Posts
I subscribe to a lot of political and activist e-newsletters. Of late I have found myself more and more annoyed with the missives many of them are sending to me; this is especially true since the Obama bandwagon has started rolling through the Internet, propelled by evangelical-like fervor based on little that is specific or reasonable. My favorite new thing to do is to not just delete or unsubscribe (as I recently did from John Kerry's, which had been coming to my inbox since '04) but to write back telling them exactly why their newsletter irked me.
Today, Wes Clark wrote to me on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This is the newsletter that comes every once in a while to remind me that packing the Senate with Democrats is the answer to all our problems. Evidently I am supposed to believe this based on, say, how well the current Democrats in the Senate have stood up to Bush & Company. Anyway, sometimes they talk about other things too, like the President, and today Wes Clark informed me that if John McCain gets elected it will be "dangerous" because John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
Here's what I wrote back to the DSCC:
from Linda Napikoski <napikoski@gmail.com>
to info@dscc.org,
date Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:11 PM
subject Wes Clark's message
mailed-by gmail.com 1:11 PM (43 minutes ago)
I take issue with the e-mail received today from Wes Clark about John McCain being "dangerous." John McCain is military - that's true. He is also from a generation that learned of (and I daresay witnessed?) honorable aspects of the military. Anyway, that's beside the point. The important point is that he is against torture. He called out the military (this one - the dishonorable one) on the egregious acts of torture being perpetrated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, and god knows where else.
Can Wes Clark and your Senate of Democrats say the same?
I'm also tired of hearing people talk about how "now" more than such-and-such percent are against this war. Some of us did the wise thing and opposed the war from the beginning, so it fails to impress when people have their come to Jesus moment (or was that "come to Obama") after the fact.
Before you send emails about your Democratic Senate saying the real United States' strengths are its economy and freedom, you might want to look into the torture and murder of innocents being perpetrated around the globe. Use your powers to stop that, and I'm way more likely to support you.
~linda napikoski~
who votes
***
In other news, the following bugs me: OK, we all know it's aggravating when someone's cell phone rings in an inappropriate environment i.e. class. Is it even more annoying when it's the professor's phone, as has happened for me twice in the past two weeks? Not necessarily, I suppose. But I noticed a disturbing pattern of them being far more flummoxed by it. If a student's phone rings, they hush it, quickly, usually without having to remove it even from the bag or pocket from which it sounds. Both professors have apologized but then elaborately picked it up, looked at it, maybe flipped it open, silenced it, looked at it again, etc. Geez. Is it a generational thing? Would they go through the same nonsense if it (god forbid) rang in a theater? Ugh.
This may in fact tie into my larger qualm with people, in general, who cannot find it in them to ever ignore their phone. I rarely feel compelled to answer my phone. I know that often mystifies friends of mine. It's really funny to me how some people drop everything when the phone rings. "OH MY GOD THE PHONE! It's ringing! Where is it? I MUST answer it at all costs!" So silly. I have even heard of some people who have answered it during sex. Wow. If that happened, I would be out of there so fast. I just don't get it. It's a phone. Especially now that everyone on the planet has voice mail, I really don't get it.
Hmmm, I've been working on establishing a link between unthinking, illogical Obama supporters and unthinking, illogical evangelical-like people; maybe I should be working on establishing a link between unthinking Obama supporters and unthinking people who will scurry across broken glass to get to their ringing phones.
Thanks to Erin, who alerted me to this article about donations to superdelegates' campaigns. As she put it, "Who's the Washington insider now?"
Today, Wes Clark wrote to me on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This is the newsletter that comes every once in a while to remind me that packing the Senate with Democrats is the answer to all our problems. Evidently I am supposed to believe this based on, say, how well the current Democrats in the Senate have stood up to Bush & Company. Anyway, sometimes they talk about other things too, like the President, and today Wes Clark informed me that if John McCain gets elected it will be "dangerous" because John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
Here's what I wrote back to the DSCC:
from Linda Napikoski <napikoski@gmail.com>
to info@dscc.org,
date Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:11 PM
subject Wes Clark's message
mailed-by gmail.com 1:11 PM (43 minutes ago)
I take issue with the e-mail received today from Wes Clark about John McCain being "dangerous." John McCain is military - that's true. He is also from a generation that learned of (and I daresay witnessed?) honorable aspects of the military. Anyway, that's beside the point. The important point is that he is against torture. He called out the military (this one - the dishonorable one) on the egregious acts of torture being perpetrated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, and god knows where else.
Can Wes Clark and your Senate of Democrats say the same?
I'm also tired of hearing people talk about how "now" more than such-and-such percent are against this war. Some of us did the wise thing and opposed the war from the beginning, so it fails to impress when people have their come to Jesus moment (or was that "come to Obama") after the fact.
Before you send emails about your Democratic Senate saying the real United States' strengths are its economy and freedom, you might want to look into the torture and murder of innocents being perpetrated around the globe. Use your powers to stop that, and I'm way more likely to support you.
~linda napikoski~
who votes
***
In other news, the following bugs me: OK, we all know it's aggravating when someone's cell phone rings in an inappropriate environment i.e. class. Is it even more annoying when it's the professor's phone, as has happened for me twice in the past two weeks? Not necessarily, I suppose. But I noticed a disturbing pattern of them being far more flummoxed by it. If a student's phone rings, they hush it, quickly, usually without having to remove it even from the bag or pocket from which it sounds. Both professors have apologized but then elaborately picked it up, looked at it, maybe flipped it open, silenced it, looked at it again, etc. Geez. Is it a generational thing? Would they go through the same nonsense if it (god forbid) rang in a theater? Ugh.
This may in fact tie into my larger qualm with people, in general, who cannot find it in them to ever ignore their phone. I rarely feel compelled to answer my phone. I know that often mystifies friends of mine. It's really funny to me how some people drop everything when the phone rings. "OH MY GOD THE PHONE! It's ringing! Where is it? I MUST answer it at all costs!" So silly. I have even heard of some people who have answered it during sex. Wow. If that happened, I would be out of there so fast. I just don't get it. It's a phone. Especially now that everyone on the planet has voice mail, I really don't get it.
Hmmm, I've been working on establishing a link between unthinking, illogical Obama supporters and unthinking, illogical evangelical-like people; maybe I should be working on establishing a link between unthinking Obama supporters and unthinking people who will scurry across broken glass to get to their ringing phones.
Thanks to Erin, who alerted me to this article about donations to superdelegates' campaigns. As she put it, "Who's the Washington insider now?"
No comments:
Post a Comment