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
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Day 201- Charity
Dear Mr. President,
Ghassan Elashi. I'd like you to know his name. He is the father of six children, and he is serving a 65-year prison sentence, allowed no visits with his children and only 2 phone calls a month. His crime is not murder or rape or theft, but charity; what you would call material support. He is one of the "Holy Land Five," convicted of sending money to Palestinian charities run by Hamas. The prosecution, which relied upon the testimony of an Israeli intelligence officer to make their case, does not believe that one dollar of the money Ghassan sent to Palestine went toward violence or acts of terror, but, as the hospitals and schools and food it bought were linked to Hamas, the good will it may have garnered is, apparently, just as dangerous.
I want to live in the real world. I try to be pragmatic, I try to understand the complexity and nuance of cases like this. I find fault with much of Hamas's charter, with their goals and with their methods. But what options have we given them? Hamas has done charity and community service work, they have honored cease-fires, they have participated in legitimate elections and won. Leaders of Hamas have indicated that their stance on Israel is softening. What do they have to do to gain international legitimacy without sacrificing domestic credibility? These projects funded by the Holy Land Foundation were helping some of the poorest people on earth just to survive and have access to basic services. It doesn't make Hamas' violent past all better, but it doesn't make every member of the party terrorists. How can we ignore the complexity of this situation? How can we look at this work, that by any other group, in any other place, you would praise as God's own, and call it a crime?
Ghassan Elashi. Please remember that while you call on Americans to give our time and our money to the betterment of those less fortunate, that this man will sit in prison for 65 years because he tried to help.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Ghassan Elashi. I'd like you to know his name. He is the father of six children, and he is serving a 65-year prison sentence, allowed no visits with his children and only 2 phone calls a month. His crime is not murder or rape or theft, but charity; what you would call material support. He is one of the "Holy Land Five," convicted of sending money to Palestinian charities run by Hamas. The prosecution, which relied upon the testimony of an Israeli intelligence officer to make their case, does not believe that one dollar of the money Ghassan sent to Palestine went toward violence or acts of terror, but, as the hospitals and schools and food it bought were linked to Hamas, the good will it may have garnered is, apparently, just as dangerous.
I want to live in the real world. I try to be pragmatic, I try to understand the complexity and nuance of cases like this. I find fault with much of Hamas's charter, with their goals and with their methods. But what options have we given them? Hamas has done charity and community service work, they have honored cease-fires, they have participated in legitimate elections and won. Leaders of Hamas have indicated that their stance on Israel is softening. What do they have to do to gain international legitimacy without sacrificing domestic credibility? These projects funded by the Holy Land Foundation were helping some of the poorest people on earth just to survive and have access to basic services. It doesn't make Hamas' violent past all better, but it doesn't make every member of the party terrorists. How can we ignore the complexity of this situation? How can we look at this work, that by any other group, in any other place, you would praise as God's own, and call it a crime?
Ghassan Elashi. Please remember that while you call on Americans to give our time and our money to the betterment of those less fortunate, that this man will sit in prison for 65 years because he tried to help.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, May 17, 2010
Day 137- Graham v. Florida
Dear Mr. President,
In an earlier letter, I spoke about the immorality of continuing to keep Omar Khadr in Guantanamo Bay for a crime he allegedly committed as a 15-year old boy. Today's Supreme Court decision, which rightly identifies the sentencing of minors to life without parole for crimes other than murder, again brought this case to my mind. But it also recalled another case, one which this week is fresh in my mind since you spoke at the memorial for fallen police officers. Maurice Clemmons, who murdered 4 police officers in Washington state, committed his first crime at 16. When governor Huckabee commuted his 108-year sentence to make him eligible for parole in 1999 (instead of 2015) he did so largely because of Clemmons's age at the time of his crimes. This case is a test of my convictions about juvenile sentencing. The visceral, personal, emotional reaction I have to the murder of police officers does not change the fact that, had I been Governor Huckabee, I would likely have made the same decision. I, too, would want to believe that the man had changed and grown and come to see the error of his ways. I, too, would have wanted to show mercy for mistakes made as a child.
What makes this case so frustrating is that, of course, Maurice Clemmons did not walk out of jail in 1999 and then live as an upstanding member of society until 2009; before murdering 4 officers he raped two children, assaulted two other officers, committed robbery, and was assessed by medical professionals to be highly dangerous and likely to re-offend. There were many points between the Governor commuting the sentence and the day those officers died when the system should have intervened to stop this terrible man. I do not think that giving him a second chance was a mistake, even if the series of additional chances following may have been. Can any one even say for certain that, at 16, Maurice Clemmons was already destined for this? I don't believe we can.
Still, his original sentences would have left him in an Arkansas prison until 2015; parole was not out of the question, even after a series of criminal acts. Those prisoners put away for life without parole who may eventually be released because of today's Supreme Court decision may have another Maurice Clemmons among them. We cannot pretend to know for certain what a person's future actions will be, but I think it is better to give a person a chance to change, so long as the safeguards built in to the system are implemented correctly.
The Supreme court acted in accordance with the spirit of the law, and the conscience of our country. I only hope that the wisdom behind their decision can be extrapolated to apply to Omar Khadr during his trial. I don't know if he will leave Guantanamo hating America even more, ready to return to the fight or to kill innocents. I don't know any of this, and neither do you and neither does any military tribunal. It is the fear we have to live with, if we are to adhere to our nation's moral code, to uphold the values of justice and fairness that we stand for. There is simply no number of prison cells that will ever make us safe.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
In an earlier letter, I spoke about the immorality of continuing to keep Omar Khadr in Guantanamo Bay for a crime he allegedly committed as a 15-year old boy. Today's Supreme Court decision, which rightly identifies the sentencing of minors to life without parole for crimes other than murder, again brought this case to my mind. But it also recalled another case, one which this week is fresh in my mind since you spoke at the memorial for fallen police officers. Maurice Clemmons, who murdered 4 police officers in Washington state, committed his first crime at 16. When governor Huckabee commuted his 108-year sentence to make him eligible for parole in 1999 (instead of 2015) he did so largely because of Clemmons's age at the time of his crimes. This case is a test of my convictions about juvenile sentencing. The visceral, personal, emotional reaction I have to the murder of police officers does not change the fact that, had I been Governor Huckabee, I would likely have made the same decision. I, too, would want to believe that the man had changed and grown and come to see the error of his ways. I, too, would have wanted to show mercy for mistakes made as a child.
What makes this case so frustrating is that, of course, Maurice Clemmons did not walk out of jail in 1999 and then live as an upstanding member of society until 2009; before murdering 4 officers he raped two children, assaulted two other officers, committed robbery, and was assessed by medical professionals to be highly dangerous and likely to re-offend. There were many points between the Governor commuting the sentence and the day those officers died when the system should have intervened to stop this terrible man. I do not think that giving him a second chance was a mistake, even if the series of additional chances following may have been. Can any one even say for certain that, at 16, Maurice Clemmons was already destined for this? I don't believe we can.
Still, his original sentences would have left him in an Arkansas prison until 2015; parole was not out of the question, even after a series of criminal acts. Those prisoners put away for life without parole who may eventually be released because of today's Supreme Court decision may have another Maurice Clemmons among them. We cannot pretend to know for certain what a person's future actions will be, but I think it is better to give a person a chance to change, so long as the safeguards built in to the system are implemented correctly.
The Supreme court acted in accordance with the spirit of the law, and the conscience of our country. I only hope that the wisdom behind their decision can be extrapolated to apply to Omar Khadr during his trial. I don't know if he will leave Guantanamo hating America even more, ready to return to the fight or to kill innocents. I don't know any of this, and neither do you and neither does any military tribunal. It is the fear we have to live with, if we are to adhere to our nation's moral code, to uphold the values of justice and fairness that we stand for. There is simply no number of prison cells that will ever make us safe.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Day 132- The myth of mainstream
Dear Mr. President,
In today's Washington Post, Kathleen Parker contends that, due to her education and New York City origins, "Elena Kagan is miles away from mainstream America." While her argument, which is based on some pretty impressively weak logic, is artfully refuted by Ed Kilgore at fivethirtyeight, I'd like to discuss why it is acceptable for Ms. Parker to so casually assert the claim that some of us are somehow more American than others. Imagine, for a moment, if she based this claim not on geography, but on race, gender, age, or religion; would the Washington Post still put its name above that? I am so tired of the conservative contention that there is a "real" America and a "liberal" America, and that living in or coming from a certain type of place makes a person more or less representative of quintessential America.
I grew up in a small town, with farms and small businesses and enough Christian republicans with barely a GED in their ancestry to satisfy even Ms. Parker's definition of a "real" American town. I don't think the people I grew up with can be described as any one thing, (other than, maybe, as Arlingtonians,) and certainly not as qualified (or unqualified) for the Supreme Court. Now, however, I live in a city full of vegetarian atheist lesbians who have PHDs and disdain Wal-mart; again, nothing except our geographic location is true for all of us, and, no matter what Ms. Parker (or Ms. Palin) may think, living in a city didn't change the seal on my passport, or my devotion to this country.
This stirs such an emotional response from me because I had a stepmother who constantly told me that my "book smarts" were inferior to the "street smarts" she and her family possessed. That I, as a young teenager, could be more intelligent than her, but I would never have more common sense. I have not finished college, largely because I have had to work a full-time job for the entirety of it, but, were I to go back to my stepmother's house, I would still be classified, in her mind, as numbering among the out-of-touch, academic, elite. Like Kagan, I am somehow less authentically American. I am so angry that my intelligence, which may not be anything better than slightly above average but is still my greatest strength, makes me lesser, in the eyes of this woman and those who think like her. I got a 5 on the AP calculus and English tests; I got a 1490 SATs and I was a National Merit Scholar. I've also flipped burgers, cut pizzas, waited tables, ran cash registers, and, god knows, made lattes. I've lived in rural and urban areas, in suburban cookie-cutter houses, and in tiny, turn-of-the-century apartment buildings. None of this says much about the type of person that I am, or my qualification as an "ordinary" American. I'm an American, so is Elena Kagan, and if my experience is an American experience, so is hers.
The nine men and women who wield the ultimate power of the Judicial branch with lifetime appointments should not be "ordinary." These should be the brightest, most engaged and creative and, yes, educated, individuals we can find. An understanding of how the law affects ordinary Americans (a classification that I think you intended to indicate Americans without direct power in any of the three branches of government, and not their hometown,) does not mean that one has to be average. I can't say much about what I do or do not want a Supreme Court Justice to be; they can come from any state, any religion, any race, any social class. The one thing I know for sure is that I don't want average minds on the Supreme Court. This is not to say that one must be an Ivy league scholar, either, only that I think the strengths and advantages that make a person extraordinary ought to be valued, not disdained.
It is long past time to end the social acceptability of such disdain for education and intelligence, the belief that one's patriotism or empathy is tied, somehow, to what part of the country they come from. Elena Kagan must be evaluated on her merit's as a potential Justice, not on her place of birth.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
In today's Washington Post, Kathleen Parker contends that, due to her education and New York City origins, "Elena Kagan is miles away from mainstream America." While her argument, which is based on some pretty impressively weak logic, is artfully refuted by Ed Kilgore at fivethirtyeight, I'd like to discuss why it is acceptable for Ms. Parker to so casually assert the claim that some of us are somehow more American than others. Imagine, for a moment, if she based this claim not on geography, but on race, gender, age, or religion; would the Washington Post still put its name above that? I am so tired of the conservative contention that there is a "real" America and a "liberal" America, and that living in or coming from a certain type of place makes a person more or less representative of quintessential America.
I grew up in a small town, with farms and small businesses and enough Christian republicans with barely a GED in their ancestry to satisfy even Ms. Parker's definition of a "real" American town. I don't think the people I grew up with can be described as any one thing, (other than, maybe, as Arlingtonians,) and certainly not as qualified (or unqualified) for the Supreme Court. Now, however, I live in a city full of vegetarian atheist lesbians who have PHDs and disdain Wal-mart; again, nothing except our geographic location is true for all of us, and, no matter what Ms. Parker (or Ms. Palin) may think, living in a city didn't change the seal on my passport, or my devotion to this country.
This stirs such an emotional response from me because I had a stepmother who constantly told me that my "book smarts" were inferior to the "street smarts" she and her family possessed. That I, as a young teenager, could be more intelligent than her, but I would never have more common sense. I have not finished college, largely because I have had to work a full-time job for the entirety of it, but, were I to go back to my stepmother's house, I would still be classified, in her mind, as numbering among the out-of-touch, academic, elite. Like Kagan, I am somehow less authentically American. I am so angry that my intelligence, which may not be anything better than slightly above average but is still my greatest strength, makes me lesser, in the eyes of this woman and those who think like her. I got a 5 on the AP calculus and English tests; I got a 1490 SATs and I was a National Merit Scholar. I've also flipped burgers, cut pizzas, waited tables, ran cash registers, and, god knows, made lattes. I've lived in rural and urban areas, in suburban cookie-cutter houses, and in tiny, turn-of-the-century apartment buildings. None of this says much about the type of person that I am, or my qualification as an "ordinary" American. I'm an American, so is Elena Kagan, and if my experience is an American experience, so is hers.
The nine men and women who wield the ultimate power of the Judicial branch with lifetime appointments should not be "ordinary." These should be the brightest, most engaged and creative and, yes, educated, individuals we can find. An understanding of how the law affects ordinary Americans (a classification that I think you intended to indicate Americans without direct power in any of the three branches of government, and not their hometown,) does not mean that one has to be average. I can't say much about what I do or do not want a Supreme Court Justice to be; they can come from any state, any religion, any race, any social class. The one thing I know for sure is that I don't want average minds on the Supreme Court. This is not to say that one must be an Ivy league scholar, either, only that I think the strengths and advantages that make a person extraordinary ought to be valued, not disdained.
It is long past time to end the social acceptability of such disdain for education and intelligence, the belief that one's patriotism or empathy is tied, somehow, to what part of the country they come from. Elena Kagan must be evaluated on her merit's as a potential Justice, not on her place of birth.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, May 10, 2010
Day 130- Out in public
Tonight's letter is in reference to a post on a former coworker's excellent blog Cultural Minefield. While he and I agree on very little, politically, he is the kind of intellectual I can't help but love to disagree with, especially when I know he can out-argue me on just about anything. He is a brilliant and reasonable individual and I miss him dearly. His post was a comment on Elena Kagan's rumored sexual orientation, and cites this article, for those looking to read more.
Dear Mr. President,
Today you announced Elena Kagan as your nominee for the Supreme Court. I am hardly qualified to comment on the virtues of this; while I relish the idea of the gender balance of the court tipping ever so slightly toward a more realistic reflection of the country, I don't value the symbolism of a female justice above the practical questions about her legal philosophies. I think that your familiarity with her and her views are enough for me, for now, to hope for the best. I've heard murmurs in the media, especially on blogs, about Kagan's sexual orientation. That your administration has refused to comment on this is expected and correct; it is certainly Kagan's prerogative to out herself if she chooses. I cannot imagine accepting a position that would require such scrutiny while simultaneously attempting to keep hidden something like sexual orientation, which the press will pursue perhaps even more doggedly than an affair scandal.
One commentator compared her sexual orientation to her religion, saying that while neither were should exclude her from nomination, it was significant that her religion could be openly discussed while her sexuality could not. I don't agree. For one thing, a person's political, moral and social views are influenced by religion, and religious persecution in this country is far less socially acceptable than the homophobia that is law in many states. There is no amendment to any state's constitution banning Jewish marriage. Some questioned the existence of a "secret" spouse who would be, hypothetically, hidden from the public. I find this highly amusing, given that those conservatives speculating about her secret marriage would have public records to confirm their suspicions, were they less successful at preventing lesbians in this country from openly marrying.
I understand why Kagan would want to hide her hypothetical homosexuality; it is perfectly reasonable to fear the reaction of our country's bigoted populace, not to mention the insulting questions and doubt cast on her objectivity sure to arise during her confirmation hearings in the Senate. I don't know that I could endure it, myself. However, if she is a lesbian, I hope she does speak openly about it, and that the White House does not discourage her from doing so. It is long past time that gay and lesbian Americans enjoyed the same rights of any of us, and, while appointing an openly gay Supreme Court Justice might be more symbolic than tangibly beneficial to the gay community, the most valuable consequence might be for the American government to demonstrate it isn't completely out of touch with American values. That, whatever small-minded individuals who might see it as disqualifying may say, the White House and the Senate are determined to confirm the most qualified individual, and believe, as do much of the American public, that a person's sexual orientation is neither a source of shame or basis for criticism. An expression of hope for a day when such facts about a person will actually arose no more interest or controversy from the media than their religion.
I look forward to the confirmation hearing, in the, (dim, I admit) hope that this one will focus more on the nominee's qualifications and legal philosophy than on any absurd "wise Latina" minutiae; should this fantasy not come to pass, I hope that Kagan is prepared for the difficult and undignified road ahead. I wish her luck.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
Today you announced Elena Kagan as your nominee for the Supreme Court. I am hardly qualified to comment on the virtues of this; while I relish the idea of the gender balance of the court tipping ever so slightly toward a more realistic reflection of the country, I don't value the symbolism of a female justice above the practical questions about her legal philosophies. I think that your familiarity with her and her views are enough for me, for now, to hope for the best. I've heard murmurs in the media, especially on blogs, about Kagan's sexual orientation. That your administration has refused to comment on this is expected and correct; it is certainly Kagan's prerogative to out herself if she chooses. I cannot imagine accepting a position that would require such scrutiny while simultaneously attempting to keep hidden something like sexual orientation, which the press will pursue perhaps even more doggedly than an affair scandal.
One commentator compared her sexual orientation to her religion, saying that while neither were should exclude her from nomination, it was significant that her religion could be openly discussed while her sexuality could not. I don't agree. For one thing, a person's political, moral and social views are influenced by religion, and religious persecution in this country is far less socially acceptable than the homophobia that is law in many states. There is no amendment to any state's constitution banning Jewish marriage. Some questioned the existence of a "secret" spouse who would be, hypothetically, hidden from the public. I find this highly amusing, given that those conservatives speculating about her secret marriage would have public records to confirm their suspicions, were they less successful at preventing lesbians in this country from openly marrying.
I understand why Kagan would want to hide her hypothetical homosexuality; it is perfectly reasonable to fear the reaction of our country's bigoted populace, not to mention the insulting questions and doubt cast on her objectivity sure to arise during her confirmation hearings in the Senate. I don't know that I could endure it, myself. However, if she is a lesbian, I hope she does speak openly about it, and that the White House does not discourage her from doing so. It is long past time that gay and lesbian Americans enjoyed the same rights of any of us, and, while appointing an openly gay Supreme Court Justice might be more symbolic than tangibly beneficial to the gay community, the most valuable consequence might be for the American government to demonstrate it isn't completely out of touch with American values. That, whatever small-minded individuals who might see it as disqualifying may say, the White House and the Senate are determined to confirm the most qualified individual, and believe, as do much of the American public, that a person's sexual orientation is neither a source of shame or basis for criticism. An expression of hope for a day when such facts about a person will actually arose no more interest or controversy from the media than their religion.
I look forward to the confirmation hearing, in the, (dim, I admit) hope that this one will focus more on the nominee's qualifications and legal philosophy than on any absurd "wise Latina" minutiae; should this fantasy not come to pass, I hope that Kagan is prepared for the difficult and undignified road ahead. I wish her luck.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Day 111- Why I'm a Barista and not POTUS
Dear Mr. President,
Today I was yelled at by a customer I was serving, rudely scolded before I'd even had the chance to do anything wrong. It wasn't a big deal, or even an interaction that far outside of the ordinary, but it's had me contemplating the type of person who gets that angry about coffee. You certainly get angry complaints all the time, you must hear it and read it and see it on a daily basis. Your job requires you to make unpopular, difficult decisions that affect people's lives; a certain amount of anger is just to be expected. I feel as though my relative lack of importance ought to keep people from every getting this angry at me, but then, I suppose every one needs a way to deal with their bad days.
I think this is a bit like appointing a Supreme Court Justice. You've barely begun the decision making process, and already some are angry that your nominee will be too partisan, too moderate, too traditional, too activist, or any number of other hypothetical superlatives. I understand a reasonable amount of concern with who the next Justice will be; the lifetime appointment affords so much power for so little accountability that it is important for citizens to be engaged in the process. However, like my customer today who had a very specific idea of what she wanted and was already convinced that I would not give it to her, many of the hysterics over your decision seem absurdly preemptive.
I hope that the wisdom you displayed in nominating Justice Sotomayor will see you through to making another excellent choice. I'm lucky, in that my conflicts with those I serve can almost always be quickly resolved; I'm empowered to just give them what they want, even when they don't think that's possible. You can only nominate one person, and they can't possibly hope to please every one. I suppose that's why you ran for office and I make coffee all day. Anyway, my workday will be starting in only a few more hours, so I'll leave more important issues for another day. I hope this letter finds you well, and not too overwhelmed with the impossible task of governing a country as difficult as this one. And please, be nice to whoever is serving your coffee.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today I was yelled at by a customer I was serving, rudely scolded before I'd even had the chance to do anything wrong. It wasn't a big deal, or even an interaction that far outside of the ordinary, but it's had me contemplating the type of person who gets that angry about coffee. You certainly get angry complaints all the time, you must hear it and read it and see it on a daily basis. Your job requires you to make unpopular, difficult decisions that affect people's lives; a certain amount of anger is just to be expected. I feel as though my relative lack of importance ought to keep people from every getting this angry at me, but then, I suppose every one needs a way to deal with their bad days.
I think this is a bit like appointing a Supreme Court Justice. You've barely begun the decision making process, and already some are angry that your nominee will be too partisan, too moderate, too traditional, too activist, or any number of other hypothetical superlatives. I understand a reasonable amount of concern with who the next Justice will be; the lifetime appointment affords so much power for so little accountability that it is important for citizens to be engaged in the process. However, like my customer today who had a very specific idea of what she wanted and was already convinced that I would not give it to her, many of the hysterics over your decision seem absurdly preemptive.
I hope that the wisdom you displayed in nominating Justice Sotomayor will see you through to making another excellent choice. I'm lucky, in that my conflicts with those I serve can almost always be quickly resolved; I'm empowered to just give them what they want, even when they don't think that's possible. You can only nominate one person, and they can't possibly hope to please every one. I suppose that's why you ran for office and I make coffee all day. Anyway, my workday will be starting in only a few more hours, so I'll leave more important issues for another day. I hope this letter finds you well, and not too overwhelmed with the impossible task of governing a country as difficult as this one. And please, be nice to whoever is serving your coffee.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Day 110
Dear Mr. President,
I’m sorry about Arizona. Not any legislation that they may have passed lately, but really about the entire state. If they try to secede from union, please let them.
Tonight I'm having a heated discussion with friends about the Supreme Court's decision on animal cruelty videos. I made Hollandaise sauce for the first time, so maybe I was feeling just a bit arrogant. Anyway, I quickly realized it might be a mistake to start such a conversation in this group of people. None of us knows what to think, and the few that started out certain of their opinions are not so any longer. I only know that I don't know anything completely. I'm a big advocate of free speech; I'm also a big advocate of people not being allowed to profit from or get off on animals being tortured and killed. Maybe this is a real test of my first amendment advocacy. After all, it's easy to defend speech that you don't find objectionable. The real test is when some one's behavior crosses your personal threshold for acceptable expression.
I don't disagree with the Supreme Court about this specific law; it was overly broad and clearly problematic in several ways. I think that the cruelty toward animals practiced by many agricultural companies and even some hunters has no place in our society, but I recognize that I'm among the most extreme in these views. Still, I think there's some common ground to be found in the worst cases of violence against animals. Try as I might, articulating that in legal terms has been difficult. Could we ban the sale, distribution or possession of pornographic videos that involve live animals? Defining pornography, of course, becomes problematic.
How do you feel about this decision, Mr. President? Do you feel that the law struck down should be re-written in a way that doesn't pose a threat to the first amendment? Is this an area of expression that warrants some restriction? Or should we accept this horrifying material as the unavoidable by-product of living in a free society?
I don't think any one, even the 8 Justices who voted with the majority on this, feel good about today's decision. It is one of those haunting reminders of the frightening and even dangerous complexities of our society; our complete inability to be safe, free, and morally upright all at once, all the time.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, April 12, 2010
Day 102- Faith in the voters
Dear Mr. President,
The rumors of the campaign finance reform legislation soon to be proposed by congressional Democrats seem like the first good news since the Supreme court decision earlier this year. This push for greater transparency in the way donations are disclosed puts the responsibility for real reform to the voters. If we can't regulate the way donations are given, at least we can ensure that voters know who, exactly, is funding candidates and parties. Despite the cynical thoughts that tell me otherwise, I have to believe that voters can recognize corruption and will act to correct it.
Passing this legislation must be about more than putting Democrats on the popular side of a national issue before the election. There just isn't a way to ever completely prevent corporations and organizations from wielding greater power and influence over elected officials; our best hope is to expose such corruption to the voters and to hope they make the right choices. This is why any legislative battle must be coupled with significant and effective promotion of the issue to the public.
I know it is a common and unfair stereotype that Democrats do a poor job of communicating or selling our issues to the American people, but the health care debate demonstrated we certainly have a great deal of room for improvement. I think, if we are going to have any chance at staunching the flow of corporate campaign donations allowed by the Supreme Court's decision, we have to do a better job of uniting our members behind this issue and calling out the corrupt politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who compromise their integrity for the sake of the powerful interests funding their campaigns.
I hope that, with your leadership on this issue, congress is able to effectively demonstrate to the American public the necessity of this reform. Giving voters all the information they need to make informed choices at the ballot is all that the government can do to protect us from corruption; the rest has to be up to us.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
The rumors of the campaign finance reform legislation soon to be proposed by congressional Democrats seem like the first good news since the Supreme court decision earlier this year. This push for greater transparency in the way donations are disclosed puts the responsibility for real reform to the voters. If we can't regulate the way donations are given, at least we can ensure that voters know who, exactly, is funding candidates and parties. Despite the cynical thoughts that tell me otherwise, I have to believe that voters can recognize corruption and will act to correct it.
Passing this legislation must be about more than putting Democrats on the popular side of a national issue before the election. There just isn't a way to ever completely prevent corporations and organizations from wielding greater power and influence over elected officials; our best hope is to expose such corruption to the voters and to hope they make the right choices. This is why any legislative battle must be coupled with significant and effective promotion of the issue to the public.
I know it is a common and unfair stereotype that Democrats do a poor job of communicating or selling our issues to the American people, but the health care debate demonstrated we certainly have a great deal of room for improvement. I think, if we are going to have any chance at staunching the flow of corporate campaign donations allowed by the Supreme Court's decision, we have to do a better job of uniting our members behind this issue and calling out the corrupt politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who compromise their integrity for the sake of the powerful interests funding their campaigns.
I hope that, with your leadership on this issue, congress is able to effectively demonstrate to the American public the necessity of this reform. Giving voters all the information they need to make informed choices at the ballot is all that the government can do to protect us from corruption; the rest has to be up to us.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Day 82- a bit of fiction on a slow news day
Dear Mr. President,
It is difficult not to roll my eyes at the media's obsession with Joe Biden's use of profanity today at the bill signing. As though the bill itself is less significant than the knowledge that the Vice-President uses curse words. I think most thinking adults find this wholly unsurprising. Any one who pretends genuine offense either has forgotten the previous administration's VP entirely or is just too upset about health care reform to be reasonable. Also, with all due respect to VP Biden, on the scale of embarrassing things that he's said into a microphone, this barely registers.
Anyway, since it is such an apparently slow news day, I thought I'd offer a bit of fiction. I doubt very much you've seen the old TV show The West Wing, but, as I watch the first season for the millionth time, it's difficult not to be amused at the parallels between your administration and the fictional Bartlet administration. Life imitating art, perhaps. The episode I'm watching tonight centers around the administration's struggle to nominate the first Latino justice to the Supreme Court (See, it's freaky.) This has me thinking about the imminent retirement of Justice Stevens. I'll be sorry to see Justice Stevens go, though his lifetime of service to our country certainly entitles him to some rest and relaxation. It will be difficult, maybe even impossible to find some one truly worthy of replacing him, but I have faith in your administration, especially after the commendable confirmation of Justice Sotomayor.
What do you look for in judicial nominees? Do you look for individuals who share your political philosophy? As a constitutional scholar yourself, I'm sure you've got more insight into the role of the courts than most previous occupants of your office, do you think that makes the decision more difficult? How much of a factor are the political leanings of the departing justice? This process must involve a great number of people, as I suppose it rightly should. I'll hope that next month brings the announcement of another year with Justice Stevens on the court, but if it should not, I'll look forward to finding out who you'll nominate to be his successor.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
It is difficult not to roll my eyes at the media's obsession with Joe Biden's use of profanity today at the bill signing. As though the bill itself is less significant than the knowledge that the Vice-President uses curse words. I think most thinking adults find this wholly unsurprising. Any one who pretends genuine offense either has forgotten the previous administration's VP entirely or is just too upset about health care reform to be reasonable. Also, with all due respect to VP Biden, on the scale of embarrassing things that he's said into a microphone, this barely registers.
Anyway, since it is such an apparently slow news day, I thought I'd offer a bit of fiction. I doubt very much you've seen the old TV show The West Wing, but, as I watch the first season for the millionth time, it's difficult not to be amused at the parallels between your administration and the fictional Bartlet administration. Life imitating art, perhaps. The episode I'm watching tonight centers around the administration's struggle to nominate the first Latino justice to the Supreme Court (See, it's freaky.) This has me thinking about the imminent retirement of Justice Stevens. I'll be sorry to see Justice Stevens go, though his lifetime of service to our country certainly entitles him to some rest and relaxation. It will be difficult, maybe even impossible to find some one truly worthy of replacing him, but I have faith in your administration, especially after the commendable confirmation of Justice Sotomayor.
What do you look for in judicial nominees? Do you look for individuals who share your political philosophy? As a constitutional scholar yourself, I'm sure you've got more insight into the role of the courts than most previous occupants of your office, do you think that makes the decision more difficult? How much of a factor are the political leanings of the departing justice? This process must involve a great number of people, as I suppose it rightly should. I'll hope that next month brings the announcement of another year with Justice Stevens on the court, but if it should not, I'll look forward to finding out who you'll nominate to be his successor.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Day 23- 37 years
Today we recognize the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which affirms every woman’s fundamental constitutional right to choose whether to have an abortion, as well as each American’s right to privacy from government intrusion. I have, and continue to, support these constitutional rights.
I also remain committed to working with people of good will to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and families, and strengthen the adoption system.
Today and every day, we must strive to ensure that all women have limitless opportunities to fulfill their dreams.
Dear Mr. President,
The night of the final debate between you and Senator McCain was the night I knew you were a different kind of politician. What struck me was the way you reminded every one, very calmly, that no matter how unapologetic you or any one might be in their support for Roe V. Wade, "no one is pro-abortion." The power of this moment was lost, of course, in Senator McCain's response, which involved air-quotes around "women's health" as though women across the nation were inventing life-threatening prenatal complications in order to score late-term abortions. My appreciation for your words was lost in my disgust at Senator McCain, but your words kept coming back to me, in the days following.
5 years ago, I made a choice. Knowing what I know now, knowing how that choice has haunted me, redefined me, in many ways, broken me, I don't think I would make the same choice, again. I was 18, and I was scared, and I was desperate. I know, for sure, that the law would not have stopped me. I could have gone to a safe, sterile clinic, or I could have gone somewhere else. I wasn't making this choice because I thought it was the right one, I wasn't making it because I thought, at all. I was making it because a person I thought mattered more than all else, told me it was the only way. I'm not blaming him, I'm blaming myself for valuing this man above my own health and safety and survival. For valuing him above all reason or logic.
In the end, of course, he left me. In the end I was alone, as I had always been. And while this decision may haunt me, the question of its morality settled so decidedly in my mind, its legality protected me from truly terrible consequences. The law cannot protect me from regret and self-reproach, but it can, and did, protect my health and safety. It is, once again, about Elizabeth Cady Stanton's solitude of self. The law that protects this decision protects a woman when she is the most alone. When she cannot count on any one, not her family, not her lover, and certainly not the men who govern her, to help.
I know both the desperation of being so young and so scared, and the ache of having surrendered your better judgment to another. So no matter what choice I would make now, I feel physically ill to think of that choice ever again being made for me or for any woman, by men like Senator McCain. This is why your manner in the debate was so inspiring. Not because you agree with me, but because you did not allow the debate to be taken from you and redefined. You did not allow Senator McCain to paint your beliefs as shameful or craven. You did not surrender the dignity of your position and of those that share it. So thank you for that.
37 years ago the courts defined the limits of their jurisdiction to be the boundaries of a person's body. It comforts me to know that you agree.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I also remain committed to working with people of good will to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and families, and strengthen the adoption system.
Today and every day, we must strive to ensure that all women have limitless opportunities to fulfill their dreams.
Dear Mr. President,
The night of the final debate between you and Senator McCain was the night I knew you were a different kind of politician. What struck me was the way you reminded every one, very calmly, that no matter how unapologetic you or any one might be in their support for Roe V. Wade, "no one is pro-abortion." The power of this moment was lost, of course, in Senator McCain's response, which involved air-quotes around "women's health" as though women across the nation were inventing life-threatening prenatal complications in order to score late-term abortions. My appreciation for your words was lost in my disgust at Senator McCain, but your words kept coming back to me, in the days following.
5 years ago, I made a choice. Knowing what I know now, knowing how that choice has haunted me, redefined me, in many ways, broken me, I don't think I would make the same choice, again. I was 18, and I was scared, and I was desperate. I know, for sure, that the law would not have stopped me. I could have gone to a safe, sterile clinic, or I could have gone somewhere else. I wasn't making this choice because I thought it was the right one, I wasn't making it because I thought, at all. I was making it because a person I thought mattered more than all else, told me it was the only way. I'm not blaming him, I'm blaming myself for valuing this man above my own health and safety and survival. For valuing him above all reason or logic.
In the end, of course, he left me. In the end I was alone, as I had always been. And while this decision may haunt me, the question of its morality settled so decidedly in my mind, its legality protected me from truly terrible consequences. The law cannot protect me from regret and self-reproach, but it can, and did, protect my health and safety. It is, once again, about Elizabeth Cady Stanton's solitude of self. The law that protects this decision protects a woman when she is the most alone. When she cannot count on any one, not her family, not her lover, and certainly not the men who govern her, to help.
I know both the desperation of being so young and so scared, and the ache of having surrendered your better judgment to another. So no matter what choice I would make now, I feel physically ill to think of that choice ever again being made for me or for any woman, by men like Senator McCain. This is why your manner in the debate was so inspiring. Not because you agree with me, but because you did not allow the debate to be taken from you and redefined. You did not allow Senator McCain to paint your beliefs as shameful or craven. You did not surrender the dignity of your position and of those that share it. So thank you for that.
37 years ago the courts defined the limits of their jurisdiction to be the boundaries of a person's body. It comforts me to know that you agree.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Day 21
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.
Dear Mr. President,
Good luck talking with Congressional leaders about today's Supreme Court decision. I'm in complete agreement with you on this issue, but I have little hope that a congress already so beholden to special interests will be particularly helpful in developing "a forceful response." I think today's ruling would be considerably less effective if large donors were a legitimate political liability for candidates. If being purchased by a company, union or lobby could be more embarrassing and detrimental to a candidate than a sex scandal. I have no problem with politicians who sleep around, unless I'm married to them. I have a considerable problem with politicians who represent special interests and not the voters. Unfortunately, having and affair with a powerful organization will never make quite as many headlines as having an actual affair.
I feel exhausted trying to write this, tonight, but I'm sure it does not begin to rival the exhaustion you feel. Between the arbitrary "one year in office" retrospectives, the election, the supreme court, the economy, and Haiti, I don't know how you haven't collapsed yet. It will get better. It feels like it won't, it feels like we are fighting on too many fronts to prevail, but that must be wrong. At my store, I was chatting with a regular customer and I mentioned you, and she asked me if I still had faith in you. I said that I did, and she cheered out loud. So many of us still have faith in you, sir, don't let our voices get lost in the din. I am struggling to find something meaningful to say, so I will resort to theft. The following is by one of my favorite poets, a Nobel laureate and a woman who survived much darker times.
The Turn of the Century
By Wislawa Szymborska
It was supposed to be better than the others, our 20th century,
But it won't have time to prove it.
Its years are numbered,
its step unsteady,
its breath short.
Already too much has happened
that was not supposed to happen.
What was to come about
has not.
Spring was to be on its way,
and happiness, among other things.
Fear was to leave the mountains and valleys.
The truth was supposed to finish before the lie.
Certain misfortunes
were never to happen again
such as war and hunger and so forth.
These were to be respected:
the defenselessness of the defenseless,
trust and the like.
Whoever wanted to enjoy the world
faces an impossible task.
Stupidity is not funny.
Wisdom isn't jolly.
Hope
Is no longer the same young girl
et cetera. Alas.
God was at last to believe in man:
good and strong,
but good and strong
are still two different people.
How to live--someone asked me this in a letter,
someone I had wanted
to ask that very thing.
Again and as always,
and as seen above
there are no questions more urgent
than the naive ones.
I'll end tonight with a naive question, Mr. President. What can I do?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
Good luck talking with Congressional leaders about today's Supreme Court decision. I'm in complete agreement with you on this issue, but I have little hope that a congress already so beholden to special interests will be particularly helpful in developing "a forceful response." I think today's ruling would be considerably less effective if large donors were a legitimate political liability for candidates. If being purchased by a company, union or lobby could be more embarrassing and detrimental to a candidate than a sex scandal. I have no problem with politicians who sleep around, unless I'm married to them. I have a considerable problem with politicians who represent special interests and not the voters. Unfortunately, having and affair with a powerful organization will never make quite as many headlines as having an actual affair.
I feel exhausted trying to write this, tonight, but I'm sure it does not begin to rival the exhaustion you feel. Between the arbitrary "one year in office" retrospectives, the election, the supreme court, the economy, and Haiti, I don't know how you haven't collapsed yet. It will get better. It feels like it won't, it feels like we are fighting on too many fronts to prevail, but that must be wrong. At my store, I was chatting with a regular customer and I mentioned you, and she asked me if I still had faith in you. I said that I did, and she cheered out loud. So many of us still have faith in you, sir, don't let our voices get lost in the din. I am struggling to find something meaningful to say, so I will resort to theft. The following is by one of my favorite poets, a Nobel laureate and a woman who survived much darker times.
The Turn of the Century
By Wislawa Szymborska
It was supposed to be better than the others, our 20th century,
But it won't have time to prove it.
Its years are numbered,
its step unsteady,
its breath short.
Already too much has happened
that was not supposed to happen.
What was to come about
has not.
Spring was to be on its way,
and happiness, among other things.
Fear was to leave the mountains and valleys.
The truth was supposed to finish before the lie.
Certain misfortunes
were never to happen again
such as war and hunger and so forth.
These were to be respected:
the defenselessness of the defenseless,
trust and the like.
Whoever wanted to enjoy the world
faces an impossible task.
Stupidity is not funny.
Wisdom isn't jolly.
Hope
Is no longer the same young girl
et cetera. Alas.
God was at last to believe in man:
good and strong,
but good and strong
are still two different people.
How to live--someone asked me this in a letter,
someone I had wanted
to ask that very thing.
Again and as always,
and as seen above
there are no questions more urgent
than the naive ones.
I'll end tonight with a naive question, Mr. President. What can I do?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
