buses right here in Seattle. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. While I wholeheartedly agree with the message and support the intentions of those running the ads, I don't know how effective this is as a strategy. Is $1794 better spent on an ad campaign that might not change any minds, or would it have been better used to send help to the people affected by the policies being protested? The awareness created might be considerable, but I'm not sure it will lead to the public outcry necessary for any substantive policy change.
When I lived in DC, the metro tunnels were routinely home to issue ads. One was the picture of a baby (presumably Palestinian( wearing a pro-hamas headband, and said "This child could grow up to be a: ( ) Doctor ( ) Lawyer (x) Terrorist" (The ad can be seen here thanks to flickr user louko.) The ad made my blood boil. I have visceral reactions every time I passed by it. Targeting the blameless children of this conflict seemed especially sickening, and to have it shouting at me from every wall every day of my commute ensured that I began and ended each work day so angry I could barely speak. The very nature of advertising made discussion or argument or dissent with the people placing the ads impossible. I think my intense reaction to these ads has made me hesitant to feel any joy at seeing ads supporting my views. I understand that the very effective (and well-financed) tactics of the Israeli lobby and PR organizations need to be balanced somehow, but I don't feel great about sinking to their methods.
The most I can hope for is conversation. If it gets people talking, thinking, questioning the policies supported by their taxes (often without their knowledge) I will swallow my objections and applaud the efforts of the organization purchasing the ads. The argument that a controversial, thought-provoking ad like this one is at least better than another Macy's ad is not lost on me, either. Do you think this is a helpful or appropriate forum for foreign policy conversations?
I should probably go work on my application. I know you don't agree with the mission of the US boat to Gaza and you could certainly never support it publicly, but I hope that, even if it is only in private, you find a moment to consider your own responsibility for the people who end up on this ship and for the policies that have made such an organization necessary.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I encourage all of my readers interested (and fully aware of and prepared for the risks) to apply to the US Boat to Gaza. If you don't want to go yourself, a financial donation will help purchase supplies to deliver to the people of Gaza, as well. Other great gift ideas for those concerned with social justice can be found in Nicholas Kristof's latest New York Times column, or on etsy.com
Showing posts with label travel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label travel. Show all posts
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Day 326- Snow, again, and airport security
MR. GIBBS: I’m saying that in order to address the most
up-to-date threats possible, we have instituted the very best in technology and in screening efforts in order to detect that threat.
Q And what’s wrong with the Israeli system, where they’re questioning before they even get close to the gate? Is that --
MR. GIBBS: I would point out that I think the Israelis have, I think, it’s two airports -- two international airports. I think that’s right. It’s one?
Q It’s one, I think --
MR. GIBBS: -- in Tel Aviv. We have 450. This is -- there is a scale that is -- and I’ve seen -- look, I’ve watched and read the stories of, well, can’t you just do what -- understanding the scale involved is infinitely different.
11/22/2010 Press Briefing
Dear Mr. President,
It's snowing in Seattle, reminding me that in the early days of this blog I often wrote to you about the snow on the East Coast. I guess that means the year is actually coming to an end. Whoever reads your mail is probably pretty happy about that.
This winter, the addition of new airport screening methods is causing quite a stir with holiday travelers. The invasive scans and pat-downs have been discussed with anger, mortification and no small amount of humor from those who have experienced them. When I saw the exchange between Robert Gibbs and the reporter suggesting that the US adopt Israeli airport procedures, I had to chuckle a little. He doesn't finish his sentence, but he seems to suggest that he's heard stories about Israeli airports that would make the reporter reconsider this idea. Having had my own experience with the security practices of the Tel Aviv airport, I found this whole thing (the reporter's naive suggestion and Mr. Gibbs' politically correct self-censorship) kind of hilarious.
I've long wondered how much Americans would put up with in the name of our own illusion of safety. Because an illusion is all it is. Some one will invent a bomb that can't be seen on the scanners, or a new way to blow up airplanes. And then maybe we will have to be given polygraphs before getting on board. The Israeli woman who stripped me down to my underwear and yelled at me for an hour didn't make any one on that flight any safer by doing so. I'm certain that she believed she did, and that the other security officials and the TSA scanners all believe they are doing the right thing. (Or at least aren't bothered enough by it to find other jobs.) So I'm not going to criticize them. They are the face (and hands) of the policy, but not the suits behind it.
I've seen a number of bloggers and commentators make the point that this is what the terrorists wanted. To scare us into ridiculous, invasive, un-American behavior. I have to say I agree with them. This method of random screening is just not effective. At my own job, I could search the bags of every person leaving the store to make sure they aren't stealing (or "randomly screen" one in ten bags) but I'd quickly alienate our customers and everyone- the store, the customers, and me, would suffer as a result. Instead, my coworkers and I look for behavior that is suspicious or for the faces of past offenders. We share information with other stores and they with us, and we work together to help each other prevent theft whenever possible.
I do understand that theft and mass murder are much different. Some one who gets away with stealing is easier to shrug off than some one who successfully blows up an airplane. But, for all of the security innovation since 9/11, time and time again, the factor most responsible for preventing attacks has been the awareness of other passengers and airline employees. I do not believe that the sacrifice of our freedoms (or our dignity) is necessary to keep us safe. It may make those of you in positions of authority feel better, as though you have minimized your own responsibility for any tragedies that might strike, but that doesn't sound quite as nobel when used to justify this suspect behavior.
For now, I'm going to go play in the snow and be grateful I'm not flying anywhere this holiday season. I sincerely hope you reconsider this policy, and remember that the erosion of our liberties is a far greater victory for those who seek to destroy this country than any loss of life could ever be.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
up-to-date threats possible, we have instituted the very best in technology and in screening efforts in order to detect that threat.
Q And what’s wrong with the Israeli system, where they’re questioning before they even get close to the gate? Is that --
MR. GIBBS: I would point out that I think the Israelis have, I think, it’s two airports -- two international airports. I think that’s right. It’s one?
Q It’s one, I think --
MR. GIBBS: -- in Tel Aviv. We have 450. This is -- there is a scale that is -- and I’ve seen -- look, I’ve watched and read the stories of, well, can’t you just do what -- understanding the scale involved is infinitely different.
11/22/2010 Press Briefing
Dear Mr. President,
It's snowing in Seattle, reminding me that in the early days of this blog I often wrote to you about the snow on the East Coast. I guess that means the year is actually coming to an end. Whoever reads your mail is probably pretty happy about that.
This winter, the addition of new airport screening methods is causing quite a stir with holiday travelers. The invasive scans and pat-downs have been discussed with anger, mortification and no small amount of humor from those who have experienced them. When I saw the exchange between Robert Gibbs and the reporter suggesting that the US adopt Israeli airport procedures, I had to chuckle a little. He doesn't finish his sentence, but he seems to suggest that he's heard stories about Israeli airports that would make the reporter reconsider this idea. Having had my own experience with the security practices of the Tel Aviv airport, I found this whole thing (the reporter's naive suggestion and Mr. Gibbs' politically correct self-censorship) kind of hilarious.
I've long wondered how much Americans would put up with in the name of our own illusion of safety. Because an illusion is all it is. Some one will invent a bomb that can't be seen on the scanners, or a new way to blow up airplanes. And then maybe we will have to be given polygraphs before getting on board. The Israeli woman who stripped me down to my underwear and yelled at me for an hour didn't make any one on that flight any safer by doing so. I'm certain that she believed she did, and that the other security officials and the TSA scanners all believe they are doing the right thing. (Or at least aren't bothered enough by it to find other jobs.) So I'm not going to criticize them. They are the face (and hands) of the policy, but not the suits behind it.
I've seen a number of bloggers and commentators make the point that this is what the terrorists wanted. To scare us into ridiculous, invasive, un-American behavior. I have to say I agree with them. This method of random screening is just not effective. At my own job, I could search the bags of every person leaving the store to make sure they aren't stealing (or "randomly screen" one in ten bags) but I'd quickly alienate our customers and everyone- the store, the customers, and me, would suffer as a result. Instead, my coworkers and I look for behavior that is suspicious or for the faces of past offenders. We share information with other stores and they with us, and we work together to help each other prevent theft whenever possible.
I do understand that theft and mass murder are much different. Some one who gets away with stealing is easier to shrug off than some one who successfully blows up an airplane. But, for all of the security innovation since 9/11, time and time again, the factor most responsible for preventing attacks has been the awareness of other passengers and airline employees. I do not believe that the sacrifice of our freedoms (or our dignity) is necessary to keep us safe. It may make those of you in positions of authority feel better, as though you have minimized your own responsibility for any tragedies that might strike, but that doesn't sound quite as nobel when used to justify this suspect behavior.
For now, I'm going to go play in the snow and be grateful I'm not flying anywhere this holiday season. I sincerely hope you reconsider this policy, and remember that the erosion of our liberties is a far greater victory for those who seek to destroy this country than any loss of life could ever be.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
