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 Airline Industry and TSA

Dear Airline Industry and TSA,

I remember when fear of flying was the most prevalent concern air travelers had.  Remember those days?  I was never afraid to fly, myself, so the biggest concern I had was whether or not my ears would pop correctly during the final descent.  I'd heard stories of people spending their vacations having trouble hearing anything, so I'd pack gum and yawn to make sure that everything was okay.

Now, I wish that were my main concern.  Now I worry about my privacy being violated.  I worry about being touched in places I don't want a stranger's hands on me.  I worry about being charged hundreds of dollars for another seat or kicked off of a flight for being considered too fat.

The worst part of it is that most of what I listed above comes from arbitrary and unnecessary policies.  My ears popping is a matter of biology and physics.  Your security theater has been displayed as a sham by people more informed than I am.  Your anti-fat measures are applied at the whim of whoever happens to be working that day and are used at the airline's convenience to solve issues you cause to begin with.  Flight overbooked?  Just search the plane for someone who looks fat, threaten to charge for a second seat, and hope that they'll be unable to pay so you can shove two more people onto the plane.

The next time I fly, will I be molested?  Will images of my body be displayed?  Will I be harassed and threatened and overcharged?  Will I be ejected from the plane?  I'm not worried about the plane crashing; I'm worried about what you'll do to me on the way to the plane.

I miss the days when chewing some gum would solve my problems.

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 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 President Obama

"It's kind of a weird superpower, but if I had something that I could immediately wish for, I would love to be able to speak any language," the president said.

"Now, that's a weird superpower—it might not come in handy to rescue folks from a burning building," he added. "But I've always wished that whatever country I went to, wherever I met somebody who spoke a different language, that I could right away speak their language."

 Dear President Obama,

Some of the qualities I wish for most in a president are also the qualities I appreciate in anyone.  Empathy, for example.  A desire for inclusiveness.  An interest in other people and the variety of human existence.

Your preferred superpower is a beautiful wish that says a lot of terrific things about you.  You want to understand people.  You want to connect with them, and you want to do it on their terms.

What says more about wanting to understand someone than speaking their language?  That's our go-to phrase for communication!  That's how we illustrate that someone doesn't get us: we're not speaking the same language.

You and I have had our disagreements in the past, but you do have many of the qualities I wish every president had.  This was a lovely, smart answer to a cliched question.  Thank you.

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 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 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