Dear Americans for Prosperity

Dear Americans for Prosperity,

While I watched videos on YouTube the other day, one of your ads popped up.  Not having the sense to push the "skip ad" button, I watched it the entire way through.  Then I did a double-take and searched for your ad on-line so I could take another look and make sure that you'd actually been as gross and racist as I thought you'd been.

As it turns out, you had been!  You were just that gross and racist, indeed.

To refresh your memory, here's the audio, which is voiced by what sounds like an unhappy white woman.  I'll describe the relevant visuals in a moment:

A broken system failing Arkansas families and hardworking taxpayers.  Now some politicians in Little Rock want to put 89,000 more people onto its rolls and depend on Washington for funding. But what happens when Washington stops paying?  Thousands of Arkansans with less access to quality care.  More control handed to the federal government.  Call your representative or senator.  Tell them to vote against Medicaid private expansion.  It's wrong for Arkansas.  We deserve better.

The racism comes in two parts.  First, the casting.  When I watch your ad, none of the actors seem to be people of color.  I see a bunch of white people.  Where are the people of color?  As this is an ad relating to Arkansas state politics, you might be interested to note that black people, for example, make up over 15% of the state's population, compared to 13% of the population of the country as a whole.  If you're addressing Arkansans, and if you're trying to cast actors who represent Arkansans, then include a variety of the kinds of people who make up the state.  The Arkansas I know and live in is not lily-white.  "White people" and "Arkansans" are not synonymous.

Next, your ad begins commentary on the big, bad, federal government.  At this point, you switch from photography and footage of human beings to computer-generated images.  The image you choose is a monolithic, advancing army of faceless, tall, slender, black men.

Let's examine this.  You didn't simply choose stock imagery of the federal government.  No, you wanted to evoke the idea of an enemy, some evil human entity coming to steal and misuse our money.  Yet you didn't continue to use photography and footage of actual human beings, as you had throughout the rest of the commercial until that point.  That might have been too humanizing.  So you went with computer-generated images of faceless, shadowy figures.

No, not shadowy figures.  They're literally black.  Black men.  Tall, slender black men to represent the federal government, advancing, monolithic.  Threatening.  Scary.  Black men are coming to steal our money, to abuse the system.

Let's be clear: this is racist, and I firmly believe that it's meant to be racist.  We see hard-working, suffering white people just trying to get by, and then we see a threatening army of President Obamas marching forward, bent on destruction.  This is not a coincidence, this is a dog whistle.  It's racist, and it's disgusting.

I've been hesitant about how I identify myself on this blog, but fuck it: I'm a white Arkansan, and your racist bullshit doesn't work on me.  The title of your ad is that "Arkansans Deserve Better," and yes, you're right.  Arkansans deserve better.  Better than this racist garbage, better than your divisive tactics, better than your nasty dog whistles.

Come back to me when you can promote your message without erasing all of the people of color in this state and without relying on your audience's ingrained racism.

Americans for Prosperity?  My goal for a prosperous USA necessitates racial equality and racial diversity.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Bill O'Reilly and Keith Ablow

Dear Bill O'Reilly and Keith Ablow,

You sat down together on national television to talk about the popularity of Psy's "Gangnam Style" video.  It's hit a landmark number of views on YouTube, and you wanted to figure out why.

If I squint, it seemed like you started to touch on a conversation about the nature of pop music and whether or not the escapist qualities of the Internet and pop culture are harmful.

But in essence, all I really got was five minutes of nonsensical racism.

A few choice moments:

The most popular music apparently is that without intelligible words to some extent. 

So it means nothing but it's got a nice upbeat to it. 

The meaning is that it has no meaning. 

Elvis Presley could sing, he had a good voice, his songs had words.

You don't understand Hangul.  That doesn't mean that the entire language is without meaning.  Psy isn't babbling nonsensically in made-up words.  He's speaking his native language.  The song itself has meaning; you just don't understand it.

Is there a larger discussion to be had about the massive popularity of a song in a language that much of its audience doesn't speak?  Yes.  Did you really have that conversation?  No.

You emphasized the point that "Gangnam Style" is popular on (and largely because of) the Internet, but you didn't think about the fact that people can look up translations of the lyrics?

Look, here's an article from a place you're probably familiar with:

Gangnam is a wealthy neighborhood in the South Korean city of Seoul where young people go to party. In the song, Psy describes the kind of guy he is and the kind of girl he wants, painting caricatures of the ostentatious culture of people who hang out in Gangnam. 

As The Atlantic pointed out in an in-depth article last month, behind the flashy costumes and killer dance moves in Psy's video, there's a subtle commentary on class in South Korea. 

WHAT DOES THE CHORUS, 'OPPAN GANGNAM STYLE,' MEAN? 

It roughly means something like 'Your man has Gangnam Style.' 'Oppa,' which literally means 'older brother,' is an affectionate term girls use to address older guy friends or a boyfriend. It can also be used as a first-person pronoun, as PSY does here — in this case, he's telling a woman that he has Gangnam style.

Look at that, The Atlantic did an in-depth article!  It's almost as if there's some sort of substance to this song that might be relevant to the video!  As if Psy isn't merely babbling out meaningless nonsense!  Wait, this song has lyrics?  Fascinating!

Then you bring out this lovely line:

This is a little fat guy from Pyongyang or someplace, Seoul.

Maybe you're not familiar with world history.  Or even with national history.  But assigning just any Asian person to just any Asian country is racist.  Further, assigning someone from South Korea to North Korea is culturally insensitive.  They're very different countries, as someone who earns a living commenting on politics might need to know.

There are like sixteen guys named Sy on Long Island that I could tell you about, they don't look like him.

Now you're mocking his stage name?  Laughing over the fact that people of Asian ethnicity don't look like people of Italian ethnicity?  "Ha ha, he has a stage name, ha ha, he's Asian, ha ha!"  Fantastic political commentary, there.

You spend some time talking about Elvis Presley.  You end up arguing that Elvis Presley, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and Justin Bieber are real musicians with real music, while "Gangnam Style" is utter nonsense and Psy makes meaningless music.  As if the popularity of "Gangnam Style" marks some historic turn where pop culture deteriorates from talent and substance to nothingness.

This kind of pop music: interesting, meaningful
That kind of pop music: nonsensical, meaningless, potentially harmful and dangerous to civilization as we know it

This kind of pop musician: talented, can sing, can dance
That kind of pop musician: no talent whatsoever

This kind of pop music: in English
That kind of pop music: in Hangul

This kind of pop musician: white, American/English/Canadian
That kind of pop musician: Korean

You spent five minutes saying racist things during a discussion predicating on the idea that "Gangnam Style" is a song without meaning.  Are you also upset that Shakira randomly lapses into garbled babble-speak as well?  Are you also worried about the sanity of those deluded opera-goers who are so fond of meaningless babble-music?

It's not in English!  I don't immediately understand what it means!  Therefore it is devoid of all substance!

It's not in English!  Therefore it is nonsense!

I don't understand it!  Therefore no one else does, either!

The two of you are not the center of the universe.  A wonderful and vibrant world exists beyond you.  Some people speak Hangul.  Some people like Korean pop music.  Some people know how to look things up on the Internet.

If you want to talk about pop music as escapism and whether or not Facebook is bad for society, have that discussion.  Leave the racism out of it.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Conservatives

Passing references to forced birth and rape culture ahead.

Dear Conservatives,

You know how sometimes you say something innocuous or well-meaning or perfectly ordinary, but it's poorly worded?  And all of a sudden someone takes offense and word spreads and people start jumping all over you, hounding you for a slip-up and twisting your words around and making it seem as if you're a hideous, woman-hating monster of a person when you were really just trying to explain a fairly common political position?  You hate that, right?

Here's why that happens: You've torn your drawers.  You're past the point where we can extend the benefit of the doubt.  When you speak, your words join all of the words of all of the other members of your party and leaders of your party who've voted against women, spoken against women, fought against women's rights, worked to limit reproductive freedom, and on, and on, and on.

Maybe you didn't really mean to say anything harmful or disgusting at all.  Maybe it really was a slip of the tongue.  But it's just as possible that you meant every word that you said.  It's just as possible that your beliefs and your votes and your political efforts are devoted to hateful, garbage ideas.  We've heard from too many people who say those things and genuinely mean them.  They're people in your party, your colleagues, your associates.

No, you say, those people aren't like me!  They don't represent me!  That's good, but then it falls to you to make that distinction.  You have to fight against their ideas and push back.

For example, there are plenty of people who call themselves feminists who say terrible things.  Therefore, I make an effort not to say those things and (this next step is important) to speak up and fight against those things.  That way, if I say something that sounds *ist when what I meant was something else entirely, when someone says, "Ugh, that was really gross, I can't stand feminists who think that way," I can say, "I know, I'm so sorry, that wasn't what I meant at all, I'm sorry that I phrased that so poorly.  I've been working to fight those attitudes, myself."  Then maybe the conversation can continue and we'll have a chance to work through the misunderstanding.

If I hear that a conservative Republican has spouted off about how anyone who gets pregnant should be forced to give birth and women don't deserve to be paid or hired or promoted the same ways that men do because they'll just run off and get pregnant anyway and rape is only really bad under a certain set of very specific conditions, I'm not going to assume that the remarks were taken out of context.  I'm not going to assume that it's all a misunderstanding, all a slip of the tongue.  I'm not going to take the time to contact him personally to find out what he really believes.  I'm going to think, "More of the same," because I've heard all of those things from many, many conservative Republicans before.

But all is not lost!  There is good news!  If you want to buy the benefit of the doubt back and garner some good will so that I can take "I misspoke" more seriously as a defense, there are several strategies you might employ!  If you don't want people to associate you and your party with *ist attitudes, you can speak up privately and publicly against *ist attitudes, behavior, and discrimination.  You can make your voting record reflect your stance.  You can draft and support relevant legislation.  You can donate time and effort to related causes.

That way, instead of the typical "More of the same" response of disgust at your hateful slip of the tongue, I might instead say, "Oh, [Name] said that?  That's a real surprise, he's typically great when it comes to that issue.  Let me delve a little deeper and see what's really going on here."

You'll get the benefit of the doubt back once you've earned it.  It'll take a lot of work, because the rest of your party makes you look worse every day, but it's worth it.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Todd Akin

Discussion of rape and rape culture to follow.

“...I said one word and one sentence on one day, and everything changed,” Akin told Huckabee, an early supporter. “I haven’t done anything morally or ethically wrong. It does seem like a little bit of an overreaction.”
-Todd Akin

Dear Todd Akin,

You don't seem to understand what's actually going on.  I've been focusing on other angles of this issue because I assumed that everyone else was covering it aptly, but apparently you haven't been paying attention.

Let's take it back to what you actually said.

"First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare," Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Akin said that even in the worst-case scenario — when the supposed natural protections against unwanted pregnancy fail — abortion should still not be a legal option for the rape victim.

"Let's assume that maybe that didn't work, or something," Akin said. "I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."

According to you, the "one word" you "misspoke" was "legitimate." I'm glad that you understand how wrong it was to say that.  It was an incredibly hateful, policing thing to say, the sort of verbiage I'd expect from a promoter of rape culture, and it's good that you realize it was wrong.

Although, if you understand that "legitimate" was wrong, and you understand why it was wrong, it seems contradictory for you to defend yourself with, "I haven’t done anything morally or ethically wrong."  Separating out rape into "legitimate rape" and "forcible rape" and "rape-rape" and so on seems morally wrong to me.  It's disgusting and morally repugnant to act as if "violent stranger rape" is real rape, and the other kinds are less-than-rape, kinda-sorta rape, not really rape.  Calling certain kinds of rape "legitimate" as if the rest are not is doing something morally wrong.

But you say that you didn't mean to say "legitimate."  Let's take you at your word.  Here's what you apparently meant to say:

"First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare," Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. "If it's rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Akin said that even in the worst-case scenario — when the supposed natural protections against unwanted pregnancy fail — abortion should still not be a legal option for the rape victim.

"Let's assume that maybe that didn't work, or something," Akin said. "I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."

Well, that's terrible.

I don't know who those doctors were, but they're poorly educated and spreading dangerous misinformation.  Pregnancy from rape is not "really rare."  According to the American Journal of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an estimated “32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.”  Consider that: 32,101.  Each year.  In one country.  More significant than "really rare," I'd say.

Then we get to: "If it's rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

If it's rape?  If?  If it's really rape.  Because, you know, it might not be.  It could be one of those "she cried rape" situations.  One of those cases of morning-after regrets.  She was asking for it, you know.

Women do not have unique powers of mind control.  Women do not have "ways" to circumvent their bodies natural processes.  A lot of physical functions are autonomic.  Women can't make their hearts stop pumping or make their stomachs stop digesting, so why would you think that they'd be able to stop their reproductive organs from working?

This, of course, is where the patriarchy steps in to remind us that women's reproductive systems are very mysterious and sort of magical and can't ever really be understood by men.  Women are, of course, basically incomprehensible.  The answer to my last question was "misogyny."

It is true that in certain situations, some women's bodies may respond to great stress by miscarrying.  That is true of some women in some situations.  Just as "salad and jogging" doesn't equate to "lose 5 pounds a week" like some magical formula, "rape and stress" doesn't equate to "miscarriage" or "infertility."  Everyone's body is different.  Everyone's body reacts differently.  All women are not the same.  A lot of women have hearty bodies and smoothly functioning organs which will go on merrily about their business no matter how much distress the woman has been through.  You can be in a car accident and continue to digest.  You can be shot and still continue to breathe.  You can be raped and still become pregnant.

In that one sentence, you basically said, "I'm incredibly ill-informed, I'm either lying or I have no ability to discern reputable sources from uneducated fools, I don't understand women, I know little to nothing about women's experiences, I support and promote rape culture, I think that women lie, and I need to educate myself immediately on human biology."  In other words, "I'm a mendacious, incompetent asshole and I hate women."

If that's not what you meant, you have some work to do.

But you didn't stop there!  The fun just kept flowing:

...abortion should still not be a legal option for the rape victim.

"Let's assume that maybe that didn't work, or something," Akin said. "I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."

As I said, you don't seem to understand human biology very well.  To clarify, there is no child.  "Attacking a child" brings to mind images of someone assaulting a five-year-old.  When someone aborts a pregnancy, that's something that happens (pay attention here) while she's pregnant.

abort a pregnancy =/= attack a child

With the basics of the life cycle out of the way, let's look at the rest of this nonsense.

When someone is pregnant, "there should be some punishment."  That's what you said.  The magical rape-infertility process failed, the way magical processes sometimes do, and now the rape victim is pregnant.  "There should be some punishment," is your response.

Are you advocating for jail time for rape, and extra jail time for rape plus impregnation?  Is this a new bill you're working on?  Maybe jail time plus expenses for mental health and abortion costs and, oh, no, that can't be it.  You think that abortion should be illegal.  Period.  Across the board.  For everyone, at all times.

Now it's time for you to hop on over and read what I wrote to your pal Mike Huckabee about this.  I'll wait.

Back?  Okay!

Overall, in a few sentences, you said that sometimes rape isn't really rape.  You lied about human biology in a way that turns at least 32,101 Americans a year into liars who weren't really raped.  You declared that a legal and safe medical procedure should be made illegal because, uh, why?  You turned a pregnancy into a living, independent, human child to make abortion look bad (and to make people who have abortions look bad).  You want to force rape victims to endure nine months of pregnancy plus labor to bear a rapist's child at a time when they most need to be in control of their own bodies.

You have a lot of learning to do.  Starting with what "morally or ethically wrong" means.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Steve King

Discussion of rape and rape culture to follow.

Dear Steve King,

As a Congressman, you must do a lot of talking in front of microphones and reporters.  It's understandable that you might word your thoughts awkwardly from time to time.

I don't think that's what's happening here.

Here's what a reporter asked you:

You support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act that would provide federal funding for abortions to a person that has been forcefully raped. But what if someone isn’t forcibly raped and for example, a 12-year-old who gets pregnant? Should she have to bring this baby to term?

 Here's your direct reply:

Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way and I’d be open to hearing discussion about that subject matter. Generally speaking it’s this: that there millions of abortions in this country every year. Millions of them are paid for at least in part by taxpayers. I think it’s immoral for us to compel conscientious objecting taxpayers to fund abortion through the federal government, or any other government for that matter. So that’s my stand. And if there are exceptions there, then bring me those exceptions let’s talk about it. In the meantime it’s wrong for us to compel pro-life people to pay taxes to fund abortion.

On the subject of a 12-year-old being impregnated by her rapist, the first words out of your mouth are, "Well, I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance," as if it's imaginary, a flight of fancy.  You follow that up with, "that's been brought to me in any personal way," as if you'd need the 12-year-old in question to approach you about it personally.  Then you get to, "if there are exceptions here, then bring me those exceptions."  "Let's talk about it," you say.  "In the meantime..."

All of that conveys a very clear idea that you doubt the situation exists.  You know nothing of it and if it were real, someone would have told you by now.  You're open to it, after all!

Which is an odd stance to take, considering what you said only weeks earlier (emphasis mine):

What I've said is that we need to respect humans more than we do animals. Whenever we start elevating animals up to, to above that of humans, we've crossed a moral line. For example, if there's a sexual predator out there who has impregnated a young girl, say a 13 year old girl, and it happens in America more times than you and I like to think, that sexual predator can pick that girl off the playground at the middle school and haul her across the state line and force her to get an abortion to eradicate the evidence of his crime, and bring her back and drop her off at the swing set, and that's not against the law in the United States of America. I have told Wayne Pacelle and the people who believe we should focus all of our efforts on the, on anything they can bring that limits activity around animals, that we need to respect and revere human life first, animal life second.

The rape and impregnation of teenaged girls makes a great hypothetical when you need a handy comparison to dog fighting, but it's an anomaly, a flight of fancy that you've certainly never encountered before, when it's the actual topic at hand.

You're comfortable with rape as your go-to point illustrator, but you're completely unfamiliar with it in real life.

The victimization of girls "happens in America more times than you and I like to think" but if it happens you'd like to hear about it.

Try to take this in: rape is not just a convenient hypothetical.  The victimization of girls isn't just a rhetorical device.  This is a reality.  You know that it's a reality.  You don't get to pretend that it doesn't happen when it suddenly becomes politically unpleasant.

While we're here, let's talk about the rest of that blather.  "I think it’s immoral for us to compel conscientious objecting taxpayers to fund abortion through the federal government, or any other government for that matter."  Isn't it also immoral for to compel us to fund war?  Are you campaigning against that?

But that's not a fair comparison, is it?  War is a violent atrocity.  Abortion is a legal medical procedure.  In war, people are killed in great numbers.  In abortion, pregnancy is ended.  Oh, but war is necessary, you'd argue!  Abortion is necessary, too, to protect the health, livelihood, quantity and quality of life of millions of Americans.

We pay taxes for the greater good.  It's part of living in a thriving society.  In a functioning society, people need access to medical services, health care, and reproductive rights, even if you personally don't agree with their choices.  I don't like war, so I don't start wars and I haven't signed up for the military.  I urge you not to get an abortion.

With love,
Frank Lee

P.S. Your apparent stance on animal cruelty makes me want to go hug a dog.

Dear Mike Huckabee

Discussion of rape and rape culture ahead.

"Ethel Waters, for example, was the result of a forcible rape," Huckabee said of the late American gospel singer. One-time presidential candidate Huckabee added: "I used to work for James Robison back in the 1970s, he leads a large Christian organization. He, himself, was the result of a forcible rape. And so I know it happens, and yet even from those horrible, horrible tragedies of rape, which are inexcusable and indefensible, life has come and sometimes, you know, those people are able to do extraordinary things."
-Mike Huckabee

Dear Mike Huckabee,

Before we go any farther, stop saying "forcible rape."  Just say "rape."  The term "forcible rape" makes it seem as if there's "forcible rape," which is the bad, violent kind, and then there's other rape, you know, not rape-rape, just sort-of-rape, it wasn't really forcible or anything, she just wasn't that into it, you know how women are.

With that out of the way, let's examine the rest of that dreck.

Right, so basically you're saying that "some people make the best of a bad situation."  Or, "the sperm of rapists isn't automatically contaminated with evil."  Or something.  What's your point here?  Yes, some people grow up to "do extraordinary things."  That's terrific!  I agree!

Here's the thing about that "life has come" part.  "Life has come" is a really vague way to gloss over the fact that someone had to endure nine months of pregnancy followed by labor (and we all know what a sweet little tea party that always is).  And then someone (most often the person who just did the whole pregnancy-and-labor thing) has to rear the child.  For a long time.

What you said, that sometimes people who have been raped become pregnant and bear children, and sometimes those children grow up to become professional Christians, is a fact.  It is not an argument.  (Although you were speaking with Todd Akin at the time, so, "Yes, you fool, sometimes people do get pregnant from being raped" is, unfortunately, not taken for granted.)

It is true that people conceived through rape may contribute positively to the world.  It's not as if the seed of rapists is sown in Lucifer's garden or anything.  It's not as if "I must rape" is encoded into the chromosomes somewhere, just waiting for the next generation.  No one's suggesting that we're suffering an epidemic of rape babies growing up to be a drain on society.

But let's look at why someone who's been raped may not want to continue a pregnancy.

1.) Well, you were just raped, so you're probably going through a lot right now, so dealing with that and taking care of yourself comes first.

2.) The pregnancy may be a constant reminder of the assault you've just suffered.

3.) Being raped involves a loss of control, an inability to stop someone else from using your body.  A pregnancy can be uncomfortably similar at a time when you want to reestablish control.

4.) As you probably weren't planning to be raped and become pregnant, you probably weren't preparing your life for child-rearing.  You may not be ready for pregnancy or parenthood, financially or physically or otherwise.

5.) You may be married or have a significant other who is unwilling to help you to rear your rapist's child.

6.) People are going to ask who the father is.

7.) The child is going to ask who the father is.

8.) What if the father wants visitation rights?  What if he pops up five years down the road and tries to involve himself in your child's life?  Statistically speaking, you were probably raped by someone you know.  You can only guess how he'll react if he realizes that the child is his.  Even if he doesn't get involved initially, he has the rest of the child's life to change his mind.

9.) Along with the "raped by someone you know" part comes the fact that you may know the rapist's significant other, the rapist's children, etc.  You may be a member of the rapist's family.

10.) If you're one of the few who ends up seeing a rapist on trial, I can only imagine how the defense will twist "but she's carrying his baby!" into an argument that it wasn't really rape.

There's a lot more, but you get the gist of it.  While you may think of pregnancy as the potential for another wonderful Christian in the world, the actual rape victim has a much more complex understanding of the situation.  You can pat yourself on the back for acknowledging how indefensible "forcible" rape is, but maybe if you had more feminists who fight the rape culture and work for reproductive rights on your show, and fewer people like Todd Akin, you'd be more respectful of what real survivors go through.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Mitt Romney

"We had a moment of silence in honor of the people who lost their lives at that sheik temple. I noted that it was a tragedy for many, many reasons. Among them are the fact that people, the sheik people, are among the most peaceable and loving individuals you can imagine, as is their faith."
—Mitt Romney

Dear Mitt Romney,

I would like someone running for President of the United States of America to be a good orator.  A skilled public speaker.  Someone who doesn't make embarrassing gaffes, particularly in regards to a domestic terrorist act.

I would like someone running for POTUS to be well-educated enough to know the correct terms for various types of citizens, including religious minorities.

You're running for POTUS right now.  At this very moment!  I would like you to be smart as well as sensitive to the issues affecting your people.

One of the problems relevant to this very terrorist act is the conflation of people of color.  The conflation of religious groups.  If you're an angry white man with notions of white supremacy and Christian supremacy filling your head, you might not know the difference between Muslim and Sikh.  You probably don't care.  You're full of fear and hate and everything the patriarchy's been pumping into you since birth, and you're ready for action.  You don't care who that action hurts.  They're people of color who dare not to be Christian, and that's enough for you.  Muslim, Sikh, what's the difference?  Sikh, sheik, what's the difference?  They're not like you, right?  They're interchangeable and incomprehensible anyway.

What you said fed right into that.  It rang those very same bells.

Maybe you spoke out of ignorance, but this isn't the time for ignorance.  This isn't a time for insensitivity.  This isn't a time for mistakes and gaffes.  This is a time when it's very important to get it right, as right as we can.

I hope that you become a compassionate, thoughtful man and a silver-tongued orator, and I wish you well in the pursuit of that goal.  But I hope that someone who's already a step ahead of you in the not-being-racist department becomes the next POTUS.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Pat Robertson

Dear Pat Robertson,

Recently, you said some pretty ridiculous things about a terrorist act.  Violent tragedies which expose some of the nastiest problems in our national culture are not the best place to make ridiculous statements, so I hope that you'll ponder your mistakes and strive to speak more appropriately in the future.

Let's look at some of the bullshit you went with this time:

...televangelist Pat Robertson came to the conclusion that Sunday morning’s Sikh temple massacre in Oak Creek, Wisc., was ultimately because “atheists hate God.”

“What is it?” Robertson wondered aloud. “Is it satanic? Is it some spiritual thing?”

“People who are atheists, they hate God, they hate the expression of God,” he continued. “And they are angry with the world, angry with themselves, angry with society and they take it out on innocent people who are worshipping God.”

First, atheists don't hate God.  Atheists don't believe in God.  Atheism is defined by a lack of belief.  There is no deity for them to hate.  I don't hate the tooth fairy; there is no tooth fairy.  I don't hate the Easter bunny; there is no Easter bunny.  I don't hate Zeus.  There is no Zeus.  There's nothing for me to hate.

Do atheists hate Christians?  I'm sure that some of them do.  And a lot of Christians have given them plenty of good reason for it.  Frankly, you're not exactly helping.

Why, precisely, do you think that atheists hating God is at all related to Satan?  Are you trying to say that atheists worship and obey Satan?  You do understand, I hope, that since atheists are defined by their lack of belief, they don't believe in Satan, either?  They don't worship Satan.  If they did, they wouldn't be atheists.  Maybe you're implying that they're innocently and helplessly being used by Satan in some sort of anti-Christian plot?  Okay, that's possible; I have no idea what Satan's up to these days.  But that wouldn't be their fault, it would be Satan's fault; they'd just be pawns in some merciless game.

Here's the problem with that theory, though: it removes human agency.  It erases the motives of the actual killer.  It ignores all of the cultural and systemic problems which played into what happened.  It permits us as a nation to wash our hands of the entire issue and pretend that nothing could've been done to prevent the tragedy.  It discourages us from taking steps to prevent it from happening again.

Atheists are not angry.  No angrier than anyone else, I'd imagine.  Do you have independent and verifiable research?  If there are any scientific results which point to atheists being significantly unhappy, can you prove that it's not because they live in a nation filled with Christian supremacy and nationally known figures like you who blame them for terrorist acts?  If people pointed the finger at me every time a national tragedy (whether natural or otherwise) occurred, I'd be pretty testy, too.

Any more words of wisdom for us?

“Whether it’s a Sikh temple, or a Baptist church, or a Catholic church, or a Muslim mosque — whatever it is — I just abhor this kind of violence, and it’s the the kind of thing that we should do something about,” he said. “But what do you do? Well, you talk about the love of God and hope it has some impact,” the TV preacher recommended.

Those things are not equal.  Not in this country.  Not in a culture where Christianity reigns.  It's appalling, disgusting, abhorrent, that in commenting on a terrorist act which specifically targeted a minority religion and a temple full of people of color you're acting as if it were just the same as if a white Baptist church had been attacked.

When an abortion clinic is bombed, do you compare it to Johns Hopkins being bombed and shake your head in regret that anti-healthcare people are at it again?  You are deliberately misrepresenting what has happened.  This is not a case where any old generic house of worship was attacked and any old congregants were killed.  In a majority Christian nation, a non-Christian religion was targeted.  In a racist nation, people of color were targeted.  This is not about atheism, but you got one thing right: this is about hatred.  And fear.  And the lies we tell about Christianity being under assault.  And the lies we tell about white men being in more danger than anyone else; being in danger from everyone else.

What is particularly striking about Robertson’s conclusion is that, as of yet, there has been no evidence that the alleged gunman Wade Michael Page was an atheist. In fact, neo-Nazism and white supremacy movements often encompass a form of Christianity that emphasizes racial purity and nationalism.

 Got that?  "A form of Christianity that emphasizes racial purity and nationalism."

Christianity emphasizing racial purity and nationalism.

Neo-Nazi.  White power.  Christianity.

You blame atheists as if nonbelievers are the problem.  You blame Satan as if all-powerful figures are at work and we're helpless to do anything about it.  You skew a terrorist act as if Christians are under attack.  As if Christians aren't often the terrorists themselves.

The narrative that Christianity is under attack is part of the problem.  Pointing the finger at anyone else, everyone else, from people who aren't like you to mythical figures, isn't going to solve the problem.  I'd like to solve the problem.  I hope that someday soon you do, too, because your voice reaches more ears than mine, and it's going to take a lot of us to make a difference.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Lisa Suhay

Dear Lisa Suhay,

I read your recent article on Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas. You admit mid-article that you shouldn't judge other parents.  You say that "of course you never want to judge."  I really think that you should have stuck with that idea and not written this article at all.  Yet you push past it with "the tendency to judge other parents is pretty powerful" and continue blithely on.

You know that you shouldn't judge other parents, but you feel that the tendency to do so is "pretty powerful" in certain circumstances, and that's enough justification to write a public article for a widely read title?  Your own impulses trump your morals fairly easily, there.  While we're talking about parenting, what sort of example are you setting for your children?  I wouldn't ask, but, considering the circumstances, the tendency to judge you is pretty powerful.

The article is about how the biological parent-child bond is so important that anything, including Olympic dreams, should be sacrificed to keep the family unit together.  However, early on, you say:

Still, visit any highly competitive training facility in sport, child or adult, and it truly is a family complete with all the love and dysfunction of the real thing.

Emphasis mine.  Sentence yours.  If children get genuine familial love and a sense of family from a training facility, is being away from family to train for the Olympics really so anti-family?

"I wanted to make my Olympic dreams a reality, so I told my Mom, 'I need a better coach, and I need a better coach now,' " Douglas told Time magazine. I'm sure she's a lovely child, I adore her smile and am rooting for her and shouting at my TV set like anyone else, but all I could think of was Veruca Salt in Willy Wonka and what happened to her. It made me ask, "Who's the parent?"

The parent is the person who heard what Gabby said, agreed with her, and arranged for the move to the new coach.  The parent is the person who supports her daughter's dreams and recognizes her daughter's potential and helps her to realize her goals.  Do you want her mother to bring the topic up first?  Or do you want Gabby to be less ambitious?

However, all the reports today talk about how this Olympian has blossomed in Iowa

Great!  That's terrific.  Her new situation seems to be going very well for her, then.

Perhaps the stability and not just the coaching is what this child really needed coming from a home where her mother, who according the Virginian-Pilot divorced the same man twice and has struggled on disability to provide for her needs.

You may want to edit that sentence, as the syntax is a little off.

This is where shit gets real.  This is where your article stops pretending at idle musing and gets right into the judgmental criticism.  Her mother divorced the same man twice!  Her mother's poor!  For all of your "keep the family together at all costs" rhetoric, it's very telling that suddenly it's better to farm the kids out away from that all-important family unit if it'll get them away from the atrocities of poverty and divorce.

I'm not rooting for poverty and divorce.  I also don't think that poverty and divorce make people bad parents.  I don't know anything about this family's financial situation or how it affects their day-to-day living.  I don't know anything about why Gabby's mother married that guy or divorced him.  It doesn't sound like you do, either.  Have you been to their home and talked with their friends and family and sat in their kitchen and helped out at bedtime and discussed marital history?  Probably not.  Does Gabby's mother confide in you?  Probably not.  Do you know much about Gabby's siblings or their lives or their schooling or how loved and supported they are?  Again, probably not.

Poor people have kids and rear children and live as parents all of the time.  Is it ideal, no.  Struggling financially or not being able to afford certain luxuries or not being able to provide your child with certain opportunities hurts.  But Gabby's mother did provide her with great opportunities and was able to give her a great shot at rare success so very, very few people ever get to strive for at all.  Does Gabby's mother give her a new pony every year, I'd guess not.  Did Gabby's mother support her dreams and encourage her success and help her to realize her goals?  Yes.  Which of those two is more important when it comes to parenting?

I realize that I do not have what it takes to be any kind of Olympic parent. My hat is off to you all. Yet I wave my hat and smile for the parents who chose the path that kept them walking right beside their child. The path where everyone is under the same roof or at least in the same state at the end of the day.

I believe that there is a deeper strength we must train into a child, a tempering that forges their ability to win in life and still be on the medal stand. The kind of Olympic mom who is up at 5 a.m. making toast and hugging her child and whispering, "You can do this," in her ear before the event. I would not be able to give that responsibility to a stranger because those are the golden moments all parents treasure – win or lose.

Here's where you make it plain that the focus isn't your child.  The focus is you.  Your desires, your goals, your interests, your memories.  You want your children beside you.  You want to enjoy golden moments.  I understand where you're coming from, but what's best for the parent isn't always what's best for the child.  What's best for the family overall isn't always what's best for the child.

Parenting includes sacrifice, and I expect that you know that.  I know as little about Gabby's family as you do, but now that we've heard your interpretation of events, here's mine.  I like to think that Gabby's mother loves her enough to do what's best for her.  Gabby's mother recognized her potential and was willing to sacrifice that same-roof golden-momentness to help her achieve her goals.  As opposed to thinking, I'm poor and this house is chaotic so she's better off somewhere else, maybe her mother thought, My daughter's something great and I want to help her to make the most of her amazing gifts even if it means missing out on sharing her life the way I want to.

If it comes down to reaching for the stars or being tucked into bed at night by their mother, your kids will get tucked into bed.  You want your children right beside you where you can teach them the values most important to you.  Instead, Gabby's mother taught her daughter that her gifts are special, that her goals are important, that her family shares and encourages her dreams.  Isn't that better than, "I love you and I support you, only as far as your needs mesh conveniently with mine?"

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Consumers

Dear Consumers,

While many people are choosing to boycott Chick-fil-A and object to their proud homophobia, and others are choosing to celebrate Chick-fil-A in their own nasty ways, some of you are making apathetic comments.  You seem to think that we shouldn't care, that it doesn't matter where we eat, that it doesn't matter what a fast food company owner thinks politically.

If I want to buy a new shirt, maybe there are only three stores in town.  Store X sells great-looking shirts and makes it a point to hire only part-time employees so it won't have to extend benefits.  Store Y sells shirts that always fit me really well and dyes its clothing with some pigment found in rocks dug up by abused children in a foreign country.  Store Z sells shirts which aren't as fashionable but treats its employees fairly well.

The money I spend on that shirt helps to keep that store open and fund those business practices.

Other people will see me in that shirt, so I'm providing advertising for its company.

Other people will see my car in the parking lot and will see me in the store, so my very presence demonstrates to others that this is a good place to shop.  If they had qualms about the company's business practices, they can assuage their guilt by noticing that they're not alone there; other people shop there, too, so it must not be all that bad.

You're voting with your wallet.  When you spend money with someone, you're saying, "Hey, I support what you're doing here."  You're supporting the product and the company behind it.

Music fans will make it a point to go out and buy a favorite musician's album as opposed to downloading it illegally because they understand that sales make a difference.  When gamers don't like a new feature of World of Warcraft, they cancel their subscriptions in protest.  When a big national chain comes into town, some people boycott it and deliberately choose to spend their money with small, local stores to keep those local owners in business.

Why does it matter that the people behind Chick-fil-A are homophobic?  For one, corporate culture.  If the people at the top are homophobic, they're likely to be homophobic in their hiring practices, in their corporate policies, and so on.  For another, they actively support homophobic organizations.  They've donated millions of dollars to anti-equality groups.  They're fighting against equal rights for all citizens, and you're cheerfully supporting them because you think their chicken is tasty?

Civil rights < chicken?

Maybe civil rights < pizza for you, too.  Papa John himself donates millions to Republican campaigns and hosted an exclusive fundraiser for Mitt Romney.  Maybe you're a Romney-loving Republican, too.  Or maybe you just like that little tub of sauce you get in the pizza box.

Sometimes the decision of where to spend your money is complex.  One company funds homophobic campaigns, another exploits its workers, and another does shady things abroad.  You start to wonder if you can safely spend your money anywhere.  Maybe you'd love to spend your money with one company, but you can only afford the one with terrible practices.

Just as it's up to you to be a responsible citizen, it's up to you to be a responsible consumer.  Maybe you didn't know that Chick-fil-A was best friends with Focus on the Family, but now that you do, you can make an informed decision.  Maybe you can't afford to shop at an expensive but worker-friendly store, but you can make your opinions known to the terrible store you can afford, and you can continue to vote and agitate for better policies.

I don't care about Papa John's sexuality and I'm not interested in his private life.  I do like knowing that the Chick-fil-A family works so hard to entrench homophobia and fight against equality, because I don't want to support that kind of harmful hate.  It matters to me because human rights matter to me.  I'm not going to giggle over jokes about how no one cares what the Burger King does in bed, because that's not the point and you're well aware of that.  I'm not going to throw up my hands and say, "Eh, all corporations are evil to some extent, what can you do!"  I expect more.

I hope that someday you do, too.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs

Dear First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs,

I've heard that you recently coerced your pastor not to perform a wedding in your church because the bride and groom were black.  The couple in question, Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson, attended your church regularly and had already finalized plans with the pastor, but you didn't want a black couple's wedding to be performed at your church so the pastor performed the ceremony in another church instead.

As you can imagine, I find your racism to be absolutely disgusting.

The Wilsons have attended your church.  You'll share the Word and break bread with them, but you won't allow them to get married in your church?  Some churches don't perform the ceremony for non-members, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.  Your specific problem seems to be that the Wilsons are black.  And you were willing to eject your pastor from the church entirely to get what you wanted.

"The church congregation had decided no black could be married at that church, and that if he went on to marry her, then they would vote [the pastor] out the church," said Charles Wilson.

I've been made to understand that, within the bounds of Christianity, marriage is a sacred covenant with God.  It's certainly touted as a wholesome and beautiful sacrament.  Why would you not want this good, Christian ceremony to be performed within your church?  Presumably you permit white people to wed there.  So it's only for people of color that this becomes an issue.  Such a grave issue, in fact, that you'd fire your pastor over it.

I would assume that, as Christians, you believe a Christian marriage to be a good thing.  But it's not a good thing when black people do it.  It's such an intolerable abomination that it must not come to pass before your altar, certainly.  I wonder if you realize how intensely hateful you're being or what a hideously racist message you're sending.  No matter how Christian they consider themselves, black people aren't Christian enough to get married at your church.  Generally, the task of Christians is to evangelize, to bring more people to God, to spread the Word, to share the good news of Jesus Christ and His message for us.  Instead, you're turning people away.  Shoving them aside, rejecting them and anyone who supports them.  You're treating them as inherently not good enough to be Christian, too sinful to be cleansed.  Their skin is too dark for you.  Their souls are too dirty for Jesus.

Denying someone's God's love is about as hateful as a Christian can get.

I hope that you come to understand exactly how atrocious your behavior is and exactly how damaging your mindset is.  I hope that you learn to accept all of God's children into your church.  I hope that you learn to love.

I hope that the Wilsons enjoy a very happy marriage.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Chik-fil-A

“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”
-Dan Cathy, founder, Chik-fil-A

Dear Chik-fil-A,

Glad to hear that you're so happy in your marriages.

I'm puzzled by your recent homophobic statement about "the biblical definition of the family unit."  What exactly do you think that the Bible's definition of "family" is?

Of all of the books of the Bible, I didn't notice Dictionary being one of them.  When I did a search for the word "family" in general, I got 205 results.  Try it for yourself!

Aside from the typical stuff about someone wiping out an entire family because God desired it, I found some interesting, sometimes conflicting information.

For one thing, people seem very concerned with building a family

Genesis 16:2
New International Version (NIV)
2 so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”

Abram agreed to what Sarai said.

Genesis 30:3
New International Version (NIV)
3 Then she said, “Here is Bilhah, my servant. Sleep with her so that she can bear children for me and I too can build a family through her.”

 and preserving the family line

Genesis 19:32
New International Version (NIV)
32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”

Genesis 19:34
New International Version (NIV)
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.”

at all costs.

Here's a note on familial duty:

Deuteronomy 25:5
New International Version (NIV)
5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

Who, exactly, is a member of the family?

Judges 11:2
New International Version (NIV)
2 Gilead’s wife also bore him sons, and when they were grown up, they drove Jephthah away. “You are not going to get any inheritance in our family,” they said, “because you are the son of another woman.”

Proverbs 17:2
New International Version (NIV)
2 A prudent servant will rule over a disgraceful son
    and will share the inheritance as one of the family.

John 8:35
New International Version (NIV)
35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.

Are women, wives, daughters, important members of the family?

Jeremiah 35:3
New International Version (NIV)
3 So I went to get Jaazaniah son of Jeremiah, the son of Habazziniah, and his brothers and all his sons—the whole family of the Rekabites.

How large is a typical family?  How many wives do you have?

1 Chronicles 7:4
New International Version (NIV)
4 According to their family genealogy, they had 36,000 men ready for battle, for they had many wives and children.

I don't know.  I don't see a definition of family here, but I do see a lot of signs that you should do anything and everything to procreate wildly.  It's great that you're still married to your first wives, but you might want to add in at least a second and third if you really want to be biblical about it.

With love,
Frank Lee

Edited to add: click here, please.

Dear Mitt Romney

In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.

“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.

Dear Mitt Romney,

You're running for President of the United States of America.  This would be a good time to put your best foot forward.  You're under a lot of scrutiny.  We're paying attention not only to what you say and do but who you surround yourself with.

The people speaking in that linked article seem to be members of your foreign policy advisory team.  Other countries, you know, are full of "foreigners" and, in many cases, people who aren't as white as you are.  Being advised on foreign policy by racist assholes might lead to racist foreign policy ideas and decisions.  That's not a good thing.

There are many, many foreign policy experts you could've brought onto your team.  You chose this one.  You let him (encouraged him) to speak to the press.  He's speaking for your campaign, speaking for you.

I want to suggest that you surround yourself with better people, because I believe that if you're around better people you might become a better person, too.  On the other hand, if you continue to surround yourself with douchebags, maybe voters will be disgusted and vote for Obama instead, which would be great.

Even if you're happy with their racism, you should replace your foreign policy advisers on the basis of their bad ideas.  Basing foreign policy decisions on shared ethnicity seems like a bad way to go.  Isn't that one of the reasons that the president must be a natural-born citizen?  So that President Schwarzenegger doesn't base foreign policy on what benefits Austria instead of what's best for the USA?  It seems as if foreign policy decisions are already fraught with all sorts of racism and other biases, and it's hard enough to make sound, rational decisions without adding in some wink-wink nudge-nudge you know I'm on your side because WASPs rule, right?

Do you remember how people were worried about voting for Kennedy because he was Catholic and might make decisions based on what the Vatican wanted?  Are you aware that people have similar concerns about your Mormonism?  Do you really want to make it so clear that you'll steer the nation according to your personal affiliations?

Please work on your racism and your boys' club tendencies.  You're running for POTUS.  This would be a good time to strive to be a fair, ethical person.

With love,
Frank Lee

P.S. He feels that the special relationship is special?

Dear Boy Scouts of America

Dear Boy Scouts of America,

Congratulations to your super-secret committee on deciding to confirm how homophobic your organization is.  Your "no gay folks allowed!" sign looks great with that fresh coat of paint.

Here's my problem.  Your organization is homophobic.  To me, your hateful bullshit and exclusive policy are so disgusting that your decision communicates "we're homophobic assholes and proud of it!"

But other people love the Boy Scouts of America.  There are adults who gained a lot from their experience with you.  There are adults who contribute a lot to your organization now.  There are kids who build friendships and confidence with you.  To them, the BSA is great!

If the BSA is great, and the BSA is homophobic, then homophobia might be great, too.  You wouldn't discriminate without reason.  You're keeping those gay people away with good cause, right?  There must be something wrong with them.  Being gay must be a bad thing.

Will kids become homophobic solely because of your super-secret committee's decision?  Probably not.  But you don't operate in a vacuum.  Homophobia's all around them, sometimes from shady sources, sometimes from trusted sources.  We live in a homophobic society, and it takes progressive activism from the people around us to teach us not to be homophobic jerks.  It takes critical self-examination to uproot homophobic ideas.  What you're doing is reinforcing that garbage and encouraging hostility.

The Boy Scouts of America is one of the nation's largest and most prominent values-based youth development organizations. The BSA provides a program for young people that builds character, trains them in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and develops personal fitness.  For over a century, the BSA has helped build the future leaders of this country by combining educational activities and lifelong values with fun. The Boy Scouts of America believes — and, through over a century of experience, knows — that helping youth is a key to building a more conscientious, responsible, and productive society.

Homophobia is responsible citizenship?  Rejecting gay people is a step to building a productive society?  Oh, you're not kicking them out of society, are you, just out of your organization.  No gay people here!  No gay leaders.  No gay scouts.  No lesbian den mothers.  If gay kids want to participate, they'd better deny who they are, repress themselves, remain closeted lest anyone find out.  Sure, that's how to build character and help youth.

“The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers, and at the appropriate time and in the right setting,” said Bob Mazzuca, Chief Scout Executive, Boy Scouts of America.

I wonder what these "issues of same-sex orientation" are which need to be addressed.  Do you know what I think that the Boy Scouts need to teach kids about gay people?  That gay people exist.  That gay people are anywhere and everywhere, responsible citizens of our "conscientious, responsible, and productive society."

With love,
Frank Lee

With thanks to Pam's House Blend.

Dear USA

Dear USA,

This is atrocious.

The Texas Republican Party official platform has been updated, and it is a disgusting, contemptible, hateful mess.

It's also very real.  This is the real and current platform of politically active adults in a major party in a well-populated state.  This was written and directed by people with a lot of influence.

This is not the fringe.  This is the base.

It can be hard to admit how very, extensively hateful people in our country can be.  Not just hateful, hateful and powerful and numerous.  This is the Texas Republican Party.  The last president we had, whom we endured for two terms, was the Governor of Texas before he became president.

We have to take this seriously.  Gross and scary and hateful as their platform is, it's not unique.  It's not rare.  It's not unusual.  It is very, very normal and very, very mainstream.

If you needed a wake-up call, let this be it.  Get involved now.  Speak up, vote, donate, volunteer, agitate.

I want these ideas to be the fading roars of dinosaurs soon to be extinct.  I want this platform to be little more than a laughable footnote of history.  I'm counting on the notion that you do, too.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Feminists

Dear Feminists,

Hi!  I love you.

I just read this post over at Shakesville (about which I wrote this post).  In the comments, I wrote:

I was going to make a joke about filing everyone on that guest list under "People I Wish to Avoid."

But, really, people who spend that kind of money on Romney's campaign probably have a lot to learn about privilege and empathy, so shunning them won't do as much good as pushing them to become better people. So, maybe, instead of shunning them, it would be better to send them progressive feminist care packages.

And now I will spend my afternoon amusing myself by thinking of what I'd like to include in a progressive feminist care package. Would it be best delivered in a knapsack?

In response to that, Liss asked:

Could we deliver them in faux uteri labeled "here's your own to play with so you can leave mine the fuck alone?"

If we had a Get Your Shit Together package to send to people who are fucking up the world to invite them to join us so that we can make the world a better place that much faster, what would you want to put in it?  How would you want to deliver it?

We'd have to include books, or print-outs of blog posts, or magazine subscriptions.  But reading material is easy to scoff at and set aside.

Something that's helped me develop my feminism has been hearing individual people's stories.  It would be great if we could get more people (like the people pouring their money into Romney's campaign) to open up and hear real stories from real people's lives.  Enough stories from enough people to understand that individual solutions to systemic problems aren't good enough.

That would take a lot of people.  At least a busload.

Picture a bus pulling up in a campaign donor's driveway.  (In my mind, this looks a lot like Leslie Knope's bus pulling up in front of Bobby Newport's house.)  Picture a flood of people coming out.  People of all shapes and sizes and colors and backgrounds and ages and genders and sexualities.  All kinds of people, all of them progressive and fired up and ready to educate.  Picture them spending a week introducing the campaign donor to feminism, presenting him with an Introduction to Feminism package (in the shape of a uterus?), telling him about their lives and their experiences and their dreams and how all of that's been affected by the patriarchy.  And then they'll go off to take the next campaign donor by storm, while the ones they leave in their wake will stumble back into the world, dazed and wondering, eager little budding feminists ready to spend their time and money and political clout in progressive ways.

If you hopped off of that bus to speak with that campaign donor, what stories from your life would you want to tell him?

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Romney Supporters

Dear Romney Supporters,

I read on Shakesville that those of you who've been very generous to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign are being invited to a retreat.  It'll be "two days of policy sessions and campaign strategy discussions at a Deer Valley resort."

That sounds like a lot of fun.  Well, not to me, but presumably to you.

I'll admit, when I heard that the people who've garnered the most money for Romney's campaign were invited to a retreat, I thought to myself, "Great!  I wonder if I can get my hands on the guest list!  That'll be a handy way to know which people to avoid in life!"

Which was a silly thought to have, because it's not like you and I will ever cross paths.

It was also an unfair, unproductive thought.  It's part of my personal/political philosophy to expect more, to believe in hope, and to push people to be more considerate and empathetic in their dealings with the world.

I don't want to avoid you.  I want to help you.  If you're willing to donate to Romney's campaign and/or get your friends to donate, that means that:

a.) You have a certain amount of disposable income and you're willing to use it to effect change.
b.) You're politically involved.
c.) You're willing to speak up and encourage others to get involved in political causes.

That's great!  Those are great things!  Unfortunately, you're using all of that money and activism in the wrong direction.

Instead of attending "two days of policy sessions and campaign strategy discussions," why not attend something else?  I'd like to invite you to spend time with progressive feminists.  Now, I don't have the resources to throw together a resort retreat at the moment.  Maybe next year!  For now, I'd suggest that you sit down and read this.  All of the posts.  All of the comments.  Once you've finished, visit this site.  Read.  Get familiar with the people and discussions there.  Then go to Feministe and page through all of the comments sections, reading every discussion DonnaL's ever been in.

Finished?  Great!  That should have given you some solid background 101 stuff.  Now it's time to start some hands-on work.  I think that taking a tour of the USA, spending a week with one feminist after another, would be a good place to start.  Most of us should at least have a couch you can sleep on.  You can shadow us, watching how we live and what we deal with, and talk with us about whichever issues come up.  I'd recommend visiting at least one in each state.  Add in D.C. and Puerto Rico, and that'd be 52, so the whole trip should only take you a year.

Is that longer than two days with Romney?  Yes.  Will it involve a lot of discomfort and self-examination?  Yes.  Will we all be better off for it?  Yes.  And if you don't believe me, work through the first few steps and see how it goes.

With love,
Frank Lee