Dear Mr. President,
A few months ago, in the rapid decline of my optimism about internet dating, I agreed to go on one last date with a man from the dating site I'd been using. One last chance, I told myself, and then I could safely give up this endless series of awkward, uncomfortable encounters and sulk, self-satisfied, assured of the hopelessness of dating and single men in general. When I arrived at the coffee shop at the appointed time I was already convinced that this encounter would be no different than the last, preparing already the excuses I would make after an hour or, if I could manage, even less. Ten minutes later, I might have been laughing at the irony of this, had I not been too busy attempting to scrape my jaw off of the floor and work the dumbstruck expression off of my face. My date was not only black americano-drinking, charming and easy to talk to, he was clearly intelligent, compassionate, adventurous and funny. (It didn't hurt that he was heart-breakingly, out-of-my-league-by-miles good-looking either.) We talked for hours. Nothing romantic may have come from this date, but we stayed friends, passing e-mails and brief comments on the latest news. He suggested a number of topics for my letters to you, and helped me better understand a few stories I didn't fully grasp. Our friendship since has been casual, but it certainly helped convince me not to completely give up on the idea of meeting men online.
Today my friend, returning from a trip abroad to visit family, was unreasonably held up in an American airport by security. I don't know the details of this, what it entailed or how he finally managed to get on a connection to come back home. Unfortunately, because my friend is also Arab, I know that this would not have happened to him if he had a different last name or a different skin color. The whole situation makes me sickeningly, blindingly angry. When I expressed this to others I heard more stories of friends or relatives or coworkers or friends of friends being held up in the absurd, racist so-called security system in American airports. I remembered walking through Israeli checkpoints, the separate lines for me and for my Palestinian friends and being so naively grateful that such a thing would never happen in MY country. All day I've been thinking about airports, how standing in line to get through security with my white face, American passport and generically WASP-y name while my Arab and Muslim (or, really just sufficiently brown-skinned) friends will be "randomly" given additional screening and I keep thinking of the same metaphor. I'm sitting on a bus in Alabama watching silently as they are made to file past me to the back.
You've experienced first-hand what it is to be thought of as Muslim and/or Arab in this country. Even as President you've seen the ugly, racist way some in this country still view some one with your skin color, your name, or the religion falsely ascribed to be your own. You've heard the crazy woman screeching at John McCain "he's an Arab!", the state representatives demanding to see your birth certificate, the 20% of Americans who think you practice Islam. If any privileged outsider is able to understand the treatment Arab-Americans and American Muslims have experienced in airports since 9/11 I would think that you might be. And while the TSA monopoly on air travel and the necessity of covering great distances quickly may prevent a Montgomery bus-style boycott of airplanes, I suspect that eventually the American people will not stand to see our friends and neighbors and loved ones treated this way in the name of our own safety.
Life isn't safe. I don't feel safer knowing that my friend is being profiled, harassed, or even inconvenienced solely because of his race. I feel sick about it. My patriotism is not a brittle, small thing, but it is based on the principles this country is supposed to stand for even in the face of fear. How am I supposed to love my country, to feel pride in it, knowing that these principles can be so easily betrayed by those sworn to defend them?
My friend, who has, in the course of our political conversations, proven himself to be calmer and more even-tempered than me on many issues, said to me today that "being Arabic and in a US airport may as well be a crime." I don't know what he's feeling or how he'll respond to this incident but I am outraged that he has to feel it, respond to it at all. And it isn't just my friend, it isn't just this airport or this incident. This is happening right now, it has been happening for too long and it will continue to happen until enough people with enough power are brave enough to stand up and say it isn't right, it isn't American and it isn't keeping us safe.
Until we stop boarding the bus and say we'll be walking to work for the foreseeable future, thank you very much.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label national security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national security. Show all posts
Monday, December 27, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Day 332- Wikileaks (with a vengeance)
Dear Mr. President,
For a casual student of foreign affairs such as myself, today is basically Christmas come early. Getting a glimpse behind the veil of secrecy that obscures much of the day-to-day unscripted intrigue of international relations can be exciting, even if it likely made the last few day (and the next few weeks) pretty rough for you. While much of the information leaked concerns only trivial possibly-embarrassing frankness, some of the information is already proving to provide a new picture of our current relations with several countries. And, while I take no pleasure at seeing you or your administration embarrassed, I do think that the right of the American people to have access to the knowledge of how we are being represented abroad is more important than the impoliteness of letting foreign leaders know what we really think of them.
Certainly this latest release of information is less damning than the previous revelations about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from Wikileaks. If nothing else, it might be viewed as an opportunity to learn about weaknesses in our government's electronic secret-keeping. We might also take a moment to appreciate the importance of not bribing or bullying other countries, (not to mention mistaking aid money for pay-offs and US diplomats for spies) unless we're cool with every one knowing about it, but even I'm not so naive as to believe your administration capable of learning that particular lesson.
As with every other letter I've written you about Wikileaks, I will conclude this by saying that no damage could be done to a government acting with honest good intentions. And maybe ours is too big, our foreign policy too complicated, for that to always be the case, but leaks like these are shameful because our government ought to be ashamed of how it represents the people of the United States. We share your embarrassment just as we share the responsibility for the foreign policy decisions you would prefer be made in secret. If we're to be represented by our government we have the right to know what it does. Should the day come that our government manages to represent us well, it will have nothing to fear from the truth.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
For a casual student of foreign affairs such as myself, today is basically Christmas come early. Getting a glimpse behind the veil of secrecy that obscures much of the day-to-day unscripted intrigue of international relations can be exciting, even if it likely made the last few day (and the next few weeks) pretty rough for you. While much of the information leaked concerns only trivial possibly-embarrassing frankness, some of the information is already proving to provide a new picture of our current relations with several countries. And, while I take no pleasure at seeing you or your administration embarrassed, I do think that the right of the American people to have access to the knowledge of how we are being represented abroad is more important than the impoliteness of letting foreign leaders know what we really think of them.
Certainly this latest release of information is less damning than the previous revelations about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from Wikileaks. If nothing else, it might be viewed as an opportunity to learn about weaknesses in our government's electronic secret-keeping. We might also take a moment to appreciate the importance of not bribing or bullying other countries, (not to mention mistaking aid money for pay-offs and US diplomats for spies) unless we're cool with every one knowing about it, but even I'm not so naive as to believe your administration capable of learning that particular lesson.
As with every other letter I've written you about Wikileaks, I will conclude this by saying that no damage could be done to a government acting with honest good intentions. And maybe ours is too big, our foreign policy too complicated, for that to always be the case, but leaks like these are shameful because our government ought to be ashamed of how it represents the people of the United States. We share your embarrassment just as we share the responsibility for the foreign policy decisions you would prefer be made in secret. If we're to be represented by our government we have the right to know what it does. Should the day come that our government manages to represent us well, it will have nothing to fear from the truth.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Day 296-Wikileaks (again)
Dear Mr. President,
As the revelations from the latest documents released by Wikileaks continue to come to light, I am having a difficult time feeling surprised. I have to say that the outrage and shock being feigned in the mainstream media upsets me, deeply. It is indisputable that the Iraq war has been waged with unprecedented levels of secrecy. The Bush administration went out of its way to hide the truth behind record levels of private contractors, sweeping new executive powers, and an outright refusal to discuss the Iraqi death toll. What, exactly, did every one think they were hiding? Unicorns, perhaps? A modern President (and I am by no means excluding you from this indictment) doesn't keep secrets unless they are damaging. All of this secrecy was achieved with the tacit approval of the media. There is no way that I, an amateur observer, could have surmised these human rights violations and outright war crimes could have been perpetrated while the mainstream media had no idea. The evidence has been out there all along, and the fact that it took this long to come to wider attention is a shameful reflection of the sorry state of the American news media.
I don't believe that war can be waged without these kinds of abuses and atrocities. This doesn't excuse them; it only, to my mind, demands that we not wage war unnecessarily. The Iraq war was absolutely unnecessary. So while Americans recoil in horror at 104,000 dead, millions displaced and hundreds if not thousands of tortured, mistreated prisoners, I can only sit back and wonder what else they possibly could have expected? In 2003 while our President skipped off toward Baghdad the media and the majority of America stayed silent. The blood and the death and the suffering that ensued came as a direct result of that silence. This country has lost the right to feel surprised when it comes to the crimes of the Bush administration.
Meanwhile, you, Mr. President, have lost the right to lay the blame solely at President Bush's feet. Had our government conducted itself the way we have every right to expect that it should, or had the media investigated and reported with anything resembling a commitment to the truth, Wikileaks would likely not exist. If you want to be angry about this latest release of documents, I suppose that is your prerogative, but the real tragedies in this are the crimes committed and largely ignored, not the fact that some one finally had the courage to bring them to light.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
As the revelations from the latest documents released by Wikileaks continue to come to light, I am having a difficult time feeling surprised. I have to say that the outrage and shock being feigned in the mainstream media upsets me, deeply. It is indisputable that the Iraq war has been waged with unprecedented levels of secrecy. The Bush administration went out of its way to hide the truth behind record levels of private contractors, sweeping new executive powers, and an outright refusal to discuss the Iraqi death toll. What, exactly, did every one think they were hiding? Unicorns, perhaps? A modern President (and I am by no means excluding you from this indictment) doesn't keep secrets unless they are damaging. All of this secrecy was achieved with the tacit approval of the media. There is no way that I, an amateur observer, could have surmised these human rights violations and outright war crimes could have been perpetrated while the mainstream media had no idea. The evidence has been out there all along, and the fact that it took this long to come to wider attention is a shameful reflection of the sorry state of the American news media.
I don't believe that war can be waged without these kinds of abuses and atrocities. This doesn't excuse them; it only, to my mind, demands that we not wage war unnecessarily. The Iraq war was absolutely unnecessary. So while Americans recoil in horror at 104,000 dead, millions displaced and hundreds if not thousands of tortured, mistreated prisoners, I can only sit back and wonder what else they possibly could have expected? In 2003 while our President skipped off toward Baghdad the media and the majority of America stayed silent. The blood and the death and the suffering that ensued came as a direct result of that silence. This country has lost the right to feel surprised when it comes to the crimes of the Bush administration.
Meanwhile, you, Mr. President, have lost the right to lay the blame solely at President Bush's feet. Had our government conducted itself the way we have every right to expect that it should, or had the media investigated and reported with anything resembling a commitment to the truth, Wikileaks would likely not exist. If you want to be angry about this latest release of documents, I suppose that is your prerogative, but the real tragedies in this are the crimes committed and largely ignored, not the fact that some one finally had the courage to bring them to light.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Day 227- Defense spending
Should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings when America's military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds? Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners? Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China? Defense Secretary Robert Gates
Dear Mr. President,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has proposed cuts to the defense budget that would amount to a savings of $100 billion over five years. This is, predictably, leading to more than a little hysteria from conservatives on the hill. Senator Saxby Chambliss (demonstrating exactly why the Senate has gone from somber, dignified statesmen to cartoonish, angry old men who are difficult to take seriously) actually claimed that the White House is "willing to sacrifice the lives of American military men and women for the sake of domestic programs." As though cutting 100 billion of a 3.5 trillion budget is going to cost lives. As though lives are not depending upon essential domestic programs. I'm not sure I ever had much respect for Mr. Chambliss, but he certainly isn't demonstrating the kind of tempered wisdom that I'd expect from a member of the US Senate. (Yes, I managed to keep a straight face while typing that last sentence.)
Concern for the deficit is perfectly reasonable. The necessary cuts to spending must be applied across the board and the defense budget should be no exception. There can be no incentive for a more peaceful world when so much of our economy and our federal budget is tied up in the tools of war. Al-Queda pulled off 9/11 with 19 plane tickets and 99-cent box cutters. In this world, there is no amount of money that can ever make us completely safe. We have to have a smarter and more modernized military, and that is exactly what Secretary Gates is proposing. We have to look for alternative ways to defend ourselves; all the weapons money can buy won't do us half as much good as better diplomatic relations, stable global allies and more education at home and abroad. We simply cannot kill our way to a more peaceful world.
I applaud Secretary Gates' efforts to curtail the reckless defense spending that has plagued the federal budget for decades. In a time when congress cites budget issues as cause to hold up funding for treating 9/11 responders' lingering health problems, extending unemployment benefits that sustain individuals and families through the recession, or even ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable healthcare, how can we justify spending so much money on an outdated defense strategy? The way we spend our money reflects our values as a society, and, clearly, those need to be reexamined. Mr. President, please don't allow the hysterics from conservatives to prevent Mr. Gates from implementing these necessary cuts.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has proposed cuts to the defense budget that would amount to a savings of $100 billion over five years. This is, predictably, leading to more than a little hysteria from conservatives on the hill. Senator Saxby Chambliss (demonstrating exactly why the Senate has gone from somber, dignified statesmen to cartoonish, angry old men who are difficult to take seriously) actually claimed that the White House is "willing to sacrifice the lives of American military men and women for the sake of domestic programs." As though cutting 100 billion of a 3.5 trillion budget is going to cost lives. As though lives are not depending upon essential domestic programs. I'm not sure I ever had much respect for Mr. Chambliss, but he certainly isn't demonstrating the kind of tempered wisdom that I'd expect from a member of the US Senate. (Yes, I managed to keep a straight face while typing that last sentence.)
Concern for the deficit is perfectly reasonable. The necessary cuts to spending must be applied across the board and the defense budget should be no exception. There can be no incentive for a more peaceful world when so much of our economy and our federal budget is tied up in the tools of war. Al-Queda pulled off 9/11 with 19 plane tickets and 99-cent box cutters. In this world, there is no amount of money that can ever make us completely safe. We have to have a smarter and more modernized military, and that is exactly what Secretary Gates is proposing. We have to look for alternative ways to defend ourselves; all the weapons money can buy won't do us half as much good as better diplomatic relations, stable global allies and more education at home and abroad. We simply cannot kill our way to a more peaceful world.
I applaud Secretary Gates' efforts to curtail the reckless defense spending that has plagued the federal budget for decades. In a time when congress cites budget issues as cause to hold up funding for treating 9/11 responders' lingering health problems, extending unemployment benefits that sustain individuals and families through the recession, or even ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable healthcare, how can we justify spending so much money on an outdated defense strategy? The way we spend our money reflects our values as a society, and, clearly, those need to be reexamined. Mr. President, please don't allow the hysterics from conservatives to prevent Mr. Gates from implementing these necessary cuts.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Day 224- In praise of Wikileaks
Dear Mr. President,
I have been reluctant to write to you about the recent Wikileaks controversy. I've followed Wikileaks for several months now, and, during the buildup to the release of the secret documents I was certainly anxious to find out what information they would contain, even as I was hesitant about the idea of leaking military secrets. I understand that you can't be expected to be happy about the release of secret documents, no matter how harmless they might seem, but I do think that Wikileaks serves an important purpose.
Our government is meant to be open to public scrutiny. I understand the need for national security and the secrecy that goes along with it, but the American government has become too comfortable misleading or outright lying to the American people. This deception seems especially widespread in military matters, and the kind of information released in the Wikileaks documents demonstrates that often these lies are for the simple purpose of painting military action in a more favorable light. A disturbingly large amount of our tax dollars goes to fund the Defense Department without significant public scrutiny. (Go ahead, Mr. Gibbs, say what you will, but I'm not for eliminating the Pentagon and I'm not using drugs.)
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I would like to know what my tax dollars are buying, and how successful the operations being funded are. Beyond the monetary issues, there is a moral imperative for every American to know how, exactly, our country is representing itself in times of war. By allowing the public to access this information on Afghanistan, (or revealing evidence of US troops targeting civilians in Iraq,) Wikileaks is doing it's part to ensure that this government continues to be of and by and for the people. It's the American public's way of telling our government that we simply can't be cut out of the loop and fed a palatable bedtime story. We will find out the truth.
Perhaps people would rather be told lies, so long as they are safe and aren't asked to think too much? I think that is an incredibly cynical way of looking at the American people. Some of your most eloquent writing is on the need to leave behind our cynicism and do our part to make our country stronger. How can you ask us to do this for a government that lies to us? A government that told us the truth about our military operations, even if that truth was ugly or hard to hear, would not risk this kind of exposure. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been awful, world-changing events that will forever alter the way the world views Americans. It is the responsibility and right of every American to know exactly how and why this war is being waged. I know that you cannot publicly do anything but denounce Wikileaks, but you ought to strive to lead a government that would not engender this kind of necessary mistrust of the stories we're being told. A site like Wikileaks could not exist if the government didn't make it absolutely necessary.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I have been reluctant to write to you about the recent Wikileaks controversy. I've followed Wikileaks for several months now, and, during the buildup to the release of the secret documents I was certainly anxious to find out what information they would contain, even as I was hesitant about the idea of leaking military secrets. I understand that you can't be expected to be happy about the release of secret documents, no matter how harmless they might seem, but I do think that Wikileaks serves an important purpose.
Our government is meant to be open to public scrutiny. I understand the need for national security and the secrecy that goes along with it, but the American government has become too comfortable misleading or outright lying to the American people. This deception seems especially widespread in military matters, and the kind of information released in the Wikileaks documents demonstrates that often these lies are for the simple purpose of painting military action in a more favorable light. A disturbingly large amount of our tax dollars goes to fund the Defense Department without significant public scrutiny. (Go ahead, Mr. Gibbs, say what you will, but I'm not for eliminating the Pentagon and I'm not using drugs.)
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I would like to know what my tax dollars are buying, and how successful the operations being funded are. Beyond the monetary issues, there is a moral imperative for every American to know how, exactly, our country is representing itself in times of war. By allowing the public to access this information on Afghanistan, (or revealing evidence of US troops targeting civilians in Iraq,) Wikileaks is doing it's part to ensure that this government continues to be of and by and for the people. It's the American public's way of telling our government that we simply can't be cut out of the loop and fed a palatable bedtime story. We will find out the truth.
Perhaps people would rather be told lies, so long as they are safe and aren't asked to think too much? I think that is an incredibly cynical way of looking at the American people. Some of your most eloquent writing is on the need to leave behind our cynicism and do our part to make our country stronger. How can you ask us to do this for a government that lies to us? A government that told us the truth about our military operations, even if that truth was ugly or hard to hear, would not risk this kind of exposure. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been awful, world-changing events that will forever alter the way the world views Americans. It is the responsibility and right of every American to know exactly how and why this war is being waged. I know that you cannot publicly do anything but denounce Wikileaks, but you ought to strive to lead a government that would not engender this kind of necessary mistrust of the stories we're being told. A site like Wikileaks could not exist if the government didn't make it absolutely necessary.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Day 174-Secretary of War
Dear Mr. President,
I think that replacing General McChrystal was a necessary thing. The war in Afghanistan does not seem to be going well, and much of our own conduct has been unacceptable. I don't know that General Petraeus is the best man to replace him, but, as I'm not a military officer, and am in no way qualified to comment on the best way to wage a war I fundamentally oppose, I have no particularly strong feelings about this choice. I hope that, if nothing else, the change in leadership provides an opportunity for us to seriously reconsider and reexamine our entire strategy in Afghanistan. What is our goal? Safety? Stability? I do not see how more weapons, more violence, more destruction, will help achieve these ends. What real purpose is our mission there serving? Do we seek to gain strategic global positioning? Is it conflict for conflict's sake, a vain attempt to slake the bloodthirst that we can't even admit to having? Is it the same death throe delusion that has taken down empire after empire daring to set its sights on this land? Or is it just old-guard military men who want to beat the Soviets, even at empire, hell-bent on completing their cold-war victory even all these decades later? Because, Mr. President, and I confess I am no expert, it does not appear, at least, that we are doing anything more than strengthening the terrorists we claim to be fighting. Osama Bin Laden has not been caught, and even if he is, it does not matter. Our invasion has spread one man's delusion beyond his loyal band of followers and made them a global political and military force to be reckoned with. Were we just looking for another challenge? I don't know what is true, I don't know what I believe, and I don't know what the best solution is. I feel certain, however, that there is more motivating our actions than self-defense. Be it vengeance or greed or a need for chaos, I am uneasy, as an American, being represented that way to the rest of the world.
Today a friend asked about the Secretary of War, a position he read about in Lincoln's cabinet. He was curious as to what it had become. Did the men who decided to change the name of that position think that it would mean less war? Or did they just find the name too impolite for modern sensibilities? We can call it defense, or even homeland security, but war has certainly not become any less fashionable. I may be less involved, and asked to sacrifice even less, than the generations of American civilians who committed their whole selves to the national war efforts, but still I am tired. I am so tired of this war, and I have not been fighting it. I have not been dying or suffering in it, either. Bombs are not dropping in my neighborhood, as they are for countless Afghan civilians, but I am still tired of their sound. This war is exhausting, because it has no clear objective and it has not clear imperative. This war is exhausting because it strengthens the forces we claim to oppose, extending and provoking and ensuring that another generation will pick up the kalashnikovs their fathers are dropping as we gun them down. Because each life lost leads only to more lives lost; the overwhelming suffering and destruction leads only to more suffering and destruction. We are better than this, Mr. President; better than our conduct in this war, better than the petty despots we've propped up, the violence we've perpetuated, or the viciousness of those who attacked us. I know there is a significant and vocal portion of our population that equate war with patriotism and justice and righteousness, but I also know that we are better than that, too.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I think that replacing General McChrystal was a necessary thing. The war in Afghanistan does not seem to be going well, and much of our own conduct has been unacceptable. I don't know that General Petraeus is the best man to replace him, but, as I'm not a military officer, and am in no way qualified to comment on the best way to wage a war I fundamentally oppose, I have no particularly strong feelings about this choice. I hope that, if nothing else, the change in leadership provides an opportunity for us to seriously reconsider and reexamine our entire strategy in Afghanistan. What is our goal? Safety? Stability? I do not see how more weapons, more violence, more destruction, will help achieve these ends. What real purpose is our mission there serving? Do we seek to gain strategic global positioning? Is it conflict for conflict's sake, a vain attempt to slake the bloodthirst that we can't even admit to having? Is it the same death throe delusion that has taken down empire after empire daring to set its sights on this land? Or is it just old-guard military men who want to beat the Soviets, even at empire, hell-bent on completing their cold-war victory even all these decades later? Because, Mr. President, and I confess I am no expert, it does not appear, at least, that we are doing anything more than strengthening the terrorists we claim to be fighting. Osama Bin Laden has not been caught, and even if he is, it does not matter. Our invasion has spread one man's delusion beyond his loyal band of followers and made them a global political and military force to be reckoned with. Were we just looking for another challenge? I don't know what is true, I don't know what I believe, and I don't know what the best solution is. I feel certain, however, that there is more motivating our actions than self-defense. Be it vengeance or greed or a need for chaos, I am uneasy, as an American, being represented that way to the rest of the world.
Today a friend asked about the Secretary of War, a position he read about in Lincoln's cabinet. He was curious as to what it had become. Did the men who decided to change the name of that position think that it would mean less war? Or did they just find the name too impolite for modern sensibilities? We can call it defense, or even homeland security, but war has certainly not become any less fashionable. I may be less involved, and asked to sacrifice even less, than the generations of American civilians who committed their whole selves to the national war efforts, but still I am tired. I am so tired of this war, and I have not been fighting it. I have not been dying or suffering in it, either. Bombs are not dropping in my neighborhood, as they are for countless Afghan civilians, but I am still tired of their sound. This war is exhausting, because it has no clear objective and it has not clear imperative. This war is exhausting because it strengthens the forces we claim to oppose, extending and provoking and ensuring that another generation will pick up the kalashnikovs their fathers are dropping as we gun them down. Because each life lost leads only to more lives lost; the overwhelming suffering and destruction leads only to more suffering and destruction. We are better than this, Mr. President; better than our conduct in this war, better than the petty despots we've propped up, the violence we've perpetuated, or the viciousness of those who attacked us. I know there is a significant and vocal portion of our population that equate war with patriotism and justice and righteousness, but I also know that we are better than that, too.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Day 145- Tin-foil hats and Scud missiles
Dear Mr. President,
Is something happening to Lebanon soon? I don't mean to sound like some crazy, tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist, but I couldn't help but notice you and Vice-President Biden have reached out to Prime Minister Hariri twice in as many days. This seemed odd, in and of its self, but then I read about the missile drills Israel is staging this week, which are being taken by the Lebanese government as preparation for war. Hizbollah's ties to Iran might also indicate that something is possibly about to happen to Iran, instead. Either way, I hope I'm just being paranoid. If I'm not, just in case it doesn't go without saying, I'm hoping that you exhaust all of our options to help avoid another conflict that will only cause the innocent to suffer.
When I worked at Borders in downtown Washington, I once rang up a woman for all of our remaining copies of Killing Mr. Lebanon, a book about the assassination of Rafik Hariri. Her distress was evident, and so I asked her about Mr. Hariri, who, she said, had been her boss. She tearfully told me about working in his government, how much she'd admired him, and how much she missed him still. It was moving to see her affection for this man, both on a personal and on a political level. Her grief came, in part, at the immense loss her country had suffered. This was not long after the 2006 war that destroyed so many lives and so much of her country. Maybe it's easy to say this, when the tragic history of this place is given a face in my memory, but I think Lebanon has been through enough. We (and, more importantly, our allies,) could maybe let Beirut stand for more than 4 years before trying to knock it all down, again.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Day 119- Strung out
Dear Mr. President,
The oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico has prompted a number of questions about our off-shore drilling policy. I think it's tragic that it takes the loss of 11 lives, a looming environmental crisis and a direct threat to the economies of coastal states for people to begin to seriously question the system of consumption we've created. We're like addicts begging for one more fix; we've just got to finish this bottle or this carton or this last source of oil, and then we'll get clean, no, really, we'll stop using and develop alternative energy this time, we promise. We can't lie to ourselves anymore; we have a problem. It's a dangerous descending spiral, one which will leave us, at best, ill-equipped to compete in the global economy, and, at worst, unable to support basic agriculture, transportation and defense.
It is time for real solutions; clean energy is not an abstract issue, it is a national security issue, a prosperity issue, an environmental issue, and a values issue. We must fund research and development in this field, accordingly. If the government does not take an active role in this, it will not happen fast enough- we've seen, in this latest crisis, just how much obfuscation the oil companies are capable of if in the name of protecting their own interests. The only way to decrease the dangerous and damaging oil drilling operations around the world is to eliminate demand through alternative solutions; this will not happen overnight, either. We must start, today, with an increased effort that demands the contributions of all of us, be those in the form of higher taxes on energy consumption, more sacrifices of convenience for conservation, and the diverting of funds from other areas towards developing cleaner, more sustainable energy sources.
A mine collapse in West Virginia and an oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico should not be required to wake America up to the dangers of our short-sighted, arrogant lifestyles. We cannot continue living the way we always have, and we all must accept the responsibility for making the necessary changes in our energy policy. If we are very lucky, this, right now, is our rock bottom. Please, Mr. President, do not allow these tragedies to continue in vain. Circumstances are demanding change, and you have to lead us to it, before it is too late.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
The oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico has prompted a number of questions about our off-shore drilling policy. I think it's tragic that it takes the loss of 11 lives, a looming environmental crisis and a direct threat to the economies of coastal states for people to begin to seriously question the system of consumption we've created. We're like addicts begging for one more fix; we've just got to finish this bottle or this carton or this last source of oil, and then we'll get clean, no, really, we'll stop using and develop alternative energy this time, we promise. We can't lie to ourselves anymore; we have a problem. It's a dangerous descending spiral, one which will leave us, at best, ill-equipped to compete in the global economy, and, at worst, unable to support basic agriculture, transportation and defense.
It is time for real solutions; clean energy is not an abstract issue, it is a national security issue, a prosperity issue, an environmental issue, and a values issue. We must fund research and development in this field, accordingly. If the government does not take an active role in this, it will not happen fast enough- we've seen, in this latest crisis, just how much obfuscation the oil companies are capable of if in the name of protecting their own interests. The only way to decrease the dangerous and damaging oil drilling operations around the world is to eliminate demand through alternative solutions; this will not happen overnight, either. We must start, today, with an increased effort that demands the contributions of all of us, be those in the form of higher taxes on energy consumption, more sacrifices of convenience for conservation, and the diverting of funds from other areas towards developing cleaner, more sustainable energy sources.
A mine collapse in West Virginia and an oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico should not be required to wake America up to the dangers of our short-sighted, arrogant lifestyles. We cannot continue living the way we always have, and we all must accept the responsibility for making the necessary changes in our energy policy. If we are very lucky, this, right now, is our rock bottom. Please, Mr. President, do not allow these tragedies to continue in vain. Circumstances are demanding change, and you have to lead us to it, before it is too late.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Day 112- Al-nakba
Dear Mr. President,
In his op-ed piece in the New York Times today, Roger Cohen quotes an Israeli official as saying “We pay the price for defending U.S. values in this area.” I'm not sure which of my values the Deputy Foreign Minister feels that his country is defending through the oppression and occupation of the Palestinians and their land, but I greatly wish he had less substantial reasons for making such an outrageous claim. Surely, if the way a country spends its money is any indication of what it holds to be important, his linking American values to the human rights abuses perpetuated by his country's military is not entirely without logical basis.
I've written you a number of letters detailing my objections to our financial and diplomatic support for the atrocities committed by Israel. My feelings on the subject have not changed, nor has our policy. Still, the media continues to indicate that a coldness between the US and Israel, something that Israeli officials seem to indicate is a reality. I don't know what this means. I do know that, while Israel celebrates its Independence day, the Palestinians will mourn the catastrophic loss of their own homeland. One's history, the other's tragedy. But I don't want to talk about the past, which Israel continues to exploit in order to sell the narrative that it is a country on the brink of extermination, surrounded on all sides by danger and hatred. This is a dramatic image, but one that does not reflect reality.
I walk to work in the mornings through dark streets, alone, often at 4 or 5 am. I walk past bus stations and homeless shelters, and parks known for drug deals. I walk by men who are drunk or high or threatening or just tired and desperately poor. There are moments, in the darkness, under the freeway overpass, or on a poorly lit section of the street, when I think about the danger I face; robbery, rape, assault, car accidents, brain cancer. The world is so frightening, that sometimes it seems like a miracle I've lived this long at all. But I can't be afraid all the time, Mr. President. I have a job to do. I have bills and rent and student loans to pay. And so I keep walking, watching as, gradually, none of the strangers' faces seem so frightening any more. Because I cannot live in fear. Should I carry a gun? Should I hope that, with a display of force, I could preempt any attack by creating more fear? What about a curfew? Convince the city to lock up every one until the sun rises, in the name of keeping me less afraid? I can't oppress people because I am afraid of them, even if, among the crowds, there are a few who would do me harm. I can't do this, and neither should you, and neither should Israel.
I want to go back to Palestine, Mr. President. I want to see my friends, and have good hummus again, and visit all of the places I missed last time I was there. I want to visit Gaza, and Syria, and Petra, and Beirut. I want to travel, and for my friends to live, without fear of the IDF's guns or checkpoints, or airport screening rooms. I want my passport to represent something better than a free pass through the checkpoints my tax dollars help construct. I want a peace that will last, that will respect the dignity and security of each side, and that will look to the future, letting go of the past.
Israel was born into danger, surviving against the odds to become a haven for a people persecuted throughout history. Its founding cost Palestinian lives and land and stability, dooming them to decades of suffering and loss. I don't believe that one of these narratives need be accepted at the exclusion of the other. Each side serves its own interest; not American values, values which, especially here, ought to guide our actions. We know our own interests are served best when every individual in the region, regardless of race or religion, has freedom and opportunity.
I hope these rumblings of peace talks are a sign, however long overdue, that change is coming.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
In his op-ed piece in the New York Times today, Roger Cohen quotes an Israeli official as saying “We pay the price for defending U.S. values in this area.” I'm not sure which of my values the Deputy Foreign Minister feels that his country is defending through the oppression and occupation of the Palestinians and their land, but I greatly wish he had less substantial reasons for making such an outrageous claim. Surely, if the way a country spends its money is any indication of what it holds to be important, his linking American values to the human rights abuses perpetuated by his country's military is not entirely without logical basis.
I've written you a number of letters detailing my objections to our financial and diplomatic support for the atrocities committed by Israel. My feelings on the subject have not changed, nor has our policy. Still, the media continues to indicate that a coldness between the US and Israel, something that Israeli officials seem to indicate is a reality. I don't know what this means. I do know that, while Israel celebrates its Independence day, the Palestinians will mourn the catastrophic loss of their own homeland. One's history, the other's tragedy. But I don't want to talk about the past, which Israel continues to exploit in order to sell the narrative that it is a country on the brink of extermination, surrounded on all sides by danger and hatred. This is a dramatic image, but one that does not reflect reality.
I walk to work in the mornings through dark streets, alone, often at 4 or 5 am. I walk past bus stations and homeless shelters, and parks known for drug deals. I walk by men who are drunk or high or threatening or just tired and desperately poor. There are moments, in the darkness, under the freeway overpass, or on a poorly lit section of the street, when I think about the danger I face; robbery, rape, assault, car accidents, brain cancer. The world is so frightening, that sometimes it seems like a miracle I've lived this long at all. But I can't be afraid all the time, Mr. President. I have a job to do. I have bills and rent and student loans to pay. And so I keep walking, watching as, gradually, none of the strangers' faces seem so frightening any more. Because I cannot live in fear. Should I carry a gun? Should I hope that, with a display of force, I could preempt any attack by creating more fear? What about a curfew? Convince the city to lock up every one until the sun rises, in the name of keeping me less afraid? I can't oppress people because I am afraid of them, even if, among the crowds, there are a few who would do me harm. I can't do this, and neither should you, and neither should Israel.
I want to go back to Palestine, Mr. President. I want to see my friends, and have good hummus again, and visit all of the places I missed last time I was there. I want to visit Gaza, and Syria, and Petra, and Beirut. I want to travel, and for my friends to live, without fear of the IDF's guns or checkpoints, or airport screening rooms. I want my passport to represent something better than a free pass through the checkpoints my tax dollars help construct. I want a peace that will last, that will respect the dignity and security of each side, and that will look to the future, letting go of the past.
Israel was born into danger, surviving against the odds to become a haven for a people persecuted throughout history. Its founding cost Palestinian lives and land and stability, dooming them to decades of suffering and loss. I don't believe that one of these narratives need be accepted at the exclusion of the other. Each side serves its own interest; not American values, values which, especially here, ought to guide our actions. We know our own interests are served best when every individual in the region, regardless of race or religion, has freedom and opportunity.
I hope these rumblings of peace talks are a sign, however long overdue, that change is coming.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Day 103- Nobel Prize, revisted
So I’m going to keep on at it. But I think on all these issues -- nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, Middle East peace -- progress is going to be measured not in days, not in weeks. It’s going to take time. And progress will be halting. And sometimes we’ll take one step forward and two steps back, and there will be frustrations. And so it’s not going to run on the typical cable news 24/7 news cycle. But if we’re persistent, and we’ve got the right approach, then over time, I think that we can make progress. - President Obama, 4/13/2010 Press Conference
Dear Mr. President,
Progress is important, even if it is sometimes too slow. That you brought together the leaders of so many nations and made significant steps toward a safer world this week is impressive; some will say it is not enough, some will say you've compromised our safety, too many will not notice or care. Personally, I feel as though the Nobel Prize you were awarded was given in good faith, in the hope of times like these, when the nations of the world could gather in Washington and discuss nuclear security with honesty, frankness, and mutual respect. The world is, once more, looking to American leadership on this issue, and much of that is due to the improved foreign relations you have fostered since your inauguration.
This is the kind of American leadership that I'm happy to represent to the rest of the world when I travel. I do not agree with either war we are currently waging, nor with our general policy toward the Palestinians; however, I feel that all three situations were inherited and have, at the very least, benefited from your measured and thoughtful approach. Even if I don't always agree with your approach to foreign policy, I feel as though you have a willingness to explain your thinking and to allow for dissent from your citizens and from allies that brings people together. I think this is exactly what they had in mind when they chose you for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
Progress is important, even if it is sometimes too slow. That you brought together the leaders of so many nations and made significant steps toward a safer world this week is impressive; some will say it is not enough, some will say you've compromised our safety, too many will not notice or care. Personally, I feel as though the Nobel Prize you were awarded was given in good faith, in the hope of times like these, when the nations of the world could gather in Washington and discuss nuclear security with honesty, frankness, and mutual respect. The world is, once more, looking to American leadership on this issue, and much of that is due to the improved foreign relations you have fostered since your inauguration.
This is the kind of American leadership that I'm happy to represent to the rest of the world when I travel. I do not agree with either war we are currently waging, nor with our general policy toward the Palestinians; however, I feel that all three situations were inherited and have, at the very least, benefited from your measured and thoughtful approach. Even if I don't always agree with your approach to foreign policy, I feel as though you have a willingness to explain your thinking and to allow for dissent from your citizens and from allies that brings people together. I think this is exactly what they had in mind when they chose you for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Day 97- Haiku
This inspired me
for today's letter. Go on,
count the syllables.
A Haiku Letter:
Dear President Obama,
It's a slow news day.
Coup in Kyrgyzstan.
Diplomats smoking on planes.
Flooding in Brazil.
Threats on the Speaker,
economy still struggling,
internal unrest.
Never a slow day,
in the situation room,
it's always morning.
Glenn Beck's Tea Party,
Limbaugh's expatriation,
McCain's heels dug in.
How do you manage?
When do you get time to breathe?
Keep your famous cool?
Between enemies;
both foreign and domestic,
constant apathy,
innate corruption,
systematic inertia,
year-round campaigning;
you must get tired.
Even as we elected
Hope, not energy.
Me, so far removed,
just worrying my way from
paycheck to paycheck,
can't begin to say
what, exactly, is best for
me, or our country.
I write you each day,
to question and to complain
express hope, or faith.
I'm not sure that I
ever say what I try to;
that I still have hope
hope that we can change
hope in more than the campaign,
in our government.
for all the danger,
of our troubled world today
I rest easily.
knowing that you will
answer the 3 a.m. calls
while I am sleeping.
For you, there is no
such thing as a slow news day.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
for today's letter. Go on,
count the syllables.
A Haiku Letter:
Dear President Obama,
It's a slow news day.
Coup in Kyrgyzstan.
Diplomats smoking on planes.
Flooding in Brazil.
Threats on the Speaker,
economy still struggling,
internal unrest.
Never a slow day,
in the situation room,
it's always morning.
Glenn Beck's Tea Party,
Limbaugh's expatriation,
McCain's heels dug in.
How do you manage?
When do you get time to breathe?
Keep your famous cool?
Between enemies;
both foreign and domestic,
constant apathy,
innate corruption,
systematic inertia,
year-round campaigning;
you must get tired.
Even as we elected
Hope, not energy.
Me, so far removed,
just worrying my way from
paycheck to paycheck,
can't begin to say
what, exactly, is best for
me, or our country.
I write you each day,
to question and to complain
express hope, or faith.
I'm not sure that I
ever say what I try to;
that I still have hope
hope that we can change
hope in more than the campaign,
in our government.
for all the danger,
of our troubled world today
I rest easily.
knowing that you will
answer the 3 a.m. calls
while I am sleeping.
For you, there is no
such thing as a slow news day.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Day 89
Dear Mr. President,
The announcement that the US is going to resume off-shore oil drilling is truly disappointing. It is difficult to see this concession to the right as anything other than a political ploy to avert the 'disaster' of public discontentment at a coming rise in oil prices. Mr. President, you know that off-shore drilling will not change the basic reality that we use too much oil and that it will one day run out. We have to find viable alternatives and the majority of Americans will not support the endeavor to find such alternatives unless the price of oil goes up. We simply do not act unless it is in our immediate interest to do so, and I don't think it is unrealistically cynical to believe that the political will of much of America is more directly related to present economic realities than it is to our long term best interests.
If this move is, in reality, an attempt to demonstrate the urgency for energy alternatives by showing Americans that off-shore drilling won't alleviate rising oil prices quickly or significantly enough, or to preemptively combat the idea that your administration isn't exhausting all of our options, than I am sorry that the cost of such a strategy is so high. Instead of turning to a quick and simple solution (which, we both know, is no solution at all) we ought to be telling the hard truths; our current system in unsustainable. Our public works, agricultural and transportation systems are too important to depend on a resource that will not last. Either the systems or their dependence must be changes. This will be far less popular than continuing to tear through the Atlantic ocean in hopes of extending our fix a few more years, but future generations will never forgive us if we do not do these difficult things now, before it is too late.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
The announcement that the US is going to resume off-shore oil drilling is truly disappointing. It is difficult to see this concession to the right as anything other than a political ploy to avert the 'disaster' of public discontentment at a coming rise in oil prices. Mr. President, you know that off-shore drilling will not change the basic reality that we use too much oil and that it will one day run out. We have to find viable alternatives and the majority of Americans will not support the endeavor to find such alternatives unless the price of oil goes up. We simply do not act unless it is in our immediate interest to do so, and I don't think it is unrealistically cynical to believe that the political will of much of America is more directly related to present economic realities than it is to our long term best interests.
If this move is, in reality, an attempt to demonstrate the urgency for energy alternatives by showing Americans that off-shore drilling won't alleviate rising oil prices quickly or significantly enough, or to preemptively combat the idea that your administration isn't exhausting all of our options, than I am sorry that the cost of such a strategy is so high. Instead of turning to a quick and simple solution (which, we both know, is no solution at all) we ought to be telling the hard truths; our current system in unsustainable. Our public works, agricultural and transportation systems are too important to depend on a resource that will not last. Either the systems or their dependence must be changes. This will be far less popular than continuing to tear through the Atlantic ocean in hopes of extending our fix a few more years, but future generations will never forgive us if we do not do these difficult things now, before it is too late.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, March 29, 2010
Day 88
This is for all of you. Also, for those of you following it, Barbra Boxer's re-election race is heating up, she's polling within the margin of error against both republican front runners, and Carly Fiorina (of demon sheep/ giant blimp ad fame) is leading in the republican primary. If you know California voters, encourage them to get out the vote. The Senate might be funnier with Carly Fiorina in it, but I don't think congress needs any more of her particular brand of crazy.
Dear Mr. President,
The arrests in Michigan of militia members plotting to kill police officers reveals a deeply unsettling movement that seems to be growing. The recent rise in violent anti-government sentiments is frightening, the rhetoric of hate groups across the country, groups who often use religion or nationalism as a disguise echoed in the hysteria of the Tea Party movement and even by some members of the Republican party. This is not to say conservatives are to blame. I grew up in a part of Washington State (a blue state if ever there were) where survivalist militias, cults, and truly horrifying acts of hatred occurred under national leadership from Republicans or Democrats; I recognize that this kind of extremism co-opts the conservative opposition to government and subverts it into violence much in the same way the suicide bombers in Moscow twist their Islamic faith into justification for their crimes.
I don't know what the solution is. My fear-based reaction would be to call for stricter federal regulation of these groups, but I understand that it would only fuel their rhetoric and make all Americans less safe and less free. We cannot protect ourselves by infringing upon the rights of others. The arrest of these extremists in Michigan proves that the current system works; their plans were disrupted by the authorities and lives were saved.
I'm glad that the police were successful in preventing this group from carrying out their plans. My heart is heavy at the loss of life in Russia, as well. I'm sure there are many struggling to make sense of the anger that leads people to this kind of violence, and I have faith that your administration will not take advantage of this struggle to increase its power, as President Bush's did. I sincerely hope that politicians across the political spectrum recognize the power their words have over people, and tone down the rhetoric that is fueling these violent sentiments.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
The arrests in Michigan of militia members plotting to kill police officers reveals a deeply unsettling movement that seems to be growing. The recent rise in violent anti-government sentiments is frightening, the rhetoric of hate groups across the country, groups who often use religion or nationalism as a disguise echoed in the hysteria of the Tea Party movement and even by some members of the Republican party. This is not to say conservatives are to blame. I grew up in a part of Washington State (a blue state if ever there were) where survivalist militias, cults, and truly horrifying acts of hatred occurred under national leadership from Republicans or Democrats; I recognize that this kind of extremism co-opts the conservative opposition to government and subverts it into violence much in the same way the suicide bombers in Moscow twist their Islamic faith into justification for their crimes.
I don't know what the solution is. My fear-based reaction would be to call for stricter federal regulation of these groups, but I understand that it would only fuel their rhetoric and make all Americans less safe and less free. We cannot protect ourselves by infringing upon the rights of others. The arrest of these extremists in Michigan proves that the current system works; their plans were disrupted by the authorities and lives were saved.
I'm glad that the police were successful in preventing this group from carrying out their plans. My heart is heavy at the loss of life in Russia, as well. I'm sure there are many struggling to make sense of the anger that leads people to this kind of violence, and I have faith that your administration will not take advantage of this struggle to increase its power, as President Bush's did. I sincerely hope that politicians across the political spectrum recognize the power their words have over people, and tone down the rhetoric that is fueling these violent sentiments.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
