Dear Mr. President,
In recent months I have cautiously forayed into the realm of internet dating sites in an attempt to get past an increasingly long string of failed romantic endeavors. For better or worse, meeting people online has introduced me to several interesting and intelligent men I would never have otherwise encountered. That I connect with them initially through the internet doesn't bother me, though it makes several of my friends uncomfortable. I do understand the inherent risk, and also the capacity for deception, that goes along with any virtual communication. I've been chatting online since the early days of AOL, I've had livejournal accounts, myspace and facebook pages, and now I have this blog, which often consumes a considerable amount of my time and energy. I have friends I met online who I have never spoken to in person, and friends I met online who became friends outside of the internet, and more than a few friends who I relate to differently online than I do in person. (I do not tweet. I'm sure, in time, I will succumb to it, but for now it is the one craze I have yet to find any interest in.) Because so much of my time is spent on the internet, I'm inclined to disagree with those who discount any communication, interaction or relationship that occurs online as inauthentic. I have been lied to online, but I have also been lied to by people I love who look me in the eye when they lie to me. I think any interaction with another human requires a certain amount of faith and results in a certain amount of disappointment, regardless of where or how that interaction takes place. The person I am online, the person who writes these letters and rants about the issues that matter to me and who even sometimes speaks in humiliatingly bad blank verse that should be kept to myself, is just as much of who I am as the person you'd encounter if you met me. Words I say are not any more authentic than words I type.
Every now and then, however, I encounter online behavior that really makes me question the dichotomy of our actual selves and our online selves. The NRCC aide who posted home addresses for a Democratic candidates staff on Twitter, for example. Would this man have gone on Television and announced the home addresses of these other staffers? Would he have shouted them out at a rally? Furthermore, is such irresponsible behavior the product of the internet's illusion of anonymity or is this a reflection of the aide's true nature? Some politicians don't seem to have this problem. Vice President Biden, for example, surely is more likely to exercise restraint when he writes something online, (perhaps giving him the chance to consider if "big fucking deal" is really the descriptive phrase most appropriate.) I have no doubt that Sarah Palin's speaking style lends itself well to the 140-character limit and fluid spelling laws of Twitter, which is why her tweets sound (marginally) more coherent than anything she's ever said in an unscripted TV interview. If I could not hide behind the screen of my laptop, or easily revise my words, would my letters to you be different?
At the end of the day I don't think it matters if one version of me is more real than the other. So much of our interaction now takes place or relates to the internet that whatever distortion of personality or character it may create is irrelevant. I am accountable for my actions, just like the men I meet online or the friends I chat with online or the politicians who campaign online. While your campaign may have successfully used the internet as a means to connect with a younger generation of voters, that no longer seems to be the case. You once posted on DailyKos, your campaign's organizing efforts were legitimately grassroots and unique. Now it seems like the same generic intern-composed junk mail in my inbox day in and day out. It seems like you've cut out the blogging community and limited e-mail communication to re-worked versions of the same request for money. The authenticity is lacking, not because it's the internet, but because the efforts are stilted and hollow. Once, you seemed to understand the power of connecting with the voters through any media. You can reach so many voters online if you're willing to expend the same kind of personal energy that you do in campaign speeches or town hall meetings that reach only those lucky enough to live in a targeted area. Other members of your administration seem to be using the internet as an effective means of communicating with Americans; I hope that you reconsider your own efforts to ease the enthusiasm gap on the left in time for the election. A little sincerity could go a long way.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label twitter. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Day 233-Never-never land
Dear Mr. President,
Recently I've read several articles on my generation and our refusal to grow up. We're living with our parents, or relocating every year. We're working dead-end jobs, struggling under mountains of student debt, and working on our blogs. We're riding our bikes and living with our boyfriends with no intentions to get married or have babies. We travel, we volunteer, we hobby and create and use irony as an excuse to never be accused of taking anything, especially ourselves too seriously. While I'm glad that these (much older) journalists have no problem generalizing about 20-somethings like we're all the same, I am only confident enough to speak for myself. I can't answer these charges for a whole generation, but I think I at least ought to explain my own failure to achieve the socially accepted milestones for adulthood.
Some weeks, when money is really tight, my mother still pays for my groceries. I live in a 2-bedroom apartment with 3 roommates. I work part-time, with no benefits, for about $10/hr. Student loan payments run me $250 a month, and I haven't graduated yet. It isn't that I don't want to grow up. I want my degree, I want health insurance and I want to make enough money to help out my family, instead of depending upon them. I want a house with a garden and I want a stable relationship. But I also want to travel, to keep learning, to help others, to find a way to live without adding to the destruction of the planet and the exploitation of the poor. The kind of experiences I still look for aren't always comfortable or safe or conducive to settling down and having children. But delaying the trappings of traditional adulthood for the sake of a better world (or at least a better understanding of it) isn't exactly cause for the kind of hysteria I see in these articles.
The New York Times might sneer at this as whimsical and immature, but I'm not convinced that the traditional model works particularly well. What kind of country have you left us? The environment is being destroyed and destroying us (and Pakistan) as a result. The rest of the world hates us for our consumption, our pollution, or the way we've manipulated the histories of their own nations to suit our fear-mongering of the moment. Our economy is collapsing, college costs are skyrocketing and divorce rates in our parents' generation left more than a few of us disillusioned about running down the aisle with the first person we want to sleep with.
Sorry, I seem to be falling into that dangerous trap of generalization. Again, I can't speak for any one but me. I may not do much more than write this silly blog and send you these naive letters but, to be frank, I don't know that you've left me a lot of better options. Maybe we are languishing in entry-level jobs, DIY-ing, blogging, painting and otherwise skipping through life like we're still kids at summer camp. Personally, I'm just trying to live the best way I know how. The world our parents left us is not sustainable. We know it, they know it, and you know it. I appreciate that your administration hasn't jumped on the bandwagon of lamenting my generation's everlasting adolescence, (perhaps because so many of us are fetching coffee for no wages while we teach your staff how to use twitter.) If you do come across these laundry lists of complaints your generation seems to have about mine, take it from this 20-something and don't try to help us live lives that look more like our parents. In spite of all your well-intentioned plans for us, we've got our own ideas about growing up and all you need to know is that we're a lot more likely to figure it out if we're not so wrapped up in looking and buying and earning like adults we lose sight of that hallmark of true maturity- concern for the condition of the world we're leaving to the next generation.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Recently I've read several articles on my generation and our refusal to grow up. We're living with our parents, or relocating every year. We're working dead-end jobs, struggling under mountains of student debt, and working on our blogs. We're riding our bikes and living with our boyfriends with no intentions to get married or have babies. We travel, we volunteer, we hobby and create and use irony as an excuse to never be accused of taking anything, especially ourselves too seriously. While I'm glad that these (much older) journalists have no problem generalizing about 20-somethings like we're all the same, I am only confident enough to speak for myself. I can't answer these charges for a whole generation, but I think I at least ought to explain my own failure to achieve the socially accepted milestones for adulthood.
Some weeks, when money is really tight, my mother still pays for my groceries. I live in a 2-bedroom apartment with 3 roommates. I work part-time, with no benefits, for about $10/hr. Student loan payments run me $250 a month, and I haven't graduated yet. It isn't that I don't want to grow up. I want my degree, I want health insurance and I want to make enough money to help out my family, instead of depending upon them. I want a house with a garden and I want a stable relationship. But I also want to travel, to keep learning, to help others, to find a way to live without adding to the destruction of the planet and the exploitation of the poor. The kind of experiences I still look for aren't always comfortable or safe or conducive to settling down and having children. But delaying the trappings of traditional adulthood for the sake of a better world (or at least a better understanding of it) isn't exactly cause for the kind of hysteria I see in these articles.
The traditional cycle seems to have gone off course, as young people remain un tethered to romantic partners or to permanent homes, going back to school for lack of better options, traveling, avoiding commitments, competing ferociously for unpaid internships or temporary (and often grueling) Teach for America jobs, forestalling the beginning of adult life.
The New York Times might sneer at this as whimsical and immature, but I'm not convinced that the traditional model works particularly well. What kind of country have you left us? The environment is being destroyed and destroying us (and Pakistan) as a result. The rest of the world hates us for our consumption, our pollution, or the way we've manipulated the histories of their own nations to suit our fear-mongering of the moment. Our economy is collapsing, college costs are skyrocketing and divorce rates in our parents' generation left more than a few of us disillusioned about running down the aisle with the first person we want to sleep with.
Sorry, I seem to be falling into that dangerous trap of generalization. Again, I can't speak for any one but me. I may not do much more than write this silly blog and send you these naive letters but, to be frank, I don't know that you've left me a lot of better options. Maybe we are languishing in entry-level jobs, DIY-ing, blogging, painting and otherwise skipping through life like we're still kids at summer camp. Personally, I'm just trying to live the best way I know how. The world our parents left us is not sustainable. We know it, they know it, and you know it. I appreciate that your administration hasn't jumped on the bandwagon of lamenting my generation's everlasting adolescence, (perhaps because so many of us are fetching coffee for no wages while we teach your staff how to use twitter.) If you do come across these laundry lists of complaints your generation seems to have about mine, take it from this 20-something and don't try to help us live lives that look more like our parents. In spite of all your well-intentioned plans for us, we've got our own ideas about growing up and all you need to know is that we're a lot more likely to figure it out if we're not so wrapped up in looking and buying and earning like adults we lose sight of that hallmark of true maturity- concern for the condition of the world we're leaving to the next generation.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Day 199- Palin for President
Dear Mr. President,
I'm officially signing on as a supporter of Sarah Palin's presidential bid. This may come as a shock to many who know me, but I've given it a lot of thought, and I've realized that she's all about compassion. Compassion for New Yorkers, who, apparently, since 9/11 can no longer bear the sight or sound of anything relating to Islam. And, Mrs. Palin knows that the best forum for expressing compassion is twitter. As pointed out in a comment on the New York Times article, no one would have objected to the building of a church 2 blocks away from the Oklahoma City bomb site. But Sarah knows better. Sarah understands the difference between domestic and foreign terror is that, while it would just be ridiculous to start being afraid of all the white male anti-government Christians in this country, there are a small enough number of Muslims to make fearing them as convenient as a drive-thru. And Sarah knows that in this country, we even like our phobias value-sized and made-to-order.
The mosque, which she asks peace-seeking Muslims to reject "in the interest of healing," is simply too difficult for New Yorkers to look at. I can relate. One time I was shoved by an Asian woman in the street, and now I can't eat Thai food without having terrible flashbacks. I'm just glad that courageous people like Sarah Palin are willing to spend 140 characters defending the traumatized psyche of xenophobes.
But there are other benefits to a Palin presidential run. Remember the good old days, before you were President, when the left was united against Bush, and had the added benefit of being able to blame our lack of accomplishments on our complete lack of power? It was a lot easier to call myself a Democrat or a liberal in those days. I didn't worry about getting torn apart from the left and the right. The left agreed with me. The right had all the power and didn't feel they had to apologize for it, so they didn't bother to disagree with me. That kind of harmony, that peace and stability that drove the economy into the ground, started two wars and really boosted the sale of backpack-sized Canadian flags, you know, I get all misty just thinking about it. I think that Sarah Palin could really bring that back. And, let's face it, most Democrats would rather rage helplessly against the status quo than be strapped with the impossible task of changing it. I think I could build a decent sized coalition around this.
Just think, Mr. President, you could probably take a vacation without every one and their co-anchor flipping out about it. Sounds pretty good, eh?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I'm officially signing on as a supporter of Sarah Palin's presidential bid. This may come as a shock to many who know me, but I've given it a lot of thought, and I've realized that she's all about compassion. Compassion for New Yorkers, who, apparently, since 9/11 can no longer bear the sight or sound of anything relating to Islam. And, Mrs. Palin knows that the best forum for expressing compassion is twitter. As pointed out in a comment on the New York Times article, no one would have objected to the building of a church 2 blocks away from the Oklahoma City bomb site. But Sarah knows better. Sarah understands the difference between domestic and foreign terror is that, while it would just be ridiculous to start being afraid of all the white male anti-government Christians in this country, there are a small enough number of Muslims to make fearing them as convenient as a drive-thru. And Sarah knows that in this country, we even like our phobias value-sized and made-to-order.
The mosque, which she asks peace-seeking Muslims to reject "in the interest of healing," is simply too difficult for New Yorkers to look at. I can relate. One time I was shoved by an Asian woman in the street, and now I can't eat Thai food without having terrible flashbacks. I'm just glad that courageous people like Sarah Palin are willing to spend 140 characters defending the traumatized psyche of xenophobes.
But there are other benefits to a Palin presidential run. Remember the good old days, before you were President, when the left was united against Bush, and had the added benefit of being able to blame our lack of accomplishments on our complete lack of power? It was a lot easier to call myself a Democrat or a liberal in those days. I didn't worry about getting torn apart from the left and the right. The left agreed with me. The right had all the power and didn't feel they had to apologize for it, so they didn't bother to disagree with me. That kind of harmony, that peace and stability that drove the economy into the ground, started two wars and really boosted the sale of backpack-sized Canadian flags, you know, I get all misty just thinking about it. I think that Sarah Palin could really bring that back. And, let's face it, most Democrats would rather rage helplessly against the status quo than be strapped with the impossible task of changing it. I think I could build a decent sized coalition around this.
Just think, Mr. President, you could probably take a vacation without every one and their co-anchor flipping out about it. Sounds pretty good, eh?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Day 47
Dear Mr. President,
*insert poorly-reasoned joke about global warming here* Thomas Friedman writes in today's NY times about the disappointing lack of understanding, and the inevitable bad jokes that result, with regards to the nature of climate change. Friedman proposes that the experts release "a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes." While former Vice-President Gore has gone a long way towards making climate change data simple and accessible to the larger public, he is too contentious a political figure to ever convince the people who don't already agree with him. Friedman may be on to a reasonable alternative.
You've made clean energy a clear priority for your administration. The concessions you've made with regards to nuclear energy, which I personally find concerning, should be enough for those still drinking the Lyndon LaRouche kool-aid to take down the pictures of you with a Hitler mustache. Nuclear energy, like some areas of foreign policy, is an area where I am willing to defer my judgment to your own, if only because I have faith in your administration's superior access to experts and information. That being said, I know that nuclear energy has its limitations, and I hope that your administration continues to push for the safer, more sustainable sources of energy.
Sadly, until then, you, Thomas Friedman and the rest of us who recognize that the decades of research backing up climate change will not be undone by one snowstorm, will probably have to put up with a number of jokes, tweets, and other self-congratulation from climate change-deniers. I think that it would ultimately be in our interest if something like the report Mr. Friedman proposes were funded and published in a thoroughly non-partisan way. As much as I'd like to pretend the deniers are irrelevant, we're still Democrats, and persuading those who disagree with us, rather than just legislating around them, is really more our style.
Anyway, enjoy the "snow-ver kill" or whatever they're calling it these days.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
*insert poorly-reasoned joke about global warming here* Thomas Friedman writes in today's NY times about the disappointing lack of understanding, and the inevitable bad jokes that result, with regards to the nature of climate change. Friedman proposes that the experts release "a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes." While former Vice-President Gore has gone a long way towards making climate change data simple and accessible to the larger public, he is too contentious a political figure to ever convince the people who don't already agree with him. Friedman may be on to a reasonable alternative.
You've made clean energy a clear priority for your administration. The concessions you've made with regards to nuclear energy, which I personally find concerning, should be enough for those still drinking the Lyndon LaRouche kool-aid to take down the pictures of you with a Hitler mustache. Nuclear energy, like some areas of foreign policy, is an area where I am willing to defer my judgment to your own, if only because I have faith in your administration's superior access to experts and information. That being said, I know that nuclear energy has its limitations, and I hope that your administration continues to push for the safer, more sustainable sources of energy.
Sadly, until then, you, Thomas Friedman and the rest of us who recognize that the decades of research backing up climate change will not be undone by one snowstorm, will probably have to put up with a number of jokes, tweets, and other self-congratulation from climate change-deniers. I think that it would ultimately be in our interest if something like the report Mr. Friedman proposes were funded and published in a thoroughly non-partisan way. As much as I'd like to pretend the deniers are irrelevant, we're still Democrats, and persuading those who disagree with us, rather than just legislating around them, is really more our style.
Anyway, enjoy the "snow-ver kill" or whatever they're calling it these days.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
