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
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Day 356- The narrative of the moment
Dear Mr. President,
Yay! You're officially a comeback kid! Did you wake up this week feeling suddenly more powerful than ever before? I ask because the media is abuzz with the story of your late legislative victories, and I can't get rid of this wry smile at the sudden change in narrative. Last week you were ineffective, stymied, your Presidency basically over. Now you're leading congress to more legislative accomplishments, repealing DADT, getting health care benefits for 9/11 first responders, saving the world from the threat of nuclear war with START. You're such a badass. How did things change so quickly?
Thing have not, of course, changed, but the way they are discussed on TV had to change. I'm not sure if this is a reflection of the American public's attention span or just the way the media feels about it, but it can't be a coincidence that every one changed their stories at once. It rings falsely to my ears, anyway. One of my favorite local writers, Paul Constant, agrees, asking that the media "let Bill Clinton's tired "comeback kid" trope molder in the 90s, where it belongs. Things are more complicated now. Don't we deserve a more nuanced media, too?"
Mr. Constant is right when he says "anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that you don't measure a presidency in inches, but these little victories and defeats are what keeps all these unworthy jackasses employed." . His media criticism reminds me of Jon Stewart, who has perfected the art of splicing news clips to show the absurd way one story can be discussed in identical terms. I don't think that you're a different President, that you're working any harder or that you've made any dramatic changes to your approach in the last week. I won't be even a little surprised when, a few weeks or months from now, the narrative changes again and every op-ed writer and pundit is lamenting your stalled/failed/vague/poorly articulated/tone-deaf agenda. As some one with a really unhealthy obsession with political news, I probably find this more annoying than a person who doesn't live and die with these narratives, but I think this practice contributes to our national discourse in an overwhelmingly negative way, encouraging reactionary, short-sighted emotional responses to decisions and events that require more context and perspective.
Just so you know, Mr. President, I'm not buying in to the idea of you being suddenly effective as a leader. For all of my angry, disappointed or nagging letters I've sent this year, I've never stopped appreciating your deliberate, measured approach to things (even when it frustrates the hell out of my hot-headed impulsive side.) I think you're great, but I thought you were great last week, too. I'm proud of what you've achieved and I recognize the magnitude of the work still to be done. This is no time for a victory lap or for complacency. So I hope that you soak up the good press while you've got it, because you know it won't last long.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Yay! You're officially a comeback kid! Did you wake up this week feeling suddenly more powerful than ever before? I ask because the media is abuzz with the story of your late legislative victories, and I can't get rid of this wry smile at the sudden change in narrative. Last week you were ineffective, stymied, your Presidency basically over. Now you're leading congress to more legislative accomplishments, repealing DADT, getting health care benefits for 9/11 first responders, saving the world from the threat of nuclear war with START. You're such a badass. How did things change so quickly?
Thing have not, of course, changed, but the way they are discussed on TV had to change. I'm not sure if this is a reflection of the American public's attention span or just the way the media feels about it, but it can't be a coincidence that every one changed their stories at once. It rings falsely to my ears, anyway. One of my favorite local writers, Paul Constant, agrees, asking that the media "let Bill Clinton's tired "comeback kid" trope molder in the 90s, where it belongs. Things are more complicated now. Don't we deserve a more nuanced media, too?"
Mr. Constant is right when he says "anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that you don't measure a presidency in inches, but these little victories and defeats are what keeps all these unworthy jackasses employed." . His media criticism reminds me of Jon Stewart, who has perfected the art of splicing news clips to show the absurd way one story can be discussed in identical terms. I don't think that you're a different President, that you're working any harder or that you've made any dramatic changes to your approach in the last week. I won't be even a little surprised when, a few weeks or months from now, the narrative changes again and every op-ed writer and pundit is lamenting your stalled/failed/vague/poorly articulated/tone-deaf agenda. As some one with a really unhealthy obsession with political news, I probably find this more annoying than a person who doesn't live and die with these narratives, but I think this practice contributes to our national discourse in an overwhelmingly negative way, encouraging reactionary, short-sighted emotional responses to decisions and events that require more context and perspective.
Just so you know, Mr. President, I'm not buying in to the idea of you being suddenly effective as a leader. For all of my angry, disappointed or nagging letters I've sent this year, I've never stopped appreciating your deliberate, measured approach to things (even when it frustrates the hell out of my hot-headed impulsive side.) I think you're great, but I thought you were great last week, too. I'm proud of what you've achieved and I recognize the magnitude of the work still to be done. This is no time for a victory lap or for complacency. So I hope that you soak up the good press while you've got it, because you know it won't last long.
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
Friday, November 12, 2010
Day 316-Really bad advice
Dear Mr. President,
Today I saw an op-ed in the Washington Post by two men who claim to be Democrats who don't think you should run for re-election in 2012. (I say "claim to be" because there is some question about their actual party affiliation.) I should probably remind every one that I'm not a professional political operative. I don't exactly have the resumé to argue with these hacks. But I think this is just about the worst advice I've heard any one offer you in a while.
I don't think that removing yourself now from the 2012 campaign would, as these pundits suggest, force the republicans in congress to make concessions. I think that backing down now would be the ultimate sign of defeat. Republicans would sieze the opportunity to legislate like they controlled all three branches of government. And I don't say this as a political expert (which I am not) but as a girl who has only gone on first dates for basically an entire year (which I am.) I go on first dates, and sometimes guys just aren't into me, and sometimes I'm just not into them, and sometimes circumstances just aren't right for the two of us. But this doesn't mean I give up entirely on the prospect of dating or ever finding some one to love me. Some of your decisions haven't been popular, some of what the country thinks it wants (social services funded by magic instead of taxes!) isn't what you're able or willing to give and some of your problems are just circumstance.
Running in 2012 demonstrates that you're not looking to escape because it's hard. It is what separates you from Sarah Palin (besides, of course, your grasp of the English language, basic knowledge of geography, economics and history.) To give up would be to tell voters, for sure, that Democrats aren't cut out for leading the country during challenging times. I have no idea who these strategists are or why they are so deluded as to think that appeasing the unreasonable demands of republican leaders is the best way to secure bipartisan cooperation, but I sincerely hope they are not people who get taken seriously in any official capacity.
Mr. President, I have disagreed with many of your decisions as President. I have my issues with your policy compromises and many of your centrist ideas. But I would rather see you in office in 2012 than any Republican. I want to see you listen ultimately to your own values and instincts and not to opinion polls and political pundits, to govern ambitiously and unapologetically, and with the courage of your convictions. ( I would also like you to be able to govern for a while longer without having to worry about reelection, but that ship sailed.)
You've got my vote in 2012, sir. Of the two of us, you're probably the more likely to make the most of a second date.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today I saw an op-ed in the Washington Post by two men who claim to be Democrats who don't think you should run for re-election in 2012. (I say "claim to be" because there is some question about their actual party affiliation.) I should probably remind every one that I'm not a professional political operative. I don't exactly have the resumé to argue with these hacks. But I think this is just about the worst advice I've heard any one offer you in a while.
I don't think that removing yourself now from the 2012 campaign would, as these pundits suggest, force the republicans in congress to make concessions. I think that backing down now would be the ultimate sign of defeat. Republicans would sieze the opportunity to legislate like they controlled all three branches of government. And I don't say this as a political expert (which I am not) but as a girl who has only gone on first dates for basically an entire year (which I am.) I go on first dates, and sometimes guys just aren't into me, and sometimes I'm just not into them, and sometimes circumstances just aren't right for the two of us. But this doesn't mean I give up entirely on the prospect of dating or ever finding some one to love me. Some of your decisions haven't been popular, some of what the country thinks it wants (social services funded by magic instead of taxes!) isn't what you're able or willing to give and some of your problems are just circumstance.
Running in 2012 demonstrates that you're not looking to escape because it's hard. It is what separates you from Sarah Palin (besides, of course, your grasp of the English language, basic knowledge of geography, economics and history.) To give up would be to tell voters, for sure, that Democrats aren't cut out for leading the country during challenging times. I have no idea who these strategists are or why they are so deluded as to think that appeasing the unreasonable demands of republican leaders is the best way to secure bipartisan cooperation, but I sincerely hope they are not people who get taken seriously in any official capacity.
Mr. President, I have disagreed with many of your decisions as President. I have my issues with your policy compromises and many of your centrist ideas. But I would rather see you in office in 2012 than any Republican. I want to see you listen ultimately to your own values and instincts and not to opinion polls and political pundits, to govern ambitiously and unapologetically, and with the courage of your convictions. ( I would also like you to be able to govern for a while longer without having to worry about reelection, but that ship sailed.)
You've got my vote in 2012, sir. Of the two of us, you're probably the more likely to make the most of a second date.
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
Friday, November 5, 2010
Day 309-Conflicted interests
Dear Mr. President,
I have mixed feelings about Keith Olbermann. On one hand, I recognize that he posses a unique combination of honestly liberal values and the courage to express them with pride. However he is prone to the kind of overly-sensationalized borderline hysteria that, I suppose, comes with having your own TV show and constantly trying to compete with FOX for viewers. I am uncomfortable being too critical of a reliably liberal voice in an increasingly conservative media environment, but I think, at his worst, Olbermann was nowhere near as crazy as Glenn Beck on his most rational days. That he has been suspended over personal political donations to candidates he used his show to support is ridiculous. I just cannot believe that $2400 had a more significant impact on the candidates' success, Olbermann's objectivity, or MSNBC's credibility than on Countdown's very public and very uncontroversial promotion of these candidates and their party every single night.
So, apparently, the tea-soaked trifecta of Bachmann, Beck and Limbaugh (among others) are perpetuating the demonstrably false rumor that your trip to India will cost $200 million per day (more than the war effort in Afghanistan- $190 million/day.) This would be funny if the implication wasn't so disgusting. The very idea that quibbling over the price tag of Presidential Protection is acceptable discourse appalls me, especially in the case of Michele Bachmann, as she actually holds public office. I know your trip is not going to cost $2 billion and require 34 warships. I know this. I just want to say, even if it did, I'd still be OK with it. The point is that this outrage and obvious lie was repeated in the right-wing media and then by actual elected officials. How is that not more damaging to the credibility of Beck, Limbaugh and the networks they represent than the personal donations of Keith Olbermann to candidates he publicly endorsed?
And, for all of his faults and missteps, Olbermann was quick to admit mistakes and issue corrections. (Reflection after Jon Stewart's Rally to restore Sanity caused him to suspend one of his show's most famous and inflammatory segments, for example.) Unlike the irresponsibly close relationship between pundits and politicians on the right, Olbermann's words were rarely, if ever, parroted by elected Democrats. (Sadly, many Democrats also lacked much of the courage he showed in speaking out against Islamophobia, homophobia and racism.) After such a tough election cycle I am deeply saddened by the loss of a political ally on the national stage.
I hope that your trip to India is safe and productive, no matter how much it costs. I'm sorry that this controversy may take attention away from the trip's important purpose. I hope that, even without the reliably, unapologetically liberal voice of Mr. Olbermann, you and other Democrats remember that being a liberal, even in the era of FOX News, is nothing to be ashamed of.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Hey all, check out what Rachel Maddow had to say about this.
I have mixed feelings about Keith Olbermann. On one hand, I recognize that he posses a unique combination of honestly liberal values and the courage to express them with pride. However he is prone to the kind of overly-sensationalized borderline hysteria that, I suppose, comes with having your own TV show and constantly trying to compete with FOX for viewers. I am uncomfortable being too critical of a reliably liberal voice in an increasingly conservative media environment, but I think, at his worst, Olbermann was nowhere near as crazy as Glenn Beck on his most rational days. That he has been suspended over personal political donations to candidates he used his show to support is ridiculous. I just cannot believe that $2400 had a more significant impact on the candidates' success, Olbermann's objectivity, or MSNBC's credibility than on Countdown's very public and very uncontroversial promotion of these candidates and their party every single night.
So, apparently, the tea-soaked trifecta of Bachmann, Beck and Limbaugh (among others) are perpetuating the demonstrably false rumor that your trip to India will cost $200 million per day (more than the war effort in Afghanistan- $190 million/day.) This would be funny if the implication wasn't so disgusting. The very idea that quibbling over the price tag of Presidential Protection is acceptable discourse appalls me, especially in the case of Michele Bachmann, as she actually holds public office. I know your trip is not going to cost $2 billion and require 34 warships. I know this. I just want to say, even if it did, I'd still be OK with it. The point is that this outrage and obvious lie was repeated in the right-wing media and then by actual elected officials. How is that not more damaging to the credibility of Beck, Limbaugh and the networks they represent than the personal donations of Keith Olbermann to candidates he publicly endorsed?
And, for all of his faults and missteps, Olbermann was quick to admit mistakes and issue corrections. (Reflection after Jon Stewart's Rally to restore Sanity caused him to suspend one of his show's most famous and inflammatory segments, for example.) Unlike the irresponsibly close relationship between pundits and politicians on the right, Olbermann's words were rarely, if ever, parroted by elected Democrats. (Sadly, many Democrats also lacked much of the courage he showed in speaking out against Islamophobia, homophobia and racism.) After such a tough election cycle I am deeply saddened by the loss of a political ally on the national stage.
I hope that your trip to India is safe and productive, no matter how much it costs. I'm sorry that this controversy may take attention away from the trip's important purpose. I hope that, even without the reliably, unapologetically liberal voice of Mr. Olbermann, you and other Democrats remember that being a liberal, even in the era of FOX News, is nothing to be ashamed of.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Hey all, check out what Rachel Maddow had to say about this.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Day 305-Man up for Midterms
Dear Mr. President,
I think if I read one more poll I will actually lose my mind. Whatever happens tomorrow is set in motion, and sadly I'm swamped with an entirely different kind of midterms. I can't read any more analysis. I can't consider any more predictions. If another Dino Rossi pop-up ad starts talking to me while I post this entry I will scream.
We're all going to get out of bed on Wednesday and go to work or school or breakfast. We will get through tomorrow and we will live with the outcome, no matter what. Or, at least, this is what I'm telling myself. Because Nate Silver might love numbers and polls and hypotheticals but he's making me crazy tonight. And the Huffington Post might be obsessed with absurd weather/natural disaster metaphors, but it won't do any good at this point. The most I can hope for tomorrow, is what my friend Ralph reminded me of earlier: that CNN has hologram people. Because an election night without hologram people on CNN is just not enough for me any more.
Seriously though, I've got essays to write and very little sleep in my near future or recent past. If any one who reads this hasn't voted yet, do so. (Also, why are you reading a political blog if you don't vote?) If you want my suggestions on who to vote for in Washington State, if you're in any way ambivalent about the Senate race, or if you actually don't care, please vote for Patty Murray. She's excellent, and Dino Rossi eats puppies and cheats on his taxes. If you're reading from out of state, I'm sorry you don't live somewhere cool enough to have mail-in elections, but don't let the weather, the lines at the polls, the annoying political ads, errands or apathy stop you from voting. Man up, America, and get out that vote.
Mr. President, I hope that we both survive our respective midterms tomorrow without too much of the suffering every one seems to be anticipating. Wednesday will come for all of us, and I think we'll probably make it there in one piece.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I think if I read one more poll I will actually lose my mind. Whatever happens tomorrow is set in motion, and sadly I'm swamped with an entirely different kind of midterms. I can't read any more analysis. I can't consider any more predictions. If another Dino Rossi pop-up ad starts talking to me while I post this entry I will scream.
We're all going to get out of bed on Wednesday and go to work or school or breakfast. We will get through tomorrow and we will live with the outcome, no matter what. Or, at least, this is what I'm telling myself. Because Nate Silver might love numbers and polls and hypotheticals but he's making me crazy tonight. And the Huffington Post might be obsessed with absurd weather/natural disaster metaphors, but it won't do any good at this point. The most I can hope for tomorrow, is what my friend Ralph reminded me of earlier: that CNN has hologram people. Because an election night without hologram people on CNN is just not enough for me any more.
Seriously though, I've got essays to write and very little sleep in my near future or recent past. If any one who reads this hasn't voted yet, do so. (Also, why are you reading a political blog if you don't vote?) If you want my suggestions on who to vote for in Washington State, if you're in any way ambivalent about the Senate race, or if you actually don't care, please vote for Patty Murray. She's excellent, and Dino Rossi eats puppies and cheats on his taxes. If you're reading from out of state, I'm sorry you don't live somewhere cool enough to have mail-in elections, but don't let the weather, the lines at the polls, the annoying political ads, errands or apathy stop you from voting. Man up, America, and get out that vote.
Mr. President, I hope that we both survive our respective midterms tomorrow without too much of the suffering every one seems to be anticipating. Wednesday will come for all of us, and I think we'll probably make it there in one piece.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Day 303-Love and Sanity
Dear Mr. President,
250,000 people showed up to restore sanity in Washington DC. In Seattle, and in cities around the world, satellite rallies were held by those who couldn't make the trip to DC. I don't know if this speaks to the mood of the country or merely to the size of Jon Stewart's fan base, but it certainly lifted my spirits. I feel like, no matter the differences between my views and each of theirs, the people at those rallies are my kind of people. It's nice to know we're not nearly as alone as many of us feel.
Sanity has probably been my number one goal in life for the last year or so. I spent so much of my life feeling like I was at the whim of my impossible to predict emotions and the equally confusing way others treated me. For me this has meant avoiding intense romantic relationships. Being in love has only brought out the worst in me. Witnessing the way it has had similar destructive effects on family members and friends hadn't done much to convince me otherwise. This year, as I've worked to figure out what it is I want from the people in my life, I've started to realize how much my political passions have always played a role in grounding me. When I was going through one of the more difficult break-ups of my life, campaigning for you helped keep me sane because it kept my life in a much more reasonable perspective. Once the campaign was over, I felt completely lost and, not surprisingly, basically lost my mind. Getting back to that sense of perspective through this project has been amazingly good for me. One of the best parts of this blog has been the way it has helped me find the people in my life who value me for my political passions and who support me even when they don't agree with me. And, as I begin to define what is important to me and what is important about me, I've begun to notice more and more examples of healthy relationships among my friends. Watching one couple today, who act like their remarkable affection and respect for one another is the most normal thing in the world (much to my unending puzzlement) I even began to imagine I might one day find that for myself. It makes me think that perhaps my cynicism came not from observation and experience, but was itself shaping my perceptions in order to reaffirm a belief I'd already held.
I think many liberals feel like we're constantly surrounded by crazy people. I feel like this rally offered an opportunity for many of us to realize we're not alone, that our outsider status was a product of our own cynicism and not a reflection of reality. We're not at odds with the rest of the country; we are the majority. The majority of this country is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-reasonable regulation, taxation, and social services. There is more that unites us then divides us. The system frustrates us, the corruption and stagnation that prevent our country from fulfilling its promise and potential for good. I think that being told we're not the crazy ones will be helpful and inspiring to many on the left who have struggled for years to understand our place in a national discourse dictated by FOX news. If no greater good comes from today's rally than the reassurance that we're not outsiders, that we have a place at the table, well, I think it was probably worth inconveniencing really all of Washington DC for a day or so. Who knows, if I had managed to make it to DC, I might even have found myself a boyfriend.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
250,000 people showed up to restore sanity in Washington DC. In Seattle, and in cities around the world, satellite rallies were held by those who couldn't make the trip to DC. I don't know if this speaks to the mood of the country or merely to the size of Jon Stewart's fan base, but it certainly lifted my spirits. I feel like, no matter the differences between my views and each of theirs, the people at those rallies are my kind of people. It's nice to know we're not nearly as alone as many of us feel.
Sanity has probably been my number one goal in life for the last year or so. I spent so much of my life feeling like I was at the whim of my impossible to predict emotions and the equally confusing way others treated me. For me this has meant avoiding intense romantic relationships. Being in love has only brought out the worst in me. Witnessing the way it has had similar destructive effects on family members and friends hadn't done much to convince me otherwise. This year, as I've worked to figure out what it is I want from the people in my life, I've started to realize how much my political passions have always played a role in grounding me. When I was going through one of the more difficult break-ups of my life, campaigning for you helped keep me sane because it kept my life in a much more reasonable perspective. Once the campaign was over, I felt completely lost and, not surprisingly, basically lost my mind. Getting back to that sense of perspective through this project has been amazingly good for me. One of the best parts of this blog has been the way it has helped me find the people in my life who value me for my political passions and who support me even when they don't agree with me. And, as I begin to define what is important to me and what is important about me, I've begun to notice more and more examples of healthy relationships among my friends. Watching one couple today, who act like their remarkable affection and respect for one another is the most normal thing in the world (much to my unending puzzlement) I even began to imagine I might one day find that for myself. It makes me think that perhaps my cynicism came not from observation and experience, but was itself shaping my perceptions in order to reaffirm a belief I'd already held.
I think many liberals feel like we're constantly surrounded by crazy people. I feel like this rally offered an opportunity for many of us to realize we're not alone, that our outsider status was a product of our own cynicism and not a reflection of reality. We're not at odds with the rest of the country; we are the majority. The majority of this country is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-reasonable regulation, taxation, and social services. There is more that unites us then divides us. The system frustrates us, the corruption and stagnation that prevent our country from fulfilling its promise and potential for good. I think that being told we're not the crazy ones will be helpful and inspiring to many on the left who have struggled for years to understand our place in a national discourse dictated by FOX news. If no greater good comes from today's rally than the reassurance that we're not outsiders, that we have a place at the table, well, I think it was probably worth inconveniencing really all of Washington DC for a day or so. Who knows, if I had managed to make it to DC, I might even have found myself a boyfriend.
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
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Day 290- Monsters
Dear Mr. President:
This is Maurice Clemmons:
This is the flukeman monster from the x-files:
This is what any one picking up a copy of the Sunday Seattle Times saw today:
I've written to you about Clemmons before. He committed robbery and assault, raped children and eventually murdered four police officers as they drank coffee. Clemmons is exactly the kind of monster I used to worry about as a small child when my father would get called in the middle of the night to a homicide, or when my mother was out on patrol. He's the kind of man whose madness and brutality and desire to dominate made him violent, erratic and dangerous. But now that I'm grown up and dealing with dangerous people in my own job, I don't believe in monsters. I couldn't grow up in the law enforcement community the way I did and not have an intense, emotional reaction to a cop killer and his disturbing history. But he's no creature, no phantom, he is just a man.
The illustration on the front page of today's Times left me feeling strangely all day. I don't feel sympathy or sadness for Clemmons, I don't want to make excuses for his life or his crimes, I don't want to defend or apologize for him. But I don't like the visual implication that he was sub-human. For one thing, I don't think that the Times would have chosen to illustrate him in such a disturbing way if Clemmons had been white. Mostly, I don't like the editorial decision by the Times to use an illustration rather than his photo. Clemmons wasn't a villain out of a comic book or horror story. He was a man. A terrible, frightening, disturbed man who needs no additional hype to haunt my nightmares. I think the media's inclination toward sensationalism creates the false sense that these dangerous people can be identified on sight. That we will know monsters by their look, or that that they cannot walk among us unnoticed.
This is not, of course, limited to the Seattle Times or to Maurice Clemmons. We make monsters out of our enemies every day, and we've done it throughout history. We comfort ourselves with the idea that you can't understand why some one would become a suicide bomber, that terrorists and killers are just mindless monsters. Maybe this helps some people distance themselves from the terrifying truth that each of us has something in common with those people that we fear. Helps people believe that good people look one way and bad people look another. I don't think that this is a useful lie to tell ourselves. I don't believe that we are safer this way.
Maurice Clemmons is dead. He met his end trying to kill another police officer, and I am not sorry for it. And the Times may well sell more papers (and, apparently, books) attempting to frighten people with this image of Clemmons as a monster, but I will not buy in to the notion that he or any killer is somehow a different creature than me, or than any one of us. The truth is, humans are far more frightening than any monster we can imagine and we will never be able to keep ourselves completely safe from the darkness that lurks where we can never see it coming.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
This is Maurice Clemmons:
This is the flukeman monster from the x-files:
This is what any one picking up a copy of the Sunday Seattle Times saw today:
I've written to you about Clemmons before. He committed robbery and assault, raped children and eventually murdered four police officers as they drank coffee. Clemmons is exactly the kind of monster I used to worry about as a small child when my father would get called in the middle of the night to a homicide, or when my mother was out on patrol. He's the kind of man whose madness and brutality and desire to dominate made him violent, erratic and dangerous. But now that I'm grown up and dealing with dangerous people in my own job, I don't believe in monsters. I couldn't grow up in the law enforcement community the way I did and not have an intense, emotional reaction to a cop killer and his disturbing history. But he's no creature, no phantom, he is just a man.
The illustration on the front page of today's Times left me feeling strangely all day. I don't feel sympathy or sadness for Clemmons, I don't want to make excuses for his life or his crimes, I don't want to defend or apologize for him. But I don't like the visual implication that he was sub-human. For one thing, I don't think that the Times would have chosen to illustrate him in such a disturbing way if Clemmons had been white. Mostly, I don't like the editorial decision by the Times to use an illustration rather than his photo. Clemmons wasn't a villain out of a comic book or horror story. He was a man. A terrible, frightening, disturbed man who needs no additional hype to haunt my nightmares. I think the media's inclination toward sensationalism creates the false sense that these dangerous people can be identified on sight. That we will know monsters by their look, or that that they cannot walk among us unnoticed.
This is not, of course, limited to the Seattle Times or to Maurice Clemmons. We make monsters out of our enemies every day, and we've done it throughout history. We comfort ourselves with the idea that you can't understand why some one would become a suicide bomber, that terrorists and killers are just mindless monsters. Maybe this helps some people distance themselves from the terrifying truth that each of us has something in common with those people that we fear. Helps people believe that good people look one way and bad people look another. I don't think that this is a useful lie to tell ourselves. I don't believe that we are safer this way.
Maurice Clemmons is dead. He met his end trying to kill another police officer, and I am not sorry for it. And the Times may well sell more papers (and, apparently, books) attempting to frighten people with this image of Clemmons as a monster, but I will not buy in to the notion that he or any killer is somehow a different creature than me, or than any one of us. The truth is, humans are far more frightening than any monster we can imagine and we will never be able to keep ourselves completely safe from the darkness that lurks where we can never see it coming.
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
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Day 257- Failure
Dear Mr. President,
I don't often fail. I say this not to be arrogant, but to highlight the safe and even calculated way I have lived up until now. I was consistently an A student, one of the valedictorians at my graduation. I haven't always gotten A's in college, but I've never failed anything important. This academic success is partially to my credit, but largely due to an avoidance of any courses too far outside my intellectual comfort zone. My life isn't where I want it to be; I haven't been as successful or as efficient as I would have preferred, and all of this is due not to failure but to living in fear of it. Today I believe I finally experienced failure. I could not access and apply a skill I should have. I set my mind to a task I could not accomplish. I don't think this is more unsettling to me because of my relatively safe existence up until now. Surely every one feels this way when they find themselves unable to rise to their own expectations. I'm lost, shaken up, disappointed, and angry. I'm also dimly aware that this might have been good for me. Realizing that failure isn't the end of the world, feeling it fully and intensely and still not giving up will help me take risks like this in the future. I knew taking that test yesterday was a risk, which is why it's taken me so long. It's been four years since I studied Arabic and it wasn't going to get any easier if I waited any longer. Every time I had to take a break from college, I felt more terrified that I would one day return only to find I was no longer qualified to continue. So I took a chance, the worst happened, and now I have to figure a way out.
If I had not taken the test I might not have numeric, quantifiable proof of my failure, but I would still be afraid. I would still be just as far away from my goal with nothing to spur me toward changing. Maybe this is all consolation for a feeling I'm still not entirely sure how to manage. Maybe I'm making excuses for my own mistakes, but at least I feel less afraid than I did yesterday.
I know one test might seem small compared to something like an election. I hope that the midterms aren't a failure for progressives. I am sure that, should the Democrats fail, this is how the story will be told. They were too far left. They were out of touch with the values of the American people. These lies will be spread by the right and accepted as conventional wisdom. And maybe it will finally push Democrats past their fear and force us to stand up and say enough. Because the Grand Old Party of hate and fear might be better at claiming victory, but Democrats haven't failed until they've gotten too afraid to stand up for what's right, for what's important. I hope none of the chatter about the left's impending failure scares those running for office in 2010 away from making the right choices, or scares you away from asking them to. And, should we lose power on election day, let it only compel us to be braver, to take more risks. Failing might not feel great, but it sure beats the hell out of living in fear.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I don't often fail. I say this not to be arrogant, but to highlight the safe and even calculated way I have lived up until now. I was consistently an A student, one of the valedictorians at my graduation. I haven't always gotten A's in college, but I've never failed anything important. This academic success is partially to my credit, but largely due to an avoidance of any courses too far outside my intellectual comfort zone. My life isn't where I want it to be; I haven't been as successful or as efficient as I would have preferred, and all of this is due not to failure but to living in fear of it. Today I believe I finally experienced failure. I could not access and apply a skill I should have. I set my mind to a task I could not accomplish. I don't think this is more unsettling to me because of my relatively safe existence up until now. Surely every one feels this way when they find themselves unable to rise to their own expectations. I'm lost, shaken up, disappointed, and angry. I'm also dimly aware that this might have been good for me. Realizing that failure isn't the end of the world, feeling it fully and intensely and still not giving up will help me take risks like this in the future. I knew taking that test yesterday was a risk, which is why it's taken me so long. It's been four years since I studied Arabic and it wasn't going to get any easier if I waited any longer. Every time I had to take a break from college, I felt more terrified that I would one day return only to find I was no longer qualified to continue. So I took a chance, the worst happened, and now I have to figure a way out.
If I had not taken the test I might not have numeric, quantifiable proof of my failure, but I would still be afraid. I would still be just as far away from my goal with nothing to spur me toward changing. Maybe this is all consolation for a feeling I'm still not entirely sure how to manage. Maybe I'm making excuses for my own mistakes, but at least I feel less afraid than I did yesterday.
I know one test might seem small compared to something like an election. I hope that the midterms aren't a failure for progressives. I am sure that, should the Democrats fail, this is how the story will be told. They were too far left. They were out of touch with the values of the American people. These lies will be spread by the right and accepted as conventional wisdom. And maybe it will finally push Democrats past their fear and force us to stand up and say enough. Because the Grand Old Party of hate and fear might be better at claiming victory, but Democrats haven't failed until they've gotten too afraid to stand up for what's right, for what's important. I hope none of the chatter about the left's impending failure scares those running for office in 2010 away from making the right choices, or scares you away from asking them to. And, should we lose power on election day, let it only compel us to be braver, to take more risks. Failing might not feel great, but it sure beats the hell out of living in fear.
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
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
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
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
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Day 217- Talking the talk
Dear Mr. President,
Glenn Beck thinks you're like Lucifer. I really hope some one in the press office shows you the clip, because you had to spend your birthday away from your family and so I think you're entitled to some diversion. Also, you've given us another Supreme Court Justice, so you've earned a good laugh at the expense of your most absurd critics. And, while his years of public service make him deserving of more respect than a man like Mr. Beck, Newt Gingrich is adding his voice to the chorus of hysteria. If he and Sarah Palin both challenge you in 2012 it might be the funniest Republican primary in history.
I'm not sure how you're supposed to fight back against people like this. You can't stoop to their level; calling Glenn Beck the Devil is giving him way too much credit. Ignoring it might be the high road, but I wonder how effective it will be, considering the size of FOX's audience and the number of people who take Beck seriously. Does considering him a threat elevate him too much? Certainly the media narrative (for which he may not be wholly responsible for, but certainly plays his role,) has contributed to sentiments of many that your administration has not accomplished anything, or, worse, that you've taken our country down the road of socialism.
I suppose the high road is really the only one available. It may not make the administration popular, and saying absurd, inflammatory things will always get Glenn Beck ratings, (and, sadly, more than a few Republican votes,) but it would be hard to be proud of the things you accomplish if you had to act like these men in order to accomplish them. So congratulations on the Supreme Court Justice, and congratulations for keeping your cool. Most of all, congratulations for keeping these sad, clownish little men so very angry at you. I'm very proud to have a President like you.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Glenn Beck thinks you're like Lucifer. I really hope some one in the press office shows you the clip, because you had to spend your birthday away from your family and so I think you're entitled to some diversion. Also, you've given us another Supreme Court Justice, so you've earned a good laugh at the expense of your most absurd critics. And, while his years of public service make him deserving of more respect than a man like Mr. Beck, Newt Gingrich is adding his voice to the chorus of hysteria. If he and Sarah Palin both challenge you in 2012 it might be the funniest Republican primary in history.
I'm not sure how you're supposed to fight back against people like this. You can't stoop to their level; calling Glenn Beck the Devil is giving him way too much credit. Ignoring it might be the high road, but I wonder how effective it will be, considering the size of FOX's audience and the number of people who take Beck seriously. Does considering him a threat elevate him too much? Certainly the media narrative (for which he may not be wholly responsible for, but certainly plays his role,) has contributed to sentiments of many that your administration has not accomplished anything, or, worse, that you've taken our country down the road of socialism.
I suppose the high road is really the only one available. It may not make the administration popular, and saying absurd, inflammatory things will always get Glenn Beck ratings, (and, sadly, more than a few Republican votes,) but it would be hard to be proud of the things you accomplish if you had to act like these men in order to accomplish them. So congratulations on the Supreme Court Justice, and congratulations for keeping your cool. Most of all, congratulations for keeping these sad, clownish little men so very angry at you. I'm very proud to have a President like you.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Day 196- Winning, losing and telling the tale
Dear Mr. President,
I'm not sure what winning is supposed to look like, any more. On day of several ostensible political victories, I've read pieces by Politico and The New York Times that read more like obituaries for your administration. I think that both pieces are poorly written and tend to rely on oversimplification to make their points. Each seem to simultaneously criticize you for overreaching and for doing too little. Little, if any, concession is made toward the overwhelming financial and political obstacles your administration faced due to the previous administration. Is it hopelessly naive of me to think that opinion polling in July isn't necessarily a perfect indicator of what November will hold?
One aspect of the criticisms offered that I do agree with is the folly of your administration's alienation of the media. I think the press can be hostile, self-serving and incredibly cynical. But you can't win the favor of the public without the media. If there has been one consistant victory for the right over the last few years, it has been control of the narrative. We may be winning our fair share of political battles, but we are not the ones writing the history of it. I think that repairing the administration's relationship with the media, and re-engaging directly with the press, could be important steps toward reversing the trend of analysis that casts victories as either meaningless compromises of values or as imposition of the administration's will on a reluctant public, (or, inexplicably, both.)
The left has plenty to be upset about in the compromises that your administration has agreed to, and the issues you've sacrificed without a proper fight. But the progress made in a time of economic distress has been commendable. I don't believe that enough of that story is getting through, or that the right-wing narrative of your secret plan to dominate the globe through back-door socialist revolution is being effectively combated. And while the tone of news coverage certainly matters less to me than the substance of what your administration is doing, I think that re-engaging the press corps (and increasing engagement with the kinds of new media that got you elected in the first place, like bloggers,) would go a long way toward improving the way voters feel about your accomplishments. I'm not an expert or anything, but I don't think that limiting press conferences and basically ignoring new media opportunities to reach an audience that doesn't get its information on CNN or FOX is a communication strategy that will allow you to reach many of those Americans who aren't personally attending your town hall meetings on economic recovery. I still have a great deal of hope for your presidency, and I'm proud of what has been achieved today, but if I were learning about it only from the news coverage, I might wonder why we're all wearing black and talking in the past tense.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I'm not sure what winning is supposed to look like, any more. On day of several ostensible political victories, I've read pieces by Politico and The New York Times that read more like obituaries for your administration. I think that both pieces are poorly written and tend to rely on oversimplification to make their points. Each seem to simultaneously criticize you for overreaching and for doing too little. Little, if any, concession is made toward the overwhelming financial and political obstacles your administration faced due to the previous administration. Is it hopelessly naive of me to think that opinion polling in July isn't necessarily a perfect indicator of what November will hold?
One aspect of the criticisms offered that I do agree with is the folly of your administration's alienation of the media. I think the press can be hostile, self-serving and incredibly cynical. But you can't win the favor of the public without the media. If there has been one consistant victory for the right over the last few years, it has been control of the narrative. We may be winning our fair share of political battles, but we are not the ones writing the history of it. I think that repairing the administration's relationship with the media, and re-engaging directly with the press, could be important steps toward reversing the trend of analysis that casts victories as either meaningless compromises of values or as imposition of the administration's will on a reluctant public, (or, inexplicably, both.)
The left has plenty to be upset about in the compromises that your administration has agreed to, and the issues you've sacrificed without a proper fight. But the progress made in a time of economic distress has been commendable. I don't believe that enough of that story is getting through, or that the right-wing narrative of your secret plan to dominate the globe through back-door socialist revolution is being effectively combated. And while the tone of news coverage certainly matters less to me than the substance of what your administration is doing, I think that re-engaging the press corps (and increasing engagement with the kinds of new media that got you elected in the first place, like bloggers,) would go a long way toward improving the way voters feel about your accomplishments. I'm not an expert or anything, but I don't think that limiting press conferences and basically ignoring new media opportunities to reach an audience that doesn't get its information on CNN or FOX is a communication strategy that will allow you to reach many of those Americans who aren't personally attending your town hall meetings on economic recovery. I still have a great deal of hope for your presidency, and I'm proud of what has been achieved today, but if I were learning about it only from the news coverage, I might wonder why we're all wearing black and talking in the past tense.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
