Dear Mr. President,
My fangirl enthusiasm for the political comedy of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and their writers is rivaled only by my geeky obsession with international law. Since international law is taking a beating today, I thought I'd write instead about the ventures in to mainstream political discourse Stewart and Colbert have made lately. It can't have slipped your notice that both are holding Glenn Beck-inspired rallies to restore sanity and keep fear alive in Washington DC. While some Democrats have expressed mixed feelings about the event, citing a possible dampening of get out the vote efforts, I think that, as the right embraced Beck and Palin's event in August, Democrats ought to be capitalizing on Stewart's call for moderate, reasonable discourse. Demonstrating a sense of humor about themselves can't possibly hurt their election prospect this fall, and I believe that the rallying cry from a figure widely loved on the left will be more effective than all the possible phone banking and door-knocking that may be missed as a result.
Similarly, the non-controversy controversy over Colbert's testimony before the House seems to be more absurd than the comedian's own schtick. Elmo testified before a House committee; surely the bar for legitimate expertise from witnesses was lowered long before Mr. Colbert was invited to testify. Even if his testimony was compelled for no reason more legitimate than to increase awareness of the hearings and of the "take our jobs" program, than I think there are far more important things to be upset about. That Democrats are joining in this chorus of disapproving voices is deeply disappointing. Colbert and Stewart should be the reasonable answer to Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. Their satire of these clownish right-wing puppets almost always works in the favor of the Democratic party (or, at least the parts of it that still have the the courage to act and talk like Democrats.) Yes, they are comedians. They tell more jokes than they do truth, but still, I think, one would be hard-pressed to find a more effective way of combating the absurd and depressing tactics of the right wing media than by mocking them.
I'm not suggesting Stewart or Colbert run for office or anything ridiculous like that. Their value is in their outsider status- their commentary would not be effective if they were saddled with the responsibility of actual governing. But in their attempts to keep our public servants and the rest of the media honest, I think that they do serve a purpose with even more value than mere entertainment. I hope that Democrats stop disparaging their attempts to rally unenthusiastic young voters and learn to laugh at themselves a bit more.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Day 215- Birthright
“We all feel and understand the hearts of children, but on the other hand, there are Zionist considerations and ensuring the Jewish character of the state of Israel. The problem is that these two components clash.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Dear Mr. President,
I agree with Lou Dobbs. That's actually too weird for me to feel comfortable saying out loud, so let me say instead, Lou Dobbs agrees with me about the growing number of GOP senators who want to repeal the 14th amendement, in that we both think they're ridiculous. It reminded me of an article I'd read recently about the Israeli decision to deport 400 children born in Israel to foreign laborers. While the decision made could have been much worse, the idea that it was done, as PM Netanyahu stated, to ensure "the Jewish character of the state of Israel" did not sit well with me. In general, I'm opposed to systems of government where a person's religion determines their rights. The idea that several of my friends born in America have a birthright to Israeli citizenship that these children (not to mention the millions of Palestinians forced out in 1948 and 1967) born in Israel do not have, it just doesn't seem right. It's not a debate I'm likely to win, and I do understand the need for Jews to have a protected place and the means to defend themselves against another holocaust. I just don't think that denying the rights of non-Jews born in Israel is an acceptable cost.
I wonder, what character of our nation would we be trying to preserve in repealing 14th amendment rights? Our white, English-speaking character? Or, perhaps, the illusion that white Americans who took this land from the native people have a superior right to its resources than the descendants of non-white populations that have lived on this continent for generations before Europeans knew its name? I, for one, do not think that character, or that illusion, is worth protecting at all, but especially not if it means devaluing our constitution. I think that the rights guaranteed in our constitution, the spirit of freedom and equality enshrined in its words, that lofty and yet to be perfected ideal is the only character we ought to fight to ensure. Denying these basic values to persecute immigrants and minorities for the sake of keeping our white, English-speaking, Christian majority is simply not what this country stands for.
And I'm glad to know that Lou Dobbs agrees with me.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
I agree with Lou Dobbs. That's actually too weird for me to feel comfortable saying out loud, so let me say instead, Lou Dobbs agrees with me about the growing number of GOP senators who want to repeal the 14th amendement, in that we both think they're ridiculous. It reminded me of an article I'd read recently about the Israeli decision to deport 400 children born in Israel to foreign laborers. While the decision made could have been much worse, the idea that it was done, as PM Netanyahu stated, to ensure "the Jewish character of the state of Israel" did not sit well with me. In general, I'm opposed to systems of government where a person's religion determines their rights. The idea that several of my friends born in America have a birthright to Israeli citizenship that these children (not to mention the millions of Palestinians forced out in 1948 and 1967) born in Israel do not have, it just doesn't seem right. It's not a debate I'm likely to win, and I do understand the need for Jews to have a protected place and the means to defend themselves against another holocaust. I just don't think that denying the rights of non-Jews born in Israel is an acceptable cost.
I wonder, what character of our nation would we be trying to preserve in repealing 14th amendment rights? Our white, English-speaking character? Or, perhaps, the illusion that white Americans who took this land from the native people have a superior right to its resources than the descendants of non-white populations that have lived on this continent for generations before Europeans knew its name? I, for one, do not think that character, or that illusion, is worth protecting at all, but especially not if it means devaluing our constitution. I think that the rights guaranteed in our constitution, the spirit of freedom and equality enshrined in its words, that lofty and yet to be perfected ideal is the only character we ought to fight to ensure. Denying these basic values to persecute immigrants and minorities for the sake of keeping our white, English-speaking, Christian majority is simply not what this country stands for.
And I'm glad to know that Lou Dobbs agrees with me.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Day 209- Activist judges
Dear Mr. President,
I am so grateful for activist judges. Judge Susan R. Bolton, in particular. What strikes me as particularly reasonable is that she has put a hold on any implementation of the Arizona law while she fully considers the case. I don't think that she is particularly activist in this decision, but I'm sure that's what they'll be calling her on FOX tonight, and I'm just glad she's willing to take on the criticism for the sake of justice.
This decision gives me a deep gratitude for our legal system, especially in contrast with news from al-Araqib, where an entire Bedouin village was razed, despite a pending court case to determine the land rights of the villagers. I think it is a terrible reminder of what irreversible damage can be done in the wait for justice delayed. I wonder, how all of those made homeless by this destruction would have felt if an activist judge had stepped in to prevent the demolition, even if it was only until their case could have a fair hearing. Sure, the Israeli right would have decried it as judicial overreach, but families would not be sleeping in tents, cut off from access to water, shelter and basic services.
It is a small comfort to know that, at least for now, the civil liberties of Arizonans have been protected by the intervention of one individual. That, before any one's rights have been violated, she said, let's give this another look. It seems reasonable, wise, and just. I hope that the the law is eventually overturned, as I do not believe it will be effective or fair. For now, as my heart goes out to those made homeless by the haste of the forces that would see them run out of their land entirely, I am reminded how rare and remarkable our own system can sometimes prove itself to be. I hope that you condemn the destruction of al-Araqib, and the injustice suffered by the people who called it home. The people of Palestine, and the Arabs of Israeli citizenship deserve equal treatment by Israeli courts, and, as Israel's ally, it seems only right that we work to ensure this kind of gross oppression does not continue in a country you call our friend.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I am so grateful for activist judges. Judge Susan R. Bolton, in particular. What strikes me as particularly reasonable is that she has put a hold on any implementation of the Arizona law while she fully considers the case. I don't think that she is particularly activist in this decision, but I'm sure that's what they'll be calling her on FOX tonight, and I'm just glad she's willing to take on the criticism for the sake of justice.
This decision gives me a deep gratitude for our legal system, especially in contrast with news from al-Araqib, where an entire Bedouin village was razed, despite a pending court case to determine the land rights of the villagers. I think it is a terrible reminder of what irreversible damage can be done in the wait for justice delayed. I wonder, how all of those made homeless by this destruction would have felt if an activist judge had stepped in to prevent the demolition, even if it was only until their case could have a fair hearing. Sure, the Israeli right would have decried it as judicial overreach, but families would not be sleeping in tents, cut off from access to water, shelter and basic services.
It is a small comfort to know that, at least for now, the civil liberties of Arizonans have been protected by the intervention of one individual. That, before any one's rights have been violated, she said, let's give this another look. It seems reasonable, wise, and just. I hope that the the law is eventually overturned, as I do not believe it will be effective or fair. For now, as my heart goes out to those made homeless by the haste of the forces that would see them run out of their land entirely, I am reminded how rare and remarkable our own system can sometimes prove itself to be. I hope that you condemn the destruction of al-Araqib, and the injustice suffered by the people who called it home. The people of Palestine, and the Arabs of Israeli citizenship deserve equal treatment by Israeli courts, and, as Israel's ally, it seems only right that we work to ensure this kind of gross oppression does not continue in a country you call our friend.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Day 194- Bad Art Museum of Bad Art
Dear Mr. President,
The French government is another step closer to a full public ban on the burqa. I suppose this makes me grateful to live where I do. Not because I wear a veil, but because I could. Because, more than wear what we want, we can say what we want. We can open bars with "Obama rooms" celebrating bad art. Art can be subversive, offensive, contrary to the values or beliefs or faiths of so many people, and it is no threat to our society. It can hang on the wall, or be inked on some one's skin, or stitched into their clothing and it doesn't make them less American.
Tonight I was in a bar, drowning my AL sorrows, with an "Obama Room". I didn't find out what it meant, or why it was named after you, but the sign said it was a room of bad art. I think it meant that the room is safe for bad art, for art that not every one likes or understands. Art that no one wants to pay for, that no one would remember, otherwise. Art that doesn't have to justify its own existence.
I couldn't help but think of the women in France being targeted by this law. There aren't enough of them to defend themselves democratically. They are outsiders, isolated, kept apart from the rest of French society- not by their own beliefs or culture, but by a government that, by overwhelming majority, has declared their manner of dress to be out of step with what it means to be French.
I'm still pretty upset about the American League breaking a 14-year streak of domination at today's all-star game, so forgive me a baseball metaphor. Baseball has always been described as quintessentially American, but I could, with little fear of harassment, walk outside with a shirt saying "I hate baseball" or "Babe Ruth is stupid" and not worry that it made me any less American. I might be in an extreme minority, too few to ever have my opinion represented in the legislature or to count on it being defended by voters, but the constitution protects me, all the same. It is this bedrock principle that represents true "Americanism", this document which defends us all from the whims of the majority. I hope that, when the law in France must face up to their own constitution, that it is struck down. that the noble principles enshrined in that document are stronger than a passing fear of those who do not dress the right way.
What do you think of this law, Mr. President? Will you speak out against it, demonstrating that the friendship between the US and France is once characterized first by its frankness and honesty? I hope that you will, I hope that the Council of the State acts to protect the rights of these French women. Because, be we immigrants or baseball haters or bad artists or just believers in a faith different from that of the majority, we deserve our own corner of safety, the respect of our governments and of our fellow citizens. Speak to President Sarkozy, Mr. President, and tell him this law is not worthy of a modern democracy.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
The French government is another step closer to a full public ban on the burqa. I suppose this makes me grateful to live where I do. Not because I wear a veil, but because I could. Because, more than wear what we want, we can say what we want. We can open bars with "Obama rooms" celebrating bad art. Art can be subversive, offensive, contrary to the values or beliefs or faiths of so many people, and it is no threat to our society. It can hang on the wall, or be inked on some one's skin, or stitched into their clothing and it doesn't make them less American.
Tonight I was in a bar, drowning my AL sorrows, with an "Obama Room". I didn't find out what it meant, or why it was named after you, but the sign said it was a room of bad art. I think it meant that the room is safe for bad art, for art that not every one likes or understands. Art that no one wants to pay for, that no one would remember, otherwise. Art that doesn't have to justify its own existence.
I couldn't help but think of the women in France being targeted by this law. There aren't enough of them to defend themselves democratically. They are outsiders, isolated, kept apart from the rest of French society- not by their own beliefs or culture, but by a government that, by overwhelming majority, has declared their manner of dress to be out of step with what it means to be French.
I'm still pretty upset about the American League breaking a 14-year streak of domination at today's all-star game, so forgive me a baseball metaphor. Baseball has always been described as quintessentially American, but I could, with little fear of harassment, walk outside with a shirt saying "I hate baseball" or "Babe Ruth is stupid" and not worry that it made me any less American. I might be in an extreme minority, too few to ever have my opinion represented in the legislature or to count on it being defended by voters, but the constitution protects me, all the same. It is this bedrock principle that represents true "Americanism", this document which defends us all from the whims of the majority. I hope that, when the law in France must face up to their own constitution, that it is struck down. that the noble principles enshrined in that document are stronger than a passing fear of those who do not dress the right way.
What do you think of this law, Mr. President? Will you speak out against it, demonstrating that the friendship between the US and France is once characterized first by its frankness and honesty? I hope that you will, I hope that the Council of the State acts to protect the rights of these French women. Because, be we immigrants or baseball haters or bad artists or just believers in a faith different from that of the majority, we deserve our own corner of safety, the respect of our governments and of our fellow citizens. Speak to President Sarkozy, Mr. President, and tell him this law is not worthy of a modern democracy.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, July 2, 2010
Day 183- All at once
****Update for those of you who don't read my facebook or Chev's: Chev is totally fine and safe, the Peace Corps volunteers are only being evacuated from the Northern regions of Burkina Faso, and so they will be reassigned to southern villages that are safer. Yay for good news!
Dear Mr. President,
I have a soft spot for certain "celebrity" chefs. Jamie Oliver. Molly Wizenberg and, perhaps ironically, given his position on all things vegetarian, Anthony Bourdain. While at work, I glanced through a few passages from Bourdain's latest book, Medium Raw, in which he expresses his inexplicable mix of dislike and respect for Alice Waters. Bourdain, who himself insists upon fresh, organic food for his own family, has several problems with the way Waters has advocated these practices for all Americans. His first problem is with the reality of modern farming, which he, perhaps correctly, insists could not be simultaneously organic, sustainable, and affordable. His next contention, that few Americans want to do the hard work that kind of farming requires and must therefor rely upon immigrant labor or machines to do it for them, reminded me of two articles I'd stumbled upon lately. The first was a Freakonomics piece by James McWilliams on fair trade coffee and economic reality, and the second was an interview with a United Farm Workers of America VP Erik Nicholson discussing agricultural practices, in which Nicholson asserts that the convergence of sustainable small farms, labor and immigration issues make any real progress politically problematic.
Reading these pieces and contemplating the many ways that reality frustrates idealism, I realized that this issue is more than just labor and immigration and sustainability; it's healthcare and our energy future and our environmental policy. What we eat, how we produce our food, will involve and impact every major (and especially contentious) domestic policy issue we face. I was once again reminded of how overwhelmed I felt in Costco the other day, sure that all of my good intentions were for nothing. I don't see how we can possibly remake our entire agricultural system in the image of Waters' utopian ideal, but neither do I have quite so cynical a perspective as Bourdain. We may not have a surplus of Americans willing to return to agricultural labor, at least not the way it is now or has been done in the past, but it isn't as though all Americans are strangers to hard labor. I, for one, (and I doubt very much that I'm alone in this) would much rather have tended fields or picked fruit than toiled away as a food service employee for all the years I spent in unskilled positions. The problem is simultaneous change. We need more people to grow food that is safer and more nutritious, for themselves and for their communities, and to do that we need more people to work in agriculture, and to do that we need to have better wages and working conditions, which means the use of pesticides and factory farming practices would have to change. Immigration, food prices, import and export practices, the environment; everything would be affected. Everything would have to change at once for any of it to work, and I've lived too long to believe that we're capable of that.
So will organic, sustainably grown food continue to be a luxury for the rich, or favorably located, or fervently committed, forever subject to the economic realities that link scaling up these practices with the degradation of the very principles they were founded upon? I want to believe that we can reform ourselves, but I don't know that I, or you, or even Alice Waters, has the solution. In the last few days, I've seen major discussions on healthcare, immigration, energy and environmental policies from the White House, and so I know that your administration still has faith that we can make the necessary changes in all of these areas. For myself, I don't imagine that the solution lies in regressing to the practices that once sustained us; our society has become far too urban, far too disconnected from the land our food comes from to ever fully revert back to the kind of farming I associate with John Steinbeck's novels. I think our best hope is yet to be discovered, but that it will require us all to involve ourselves, however unappealing some may find it, in the sources of our food and to demand better conditions for the people who provide it for us.
Anyway, on Monday I'll be putting myself to the test and see how well my rhetoric stands up against reality. More on that, to come.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
I have a soft spot for certain "celebrity" chefs. Jamie Oliver. Molly Wizenberg and, perhaps ironically, given his position on all things vegetarian, Anthony Bourdain. While at work, I glanced through a few passages from Bourdain's latest book, Medium Raw, in which he expresses his inexplicable mix of dislike and respect for Alice Waters. Bourdain, who himself insists upon fresh, organic food for his own family, has several problems with the way Waters has advocated these practices for all Americans. His first problem is with the reality of modern farming, which he, perhaps correctly, insists could not be simultaneously organic, sustainable, and affordable. His next contention, that few Americans want to do the hard work that kind of farming requires and must therefor rely upon immigrant labor or machines to do it for them, reminded me of two articles I'd stumbled upon lately. The first was a Freakonomics piece by James McWilliams on fair trade coffee and economic reality, and the second was an interview with a United Farm Workers of America VP Erik Nicholson discussing agricultural practices, in which Nicholson asserts that the convergence of sustainable small farms, labor and immigration issues make any real progress politically problematic.
Reading these pieces and contemplating the many ways that reality frustrates idealism, I realized that this issue is more than just labor and immigration and sustainability; it's healthcare and our energy future and our environmental policy. What we eat, how we produce our food, will involve and impact every major (and especially contentious) domestic policy issue we face. I was once again reminded of how overwhelmed I felt in Costco the other day, sure that all of my good intentions were for nothing. I don't see how we can possibly remake our entire agricultural system in the image of Waters' utopian ideal, but neither do I have quite so cynical a perspective as Bourdain. We may not have a surplus of Americans willing to return to agricultural labor, at least not the way it is now or has been done in the past, but it isn't as though all Americans are strangers to hard labor. I, for one, (and I doubt very much that I'm alone in this) would much rather have tended fields or picked fruit than toiled away as a food service employee for all the years I spent in unskilled positions. The problem is simultaneous change. We need more people to grow food that is safer and more nutritious, for themselves and for their communities, and to do that we need more people to work in agriculture, and to do that we need to have better wages and working conditions, which means the use of pesticides and factory farming practices would have to change. Immigration, food prices, import and export practices, the environment; everything would be affected. Everything would have to change at once for any of it to work, and I've lived too long to believe that we're capable of that.
So will organic, sustainably grown food continue to be a luxury for the rich, or favorably located, or fervently committed, forever subject to the economic realities that link scaling up these practices with the degradation of the very principles they were founded upon? I want to believe that we can reform ourselves, but I don't know that I, or you, or even Alice Waters, has the solution. In the last few days, I've seen major discussions on healthcare, immigration, energy and environmental policies from the White House, and so I know that your administration still has faith that we can make the necessary changes in all of these areas. For myself, I don't imagine that the solution lies in regressing to the practices that once sustained us; our society has become far too urban, far too disconnected from the land our food comes from to ever fully revert back to the kind of farming I associate with John Steinbeck's novels. I think our best hope is yet to be discovered, but that it will require us all to involve ourselves, however unappealing some may find it, in the sources of our food and to demand better conditions for the people who provide it for us.
Anyway, on Monday I'll be putting myself to the test and see how well my rhetoric stands up against reality. More on that, to come.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, June 18, 2010
Day 169- A dangerous letter
Dear Mr. President,
Maybe it's a silly thing to feel personally connected to, but, as some one who bothers your office with daily letters, I was especially horrified to learn about the New York woman's letter to you, which resulted in her husband's arrest. I think it's a frightening precedent to set, allowing the people who write to you asking for help to be tracked down and arrested based on their letters. I hope that her husband is allowed to stay in this country, though I recognize that the enforcement of immigration laws isn't something you handle personally.
On the topic of immigration, I was pleased to learn of the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law. I think, even if the suit is unsuccessful, it send the right message to say that the federal government does not approve of the draconian measures being taken. I think it also shows that your administration has the courage of its convictions, are are willing to take politically unpopular positions when its the right thing to do.
I recently read a New York Times column about marriage equality that cited an interesting fact. Apparently, a full year after it was legalized by the courts, one 20% of American approved of interracial marriage. This seemed shocking to me, both that the approval of what is now a commonplace activity was so low, and also that the issue was taken up in the face of overwhelming public opinion. That kind of courage seems to be lacking from politics these days, when 47% of the population approves of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples, to no end. To me, this only confirms a long-held belief that the opinion of the majority is not a sacred thing when it calls for the oppression of others. It seems like polling dictates what is possible for politicians these days, which undermines our elected officials as leaders. I think the administration's action against Arizona's law, which may have popular support, especially among conservatives, demonstrates that you haven't completely put opinion polls before defending civil liberties. So thank you, for that.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Maybe it's a silly thing to feel personally connected to, but, as some one who bothers your office with daily letters, I was especially horrified to learn about the New York woman's letter to you, which resulted in her husband's arrest. I think it's a frightening precedent to set, allowing the people who write to you asking for help to be tracked down and arrested based on their letters. I hope that her husband is allowed to stay in this country, though I recognize that the enforcement of immigration laws isn't something you handle personally.
On the topic of immigration, I was pleased to learn of the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law. I think, even if the suit is unsuccessful, it send the right message to say that the federal government does not approve of the draconian measures being taken. I think it also shows that your administration has the courage of its convictions, are are willing to take politically unpopular positions when its the right thing to do.
I recently read a New York Times column about marriage equality that cited an interesting fact. Apparently, a full year after it was legalized by the courts, one 20% of American approved of interracial marriage. This seemed shocking to me, both that the approval of what is now a commonplace activity was so low, and also that the issue was taken up in the face of overwhelming public opinion. That kind of courage seems to be lacking from politics these days, when 47% of the population approves of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples, to no end. To me, this only confirms a long-held belief that the opinion of the majority is not a sacred thing when it calls for the oppression of others. It seems like polling dictates what is possible for politicians these days, which undermines our elected officials as leaders. I think the administration's action against Arizona's law, which may have popular support, especially among conservatives, demonstrates that you haven't completely put opinion polls before defending civil liberties. So thank you, for that.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, May 14, 2010
Day 134- One of us
Dear Mr. President,
John McCain really changed my mind about things, once I saw his new ad. If we build a wall along our entire border, we'll never have problems with drug trafficking or home invasions ever again. Build the wall, higher, stronger, and more formidable than any wall ever seen on this planet, and it will keep out all of those miscreants who risk their lives to sneak across our borders just to cause mischief. I was going to oppose the wall, me being a bleeding heart who thinks that all human life, regardless of geographic location, is equal, but John McCain set me straight.
My one concern with the wall is that it doesn't really stop the people in boats. I mean, people in boats sneak into this country all the time, so maybe we could wall off the coastlines, too? It might hurt tourism, but think of all the environmental benefits if humans were no longer allowed on any American beaches! And then there's Canada. Did I ever tell you how I crossed into the US from Canada illegally? It was on the Pacific Crest Trail, and I was 15. Let me tell you, it was way too easy. We should probably build a wall through there, too. It might hurt a few trees, upset a few migratory animals, but in the long run, it's what we have to do to keep the terrorists out.
One last concern; airplanes. I know, closing the airports to international flights seems like an easy fix, but what about parachutes? I don't want Mexicans HALO dropping into this country at night; they might make it past all of those lame desert states in the south and start taking our jobs here in the north. I'd imagine the Star Wars missile defense technology could help us here, but I'm not sure it's fully operational yet, so maybe we could make due with some giant trampolines? Or those spikes we put on window ledges to keep off the birds? My roommates want me to point out that electrifying the fence is an important step, but if Jurassic Park teaches us anything, it should be that we need a much more effective back-up system in the event of any power failures.
Once we've been effectively locked down, we'll have to go after the illegals already among us. (Especially once our import/export abilities are cut off by the coastal wall.) Maybe we could set up roadside stations, check every one's papers before we let them through? It might get kind of overwhelming for local law enforcement to do this alone, so we should probably staff these checkpoints with soldiers. (Actually, checkpoints is kind of an ugly, contentious word with all sorts of bad connotations, so let's call them "Citizenship defense stations.")
Anyway, what do you think? Are these the kind of comprehensive immigration solutions that will keep us safe from the dangerous onslaught of non-English-speaking killers flooding across into Arizona? Do you think that John McCain will let us be part of his club, now?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Day 131
Dear Mr. President,
I applied to go back to school today. After running out of viable alternatives to complete my degree (night school, bank robbery, insurance fraud, etc.) I've finally concluded that I have to face my fear and go back full-time. What is unusual about this situation is that, instead of fearing the unknown, I know exactly what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of the stress, the inevitable choice between being a good employee and being a good student, (or, put another way, of having the means to support myself or the kind of grades I expect,) of the endless bureaucracy of attending a large school, my own deteriorating academic skills and my failure to measure up to classes growing younger as I age. I've been through it, before, and I do not look forward to doing it again, for an entire year. I've put it off for so long, because of the calculated risks, feeling as though I know, already, that I will fail, and so it is not worth trying. But business as usual isn't acceptable; my life is not what I want it to be, my career, my contribution to my community, nothing about my station in life is acceptable and so I have to put aside my habits and self-doubt and even my pride, and I have to do what is difficult.
Lately I feel like your administration has faced a similar struggle. It's as though you can't seem to break out of the same patterns that force you to perpetuate a status quo you know to be unacceptable. Why, for example, is the White House rallying for incumbent Democrats who don't support your legislative agenda? Why do we continue to prop up Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, or accept defeat when it comes to new energy policy? Our problems are similar, Mr. President, in that we both have the power and will to improve, but somehow find ourselves bogged down in the day-to-day. I understand; it's difficult to get aggressive on your legislative agenda when it's flooding in Tennessee and oil is spilling into the Gulf; when bombs, (or, at least, fair attempts at bombs) are being left in Times Square and Arizona seems ready to replace its law enforcement with a modern-era manifestation of the Glanton gang. But time is slipping away from both of us, and, before you know it, the midterms will be over and it will be time to run again. Your approval rating may be creeping up, but you know that the years will be long gone before you're able to accomplish what you set out to if you wait for the political will to come to you.
Neither of us can afford to waste our time in mediocrity, in half-hearted attempts born of fear. I hope that your administration musters all of its courage and finds new approaches to solving the problems of our day; that you take the difficult paths and fight for your beliefs, without compromising before you even reach the negotiation. You ought to re-evaluate the promises you made to the electorate during your campaign and the progress made so far toward those ends. I worry that four years will pass before you look around and realize you haven't fought hard enough, for fear of failure, or that you've been bogged down with day-by-day crisis management and never got to take on enough of the big picture. A constant reflection on the goals of your administration is essential to the necessary sense of urgency your office requires. Like me, you still have so many people who believe in you, and I know you, too, want that faith to be rewarded.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I applied to go back to school today. After running out of viable alternatives to complete my degree (night school, bank robbery, insurance fraud, etc.) I've finally concluded that I have to face my fear and go back full-time. What is unusual about this situation is that, instead of fearing the unknown, I know exactly what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of the stress, the inevitable choice between being a good employee and being a good student, (or, put another way, of having the means to support myself or the kind of grades I expect,) of the endless bureaucracy of attending a large school, my own deteriorating academic skills and my failure to measure up to classes growing younger as I age. I've been through it, before, and I do not look forward to doing it again, for an entire year. I've put it off for so long, because of the calculated risks, feeling as though I know, already, that I will fail, and so it is not worth trying. But business as usual isn't acceptable; my life is not what I want it to be, my career, my contribution to my community, nothing about my station in life is acceptable and so I have to put aside my habits and self-doubt and even my pride, and I have to do what is difficult.
Lately I feel like your administration has faced a similar struggle. It's as though you can't seem to break out of the same patterns that force you to perpetuate a status quo you know to be unacceptable. Why, for example, is the White House rallying for incumbent Democrats who don't support your legislative agenda? Why do we continue to prop up Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, or accept defeat when it comes to new energy policy? Our problems are similar, Mr. President, in that we both have the power and will to improve, but somehow find ourselves bogged down in the day-to-day. I understand; it's difficult to get aggressive on your legislative agenda when it's flooding in Tennessee and oil is spilling into the Gulf; when bombs, (or, at least, fair attempts at bombs) are being left in Times Square and Arizona seems ready to replace its law enforcement with a modern-era manifestation of the Glanton gang. But time is slipping away from both of us, and, before you know it, the midterms will be over and it will be time to run again. Your approval rating may be creeping up, but you know that the years will be long gone before you're able to accomplish what you set out to if you wait for the political will to come to you.
Neither of us can afford to waste our time in mediocrity, in half-hearted attempts born of fear. I hope that your administration musters all of its courage and finds new approaches to solving the problems of our day; that you take the difficult paths and fight for your beliefs, without compromising before you even reach the negotiation. You ought to re-evaluate the promises you made to the electorate during your campaign and the progress made so far toward those ends. I worry that four years will pass before you look around and realize you haven't fought hard enough, for fear of failure, or that you've been bogged down with day-by-day crisis management and never got to take on enough of the big picture. A constant reflection on the goals of your administration is essential to the necessary sense of urgency your office requires. Like me, you still have so many people who believe in you, and I know you, too, want that faith to be rewarded.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Day 118- Do and Don't
Dear Mr. President,
The midterm election strategy for Democrats, to own the mantle of practical action and to highlight how this contrasts with the GOP's party of no, may have helped nudge Senate Republicans toward allowing debate on financial reform today. Even if we lose a significant number of our 2010 races, I hope that this strategy encourages voters to put pressure on Republicans to take a more active role in participating, rather than just rejecting, attempts to govern.
That being said, Democrats need to work hard to show that we will try to do difficult things, even if we fail. Tough, fair, immigration reform; clean energy and environmental protection, honest progress toward equality for gay and lesbian soldiers and couples, all of these issues have Democrats on the same side as the majority of the American people. We may jeopardize vulnerable seats, but we ought to push hard for all of these reforms, even if they die in the Senate. Demonstrating our commitment to act and not to be content with the tired game of cautious defense that helps only to preserve the status quo is important if many Democrats are going to live up to the ambitious campaign strategy. We need courageous leaders, leaders who aren't afraid to take positions that are locally unpopular, when its the right thing to do. Voters will always respect gutsy, ambitious policy more than pandering that accomplishes nothing.
The summer should be spent governing, not campaigning. Democrats must prove that the party still has values it is willing to stand and fight for, other than the defense of our tenuous majority. A record of accomplishments, no matter how controversial, is better to defend than a list of excuses for doing nothing.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
The midterm election strategy for Democrats, to own the mantle of practical action and to highlight how this contrasts with the GOP's party of no, may have helped nudge Senate Republicans toward allowing debate on financial reform today. Even if we lose a significant number of our 2010 races, I hope that this strategy encourages voters to put pressure on Republicans to take a more active role in participating, rather than just rejecting, attempts to govern.
That being said, Democrats need to work hard to show that we will try to do difficult things, even if we fail. Tough, fair, immigration reform; clean energy and environmental protection, honest progress toward equality for gay and lesbian soldiers and couples, all of these issues have Democrats on the same side as the majority of the American people. We may jeopardize vulnerable seats, but we ought to push hard for all of these reforms, even if they die in the Senate. Demonstrating our commitment to act and not to be content with the tired game of cautious defense that helps only to preserve the status quo is important if many Democrats are going to live up to the ambitious campaign strategy. We need courageous leaders, leaders who aren't afraid to take positions that are locally unpopular, when its the right thing to do. Voters will always respect gutsy, ambitious policy more than pandering that accomplishes nothing.
The summer should be spent governing, not campaigning. Democrats must prove that the party still has values it is willing to stand and fight for, other than the defense of our tenuous majority. A record of accomplishments, no matter how controversial, is better to defend than a list of excuses for doing nothing.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, April 23, 2010
Day 113- Ghosts of 2008
Dear Mr. President,
I'm glad that you've publicly addressed the injustice of the racist immigration law recently passed by the state of Arizona. I'm at a complete loss; I can't fathom how in this day and age such legislation could be seriously discussed, let alone signed into law. We need comprehensive national reform, and in the meantime the Arizona legislation ought to be fought by the courts and by the voters. My roommate, a member of the Hidatsa-Mandan tribe, joined in our outrage at this legislation, despite having, better than any of us, a historical claim to this land. We're a nation of immigrants, outside of the reservations. Where are the small-government conservatives now? Where's the libertarian outrage at this massive infringement on individual liberty? How does John McCain, who supports this bill, even look at himself in the mirror?
You've already spoken forcefully about your objections to this legislation, so I'll waste no further time preaching to the choir. As I read through the day's news, another story raised my blood pressure. Try as I might, I cannot seem to effectively ignore Sarah Palin. Pretending she doesn't exist in the hopes that she'll stop talking and go back to Alaska doesn't seem to be effective, so I thought I'd point out yet another example of her glaring hypocrisy. Today, in response to the news that Franklin Graham was uninvited from the national day of prayer ceremony, Palin said, "Are we really so hyper-politically correct that we can’t abide a Christian minister who expresses his views on matters of faith? What a shame. " This, from the same woman who thought that the controversial views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright should have been reason for voters to mistrust you in 2008. While I may not have been as offended by Reverend Wright's remarks as I was by Graham's, I'm sure that I many were. Mrs. Palin needs to decide; either political correctness extends past the church doors or it doesn't. I think the real disconnect between the two situations in Palin's mind is that one condemnation was of America (actually, the American government, but I'm not sure that she makes that distinction unless there's a Democrat in the White House), the other was the entire Islamic faith. Palin believes that one of these is acceptable to criticize, condemn and even insult; the other is not. I think that a certain level of respect in public discourse, especially from religious leaders who claim to be men of God, is not too much to ask. However, I think that expressing the outrage of centuries of racial oppression and government abuse in melodramatic anti-American rhetoric is far less troublesome than calling an entire religion "wicked" or "evil."
I think if Arizona has taught us anything today it is that hatred, bigotry, and hypocrisy may never go out of style in this country, they don't look good on any one.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I'm glad that you've publicly addressed the injustice of the racist immigration law recently passed by the state of Arizona. I'm at a complete loss; I can't fathom how in this day and age such legislation could be seriously discussed, let alone signed into law. We need comprehensive national reform, and in the meantime the Arizona legislation ought to be fought by the courts and by the voters. My roommate, a member of the Hidatsa-Mandan tribe, joined in our outrage at this legislation, despite having, better than any of us, a historical claim to this land. We're a nation of immigrants, outside of the reservations. Where are the small-government conservatives now? Where's the libertarian outrage at this massive infringement on individual liberty? How does John McCain, who supports this bill, even look at himself in the mirror?
You've already spoken forcefully about your objections to this legislation, so I'll waste no further time preaching to the choir. As I read through the day's news, another story raised my blood pressure. Try as I might, I cannot seem to effectively ignore Sarah Palin. Pretending she doesn't exist in the hopes that she'll stop talking and go back to Alaska doesn't seem to be effective, so I thought I'd point out yet another example of her glaring hypocrisy. Today, in response to the news that Franklin Graham was uninvited from the national day of prayer ceremony, Palin said, "Are we really so hyper-politically correct that we can’t abide a Christian minister who expresses his views on matters of faith? What a shame. " This, from the same woman who thought that the controversial views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright should have been reason for voters to mistrust you in 2008. While I may not have been as offended by Reverend Wright's remarks as I was by Graham's, I'm sure that I many were. Mrs. Palin needs to decide; either political correctness extends past the church doors or it doesn't. I think the real disconnect between the two situations in Palin's mind is that one condemnation was of America (actually, the American government, but I'm not sure that she makes that distinction unless there's a Democrat in the White House), the other was the entire Islamic faith. Palin believes that one of these is acceptable to criticize, condemn and even insult; the other is not. I think that a certain level of respect in public discourse, especially from religious leaders who claim to be men of God, is not too much to ask. However, I think that expressing the outrage of centuries of racial oppression and government abuse in melodramatic anti-American rhetoric is far less troublesome than calling an entire religion "wicked" or "evil."
I think if Arizona has taught us anything today it is that hatred, bigotry, and hypocrisy may never go out of style in this country, they don't look good on any one.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Day 101- Immigration reform
Dear Mr. President,
Yesterday, in Seattle, more than five thousand people rallied for immigration reform. I was just getting off of work, when I passed through a crowd in Pioneer Square. Congressman Jim McDermott was among those in attendance, and, at first impression, the crowd seemed more like a jovial gathering than a political protest- I saw people of all ages and races, some angrily chanting, some silently holding up signs, more than a few children running around laughing and waving flags. I think it was uplifting to see so many Seattlites come together and stand up for the rights of illegal immigrants across the country.
Once, while sitting on a plane from Boise to Seattle, I was telling the woman next to me that I studied Arabic in school, and wanted to travel to the Middle East. She warned me not to expect "people over there" to accommodate me, the way we accommodate people over here. She went on to explain that, in America, we make it so easy that people don't even have to speak English, while the rest of the world insists on making people speak the native language. I've heard this mind-boggling rhetoric many times since; from old acquaintances on facebook who post things like "Welcome to America, press 1 for English, press 2 to hang up and learn English," as well as from coworkers who grow frustrated at customers who don't communicate easily in English. In DC one morning, I watched as an old woman yelled at a Hispanic McDonald's employee for denying a homeless white man free coffee, insisting that the employee, as a "non-American" was the reason the man was homeless in the first place. I try to imagine the logic behind a worldview that affords basic dignity and respect only on the basis of a shared language and place of birth, but I just can't do it. It's an ugly sense of entitlement that I just can't empathize with.
Unfortunately, I don't have to understand this kind of racism to be complicit in it. Things like this rally give me hope, even as they deepen my disappointment in myself for not being more actively involved. Just the other day, an old woman on my bus stormed off in protest after the driver angrily berated an elderly Chinese couple for not following his request to make more room quickly enough. I kept my seat; I was late for work, and I didn't want to walk in the rain, but the shame of staying silent while the woman stood up for two strangers, alone, stayed with me all day. It's up to all of us to stand up against discrimination, whenever we can, and I am too often content to look the other way if it is inconvenient for me to act.
Our government needs to do its part, as well. Immigration reform that offers a clear path to citizenship for those living in this country illegally cannot wait another year. We must make a clear demonstration that we value and respect the contributions immigrants make to our society, how essential they are to the character of America. We do not gain anything by forcing millions of people to live outside of the law; they suffer because of it, and our country suffers because of it. While comprehensive immigration reform will likely be even more difficult to pass than health care reform, it is long past time and well worth the fight. I hope that your administration begins an aggressive campaign to see that this becomes a reality.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Day 26
Dear Mr. President,
Today a French commission offered its report on the full-face veil worn by some Muslim women. This report is an appalling demonstration of the ignorant, islamophobic hate-mongering that passes as political discourse in much of Europe these days. I hope that your administration strongly denounces the report, and any move to ban the wearing of the veil. How does a ban on the veil in public places liberate women who wear it? Doesn't this just prevent them from equal access to education, government services, medical care and transportation- necessary aspects of living independent lives as full citizens?
I feel this is particularly heinous because it discriminates against women, while claiming to be for their own good. This is the kind of paternalistic legislative overreach that begs a comparison to the regimes like Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban, which require the veil for almost exactly the same reason, to "protect" women. I once read that high-heels are damaging to a woman's leg muscles. One could argue that they also impede a woman's ability to move quickly, and can be hazardous during emergency evacuations. Where's the French commission recommending a ban on stilettos?
Behind all the posturing, the legislative language and the outright lies from the French government, the simple truth is that this is nothing more than a manifestation of anti-Islamic feelings, of blatant racism. Muslims, be they immigrants or converts, make the French government nervous. The same way Jews made the German government nervous. Are yellow crescents next? Jim Crow-style legislation to segregate Muslims from public life? Where is the line drawn? How much of a woman's face needs to be visible before she can qualify for an education or medical care? Before she can take a bus to work, or shop, or visit family? How much of herself must she cede to the government's idea of what a liberated woman looks or dresses like?
The report says that all of France says "no" to the veil. What does that say to the women who wear it? You are not French. France says "no", to you. What a progressive, egalitarian thing to say. Mr. President, I beg you, do not ignore or condone this offensive behavior.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today a French commission offered its report on the full-face veil worn by some Muslim women. This report is an appalling demonstration of the ignorant, islamophobic hate-mongering that passes as political discourse in much of Europe these days. I hope that your administration strongly denounces the report, and any move to ban the wearing of the veil. How does a ban on the veil in public places liberate women who wear it? Doesn't this just prevent them from equal access to education, government services, medical care and transportation- necessary aspects of living independent lives as full citizens?
I feel this is particularly heinous because it discriminates against women, while claiming to be for their own good. This is the kind of paternalistic legislative overreach that begs a comparison to the regimes like Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban, which require the veil for almost exactly the same reason, to "protect" women. I once read that high-heels are damaging to a woman's leg muscles. One could argue that they also impede a woman's ability to move quickly, and can be hazardous during emergency evacuations. Where's the French commission recommending a ban on stilettos?
Behind all the posturing, the legislative language and the outright lies from the French government, the simple truth is that this is nothing more than a manifestation of anti-Islamic feelings, of blatant racism. Muslims, be they immigrants or converts, make the French government nervous. The same way Jews made the German government nervous. Are yellow crescents next? Jim Crow-style legislation to segregate Muslims from public life? Where is the line drawn? How much of a woman's face needs to be visible before she can qualify for an education or medical care? Before she can take a bus to work, or shop, or visit family? How much of herself must she cede to the government's idea of what a liberated woman looks or dresses like?
The report says that all of France says "no" to the veil. What does that say to the women who wear it? You are not French. France says "no", to you. What a progressive, egalitarian thing to say. Mr. President, I beg you, do not ignore or condone this offensive behavior.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
