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 White House. Show all posts
Showing posts with label White House. Show all posts
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Day 343- Tax cuts, bandwagons and war drums
Dear Mr. President,
OK, I get it already. Lots of prominent leaders across the political spectrum have come out in support of your tax cut compromise with the Republicans. I mean lots. And releasing their endorsements one at a time in separate press releases was pretty funny. Gail Collins pointed out that liberal Democrats have been asking you to get mad for a while, and now we're complaining that you finally got mad- at us. And you have every right to be mad, I suppose, as none of us were mad enough to show up on election day and give you a congress that might have your back (though, to be entirely fair, you might have found better ways to spend the primary season than propping up every tired blue-dog with a pulse.) For all of my suggestions that you either refuse tax cuts for the rich or refuse tax cuts for all of us, I wasn't the one responsible for negotiating the compromise (and I won't be the one responsible for negotiating the next 2 years worth of legislation through congress.) You made a call and now you're standing by it.
Collins, in her opinion piece, laments those on the left still landing hard from their fall off of the Obama bandwagon, while smugly declaring her own fall is off of the "line in the sand bandwagon". I suppose I might also be accused of letting my loyalty to you as a person & my membership in the cult of personality surrounding you conflict with my true bleeding-heart liberalism. As many who supported you in 2008 walk away, disappointed, decrying the whole bandwagon mentality, I wish I could join them. Maybe it's a mark of an inferior mind to need a higher authority to place my faith in, but I haven't still haven't heard a better alternative. Should the anti-bandwagon crowd offer me another leader, or convince me that we don't need one, maybe that will change. For now, while I often think that you're wrong, but I'd never trust myself to do your job better.
In all of the outrage about tax rates and the inexplicable failing of the cloture motion to repeal DADT, I was getting more fed up with congress than with you. To add to all of this, the House has passed legislation preventing any Guantanamo Bay detainees from being brought to domestic prisons. Today has not done much for my rapidly dwindling faith in the American people and those we elect to represent us.
My own time has been selfishly consumed with a struggle to finish my final papers for class, study for my exams, and maintain something that resembles sanity closely enough to keep my boss from worrying about me. I can't fix the economy, I can't get basic equality for gay and lesbian Americans and I can't close down Guantanamo bay. I jumped on your bandwagon in the first place because you said that you could. And while my frustration might be more deserved by several members of congress and those who didn't find the time to vote in the midterm elections, unfortunately you're the one I picked for a pen pal. We can't possibly be losing the fight on this many fronts at once.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
PS
The only thing that's bolstered my spirits today is the news that Suheir Hammad, one of my favorite poets, will be speaking at a TED conference soon. They published the text of her poem "What I will" and I thought I'd send it along to you.
What I Will
by Suheir Hammad
I will not
dance to your war
drum. I will
not lend my soul nor
my bones to your war
drum. I will
not dance to your
beating. I know that beat.
It is lifeless. I know
intimately that skin
you are hitting. It
was alive once
hunted stolen
stretched. I will
not dance to your drummed
up war. I will not pop
spin beak for you. I
will not hate for you or
even hate you. I will
not kill for you. Especially
I will not die
for you. I will not mourn
the dead with murder nor
suicide. I will not side
with you nor dance to bombs
because everyone else is
dancing. Everyone can be
wrong. Life is a right not
collateral or casual. I
will not forget where
I come from. I
will craft my own drum. Gather my beloved
near and our chanting
will be dancing. Our
humming will be drumming. I
will not be played. I
will not lend my name
nor my rhythm to your
beat. I will dance
and resist and dance and
persist and dance. This heartbeat is louder than
death. Your war drum ain’t
louder than this breath.
OK, I get it already. Lots of prominent leaders across the political spectrum have come out in support of your tax cut compromise with the Republicans. I mean lots. And releasing their endorsements one at a time in separate press releases was pretty funny. Gail Collins pointed out that liberal Democrats have been asking you to get mad for a while, and now we're complaining that you finally got mad- at us. And you have every right to be mad, I suppose, as none of us were mad enough to show up on election day and give you a congress that might have your back (though, to be entirely fair, you might have found better ways to spend the primary season than propping up every tired blue-dog with a pulse.) For all of my suggestions that you either refuse tax cuts for the rich or refuse tax cuts for all of us, I wasn't the one responsible for negotiating the compromise (and I won't be the one responsible for negotiating the next 2 years worth of legislation through congress.) You made a call and now you're standing by it.
Collins, in her opinion piece, laments those on the left still landing hard from their fall off of the Obama bandwagon, while smugly declaring her own fall is off of the "line in the sand bandwagon". I suppose I might also be accused of letting my loyalty to you as a person & my membership in the cult of personality surrounding you conflict with my true bleeding-heart liberalism. As many who supported you in 2008 walk away, disappointed, decrying the whole bandwagon mentality, I wish I could join them. Maybe it's a mark of an inferior mind to need a higher authority to place my faith in, but I haven't still haven't heard a better alternative. Should the anti-bandwagon crowd offer me another leader, or convince me that we don't need one, maybe that will change. For now, while I often think that you're wrong, but I'd never trust myself to do your job better.
In all of the outrage about tax rates and the inexplicable failing of the cloture motion to repeal DADT, I was getting more fed up with congress than with you. To add to all of this, the House has passed legislation preventing any Guantanamo Bay detainees from being brought to domestic prisons. Today has not done much for my rapidly dwindling faith in the American people and those we elect to represent us.
My own time has been selfishly consumed with a struggle to finish my final papers for class, study for my exams, and maintain something that resembles sanity closely enough to keep my boss from worrying about me. I can't fix the economy, I can't get basic equality for gay and lesbian Americans and I can't close down Guantanamo bay. I jumped on your bandwagon in the first place because you said that you could. And while my frustration might be more deserved by several members of congress and those who didn't find the time to vote in the midterm elections, unfortunately you're the one I picked for a pen pal. We can't possibly be losing the fight on this many fronts at once.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
PS
The only thing that's bolstered my spirits today is the news that Suheir Hammad, one of my favorite poets, will be speaking at a TED conference soon. They published the text of her poem "What I will" and I thought I'd send it along to you.
What I Will
by Suheir Hammad
I will not
dance to your war
drum. I will
not lend my soul nor
my bones to your war
drum. I will
not dance to your
beating. I know that beat.
It is lifeless. I know
intimately that skin
you are hitting. It
was alive once
hunted stolen
stretched. I will
not dance to your drummed
up war. I will not pop
spin beak for you. I
will not hate for you or
even hate you. I will
not kill for you. Especially
I will not die
for you. I will not mourn
the dead with murder nor
suicide. I will not side
with you nor dance to bombs
because everyone else is
dancing. Everyone can be
wrong. Life is a right not
collateral or casual. I
will not forget where
I come from. I
will craft my own drum. Gather my beloved
near and our chanting
will be dancing. Our
humming will be drumming. I
will not be played. I
will not lend my name
nor my rhythm to your
beat. I will dance
and resist and dance and
persist and dance. This heartbeat is louder than
death. Your war drum ain’t
louder than this breath.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Day 324-Storytelling
Dear Mr. President,
Lately I've been thinking a lot about the way we tell stories, and especially about the things the telling teaches about the teller. Most of the people in my life are storytellers. A number of them are writers as well, and tell their best stories without speaking. Others have to be heard, their tales never sounding quite right without their pauses, inflection and gestures. Regardless if they are speaker or writers, or if their stories are fiction or fact, I have a tendency to judge people by the way they tell their own stories.
Some (and I think I often must, unfortunately, include myself in this category) tell stories to impress. We talk about our achievements and often exaggerate (or selectively edit) details in order to cast ourselves in the best light. While I like to think I know when to stop short of bragging or outright lying, I'm sure this inclination is not as effective as I imagine it to be. When I meet a person who is the hero in all of their own stories, I tend to get wary about them. Honesty can be subjective, of course, but the compulsive need to be liked is always a dangerous indication.
Others speak with more concern for their audience than for themselves. A few of my friends have this astounding, uncanny ability to entertain or move or capture a listener with their (written, spoken, fictional or nonfictional) tales. They know exactly which words to choose, which details to paint, to craft their stories to elicit laughter or emotion or connection with whoever they speak to. I could listen to these friends for hours as they cast themselves as heroes, fools or removed observers, placing the telling of the story above the way it reflects upon themselves. The details of any given story are never as important as the way it is told. These are people I tend to admire, to seek to surround myself with and learn from.
One of my favorite storytellers outside of my circle of people I actually know is a writer for The Stranger, Paul Constant. Recently he wrote a piece comparing Tucker Max's memoir Assholes finish first with former President Bush's Decision Points. In it, he points out the self-aggrandizing way each man ignores the consequences of his actions and imagines his own heroics while, (with no small amount of sadness) also noting that Max, unlike President Bush, at least manages to muster the smallest amount of self-critical reflection by the end. Reading Constant's review and considering the way I judge people by the way they tell their own stories, I considered your own writing, and especially the way you tell your story to the American people. I have to say, Mr. President, that even when I do not agree with you, I always appreciate the way you explain things. Your honesty and self-reflection make me trust you, and I think that you have that rare ability to tell truth with more concern for how the audience will feel about it than how it will make them think of you. This sets you apart from your predecessor and also reminds me why you were able to reach out to so many people across the political spectrum.
I hope that when you get around to writing your own memoir of your time in the White House that you are able to do so with more self-reflection and awareness than President Bush. The story of your Presidency will not be about what you accomplished or what you decided, the battles you won or the times you were right. I believe that the telling, and not the tale, will be the most important and most revealing, even should events take a turn for the highly unlikely and leave you just as desperate to rewrite history as your predecessor.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Lately I've been thinking a lot about the way we tell stories, and especially about the things the telling teaches about the teller. Most of the people in my life are storytellers. A number of them are writers as well, and tell their best stories without speaking. Others have to be heard, their tales never sounding quite right without their pauses, inflection and gestures. Regardless if they are speaker or writers, or if their stories are fiction or fact, I have a tendency to judge people by the way they tell their own stories.
Some (and I think I often must, unfortunately, include myself in this category) tell stories to impress. We talk about our achievements and often exaggerate (or selectively edit) details in order to cast ourselves in the best light. While I like to think I know when to stop short of bragging or outright lying, I'm sure this inclination is not as effective as I imagine it to be. When I meet a person who is the hero in all of their own stories, I tend to get wary about them. Honesty can be subjective, of course, but the compulsive need to be liked is always a dangerous indication.
Others speak with more concern for their audience than for themselves. A few of my friends have this astounding, uncanny ability to entertain or move or capture a listener with their (written, spoken, fictional or nonfictional) tales. They know exactly which words to choose, which details to paint, to craft their stories to elicit laughter or emotion or connection with whoever they speak to. I could listen to these friends for hours as they cast themselves as heroes, fools or removed observers, placing the telling of the story above the way it reflects upon themselves. The details of any given story are never as important as the way it is told. These are people I tend to admire, to seek to surround myself with and learn from.
One of my favorite storytellers outside of my circle of people I actually know is a writer for The Stranger, Paul Constant. Recently he wrote a piece comparing Tucker Max's memoir Assholes finish first with former President Bush's Decision Points. In it, he points out the self-aggrandizing way each man ignores the consequences of his actions and imagines his own heroics while, (with no small amount of sadness) also noting that Max, unlike President Bush, at least manages to muster the smallest amount of self-critical reflection by the end. Reading Constant's review and considering the way I judge people by the way they tell their own stories, I considered your own writing, and especially the way you tell your story to the American people. I have to say, Mr. President, that even when I do not agree with you, I always appreciate the way you explain things. Your honesty and self-reflection make me trust you, and I think that you have that rare ability to tell truth with more concern for how the audience will feel about it than how it will make them think of you. This sets you apart from your predecessor and also reminds me why you were able to reach out to so many people across the political spectrum.
I hope that when you get around to writing your own memoir of your time in the White House that you are able to do so with more self-reflection and awareness than President Bush. The story of your Presidency will not be about what you accomplished or what you decided, the battles you won or the times you were right. I believe that the telling, and not the tale, will be the most important and most revealing, even should events take a turn for the highly unlikely and leave you just as desperate to rewrite history as your predecessor.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, November 8, 2010
Day 312- Quack. Quack. Quack.
Dear Mr. President,
For all the prattle about the new agenda of the Republican-controlled Houe, the year isn't quite over. While the lame-duck session may be a short one, and subject to the unfortunate political reality of a weakened Democratic party, I hope that repealing DADT is given the effort it deserves. The support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates for such a repeal (and his sage urging that the repeal take place before the new year) should indicate enough will within the military establishment to pull off such a herculean task.
I suppose my usual cynical dismissal of the political courage of Democrats will kick in any moment, but I actually feel pretty confident about the prospects of a lame-duck session. From my perspective, the Senate has been governing like lame-duck senators since 2008. It seems as though there is at least the same chance of the repeal as there was before the election.
As usual, I believe that the Senate's action on this issue will be a direct result of White House leadership. Only Presidential direction and political influence will ensure that the Democrats are successful in this attempt. Coming through on this major campaign promise would be an encouraging sign to all of your supporters that, even after a loss like the midterms, you aren't giving up on the change we were promised.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
For all the prattle about the new agenda of the Republican-controlled Houe, the year isn't quite over. While the lame-duck session may be a short one, and subject to the unfortunate political reality of a weakened Democratic party, I hope that repealing DADT is given the effort it deserves. The support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates for such a repeal (and his sage urging that the repeal take place before the new year) should indicate enough will within the military establishment to pull off such a herculean task.
I suppose my usual cynical dismissal of the political courage of Democrats will kick in any moment, but I actually feel pretty confident about the prospects of a lame-duck session. From my perspective, the Senate has been governing like lame-duck senators since 2008. It seems as though there is at least the same chance of the repeal as there was before the election.
As usual, I believe that the Senate's action on this issue will be a direct result of White House leadership. Only Presidential direction and political influence will ensure that the Democrats are successful in this attempt. Coming through on this major campaign promise would be an encouraging sign to all of your supporters that, even after a loss like the midterms, you aren't giving up on the change we were promised.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Day 275- Camaraderie
Dear Mr. President,
No matter how trivial or tedious the work, my job has always been important to me. When I was 16, I started working at a Jack-in-the-box. While this job was hard and often unpleasant (especially for a vegetarian) it exposed me to the challenges of employment at a young age, and brought people into my life who I otherwise would never have encountered. I met people who had been to jail, people who regularly used drugs, single moms, illegal immigrants, and more than one person working two or three minimum wage jobs to support their family. Some weekends, the crew would go out to play paintball on a Christmas tree farm outside of town. I've worked at a family-owned pizza parlor, corporate coffee giants, campus security, sandwich shops, an Indian restaurant and five different bookstores. In every job, my coworkers have been immensely important to me. Knowing and trusting and enjoying one another goes a long way toward making work bearable. Learning from my coworkers and learning about them as we get to know each other makes going to work every day something I look forward to.
This is why I found your farewell to Rahm Emanuel so saddening. I know that losing a coworker you rely upon can be difficult, but I'm sure Rahm will be able to do a lot of good in Chicago. Even if I didn't always agree with him, I've always respected the very difficult job that Mr. Emanuel had and his considerable political skill. I hope that when you find a permanent replacement, you chose an individual from outside your existing circle. I think the White House has lost sight of a really coherent message over the last few month, and that some have tried to solve this by lashing out at those supporters who have tried to hold you to your campaign promises. I think that strategy is a poor one for turning out voters and for changing any skeptical centrists. I don't pretend to know enough about the internal politics of the White House to know where this strategy came from, but Rahm Emanuel's disdain for the far left has always caused me to associate it with him.
One aspect of your senior staff I have always admired is the way they all seem to enjoy doing their very difficult jobs. I'm sure the camaraderie they share has a lot to do with this. I hope that, whoever ends up as COS, this continues. I know it makes my own day easier (andI'm sorry to admit that at least some of the bonding I do with my current coworkers involves lamenting the disappointing performance of many Democratic politicians, but, rest assured, we're still much tougher on the Republicans.) I hope that Rahm has good luck in the mayoral race, (and I think he should probably give serious thought to appearing on SNL.) This is a tremendous opportunity for you to change the way the rest of the world views the White House, and I hope that you make the most of it.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
No matter how trivial or tedious the work, my job has always been important to me. When I was 16, I started working at a Jack-in-the-box. While this job was hard and often unpleasant (especially for a vegetarian) it exposed me to the challenges of employment at a young age, and brought people into my life who I otherwise would never have encountered. I met people who had been to jail, people who regularly used drugs, single moms, illegal immigrants, and more than one person working two or three minimum wage jobs to support their family. Some weekends, the crew would go out to play paintball on a Christmas tree farm outside of town. I've worked at a family-owned pizza parlor, corporate coffee giants, campus security, sandwich shops, an Indian restaurant and five different bookstores. In every job, my coworkers have been immensely important to me. Knowing and trusting and enjoying one another goes a long way toward making work bearable. Learning from my coworkers and learning about them as we get to know each other makes going to work every day something I look forward to.
This is why I found your farewell to Rahm Emanuel so saddening. I know that losing a coworker you rely upon can be difficult, but I'm sure Rahm will be able to do a lot of good in Chicago. Even if I didn't always agree with him, I've always respected the very difficult job that Mr. Emanuel had and his considerable political skill. I hope that when you find a permanent replacement, you chose an individual from outside your existing circle. I think the White House has lost sight of a really coherent message over the last few month, and that some have tried to solve this by lashing out at those supporters who have tried to hold you to your campaign promises. I think that strategy is a poor one for turning out voters and for changing any skeptical centrists. I don't pretend to know enough about the internal politics of the White House to know where this strategy came from, but Rahm Emanuel's disdain for the far left has always caused me to associate it with him.
One aspect of your senior staff I have always admired is the way they all seem to enjoy doing their very difficult jobs. I'm sure the camaraderie they share has a lot to do with this. I hope that, whoever ends up as COS, this continues. I know it makes my own day easier (andI'm sorry to admit that at least some of the bonding I do with my current coworkers involves lamenting the disappointing performance of many Democratic politicians, but, rest assured, we're still much tougher on the Republicans.) I hope that Rahm has good luck in the mayoral race, (and I think he should probably give serious thought to appearing on SNL.) This is a tremendous opportunity for you to change the way the rest of the world views the White House, and I hope that you make the most of it.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, September 10, 2010
Day 253- For you, JP
Dear Mr. President,
My dear friend JP works at an ice cream shop in our neighborhood. I'm writing to you from his shop as he finishes closing. Tonight I asked him what he'd like me to write about and he suggested I discuss the solar panel that environmental activists brought to the White House. That you declined to place the near-ancient solar panel on the White House roof is not what bothers him. The activists bringing you the panel were doing so, I'd imagine, for a symbolic and not a practical purpose. The security and logistical issues involved in placing something of that size on the White House roof are surely greater than the energy saving potential of such an old device.
But in a year when your administration has backed down on comprehensive energy legislation, maybe a little symbolic good will to the green movement was in order. Accepting the solar panel for a museum, or for the OEOB or another office building might have at least demonstrated that you took the offering in good spirits, that you had respect for the group and their cause. A commitment to make the White House more energy efficient- or even to answer questions about its energy efficiency- would have left the activists feeling like they'd accomplished something.
Perhaps you didn't want this. Perhaps you viewed their "stunt" as something that should not be rewarded with good will from your office. I can see the logic behind this, I suppose. At a time when lobbyists have unprecedented power and influence in Washington, when votes in congress can be openly purchased by special interest donations, is it really such a bad thing to indulge a "stunt" from an organization without a particularly loud voice on the Hill? If you really want to change the culture of corruption in Washington, maybe you should stop rewarding those who know how to play the game best. Yesterday, I engaged in a debate with a conservative friend and fellow blogger who criticized those on the left for insisting Islam to be a "religion of peace" while asking that nutcase in Florida not to do something that might trigger violence from Muslims. I argued that you were speaking to the majority of Muslims who would have reacted to this man's hateful actions with nothing more than words. Reassuring them that, even if their quiet speech was drown out by the shouts and violence of the fringe, you could still hear them. My point was about the importance of acknowledging the silent majority, of empowering them so that shouting (or violence) doesn't become the only way to be noticed.
Powerlessness is an awful feeling. I often imagine that the only way for some one like me to be noticed by those in power is to become wealthy, to have something tragic happen to me, or to do something horrible. For me, the act of writing to you, the act of speaking, is much more important than the act of being heard. I don't need you to know that I exist or what I feel strongly about, so much as I need to articulate these things to myself. But others don't feel that way. Others do need to be heard. And so much of your time is spent dealing with tragedy or chaos or violence that is may occur to some as the best way to get your attention. I'm not saying you should accept the solar panel in order to avoid ecoterrorism or anything like that, just that empowering people so passionate about moving our country away from our worst and most consumptive practices is more productive than discouraging them. We need committed environmentalists and your administration needs them to feel respected and listened to if you want their support. In a year when you have done precious little to remind them why they elected you, would it have been that hard just to admit your own shortcomings and listen to their ideas for improvement? Especially when it costs you nothing, I think accepting their criticism gracefully and demonstrating your willingness to work with them would have been a much smarter move.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
My dear friend JP works at an ice cream shop in our neighborhood. I'm writing to you from his shop as he finishes closing. Tonight I asked him what he'd like me to write about and he suggested I discuss the solar panel that environmental activists brought to the White House. That you declined to place the near-ancient solar panel on the White House roof is not what bothers him. The activists bringing you the panel were doing so, I'd imagine, for a symbolic and not a practical purpose. The security and logistical issues involved in placing something of that size on the White House roof are surely greater than the energy saving potential of such an old device.
But in a year when your administration has backed down on comprehensive energy legislation, maybe a little symbolic good will to the green movement was in order. Accepting the solar panel for a museum, or for the OEOB or another office building might have at least demonstrated that you took the offering in good spirits, that you had respect for the group and their cause. A commitment to make the White House more energy efficient- or even to answer questions about its energy efficiency- would have left the activists feeling like they'd accomplished something.
Perhaps you didn't want this. Perhaps you viewed their "stunt" as something that should not be rewarded with good will from your office. I can see the logic behind this, I suppose. At a time when lobbyists have unprecedented power and influence in Washington, when votes in congress can be openly purchased by special interest donations, is it really such a bad thing to indulge a "stunt" from an organization without a particularly loud voice on the Hill? If you really want to change the culture of corruption in Washington, maybe you should stop rewarding those who know how to play the game best. Yesterday, I engaged in a debate with a conservative friend and fellow blogger who criticized those on the left for insisting Islam to be a "religion of peace" while asking that nutcase in Florida not to do something that might trigger violence from Muslims. I argued that you were speaking to the majority of Muslims who would have reacted to this man's hateful actions with nothing more than words. Reassuring them that, even if their quiet speech was drown out by the shouts and violence of the fringe, you could still hear them. My point was about the importance of acknowledging the silent majority, of empowering them so that shouting (or violence) doesn't become the only way to be noticed.
Powerlessness is an awful feeling. I often imagine that the only way for some one like me to be noticed by those in power is to become wealthy, to have something tragic happen to me, or to do something horrible. For me, the act of writing to you, the act of speaking, is much more important than the act of being heard. I don't need you to know that I exist or what I feel strongly about, so much as I need to articulate these things to myself. But others don't feel that way. Others do need to be heard. And so much of your time is spent dealing with tragedy or chaos or violence that is may occur to some as the best way to get your attention. I'm not saying you should accept the solar panel in order to avoid ecoterrorism or anything like that, just that empowering people so passionate about moving our country away from our worst and most consumptive practices is more productive than discouraging them. We need committed environmentalists and your administration needs them to feel respected and listened to if you want their support. In a year when you have done precious little to remind them why they elected you, would it have been that hard just to admit your own shortcomings and listen to their ideas for improvement? Especially when it costs you nothing, I think accepting their criticism gracefully and demonstrating your willingness to work with them would have been a much smarter move.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Day 231- الشهادة
Dear Mr. President,
At today's press gaggle three numbers were mentioned by the press. 500,000- the number of unemployment claims filed last week, the worst in 2010. 50,000- the number of US troops still in Iraq. And 18- the percentage of Americans who believe that you are Muslim, according to a new Pew poll. Worsening unemployment, the nuance of ending a war, and an poll illustrating that a significant number of Americans (and 31% of Republicans) are not only ill-informed, they're stubborn about it. You weren't at the Press Gaggle, Mr. President, but I'll bet I don't have to tell you which got the most discussion and interest from the press. Why is it that this story just won't quit? That members of Congress can feed it and still be taken seriously? I think it's probably because every time the White House is confronted with this rumor, instead of saying "next question", the press secretary (or, in this case, his deputy) sputter for 5 minutes about your devout Christianity. The President prays, every day. The President speaks to religious advisors, every day. The President speaks with Christian leaders for advice.
I didn't vote for you because I think you're Christian. Your job isn't to be correctly perceived by every yahoo who thinks you were born in Kenya and here to bring about the End Times. No one is going to stop believing that you're a Muslim if they are already convinced it is so. You can't prove faith. Gibbs and Burton can profess your faith before God and the Press Corps every day and it isn't going to change the minds of those 18%. Anderson Cooper got on TV and showed the world proof that your birth certificate is your birth certificate and I am confident that it made exactly no difference with those who still doubt your citizenship. (Though, to be fair, it may have changed their opinion of Anderson Cooper.)
The media is perhaps to blame for devoting so much energy and discussion to this topic. One reporter seemed to imply that the perception was the White House's fault- that somehow the American people weren't able to know their President. I think this, and other suggestions from the press that you ought to talk about your faith more in public, are absurd. The amount of information about you available to Americans is unprecedented. As far as I know, polls didn't indicate a significant number of people suspected President Bush or Clinton or Reagan to be Muslim. This perception is allowed to continue because of xenophobia and racism. People are afraid of the unfamiliar and your political opponents have been trying to paint you as unfamiliar since you started in politics. It isn't something that people need to be persuaded to change their minds about because it isn't rational. It isn't the White House's responsibility to combat this. The perception of you as a Muslim goes up as your poll numbers go down. I don't think people are having new doubts about your Christianity, I think your declining popularity has made it more socially acceptable to suggest their crazy theories out loud. Call a spade a spade (and a racist a racist) and move on.
But this isn't entirely the media's fault, or entirely their responsibility to correct. The discussion about the Pew poll was some of the least guarded interaction between the Deputy Press Secretary and the Press corps. Robert Gibbs and Bill Burton are constantly spinning, obfuscating, splitting hairs, and spewing talking points. Try having a frank conversation with the press about something that actually matters- like the economic outlook or the state of our foreign relations. Instead of coming up with the right sound byte to reassure people that you've got this under control, be honest. Be honest about what challenges we face and how much of the responsibility to overcome them is up to us and the important changes we need to make in our own lives. The White House needs to find a way to connect with people honestly, and the swatting wildly at ridiculous rumors while spinning the latest unemployment numbers (while trying to help half of the Senate run for re-election) just isn't going to cut it.
People do need honesty and access, but not because they doubt your religion. Please, don't let your administration get caught up in this nonsense when we have so many graver concerns ahead.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Day 226- Perseids
Update: President Obama seems to have walked back his courageous words from last night to the tepid centrism he's clearly more comfortable with. *SIGH*
Dear Mr. President,
Thursday night, two friends and I stayed out late to watch the Perseid meteor shower. Though we were not far from the city, a local park provided enough darkness to witness the truly impressive show the stars were putting on that night. It was an unusually chilly August night, and we huddled in blankets and sleeping bags to keep out the cold. At times it looked like the sky was being torn, the meteors were so bright. I've been an amateur astronomy geek my whole life, but I've never seen anything half as amazing as the Perseids.
While lying there, we were discussing your impending visit to Seattle. We'd like to come see you, but we're not exactly in a financial position to afford a plate at Patty Murray's fundraiser. (That being said, I hope your presence draws a considerable crowd. If Murray loses to either of her Republican challengers it will be a sad day indeed for Washington voters and the Senate.) We thought about trying to find a place in the crowd outside to catch even a glimpse of the President we admire and helped elect. Perhaps the light show in the sky contributed to my very small, powerless feeling at that moment. I joked that I should bring one of the form letters the White House has sent me, to see if I could get you to sign it for real. Inside, I wasn't quite so amused at my own insignificance.
It isn't that I think I'm important enough to deserve your attention, Mr. President. It's the helplessness of knowing that so few people like me will ever have any hope of catching your ear, let alone being heard. When I say people like me, I mean the non-wealthy, non-swing-state-voter, non-elderly. That class that isn't middle class enough to make a good all-American photo op. Just a little too far left to be taken seriously. You might tape a message to Netroots Nation, but talking at us and listening to us are worlds apart. There's no power to be gained in taking my generation seriously, I suppose, but we are the next leaders of this country and a significant factor in your re-election.
Shortly after Robert Gibbs' remarks about the professional left, I got an e-mail, (ostensibly from you, but clearly written by an intern,) asking me to commit to vote in 2010. To sign my name to promise that I'll be there. This transparent scramble for reassuring data was probably the most offensive OFA e-mail I've ever received. You want me to commit to supporting your candidates? After your press secretary trashed the ideological left? While your administration acts like we're nothing more than a shrill pest? I'm sorry, Mr. President, but you're going to have to do a lot better than a form e-mail to re-engage your base. I'm not asking for an autograph, a seat at the table, or even a new press secretary; I'm asking for an administration that actually empowers the people it asks to show up on election day. A White House that feels less like watching a barely-comprehensible cosmic event and more like a group of people who have the interests of voters (and not just donors) at heart.
Anyway, Mr. President, maybe it's just been a rough week. I wish there was some way I could show you how much I want to believe in you, and in this country again. I wish there was some way of reaching you at all. Even if it's just as useless as shouting at the sky, I'm going to keep writing, keep blogging, keep pestering you about the things you promised us. If you never respond to a single letter, if you never know I exist at all, that's fine. I just hope you find a way to hear the parts of this country you're ignoring, before you realize they won't be coming out to vote in November.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
Thursday night, two friends and I stayed out late to watch the Perseid meteor shower. Though we were not far from the city, a local park provided enough darkness to witness the truly impressive show the stars were putting on that night. It was an unusually chilly August night, and we huddled in blankets and sleeping bags to keep out the cold. At times it looked like the sky was being torn, the meteors were so bright. I've been an amateur astronomy geek my whole life, but I've never seen anything half as amazing as the Perseids.
While lying there, we were discussing your impending visit to Seattle. We'd like to come see you, but we're not exactly in a financial position to afford a plate at Patty Murray's fundraiser. (That being said, I hope your presence draws a considerable crowd. If Murray loses to either of her Republican challengers it will be a sad day indeed for Washington voters and the Senate.) We thought about trying to find a place in the crowd outside to catch even a glimpse of the President we admire and helped elect. Perhaps the light show in the sky contributed to my very small, powerless feeling at that moment. I joked that I should bring one of the form letters the White House has sent me, to see if I could get you to sign it for real. Inside, I wasn't quite so amused at my own insignificance.
It isn't that I think I'm important enough to deserve your attention, Mr. President. It's the helplessness of knowing that so few people like me will ever have any hope of catching your ear, let alone being heard. When I say people like me, I mean the non-wealthy, non-swing-state-voter, non-elderly. That class that isn't middle class enough to make a good all-American photo op. Just a little too far left to be taken seriously. You might tape a message to Netroots Nation, but talking at us and listening to us are worlds apart. There's no power to be gained in taking my generation seriously, I suppose, but we are the next leaders of this country and a significant factor in your re-election.
Shortly after Robert Gibbs' remarks about the professional left, I got an e-mail, (ostensibly from you, but clearly written by an intern,) asking me to commit to vote in 2010. To sign my name to promise that I'll be there. This transparent scramble for reassuring data was probably the most offensive OFA e-mail I've ever received. You want me to commit to supporting your candidates? After your press secretary trashed the ideological left? While your administration acts like we're nothing more than a shrill pest? I'm sorry, Mr. President, but you're going to have to do a lot better than a form e-mail to re-engage your base. I'm not asking for an autograph, a seat at the table, or even a new press secretary; I'm asking for an administration that actually empowers the people it asks to show up on election day. A White House that feels less like watching a barely-comprehensible cosmic event and more like a group of people who have the interests of voters (and not just donors) at heart.
Anyway, Mr. President, maybe it's just been a rough week. I wish there was some way I could show you how much I want to believe in you, and in this country again. I wish there was some way of reaching you at all. Even if it's just as useless as shouting at the sky, I'm going to keep writing, keep blogging, keep pestering you about the things you promised us. If you never respond to a single letter, if you never know I exist at all, that's fine. I just hope you find a way to hear the parts of this country you're ignoring, before you realize they won't be coming out to vote in November.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, August 13, 2010
Day 225- Iftar
“This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”
-President Barack Obama 08/13/2010
Dear Mr. President,
Tonight at the White House's Iftar dinner you gave emphatic support for the construction of the Islamic community center near ground zero. All week, I've felt like my letters to you have been angry, antagonistic. Today I wanted to find something positive to write about, and I'm really pleased that I didn't have to look too far to find it. Your remarks are sure to upset some Americans, sure to be controversial, but it was the right thing to do. I hope that you continue to put your values ahead of being politically cautious. As frustrated as I often am with you and with your administration, nights like tonight remind me why I am so proud to call you my President, and why I am so proud to be an American. I want to feel this way about my country more often. I want to believe in your administration and the work you're doing.
I'm also glad that you hosted an Iftar dinner, once again. I had my own Iftar dinner on the 49 bus after work tonight, counting down the moments till the sun sets so that I could drink water and eat a few dates. I've forgotten the simple pleasure of breaking the fast at night, the calm feeling it gives me, and the way my doubts about surviving this month just wash away. The night was cool and beautiful, and all of the stress of my day seemed irrelevant. On my way home I stopped at a cupcake shop, and the girl behind the counter gave me a free Iftar cupcake. I'm still overwhelmed by the support I get from my friends and family and even complete strangers. Seeing the White House hold its own Iftar, and hearing your words in support of religious freedom, I hope, will be a step toward healing the pain and alienation many Muslims in this country suffer every day.
I'm really happy to be writing about something other than complaints tonight. Thank you, Mr. President, and Ramadan Kareem.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
-President Barack Obama 08/13/2010
Dear Mr. President,
Tonight at the White House's Iftar dinner you gave emphatic support for the construction of the Islamic community center near ground zero. All week, I've felt like my letters to you have been angry, antagonistic. Today I wanted to find something positive to write about, and I'm really pleased that I didn't have to look too far to find it. Your remarks are sure to upset some Americans, sure to be controversial, but it was the right thing to do. I hope that you continue to put your values ahead of being politically cautious. As frustrated as I often am with you and with your administration, nights like tonight remind me why I am so proud to call you my President, and why I am so proud to be an American. I want to feel this way about my country more often. I want to believe in your administration and the work you're doing.
I'm also glad that you hosted an Iftar dinner, once again. I had my own Iftar dinner on the 49 bus after work tonight, counting down the moments till the sun sets so that I could drink water and eat a few dates. I've forgotten the simple pleasure of breaking the fast at night, the calm feeling it gives me, and the way my doubts about surviving this month just wash away. The night was cool and beautiful, and all of the stress of my day seemed irrelevant. On my way home I stopped at a cupcake shop, and the girl behind the counter gave me a free Iftar cupcake. I'm still overwhelmed by the support I get from my friends and family and even complete strangers. Seeing the White House hold its own Iftar, and hearing your words in support of religious freedom, I hope, will be a step toward healing the pain and alienation many Muslims in this country suffer every day.
I'm really happy to be writing about something other than complaints tonight. Thank you, Mr. President, and Ramadan Kareem.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Day 223- The Professional Left
Dear Mr. President,
A number of people are upset with Robert Gibbs for his comments about the "professional left." I'll admit, when I first read Mr. Gibbs' remarks, I was hurt. It seems like a cheap shot to call out the segment of the political spectrum responsible for Mr. Gibbs' employment, especially when the promises made by your campaign to the left have been so ostentatiously delayed, compromised or outright broken. Several members of your senior staff, including Rahm Emanuel, have made remarks disparaging progressive voters. The left is crazy. The left is unreasonable. The left uses drugs. Due respect, sir, but without the left you never would have been elected. Without our energy, our hope, our lofty expectations, John McCain would be President and Robert Gibbs would have a gig as a talking head on MSNBC.
I don't understand what your administration hopes to gain by dismissing those who aren't willing to lower our expectations of you just because this job is difficult. Yes, the economy is in trouble. Yes, wars can't simply be walked away from. Yes, the health care reform battle was long and bloody. But without those of us willing to call for more progress, better government, and more social justice, you're never going to accomplish the goals that I know you have for your own Presidency. And your senior staff mocks us? I'm not saying you ought to bow to every whim of the ideological left, but you could at least treat us with the respect any public servant owes his constituents. It's easy to earn points looking centrist by betraying your friends and allies, but it won't win you elections and it won't give you a Presidency you can look back on with pride.
We've never been the most popular kids in class, Mr. President, but none of the cheerleaders are going to date you just for making fun of us. Show the political courage, or at least the common decency to be as respectful of those on the left as you are of your opponents on the right. We're not a joke, and it would be a true shame for you to realize that on the loosing side of election day. I think you should ask Mr. Gibbs to apologize, Mr. President, and I think your entire administration ought to do a better job remember who its friends are.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
A number of people are upset with Robert Gibbs for his comments about the "professional left." I'll admit, when I first read Mr. Gibbs' remarks, I was hurt. It seems like a cheap shot to call out the segment of the political spectrum responsible for Mr. Gibbs' employment, especially when the promises made by your campaign to the left have been so ostentatiously delayed, compromised or outright broken. Several members of your senior staff, including Rahm Emanuel, have made remarks disparaging progressive voters. The left is crazy. The left is unreasonable. The left uses drugs. Due respect, sir, but without the left you never would have been elected. Without our energy, our hope, our lofty expectations, John McCain would be President and Robert Gibbs would have a gig as a talking head on MSNBC.
I don't understand what your administration hopes to gain by dismissing those who aren't willing to lower our expectations of you just because this job is difficult. Yes, the economy is in trouble. Yes, wars can't simply be walked away from. Yes, the health care reform battle was long and bloody. But without those of us willing to call for more progress, better government, and more social justice, you're never going to accomplish the goals that I know you have for your own Presidency. And your senior staff mocks us? I'm not saying you ought to bow to every whim of the ideological left, but you could at least treat us with the respect any public servant owes his constituents. It's easy to earn points looking centrist by betraying your friends and allies, but it won't win you elections and it won't give you a Presidency you can look back on with pride.
We've never been the most popular kids in class, Mr. President, but none of the cheerleaders are going to date you just for making fun of us. Show the political courage, or at least the common decency to be as respectful of those on the left as you are of your opponents on the right. We're not a joke, and it would be a true shame for you to realize that on the loosing side of election day. I think you should ask Mr. Gibbs to apologize, Mr. President, and I think your entire administration ought to do a better job remember who its friends are.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, June 7, 2010
Day 158- Helen Thomas
Dear Mr. President,
Helen Thomas's remarks were offensive to many people. I don't think there is any one, including Ms. Thomas, who would deny that. Her remarks have inspired more forceful outrage from your administration than the 9 dead civillians on board the Mavi Marmara. I can't speak for any one else, but that offends me, deeply. What Helen said, while upsetting, didn't kill any one, didn't destroy families or cut short the life of an American teenager. Her words didn't cost any one an eye, didn't shed a single drop of blood. Yet, while the 9 innocent dead managed to summon your dismay and regret, her non-lethal words were called reprehensible.
Murder is reprehensible. The prolonged suffering and starvation of the people of Gaza is reprehensible. And I would have no problem with your administration calling her words reprehensible, as well, if you had managed the same level of outrage after the flotilla attack. Her career, a long and distinguished one that inspired a generation of women in journalism, is now over. I don't think that what she said was right, I don't think that what she said was fair, but I know, for sure, that no one died as a result.
I know these last few weeks have been spent trying to strike the right emotional note with the American public over the oil spill, to some how demonstrate your emotional response is proportional to this tragedy. The hypocrisy of the reaction with regards to Ms. Thomas and to Gaza, the anger stirred over words contrasted with the mild dismay over injury, suffering, and death is, in my opinion, a much more problematic demonstration of how out of step your administration is with the human cost of your policies.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Helen Thomas's remarks were offensive to many people. I don't think there is any one, including Ms. Thomas, who would deny that. Her remarks have inspired more forceful outrage from your administration than the 9 dead civillians on board the Mavi Marmara. I can't speak for any one else, but that offends me, deeply. What Helen said, while upsetting, didn't kill any one, didn't destroy families or cut short the life of an American teenager. Her words didn't cost any one an eye, didn't shed a single drop of blood. Yet, while the 9 innocent dead managed to summon your dismay and regret, her non-lethal words were called reprehensible.
Murder is reprehensible. The prolonged suffering and starvation of the people of Gaza is reprehensible. And I would have no problem with your administration calling her words reprehensible, as well, if you had managed the same level of outrage after the flotilla attack. Her career, a long and distinguished one that inspired a generation of women in journalism, is now over. I don't think that what she said was right, I don't think that what she said was fair, but I know, for sure, that no one died as a result.
I know these last few weeks have been spent trying to strike the right emotional note with the American public over the oil spill, to some how demonstrate your emotional response is proportional to this tragedy. The hypocrisy of the reaction with regards to Ms. Thomas and to Gaza, the anger stirred over words contrasted with the mild dismay over injury, suffering, and death is, in my opinion, a much more problematic demonstration of how out of step your administration is with the human cost of your policies.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Day 139
Dear Mr. President,
Tonight you're having a state dinner for the President of Mexico. The First lady looks beautiful, the food sounds amazing, everything looks perfect. I'm at home, making dinner with my best friend, on one of those rainy nights that Seattle makes its reputation on. It's surreal to see the photos of the guests coming to dinner in dresses worth more than next year's tuition will cost me. I'm not dissing $10,000 gowns, or anything, but it is a clear reminder that there is an echelon of American society I'll never be a part of.
The media speculation that you're avoiding the press corps in order to dodge questions about Arlen Specter's primary defeat yesterday seems a bit hysterical, to me. I think that Specter was defeated by a better candidate, with a more solid history as a Democrat. It can be spun as part of an anti-incumbency trend, or as a failure of the White House's political mechanism, or as yet another sign that the world is going to end in 2012; I think, however, that when local or state-wide elections are described to be indicative of a national trend, voters rarely consider that when going to the polls. Pennsylvania democrats were probably voting for the candidate they thought would be best for Pennsylvania, not making a statement about national political trends. I think it was probably a mistake for the White House to endorse Specter, but I recognize that considerations of loyalty and strategy are probably more important than the media's perception that the President's endorsement isn't a magic bullett.
That being said, I think you should probably hold a press conference and let the press corps have at you. It's tedious and undignified and usually not much different from the talking points the White House is already using, but it does people good to see their President engaging with the media, and gives us the idea that you're willing to answer challenging questions. So many of us will never get an answer from you, directly, it's nice to see journalists asking for us, even if the right questions often elude them in their haste to obsess over process stories.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Day 91- Census Day
Hey all, it's Census Day! If you haven't filled out your 2010 census form, do so! It's fun, painless, and important!
Dear Mr. President,
My roommates and I have already filled out our census form, it providing us with one evening of jokes and giggles about which traditional family role each of the four of us represented. We're an odd sort of household, four unrelated early-20-something females; one white, one Guatemalan, one Puerto Rican-Irish, and one Hidatsa-Mandan, all in a two-bedroom fifth-floor apartment. We hail, respectively, from a small town, an island state, a big city, and a foreign military base. We attend Art school, Massage school, and State University. We're respectively Catholic, Wicca, Atheist, and, well, whatever I am. We all have very different dreams.
One of the surprising things that unites us is the role our grandparents played in our upbringing. Each of us was brought up by our grandmothers, either because our parents had to work or were unable to provide stable homes. My own grandmother watched my sister and I after school while our parents were at work. She cooked us dinner, helped us with homework, and entertained us with stories from her childhood adventures living on a ranch in Wyoming. We loved her and feared her and often suspected she might be a little bit crazy. I think of her now, not as she is, slowly losing her grasp on the present in an assisted living facility in Nebraska, but as she must have been before I knew her; young and feisty and terribly brave. She never went back to school after the 8th grade, because the United States entered WWII and she had to stay home to help out. She adopted two sons and lost her husband to a car accident, surviving the kind of poverty that widows in every society through history have known.
My roommates' grandmothers are the stuff of myth; one is still working full-time yet still seems to know whenever her grandkids need her for groceries, new shoes, advice or a good scolding. One has adopted her grandchildren as her own, facing the difficulties of being a parent all over again, passing her strength and her compassion on to the next generation. These women helped shape us into the women we have become. Our upbringing, much like our current family of four, was never traditional or reflected in what popular culture taught us normal looked like. We learned early, as your own unique upbringing must have taught you, as well; there is no such thing as a 'normal' family.
This is why I am glad that the White House, in observance of Census Day, made sure to point out the unusual makeup of the first family, noting that Sasha and Malia's grandmother lives with you in the White House, complicating your own census form. I'm sure that, for all of the uniqueness and opportunity of being First Daughters, the girls are glad (and lucky) to have the constancy and guidance of their Grandmother at home.
Thank you, Mr. President, for reminding us that all American families need to be counted today, regardless of their eccentricities.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
My roommates and I have already filled out our census form, it providing us with one evening of jokes and giggles about which traditional family role each of the four of us represented. We're an odd sort of household, four unrelated early-20-something females; one white, one Guatemalan, one Puerto Rican-Irish, and one Hidatsa-Mandan, all in a two-bedroom fifth-floor apartment. We hail, respectively, from a small town, an island state, a big city, and a foreign military base. We attend Art school, Massage school, and State University. We're respectively Catholic, Wicca, Atheist, and, well, whatever I am. We all have very different dreams.
One of the surprising things that unites us is the role our grandparents played in our upbringing. Each of us was brought up by our grandmothers, either because our parents had to work or were unable to provide stable homes. My own grandmother watched my sister and I after school while our parents were at work. She cooked us dinner, helped us with homework, and entertained us with stories from her childhood adventures living on a ranch in Wyoming. We loved her and feared her and often suspected she might be a little bit crazy. I think of her now, not as she is, slowly losing her grasp on the present in an assisted living facility in Nebraska, but as she must have been before I knew her; young and feisty and terribly brave. She never went back to school after the 8th grade, because the United States entered WWII and she had to stay home to help out. She adopted two sons and lost her husband to a car accident, surviving the kind of poverty that widows in every society through history have known.
My roommates' grandmothers are the stuff of myth; one is still working full-time yet still seems to know whenever her grandkids need her for groceries, new shoes, advice or a good scolding. One has adopted her grandchildren as her own, facing the difficulties of being a parent all over again, passing her strength and her compassion on to the next generation. These women helped shape us into the women we have become. Our upbringing, much like our current family of four, was never traditional or reflected in what popular culture taught us normal looked like. We learned early, as your own unique upbringing must have taught you, as well; there is no such thing as a 'normal' family.
This is why I am glad that the White House, in observance of Census Day, made sure to point out the unusual makeup of the first family, noting that Sasha and Malia's grandmother lives with you in the White House, complicating your own census form. I'm sure that, for all of the uniqueness and opportunity of being First Daughters, the girls are glad (and lucky) to have the constancy and guidance of their Grandmother at home.
Thank you, Mr. President, for reminding us that all American families need to be counted today, regardless of their eccentricities.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Day 83- Jedi chess
Dear Mr. President,
It appears as though the press corps is giving Robert Gibbs quite a rough time about your meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is one of those moments where, watching from the outside, being privy to nothing but what the media and the White House reveals, I have to concede I don't know enough to be certain about what you're doing. It seems as though you might be taking private steps toward toughening our stance on Israeli settlement activity. It seems as though you might be leveraging this latest incident into legitimate efforts at peace talks. But this could just be speculation.
Not long ago, when the battle for health care reform seemed to be getting the best of you, Jon Stewart said "I can’t tell if he’s a Jedi master playing chess on a three-level board way ahead of us, or if this is kicking his ass." I sometimes feel the same way about our Middle East policy. I know that my letters often include unbridled anger, disappointment and outrage. I know that, even if you make radical steps toward restarting the peace process, our foreign relations with Israel will likely still be too close for my comfort. I understand, Mr. President, that we will probably never agree on this. I think that my role as your constituent is to continue asserting my position, asking for more than I expect you to do, in the hopes of somehow balancing the AIPACs of the world. Much of my argument is based on the premise that there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs, and that gross oppression of human rights is an example of the latter. I do understand that the nuanced world we live in does not often lend itself well to absolution, and that you may be justifying certain means to an end I can't see or understand yet.
What I mean, sir, is that while I may be sick with grief at the death and suffering, at the injustice and oppression, while I may be exhausted with the fight and frustrated with our hypocrisy, I have faith that you know what you're doing and that you know what is right. I do not surrender my judgment to your own, but I do believe it is possible that you're seeing more than you're willing to let on.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
It appears as though the press corps is giving Robert Gibbs quite a rough time about your meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is one of those moments where, watching from the outside, being privy to nothing but what the media and the White House reveals, I have to concede I don't know enough to be certain about what you're doing. It seems as though you might be taking private steps toward toughening our stance on Israeli settlement activity. It seems as though you might be leveraging this latest incident into legitimate efforts at peace talks. But this could just be speculation.
Not long ago, when the battle for health care reform seemed to be getting the best of you, Jon Stewart said "I can’t tell if he’s a Jedi master playing chess on a three-level board way ahead of us, or if this is kicking his ass." I sometimes feel the same way about our Middle East policy. I know that my letters often include unbridled anger, disappointment and outrage. I know that, even if you make radical steps toward restarting the peace process, our foreign relations with Israel will likely still be too close for my comfort. I understand, Mr. President, that we will probably never agree on this. I think that my role as your constituent is to continue asserting my position, asking for more than I expect you to do, in the hopes of somehow balancing the AIPACs of the world. Much of my argument is based on the premise that there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs, and that gross oppression of human rights is an example of the latter. I do understand that the nuanced world we live in does not often lend itself well to absolution, and that you may be justifying certain means to an end I can't see or understand yet.
What I mean, sir, is that while I may be sick with grief at the death and suffering, at the injustice and oppression, while I may be exhausted with the fight and frustrated with our hypocrisy, I have faith that you know what you're doing and that you know what is right. I do not surrender my judgment to your own, but I do believe it is possible that you're seeing more than you're willing to let on.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Day 75- Sunshine Week
Dear Mr. President,
I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the importance you've placed on transparency in government. Having an administration I can trust to be open and honest about their conduct is even more important to me than having an administration that agrees with me. In fact, 6 of the 10 form letters I've received from your office have included sections on the importance of transparency in government. The whitehouse.gov website is easier to navigate and full of more relevant content than it's ever been. Thank you for your efforts to these ends.
As some one who clearly appreciates the difficulties of balancing the need to protect the powers of the executive with gaining the trust of the people who empowered you in the first place, I hope that this logic can be extrapolated to other sectors of administration policy. National security is important, and some secrecy will always be required in order to protect ourselves, but, especially when it comes to the detention, treatment, and trials of our enemies, I hope we move toward greater openness with the public. Our reputation as a place that respects the rights of all, even those who hate us, must be restored. It is the true promise of America; upholding these principles in full public scrutiny is the only way to defy those who would scare us back into darkness.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the importance you've placed on transparency in government. Having an administration I can trust to be open and honest about their conduct is even more important to me than having an administration that agrees with me. In fact, 6 of the 10 form letters I've received from your office have included sections on the importance of transparency in government. The whitehouse.gov website is easier to navigate and full of more relevant content than it's ever been. Thank you for your efforts to these ends.
As some one who clearly appreciates the difficulties of balancing the need to protect the powers of the executive with gaining the trust of the people who empowered you in the first place, I hope that this logic can be extrapolated to other sectors of administration policy. National security is important, and some secrecy will always be required in order to protect ourselves, but, especially when it comes to the detention, treatment, and trials of our enemies, I hope we move toward greater openness with the public. Our reputation as a place that respects the rights of all, even those who hate us, must be restored. It is the true promise of America; upholding these principles in full public scrutiny is the only way to defy those who would scare us back into darkness.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Day 68- Courage & Consequence
Dear Mr. President,
As an author, I'm sure you appreciate the challenges of writing honestly, and well, about yourself and your own experiences. Many authors attempt to do this, but I think very few succeed. Today, another example of such an attempt goes on sale. Last night, (really, only a few hours ago,) I was putting out Karl Rove's new book for display. Mr. Rove's book, Courage and Consequence was bound to pique my curiosity. For one thing, the title suggests that Karl Rove, in an attempt to broaden the appeal of his book, targeted the "Jane Austen" demographic, a group of readers rarely sought after by the publishers of political memoirs. Additionally, the blurb on the back of the book describes Rove's as, "a life spent in political combat and service to country, no matter the costs." I'll grant that as Deputy Chief of Staff, Mr. Rove served his country; the language used in the book, however, seem to indicate that Mr. Rove believes he has sacrificed himself for his country, somehow, and I fail to see the evidence supporting such a contention.
For the time being, as I am still a seller of books, I believe that every one, even Karl Rove, has a right to have their story told. No matter what my profession, I will always oppose censoring or suppression, even the voices of those that I disagree with. The smug, self-satisfied, extreme close-up of Mr. Rove's face on the cover of this book, however, tests this conviction more than any author since Robert Spencer. Whenever books like this come out, where the author is so clearly trying to retell a familiar story in a way that casts them in a more forgivable role, I always wonder how many minds they really feel they will change. Most of the people who buy this book will already agree with everything Mr. Rove has to say. A significant portion of rest will only be picking it up to find their name in the index. I can't imagine Rove will win over many skeptics.
If anything, I am most surprised at my own reaction to the publication of this book. I get angry, fiercely angry at the account Mr. Rove gives, casting President Bush as the misunderstood hero. I think I am angry because it doesn't seem fair that the conservative spin machine has extended so far into my bookstore, instead of keeping to the talk radio and TV news as I feel it should. I think I am angry because I am afraid that I might not be completely right, that Mr. Rove may have reasonable, even valuable perspectives on things I am unwilling to hear, as they may threaten my own beliefs. I'm not sure what the most productive way of dealing with these feelings might be, but for now I've settled with photocopying his face off of the cover and plastering it all over my boss's office. Mature, it is not, but at least I feel a bit better.
After your own time in the White House is finished, will you write another memoir, Mr. President? You seem to be more inclined toward writing as an end in its own, which is likely why your books sell so well and are so enjoyable to read. If you do, I hope you are able to bring the frankness of your first two books to your reflections on life in the White House.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
As an author, I'm sure you appreciate the challenges of writing honestly, and well, about yourself and your own experiences. Many authors attempt to do this, but I think very few succeed. Today, another example of such an attempt goes on sale. Last night, (really, only a few hours ago,) I was putting out Karl Rove's new book for display. Mr. Rove's book, Courage and Consequence was bound to pique my curiosity. For one thing, the title suggests that Karl Rove, in an attempt to broaden the appeal of his book, targeted the "Jane Austen" demographic, a group of readers rarely sought after by the publishers of political memoirs. Additionally, the blurb on the back of the book describes Rove's as, "a life spent in political combat and service to country, no matter the costs." I'll grant that as Deputy Chief of Staff, Mr. Rove served his country; the language used in the book, however, seem to indicate that Mr. Rove believes he has sacrificed himself for his country, somehow, and I fail to see the evidence supporting such a contention.
For the time being, as I am still a seller of books, I believe that every one, even Karl Rove, has a right to have their story told. No matter what my profession, I will always oppose censoring or suppression, even the voices of those that I disagree with. The smug, self-satisfied, extreme close-up of Mr. Rove's face on the cover of this book, however, tests this conviction more than any author since Robert Spencer. Whenever books like this come out, where the author is so clearly trying to retell a familiar story in a way that casts them in a more forgivable role, I always wonder how many minds they really feel they will change. Most of the people who buy this book will already agree with everything Mr. Rove has to say. A significant portion of rest will only be picking it up to find their name in the index. I can't imagine Rove will win over many skeptics.
If anything, I am most surprised at my own reaction to the publication of this book. I get angry, fiercely angry at the account Mr. Rove gives, casting President Bush as the misunderstood hero. I think I am angry because it doesn't seem fair that the conservative spin machine has extended so far into my bookstore, instead of keeping to the talk radio and TV news as I feel it should. I think I am angry because I am afraid that I might not be completely right, that Mr. Rove may have reasonable, even valuable perspectives on things I am unwilling to hear, as they may threaten my own beliefs. I'm not sure what the most productive way of dealing with these feelings might be, but for now I've settled with photocopying his face off of the cover and plastering it all over my boss's office. Mature, it is not, but at least I feel a bit better.
After your own time in the White House is finished, will you write another memoir, Mr. President? You seem to be more inclined toward writing as an end in its own, which is likely why your books sell so well and are so enjoyable to read. If you do, I hope you are able to bring the frankness of your first two books to your reflections on life in the White House.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, March 5, 2010
Day 64
Dear Mr. President,
Michael Moore has written you a letter, asking to be installed in the place of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. When you picked Mr. Emanuel, back in 2008, I remember thinking, "Wow, he couldn't have picked any one more upsetting to Republicans in this country." (It was an admiring thought, not a critical one.) Clearly, I was just asking to be proven wrong.
Mr. Moore is a difficult character for me to embrace. I appreciate his issue-based crusades, his willingness to attack, rather than just play cautious defense. He gave a speech at my school, Willamette University, in 2004 shortly before Bush was re-elected. I recall being buoyed a bit, by his pugnacity, even as it made me uncomfortable. His methods are not always easy to agree with, his tactics often heavy handed and tending toward the ridiculous. But he does force the debate to take place on his terms, something I wish a few more of us on the left were capable of doing.
I can't decide if the rumblings about problems with the White House senior staff are just liberals who can't appreciate the difficulties of governing a country compared to the outsider's struggle just to be heard, or if they have a legitimate point. I think that shouting and grandstanding may help us, when we're in the minority, when we have no reasoned, legislative way to advance our agenda, but as the majority party, it doesn't sit well.
Back in 2008, I had hoped that your appointment of Mr. Emanuel, who is known for his pro-Israel views, would allow you the political cover to take truly drastic steps in repairing our credibility and effectiveness as a mediator with the Palestinians. Sadly, this has not come to pass. That being said, I haven't been disappointed in Mr. Emanuel's performance as Chief of Staff. If one accepts Mr. Moore's premise (and I don't) that your agenda has been completely held up by a lack of assertiveness on the part of the White House, I suppose that could be a good reason to look for a new COS. But I think, ultimately, that the responsibility has to be with you, sir, and not Mr. Emanuel. If a new COS will help advance our agenda, will wake up congressional Democrats and will give the impression of timely and substantial progress, than I support replacing him. (Though, hopefully, not with Michael Moore.) In the end, however, I think we both know that Mr. Emanuel is not the problem. Congress is the problem. Right now, Republicans have the same advantage over Democrats that the insurgents in Iraq had over coalition forces; we have to win, and they just have to keep from losing. I don't relish comparing governing to warfare; I would rather believe that we work with the Republicans, not against them, but their fierce partisanship, their pervasive obstinacy has made this an apt metaphor.
Read the letter from Mr. Moore with a grain of salt. He makes some valid points, which are worth considering, but he is wrong, I think, both about the lack of momentum and its supposed source. He won't be the last to call for a change in the senior staff, to be certain. I never thought I'd be defending Rahm Emanuel, Mr. President, but I think that your Chief of Staff is serving you well in what we all ought to understand is a long, difficult struggle.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Michael Moore has written you a letter, asking to be installed in the place of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. When you picked Mr. Emanuel, back in 2008, I remember thinking, "Wow, he couldn't have picked any one more upsetting to Republicans in this country." (It was an admiring thought, not a critical one.) Clearly, I was just asking to be proven wrong.
Mr. Moore is a difficult character for me to embrace. I appreciate his issue-based crusades, his willingness to attack, rather than just play cautious defense. He gave a speech at my school, Willamette University, in 2004 shortly before Bush was re-elected. I recall being buoyed a bit, by his pugnacity, even as it made me uncomfortable. His methods are not always easy to agree with, his tactics often heavy handed and tending toward the ridiculous. But he does force the debate to take place on his terms, something I wish a few more of us on the left were capable of doing.
I can't decide if the rumblings about problems with the White House senior staff are just liberals who can't appreciate the difficulties of governing a country compared to the outsider's struggle just to be heard, or if they have a legitimate point. I think that shouting and grandstanding may help us, when we're in the minority, when we have no reasoned, legislative way to advance our agenda, but as the majority party, it doesn't sit well.
Back in 2008, I had hoped that your appointment of Mr. Emanuel, who is known for his pro-Israel views, would allow you the political cover to take truly drastic steps in repairing our credibility and effectiveness as a mediator with the Palestinians. Sadly, this has not come to pass. That being said, I haven't been disappointed in Mr. Emanuel's performance as Chief of Staff. If one accepts Mr. Moore's premise (and I don't) that your agenda has been completely held up by a lack of assertiveness on the part of the White House, I suppose that could be a good reason to look for a new COS. But I think, ultimately, that the responsibility has to be with you, sir, and not Mr. Emanuel. If a new COS will help advance our agenda, will wake up congressional Democrats and will give the impression of timely and substantial progress, than I support replacing him. (Though, hopefully, not with Michael Moore.) In the end, however, I think we both know that Mr. Emanuel is not the problem. Congress is the problem. Right now, Republicans have the same advantage over Democrats that the insurgents in Iraq had over coalition forces; we have to win, and they just have to keep from losing. I don't relish comparing governing to warfare; I would rather believe that we work with the Republicans, not against them, but their fierce partisanship, their pervasive obstinacy has made this an apt metaphor.
Read the letter from Mr. Moore with a grain of salt. He makes some valid points, which are worth considering, but he is wrong, I think, both about the lack of momentum and its supposed source. He won't be the last to call for a change in the senior staff, to be certain. I never thought I'd be defending Rahm Emanuel, Mr. President, but I think that your Chief of Staff is serving you well in what we all ought to understand is a long, difficult struggle.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Day 54- We missed you on whitehouse.gov last week
Damn, that's right, you wasn't there.
Dear Mr. President,
Every time I see that Dan Pfeiffer has posted another entry on the White House blog, my day gets better. Your Communications Director is hilarious. I've never read a government official who uses sarcasm so effectively. Rahm Emanuel may have inspired some pretty hilarious SNL skits, but I think Mr. Pfeiffer is truly the master of writing press releases that make me go "oh, snap!" Today was no exception. In a blog entry that's almost as pithy as a Timbaland song, Mr. Pfeiffer called out congressional Republicans for failing to propose an alternate plan.
This is exactly what we should be hearing. Republicans have had months to propose solutions and they have yet to post alternative legislation. I fear Thursday will be another round of sound-bite attacks without any substance to back them up, and I hope that you and the congressional Democrats don't allow them to get away with it. For the first time in the long history of the health care debate, I feel that we are close to getting reform passed, and I don't care how snarky we have to be to get it done- we're right, they're empty-handed with alternatives, and the status quo is unacceptable.
I've been trying to imagine if I can fairly compare your staff with that of President Bush's White House. None of them struck me as particularly funny. Maybe President Bush took care of the levity himself, with the nick names and the casual rejection of proper grammar? I'm not sure. I'm way too partisan to be an honest judge, anyway. That being said, I think the perception that your staff seems to do what they do so effectively, and with even a bit of fun, reflects well on your administration.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
Every time I see that Dan Pfeiffer has posted another entry on the White House blog, my day gets better. Your Communications Director is hilarious. I've never read a government official who uses sarcasm so effectively. Rahm Emanuel may have inspired some pretty hilarious SNL skits, but I think Mr. Pfeiffer is truly the master of writing press releases that make me go "oh, snap!" Today was no exception. In a blog entry that's almost as pithy as a Timbaland song, Mr. Pfeiffer called out congressional Republicans for failing to propose an alternate plan.
This is exactly what we should be hearing. Republicans have had months to propose solutions and they have yet to post alternative legislation. I fear Thursday will be another round of sound-bite attacks without any substance to back them up, and I hope that you and the congressional Democrats don't allow them to get away with it. For the first time in the long history of the health care debate, I feel that we are close to getting reform passed, and I don't care how snarky we have to be to get it done- we're right, they're empty-handed with alternatives, and the status quo is unacceptable.
I've been trying to imagine if I can fairly compare your staff with that of President Bush's White House. None of them struck me as particularly funny. Maybe President Bush took care of the levity himself, with the nick names and the casual rejection of proper grammar? I'm not sure. I'm way too partisan to be an honest judge, anyway. That being said, I think the perception that your staff seems to do what they do so effectively, and with even a bit of fun, reflects well on your administration.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, February 22, 2010
Day 53
Dear Mr. President,
Today you released the health care compromise intended to reconcile the bills proposed by the House & the Senate. I'm writing today to bring to your attention the suffering caused by this issue, as so many reporters have bravely tried to mention to Mr. Gibbs, and so many courageous every day men and women with their own opinion shows on news networks bring up every time they talk about health care. Will our pleas fall on deaf ears, Mr. President, or will you finally bring the full weight of your office to free America from health care fatigue once and for all?
After all, every time you wake up one morning and decide to score easy political points by talking about health care, millions of Americans must suffer through tedious, often repetitious debates whenever they accidentally flip to news program between episodes of the The Bachelor. They have to hear the same sob stories of people they've never met, who suffer, go bankrupt and die because of our health care system. Innocent Americans have to know that this goes on, and quite frankly, Mr. President, they don't deserve to. Don't you see what you're doing to them, forcing them to have a vague sense that health care is being discussed again? Assaulting them 24 hours a day with bi-partisan meetings, press conferences, talking heads on TV insisting that we need reform.
I'm pretty tired of it, as well, to be honest, but I'm even more tired of not having access to health care. I'm way more tired of watching my friends and family struggle with medical bills. I'm downright exhausted with the rising number of Americans dying or suffering because they don't have access to affordable health care. I am SO tired of all of this, not because it's taking to long, (though it is,) but because we're still talking about this like it is an issue we can afford to pay less attention to. Anyway, Mr. President, I just wanted to say that those of us who need this reform bill to pass are not getting tired of the debate, we're not expecting things to change over night, and we really don't care how much we have to hear about it, so long as it gets done.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today you released the health care compromise intended to reconcile the bills proposed by the House & the Senate. I'm writing today to bring to your attention the suffering caused by this issue, as so many reporters have bravely tried to mention to Mr. Gibbs, and so many courageous every day men and women with their own opinion shows on news networks bring up every time they talk about health care. Will our pleas fall on deaf ears, Mr. President, or will you finally bring the full weight of your office to free America from health care fatigue once and for all?
After all, every time you wake up one morning and decide to score easy political points by talking about health care, millions of Americans must suffer through tedious, often repetitious debates whenever they accidentally flip to news program between episodes of the The Bachelor. They have to hear the same sob stories of people they've never met, who suffer, go bankrupt and die because of our health care system. Innocent Americans have to know that this goes on, and quite frankly, Mr. President, they don't deserve to. Don't you see what you're doing to them, forcing them to have a vague sense that health care is being discussed again? Assaulting them 24 hours a day with bi-partisan meetings, press conferences, talking heads on TV insisting that we need reform.
I'm pretty tired of it, as well, to be honest, but I'm even more tired of not having access to health care. I'm way more tired of watching my friends and family struggle with medical bills. I'm downright exhausted with the rising number of Americans dying or suffering because they don't have access to affordable health care. I am SO tired of all of this, not because it's taking to long, (though it is,) but because we're still talking about this like it is an issue we can afford to pay less attention to. Anyway, Mr. President, I just wanted to say that those of us who need this reform bill to pass are not getting tired of the debate, we're not expecting things to change over night, and we really don't care how much we have to hear about it, so long as it gets done.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, February 15, 2010
Day 46
Dear Mr. President,
Happy Presidents' day. I read somewhere that your favorite President was Lincoln. I suppose he was all right. I'll admit that my fascination with the presidency comes in no small part from my love of The West Wing and, while watching an episode recently that discusses the difficulty being President in the shadow of men like Lincoln, I considered how you must feel about this. Every man who has served in your office has done so, I'm convinced, with the intention to Do Right by the people. Some certainly succeed more than others, but those that we remember best generally do so in the face of the greatest challenges. I have no illusions about the work that must be done for this country, or the glory in succeeding in health care reform or economic recovery, but there is nothing in this day and age that could compare to abolishing slavery. How fitting that Lincoln has been immortalized as he has, the larger-than life memorial looming over the mall in all of its glory, a monument not to his humanity, but to the huge burden of his legacy. I admire you, for daring to follow in such immense footsteps, in times that are perhaps even more challenging.
When I lived in DC I generally visited the memorials only when showing visiting friends around the city. I lived out in the east side of the city, and worked on L street. When I was transferred to a bookstore on F street, which required me to walk past The White House each day, I was elated. I'd start my day getting coffee spun to me through bullet-proof glass, get on the metro, and suddenly be walking in front of the President's home. DC is so surreal like that, the humblest of us passing so near to those in power. I never saw President Bush while I lived there, and I don't know that I would have cared to, much. I'll admit this was a time when my disappointment in my country was its strongest, and President Bush was a frequent reminder that I was living in a nation that did not seem to share my moral views. Since your election, I've often wondered how I'd feel if I still lived in DC, still worked down the street from the White House. I don't regret leaving, but I do miss it, sometimes.
I think for me, men like President Lincoln seem to be more fiction than fact. I'm sure that Lincoln was every bit as heroic as legend paints him, but I have a difficult time calling him my favorite. It honestly seems a bit like saying my favorite animal is a Triceratops. They may have been real, but I'm never going to know what they were really like. And so, while it may be hollow praise from a person who has lived under only 4 different Presidents, I think I can say, confidently, that you're my favorite, or at least the one I'll be thinking the most of this President's Day. You may never be President Lincoln, but I think our day demands a different kind of President, and I hope very much that you live up to that demand without wondering if it will always be overshadowed by the legends of your own heroes. I don't feel alienated by my government, these days, and, to me, that is its own kind of heroic.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Happy Presidents' day. I read somewhere that your favorite President was Lincoln. I suppose he was all right. I'll admit that my fascination with the presidency comes in no small part from my love of The West Wing and, while watching an episode recently that discusses the difficulty being President in the shadow of men like Lincoln, I considered how you must feel about this. Every man who has served in your office has done so, I'm convinced, with the intention to Do Right by the people. Some certainly succeed more than others, but those that we remember best generally do so in the face of the greatest challenges. I have no illusions about the work that must be done for this country, or the glory in succeeding in health care reform or economic recovery, but there is nothing in this day and age that could compare to abolishing slavery. How fitting that Lincoln has been immortalized as he has, the larger-than life memorial looming over the mall in all of its glory, a monument not to his humanity, but to the huge burden of his legacy. I admire you, for daring to follow in such immense footsteps, in times that are perhaps even more challenging.
When I lived in DC I generally visited the memorials only when showing visiting friends around the city. I lived out in the east side of the city, and worked on L street. When I was transferred to a bookstore on F street, which required me to walk past The White House each day, I was elated. I'd start my day getting coffee spun to me through bullet-proof glass, get on the metro, and suddenly be walking in front of the President's home. DC is so surreal like that, the humblest of us passing so near to those in power. I never saw President Bush while I lived there, and I don't know that I would have cared to, much. I'll admit this was a time when my disappointment in my country was its strongest, and President Bush was a frequent reminder that I was living in a nation that did not seem to share my moral views. Since your election, I've often wondered how I'd feel if I still lived in DC, still worked down the street from the White House. I don't regret leaving, but I do miss it, sometimes.
I think for me, men like President Lincoln seem to be more fiction than fact. I'm sure that Lincoln was every bit as heroic as legend paints him, but I have a difficult time calling him my favorite. It honestly seems a bit like saying my favorite animal is a Triceratops. They may have been real, but I'm never going to know what they were really like. And so, while it may be hollow praise from a person who has lived under only 4 different Presidents, I think I can say, confidently, that you're my favorite, or at least the one I'll be thinking the most of this President's Day. You may never be President Lincoln, but I think our day demands a different kind of President, and I hope very much that you live up to that demand without wondering if it will always be overshadowed by the legends of your own heroes. I don't feel alienated by my government, these days, and, to me, that is its own kind of heroic.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
