My Thanksgiving Letter to President Obama - #NoDAPL

In an effort to become more active in the democracy I've enjoyed all my American life, I am starting a weekly series of Letters to the President. Regardless of the topic, I wish to engage my lawmakers directly. Facebook posts are great for venting, but they don't get work done. Here's this weeks letter:

"Dear President Obama,

                As my husband and I wrap up our Thanksgiving weekend, we ponder over those things we often take for granted. Sure, we’re grateful for our high-speed internet connection and our subscription to Netflix. But all too often, we forget that there is so much more we have that others do not: some do not have heat in the winter, or even a roof over their heads. People without their health, their family, or their safety. Or worse, there are those who thought they were safe, protected by the promise of the ethical and humane treatment of their fellow man, but are instead cheated out of a good and healthy life by those who are more concerned with acquiring wealth. Is that a fair exchange?

                For as long as you’ve been in office, and before that, on the campaign trail, you’ve stated time and again that healthcare is a right, and I agree. But does not health care start with preventing harm? Preventative care through the Affordable Care Act is available at no cost, thanks to you. We are grateful for that. But medical care doesn’t always prevent disease; identifying ailments in a timely fashion is sometimes all we can hope for. No, preventative medical care, which you so passionately campaigned for, includes protecting the environment that provides for our sustenance. The air we breathe must be protected to prevent disease. The food we eat must be of sound quality to avoid illnesses. The water that sustains us must be kept clean, as some wrongs cannot be made right.

                Perhaps you know I am referring to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Perhaps the Dakota Access Pipeline isn’t the only instance where the integrity of our water has been violated. Perhaps the negligence in Flint, Michigan has given the American civilian population a very good reason to be grateful for something as simple as clean, accessible water. And we want to continue to be grateful for that modern luxury. A luxury that we, as Americans, are actively working to bring to developing countries (www.water.org). But how do we justify improving the lives of others in this manner when we actively allow for the contamination of our own water, here in the continental United States?

                In an effort to get out of our heads and back into the world, it occurs to us to simply do what is within our means. We can sign the petition, but will you listen? We can call and write, but will you heed us? We can donate money, but will it be enough? Not unless you act with us.

                The protesters, who have opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline for more than seven months, have done more than “what is within their means”, risking life and limb. Why? Because they know what the people of Flint, Michigan now know – it IS a matter of life and death. I ask you, as someone who has fought for the improvement of health for all, please take a moment to consider what is within your means. As you may or may not know, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has filed a lawsuit but the courts have not filed the paperwork yet, and are allowing construction to begin. As such, the protesters now face harsh weather conditions in addition to violent opposition from law enforcement. The Army Corps of Engineers, the same Army you command, has issued an eviction notice, supposedly to keep the protesters safe. The eviction notice, you can imagine, seems like a backhand to our native brothers and sisters, who have suffered great loss over the centuries already. But I believe you can do more than protect the protesters as they exercise their first amendment rights. I believe you can do the right and moral thing, and stop the construction for good.

I believe you can save lives, Mr. President, just as you’ve done with the Affordable Care Act. Stop the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. It may be the best decision you make yet.

Most sincerely,

A Concerned Citizen of this Great Nation"

Want to write the President? Go to https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact - it's easy! Want to get involved? Sign the petition! Call the White House! And donate if you can!

***PLEASE NOTE: The form on the WH.gov site only allows for 2500 characters, so write out the long form, like I did above, and then shorten it for online submission. You can always send the full version via snail mail, if you wish.

Here's the abbreviated version I sent online:

"Dear President Obama,

I wrote a longer letter you can read on blog here: http://embracethekayoss.blogspot.com/2016/11/my-thanksgiving-letter-to-president.html . But for now, here is my abbreviated version:

As my husband and I wrap up our Thanksgiving weekend, we ponder over those things we often take for granted. Our family? Our health? Our safety? In an effort to get out of our heads and back into the world, it occurs to us to simply do what is within our means. We can sign the petition, but will you listen? We can call and write, but will you heed us? We can donate money, but will it be enough? Not unless you act with us.

The protesters, who have opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline for more than seven months, have done more than “what is within their means”, risking life and limb. Why? Because they know what the people of Flint, Michigan now know – it IS a matter of life and death. I ask you, as someone who has fought for the improvement of health for all, please take a moment to consider what is within your means. As you may or may not know, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has filed a lawsuit but the courts have not filed the paperwork yet, and are allowing construction to begin. As such, the protesters now face harsh weather conditions in addition to violent opposition from law enforcement. The Army Corps of Engineers, the same Army you command, has issued an eviction notice, supposedly to keep the protesters safe. The eviction notice, you can imagine, seems like a backhand to our native brothers and sisters, who have suffered great loss over the centuries already. But I believe you can do more than protect the protesters as they exercise their first amendment rights. I believe you can do the right and moral thing, and stop the construction for good.

I believe you can save lives, Mr. President, just as you’ve done with the Affordable Care Act. Stop the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. It may be the best decision you make yet.

Most sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen of this Great Nation"

Citizens United Ruling Persists, While the Power of the Individual Diminishes

Today I write to attempt to dissipate my shroud of anguish. I am distraught by our Senate, and truly saddened by its unwillingness to overturn Citizens United. But it's not just the end result that agitates me so. It was denied swiftly, and with little compromise, which is especially disturbing right before a major election. It was denied uniformly by Republicans, which indicates to me that we are no longer communicating on a feedback loop (more information on feedback loops soon), required to continue upward progress. And the saddest of all? The ruling stands on a technicality.

Our government is not listening to its people any more.

If you took a vote nation-wide, and perhaps we should this November, I believe we'd see the majority of individuals do want the ruling of Citizens United overturned (80% consensus, which is huge). But our representatives think they know better. Of course they do, because they aren't listening to the people that voted them into office. If they were, there would be a more efficient system for individuals to convey their opinions other than calling and writing. By the by, if you know of a more efficient system, by all means, leave a link in the comments so we can spread the word. Our government officials are listening to the companies and excessively wealthy individuals that helped pay for their campaigns (which is mostly marketing), who convinced all those voters to sway in their direction. Obviously, in this model, voters no longer matter; only the people who manipulate the voters count.

Voters no longer matter; only the people who manipulate the voters count.

The only thing worse than knowing the government is not willing to regulate campaign funds from corporations is that, in doing so, they are actively abridging our individual "freedom of speech".  You'll note that the first amendment "prohibits the making of any law... abridging the freedom of speech."


abridge (v.) - to reduce or lesson in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish, curtail; to deprive, cut off.

Special interest groups, corporations, even non-profits who are willing to funnel money into a campaign are effectively drowning out the authority of individuals' voices. This is the argument we should be making to the Supreme Court - that we must protect the diminished free speech of individuals by nullifying the over-funded agendas of the wealthy.

Ultimately, I believe this all boils down to simple addition. If the first amendment protects what we say, then in the voting process we still operate on the assumption that one person equals one vote. By allowing a corporation, definitively a collection of people, to also have a voice, and one that can out-spend an individual 100 to 1 (or more), then the individuals making up that collection have just extended their voting power. That is to say, unregulated spending in political campaigns effectively buys more votes. It is a bidding war, not a test of moral fortitude. Arguments have been made accusing those who would overturn Citizens United would effectively amend the Bill of Rights, but it simply continues to redefine it to identify how it works in today's system. The Bill of Rights was not written to protect corporations; it was written to protect individuals.

Unregulated spending in political campaigns effectively buys more votes.

The first amendment protects what you can say, not HOW you say it. Cursing at the top of your lungs is still allowed, but if you do it at 2am and wake up your neighbors, there will be grounds for arresting you for disturbing the peace. If you want to make films that directly defame political candidates who oppose your political agenda, be my guest. But be prepared for legal backlash when you take outside money to promote or distribute it (they already got backlash when they tried to distribute the film just before a major political election). Even conservative political commentator George F. Will admitted "the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech".

dis sem i nate (v.) - to scatter or spread widely, as though sowing seed; promulgate extensively; broadcast; disperse

By this definition, monetary contributions are not speech directly, but help to amplify speech; it gives what is being said greater power and influence. Thus, overturning Citizens United would limit the power and influence corporations have over the voting public.

Monetary contributions are not speech directly, but help to AMPLIFY SPEECH; it gives WHAT is being said greater POWER and INFLUENCE.

Even reading through wikipedia to gleen more information on the first amendment, "campaign financing" stands out like a sore thumb. But perhaps it is because modern mobsters are alive and kicking within our government. Somewhere in the last few decades, mob bosses, who use money (and thus power over people) to intimidate, bully, and manipulate people into compliance, have found a new home on the other side of the legal system. They aren't hiding from the law any more, they are manipulating the lawmakers, and thus rigging the law, to their advantage. Even Al Franken compared the current ruling of Citizens United with money laundering. What the hell happened to accountability?

This is because we've forgotten what money is. Money is not speech. Speech, non-verbal, verbal, or expressionism, is speech. The old adage "put your money where your mouth is" very casually denotes the difference, in fact. Your mouth does the speaking; your money invests in its completion. This means that putting money anywhere is the next step AFTER speech, not the speech itself. A man walks up to you and says, "I like your hat", and there is no pretense or intention; but a man who walks up to you and says, "I like your hat" with a few bills in his hand now has the power to take it from you. He doesn't even need to offer the money to you, really. Just showing the money suggests the bargaining POWER of money. And that's what it boils down to, ladies and gents. The Supreme Court ruled that it has no authority to regulate POWER over the American public. The political mobster has tucked away his loaded pistol, which years ago would have been not-so-subtly used to get his way, in favor of the understated implication of quid pro quo.

I'm trying not to see this as the beginning of the end, but it's difficult. Oh, corporate America, how do thy own me? I shudder to count the ways.