Dear Mr. President,
I'm shocked. I'm dumbfounded. The forces for transparency and justice seem to be winning! Secretary Clinton is upset, demanding answers. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is setting up a team to investigate this egregious offense. The scandal is all over the news.
No, it's not about the blockade of Gaza that's punishing 1.5 million people for the actions of a handful of militants. It's not about the arrests and attacks on peaceful protesters in Bil'in. It's not even about the illegal construction of 1600 Jewish-only settlements in East Jerusalem. This uproar is over the fact that the settlements were announced during Vice President Biden's visit to Israel. Wait, what? THAT is what we're upset about? THAT is what PM Netanyahu is asking a team to investigate? The timing of the announcement.
Mr. President, please tell me we are all still grown-ups. Who cares if VP Biden was there when it was announced? Would it have been any less awful if he hadn't been? Why are we mustering so much outrage over the impoliteness of this and not the injustice? Forgive me if this letter is just a series of questions, sir, as I am so appalled by the pettiness of my own government that I can't muster an articulate statement about this. This is like being invited to feast on poisoned food and complaining that we weren't given the right dinner fork. Excuse my bluntness, sir, but we pay for them to violate international law, and then cover for them at the UN when it gets ugly- are we really going to cry foul because they dare do it in our presence?
Respectfully yours in utter disbelief,
Kelsey
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Day 72
Dear Mr President,
Revising the requirements laid in in No Child Left Behind, is an essential step to making students college and career ready. I think our system places too great an emphasis on standardized testing, but I recognize that, absent hard data, it is difficult to point to successes and areas needing improvement in our schools. As a student, I took the WASL, the ITED, the levels tests, the Hi-cap test, the PSAT, the SAT, 3 AP tests and the ACT. I don't mean to brag or anything, but I rock at standardized tests. Unfortunately, this skill isn't exactly something I can put on my resume. I also had amazing teachers; one took students interested in education and had us intern for a week in the classroom. Another created a scavenger hunt that took us all over town using GPS and practical cryptography. One had us pick books without cliff notes available and write our own. These were all experiences that helped me develop important skills, and used practical experience to give us a better understanding of the concepts we were required to learn. None of them appeared on a standardized tests.
I suppose my point is that we can require testing in reading and math skills every year, but my guess is we're going to do more to improve our test-taking skills than anything else. And, don't get me wrong, having test-taking skills is not a bad lot in life. But I think, rather than being tested every year, my educational experience would have been most improved by a longer school year, teacher who were more adequately compensated (and, in some cases, better prepared to teach their subjects,) and a community that recognized the value of higher education. I don't think that all of those are things the Federal government can necessarily provide, but certainly steps should be taken in this direction. The preliminary suggestions from your administration for improving education look promising, and I hope that they are better received by the public than health care reform has been.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Revising the requirements laid in in No Child Left Behind, is an essential step to making students college and career ready. I think our system places too great an emphasis on standardized testing, but I recognize that, absent hard data, it is difficult to point to successes and areas needing improvement in our schools. As a student, I took the WASL, the ITED, the levels tests, the Hi-cap test, the PSAT, the SAT, 3 AP tests and the ACT. I don't mean to brag or anything, but I rock at standardized tests. Unfortunately, this skill isn't exactly something I can put on my resume. I also had amazing teachers; one took students interested in education and had us intern for a week in the classroom. Another created a scavenger hunt that took us all over town using GPS and practical cryptography. One had us pick books without cliff notes available and write our own. These were all experiences that helped me develop important skills, and used practical experience to give us a better understanding of the concepts we were required to learn. None of them appeared on a standardized tests.
I suppose my point is that we can require testing in reading and math skills every year, but my guess is we're going to do more to improve our test-taking skills than anything else. And, don't get me wrong, having test-taking skills is not a bad lot in life. But I think, rather than being tested every year, my educational experience would have been most improved by a longer school year, teacher who were more adequately compensated (and, in some cases, better prepared to teach their subjects,) and a community that recognized the value of higher education. I don't think that all of those are things the Federal government can necessarily provide, but certainly steps should be taken in this direction. The preliminary suggestions from your administration for improving education look promising, and I hope that they are better received by the public than health care reform has been.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, March 12, 2010
Day 71- Sprint to the finish
Dear Mr. President,
Thank you for delaying your trip to Asia to ensure the passage of health care reform. I have a few conservative friends grumbling about the "rush" of this legislation, as though people in the country can afford to wait any longer. I have to say I'm disappointed in so many people for complaining about the burdens of this legislation. I had imagined that the day we successfully passed health care reform would be, well, glorious, for those who had accomplished it. I thought that it would say something about all of us, that we were willing to look out for the least among us, willing to share burdens a little bit, if it meant that the heaviest loads could be lighter.
Instead, it seems so many people are only concerned with themselves. I'm not going to pretend that there aren't political benefits for the democrats that support this legislation, or that others aren't doing so for purely self-serving reasons, but I don't think any one in congress is too worried about being able to pay their medical bills. I don't think you're worried about your coverage getting denied. I'm certainly not worried about the requirement to buy insurance, even though I've survived without coverage for the last two years. It will cost more for me to have it, short-term. But in the long run I'll save money if I do get sick, and if I don't get sick, than the system gets to help some one who needs it at less expense for them and for taxpayers.
I hope that, no matter how costly and exhausting this fight has been, politically, if the legislation passes, it does come with no small sense of satisfaction for you & every one who has worked so hard to see it through. It will do a lot of good for a lot of people, even many of those who are currently complaining.
I used to be a distance runner. At the end of a cross-country race, the sprint to the finish was always the part that seemed forgone. It was always the part that felt the easiest, because it was almost over, even if it hurt the most. So many races were won and lost in that last stretch; so many injuries ignored for the sake of the finish line. I know the coming days are not going to be easy. I want to do what I can to help, but I feel a bit like a spectator, cheering you on. I voted last November. I've written you letters. I've called my congressman, and he's on board. It's out of my hands, now; it is just a matter of watching, and waiting, and hoping.
Thank you for all of your hard work on this, Mr. President. Good luck.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thank you for delaying your trip to Asia to ensure the passage of health care reform. I have a few conservative friends grumbling about the "rush" of this legislation, as though people in the country can afford to wait any longer. I have to say I'm disappointed in so many people for complaining about the burdens of this legislation. I had imagined that the day we successfully passed health care reform would be, well, glorious, for those who had accomplished it. I thought that it would say something about all of us, that we were willing to look out for the least among us, willing to share burdens a little bit, if it meant that the heaviest loads could be lighter.
Instead, it seems so many people are only concerned with themselves. I'm not going to pretend that there aren't political benefits for the democrats that support this legislation, or that others aren't doing so for purely self-serving reasons, but I don't think any one in congress is too worried about being able to pay their medical bills. I don't think you're worried about your coverage getting denied. I'm certainly not worried about the requirement to buy insurance, even though I've survived without coverage for the last two years. It will cost more for me to have it, short-term. But in the long run I'll save money if I do get sick, and if I don't get sick, than the system gets to help some one who needs it at less expense for them and for taxpayers.
I hope that, no matter how costly and exhausting this fight has been, politically, if the legislation passes, it does come with no small sense of satisfaction for you & every one who has worked so hard to see it through. It will do a lot of good for a lot of people, even many of those who are currently complaining.
I used to be a distance runner. At the end of a cross-country race, the sprint to the finish was always the part that seemed forgone. It was always the part that felt the easiest, because it was almost over, even if it hurt the most. So many races were won and lost in that last stretch; so many injuries ignored for the sake of the finish line. I know the coming days are not going to be easy. I want to do what I can to help, but I feel a bit like a spectator, cheering you on. I voted last November. I've written you letters. I've called my congressman, and he's on board. It's out of my hands, now; it is just a matter of watching, and waiting, and hoping.
Thank you for all of your hard work on this, Mr. President. Good luck.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Day 70 - For you, Liberalviewer
Dear Mr. President,
While it has lately become a rallying cry for the right to oppose jury trials for terror suspects, I'm writing today to ask you to respect the constitution- a document I know you revered even before you swore to uphold and protect it as President- and ensure that all suspected criminals are given the due process our constitution outlines. The constitution is not a suicide pact, but nor was it written for easy, peaceful times. It was written to see us through trying times such as these, to remind us that the value of our idealism is greater than our fear. The rights codified within it were not to protect the innocent, but the guilty, as well as the credibility and integrity of the system itself. Denying even the worst criminals their rights jeopardizes the soundness of the entire legal system, and is a risk I beg you not take.
Trials are slow, trials are expensive, trials can be frustrating. But the swift, secret justice being called for is not justice at all. I would rather bear the expense, the risk, and the wait, to ensure that the constitutional rights of all involved were respected. Do not bend to political pressure from those looking for vengeance or for the impossible illusion of safety. These trials must be held in the light of day, subject to public scrutiny, and must respect the letter & spirit of the law. I believe we can and should protect the constitution above all else- even our personal safety. This may sound extreme, but I think that, in a world as unpredictable and dangerous as ours, we cannot ever truly guarantee our safety. We can take precautions, we can foster awareness, and we can prosecute and punish criminals to the full extent of the law; but we can never become safer by giving up our rights to proper legal procedure and protection for all. Please, sir, do not allow this essential American institution to be suspended for any one, regardless of their crimes.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
While it has lately become a rallying cry for the right to oppose jury trials for terror suspects, I'm writing today to ask you to respect the constitution- a document I know you revered even before you swore to uphold and protect it as President- and ensure that all suspected criminals are given the due process our constitution outlines. The constitution is not a suicide pact, but nor was it written for easy, peaceful times. It was written to see us through trying times such as these, to remind us that the value of our idealism is greater than our fear. The rights codified within it were not to protect the innocent, but the guilty, as well as the credibility and integrity of the system itself. Denying even the worst criminals their rights jeopardizes the soundness of the entire legal system, and is a risk I beg you not take.
Trials are slow, trials are expensive, trials can be frustrating. But the swift, secret justice being called for is not justice at all. I would rather bear the expense, the risk, and the wait, to ensure that the constitutional rights of all involved were respected. Do not bend to political pressure from those looking for vengeance or for the impossible illusion of safety. These trials must be held in the light of day, subject to public scrutiny, and must respect the letter & spirit of the law. I believe we can and should protect the constitution above all else- even our personal safety. This may sound extreme, but I think that, in a world as unpredictable and dangerous as ours, we cannot ever truly guarantee our safety. We can take precautions, we can foster awareness, and we can prosecute and punish criminals to the full extent of the law; but we can never become safer by giving up our rights to proper legal procedure and protection for all. Please, sir, do not allow this essential American institution to be suspended for any one, regardless of their crimes.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Day 69
Dear Mr. President,
While it is gratifying to see that Vice-President Biden has condemned the announcement of new settlements in East Jerusalem, it would be nice if this condemnation carried with it any tangible consequence. If even some of the estimated $2.5 billion dollars we give to this already wealthy and economically stable country were contingent upon respect for human rights or international law.
I've written you many times about my views on the way Palestinians are treated by their occupiers. I may be just an ordinary citizen, my experiences admittedly limited to a single trip to the region, but I am not the only American who feels this way. It is so easy to maintain the close relationship we have bought and paid for. Is is easy to talk about mediation and negotiation and fairness while signing the checks that buy the instruments of oppression. It is so easy to condemn policies while we continue to fund them. But you didn't run for President to do what is easy. You did not come to perpetuate the status quo. You ran on a platform of change, you demonstrated your willingness to speak frankly about tough issues and to explore, thoughtfully, their nuances. Why have you abandoned these principles entirely in Palestine? Why is a verbal and practically inconsequential reprimand from the VP all that comes from this latest encroachment on Palestinian land? Why are we silent on so many other, even more grievous offenses?
Don't send me another form letter about this, Mr. President. I'll forgo the talking points. I want you to say something, anything, that helps me make sense of it. Tell me why Palestinians don't deserve basic rights, free movement, and freedom from oppression. Tell me why a person's religion should determine where they are allowed to live. Tell me why we're funding this occupation at an increasing rate each year, why criticism and questioning are equated with sedition and betrayal. Tell me when we decided that a Palestinian life was worth less than an Israeli one.
If you can tell me these things, Mr. President, I'd love to hear from you. Otherwise, please save the paper. Vice President Biden earned my respect today for speaking frankly to the Palestinian audience alongside Abbas, but words are so cheap in such situations. 1600 new settlements will be built in East Jerusalem; another piece of the future Palestinian state lost because Israel is already powerful enough to take whatever it wants. How many words do you think Vice President Biden's condemnation would have to contain to rival the financial, political and military support that come with it? Maybe 2.5 billion?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
While it is gratifying to see that Vice-President Biden has condemned the announcement of new settlements in East Jerusalem, it would be nice if this condemnation carried with it any tangible consequence. If even some of the estimated $2.5 billion dollars we give to this already wealthy and economically stable country were contingent upon respect for human rights or international law.
I've written you many times about my views on the way Palestinians are treated by their occupiers. I may be just an ordinary citizen, my experiences admittedly limited to a single trip to the region, but I am not the only American who feels this way. It is so easy to maintain the close relationship we have bought and paid for. Is is easy to talk about mediation and negotiation and fairness while signing the checks that buy the instruments of oppression. It is so easy to condemn policies while we continue to fund them. But you didn't run for President to do what is easy. You did not come to perpetuate the status quo. You ran on a platform of change, you demonstrated your willingness to speak frankly about tough issues and to explore, thoughtfully, their nuances. Why have you abandoned these principles entirely in Palestine? Why is a verbal and practically inconsequential reprimand from the VP all that comes from this latest encroachment on Palestinian land? Why are we silent on so many other, even more grievous offenses?
Don't send me another form letter about this, Mr. President. I'll forgo the talking points. I want you to say something, anything, that helps me make sense of it. Tell me why Palestinians don't deserve basic rights, free movement, and freedom from oppression. Tell me why a person's religion should determine where they are allowed to live. Tell me why we're funding this occupation at an increasing rate each year, why criticism and questioning are equated with sedition and betrayal. Tell me when we decided that a Palestinian life was worth less than an Israeli one.
If you can tell me these things, Mr. President, I'd love to hear from you. Otherwise, please save the paper. Vice President Biden earned my respect today for speaking frankly to the Palestinian audience alongside Abbas, but words are so cheap in such situations. 1600 new settlements will be built in East Jerusalem; another piece of the future Palestinian state lost because Israel is already powerful enough to take whatever it wants. How many words do you think Vice President Biden's condemnation would have to contain to rival the financial, political and military support that come with it? Maybe 2.5 billion?
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Day 68- Courage & Consequence
Dear Mr. President,
As an author, I'm sure you appreciate the challenges of writing honestly, and well, about yourself and your own experiences. Many authors attempt to do this, but I think very few succeed. Today, another example of such an attempt goes on sale. Last night, (really, only a few hours ago,) I was putting out Karl Rove's new book for display. Mr. Rove's book, Courage and Consequence was bound to pique my curiosity. For one thing, the title suggests that Karl Rove, in an attempt to broaden the appeal of his book, targeted the "Jane Austen" demographic, a group of readers rarely sought after by the publishers of political memoirs. Additionally, the blurb on the back of the book describes Rove's as, "a life spent in political combat and service to country, no matter the costs." I'll grant that as Deputy Chief of Staff, Mr. Rove served his country; the language used in the book, however, seem to indicate that Mr. Rove believes he has sacrificed himself for his country, somehow, and I fail to see the evidence supporting such a contention.
For the time being, as I am still a seller of books, I believe that every one, even Karl Rove, has a right to have their story told. No matter what my profession, I will always oppose censoring or suppression, even the voices of those that I disagree with. The smug, self-satisfied, extreme close-up of Mr. Rove's face on the cover of this book, however, tests this conviction more than any author since Robert Spencer. Whenever books like this come out, where the author is so clearly trying to retell a familiar story in a way that casts them in a more forgivable role, I always wonder how many minds they really feel they will change. Most of the people who buy this book will already agree with everything Mr. Rove has to say. A significant portion of rest will only be picking it up to find their name in the index. I can't imagine Rove will win over many skeptics.
If anything, I am most surprised at my own reaction to the publication of this book. I get angry, fiercely angry at the account Mr. Rove gives, casting President Bush as the misunderstood hero. I think I am angry because it doesn't seem fair that the conservative spin machine has extended so far into my bookstore, instead of keeping to the talk radio and TV news as I feel it should. I think I am angry because I am afraid that I might not be completely right, that Mr. Rove may have reasonable, even valuable perspectives on things I am unwilling to hear, as they may threaten my own beliefs. I'm not sure what the most productive way of dealing with these feelings might be, but for now I've settled with photocopying his face off of the cover and plastering it all over my boss's office. Mature, it is not, but at least I feel a bit better.
After your own time in the White House is finished, will you write another memoir, Mr. President? You seem to be more inclined toward writing as an end in its own, which is likely why your books sell so well and are so enjoyable to read. If you do, I hope you are able to bring the frankness of your first two books to your reflections on life in the White House.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
As an author, I'm sure you appreciate the challenges of writing honestly, and well, about yourself and your own experiences. Many authors attempt to do this, but I think very few succeed. Today, another example of such an attempt goes on sale. Last night, (really, only a few hours ago,) I was putting out Karl Rove's new book for display. Mr. Rove's book, Courage and Consequence was bound to pique my curiosity. For one thing, the title suggests that Karl Rove, in an attempt to broaden the appeal of his book, targeted the "Jane Austen" demographic, a group of readers rarely sought after by the publishers of political memoirs. Additionally, the blurb on the back of the book describes Rove's as, "a life spent in political combat and service to country, no matter the costs." I'll grant that as Deputy Chief of Staff, Mr. Rove served his country; the language used in the book, however, seem to indicate that Mr. Rove believes he has sacrificed himself for his country, somehow, and I fail to see the evidence supporting such a contention.
For the time being, as I am still a seller of books, I believe that every one, even Karl Rove, has a right to have their story told. No matter what my profession, I will always oppose censoring or suppression, even the voices of those that I disagree with. The smug, self-satisfied, extreme close-up of Mr. Rove's face on the cover of this book, however, tests this conviction more than any author since Robert Spencer. Whenever books like this come out, where the author is so clearly trying to retell a familiar story in a way that casts them in a more forgivable role, I always wonder how many minds they really feel they will change. Most of the people who buy this book will already agree with everything Mr. Rove has to say. A significant portion of rest will only be picking it up to find their name in the index. I can't imagine Rove will win over many skeptics.
If anything, I am most surprised at my own reaction to the publication of this book. I get angry, fiercely angry at the account Mr. Rove gives, casting President Bush as the misunderstood hero. I think I am angry because it doesn't seem fair that the conservative spin machine has extended so far into my bookstore, instead of keeping to the talk radio and TV news as I feel it should. I think I am angry because I am afraid that I might not be completely right, that Mr. Rove may have reasonable, even valuable perspectives on things I am unwilling to hear, as they may threaten my own beliefs. I'm not sure what the most productive way of dealing with these feelings might be, but for now I've settled with photocopying his face off of the cover and plastering it all over my boss's office. Mature, it is not, but at least I feel a bit better.
After your own time in the White House is finished, will you write another memoir, Mr. President? You seem to be more inclined toward writing as an end in its own, which is likely why your books sell so well and are so enjoyable to read. If you do, I hope you are able to bring the frankness of your first two books to your reflections on life in the White House.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, March 8, 2010
Day 67- Semantics
Dear Mr. President,
Today I'd like to point out yet another example of the appalling anti-Islamic bias in our media. Two articles, about the same tragic incident, caught my attention today. One, linked on the front page of the New York Times website, ran under the headline "Death Toll From Nigeria Violence Hits 500." The other, linked from the front page of CNN.com, ran under the headline "Muslims kill hundreds in Nigeria.". Before comparing the language used in these headlines, I'd like to first say that I am horrified by the violence described by the articles. I'm not insensitive to the superficial nature of the argument I'm about to make, especially when considering the toll this conflict has taken on the lives of so many.
However, these headlines speak to a greater trend, an undercurrent of Islamophobia perpetuated by our media, and, while there may be no statistics available on how many, this certainly has its own grievous toll. The articles, which are about the attack on a largely Christian population by a largely Muslim group, each specify that the attacks were retaliation for an attack in January that left 150 Muslims dead. The NYT article mentions this in the second paragraph, CNN mentions it at the very end of the article. Both quote sources who caution against characterizing the violence as solely based on religion, citing economic, social and ethnic tensions as additional contributory factors. And, (I checked,) in January, both news organizations covered the attack on the Muslims, but neither described it as "Christians kill hundreds in Nigeria." During Operation Cast Lead, no headlines read, "Jews kill thousands in Gaza." Clearly, those headlines would be seen as ridiculous and offensive. Why has it become acceptable to identify criminals as "Muslims", but not by any other religion? I see this time and time again in the way the news is reported. I'm not a Muslim, Mr. President, but I find this reporting style offensive.
I'm writing to you about this because I know you are sensitive to the ways that such perceptions, and the language that supports them, can exacerbate conflict and fear. No religious group should be indicted every time a person claiming to subscribe to it commits a crime. Islam, as you know, does not promote or condone violence and should not be twisted to suit the media's need to simplify the identification of our enemies.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today I'd like to point out yet another example of the appalling anti-Islamic bias in our media. Two articles, about the same tragic incident, caught my attention today. One, linked on the front page of the New York Times website, ran under the headline "Death Toll From Nigeria Violence Hits 500." The other, linked from the front page of CNN.com, ran under the headline "Muslims kill hundreds in Nigeria.". Before comparing the language used in these headlines, I'd like to first say that I am horrified by the violence described by the articles. I'm not insensitive to the superficial nature of the argument I'm about to make, especially when considering the toll this conflict has taken on the lives of so many.
However, these headlines speak to a greater trend, an undercurrent of Islamophobia perpetuated by our media, and, while there may be no statistics available on how many, this certainly has its own grievous toll. The articles, which are about the attack on a largely Christian population by a largely Muslim group, each specify that the attacks were retaliation for an attack in January that left 150 Muslims dead. The NYT article mentions this in the second paragraph, CNN mentions it at the very end of the article. Both quote sources who caution against characterizing the violence as solely based on religion, citing economic, social and ethnic tensions as additional contributory factors. And, (I checked,) in January, both news organizations covered the attack on the Muslims, but neither described it as "Christians kill hundreds in Nigeria." During Operation Cast Lead, no headlines read, "Jews kill thousands in Gaza." Clearly, those headlines would be seen as ridiculous and offensive. Why has it become acceptable to identify criminals as "Muslims", but not by any other religion? I see this time and time again in the way the news is reported. I'm not a Muslim, Mr. President, but I find this reporting style offensive.
I'm writing to you about this because I know you are sensitive to the ways that such perceptions, and the language that supports them, can exacerbate conflict and fear. No religious group should be indicted every time a person claiming to subscribe to it commits a crime. Islam, as you know, does not promote or condone violence and should not be twisted to suit the media's need to simplify the identification of our enemies.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
