03.21.05
Posted in faith, politics at 12:59 pm by
Taking a few minutes to clarify my frustration about the responses I received from Senator Stabenow seems to be in order. You see, I really don’t care that the Senator sent me form replies. Doesn’t madden me in the least, actually. I wouldn’t really expect more than that reply from them.
It’s actually a little encouraging as the getting of a form letter (aka canned response) actually implies that enough folks take their civic responsibility to communicate with their elected governmental officials seriously enough to take the time to share their opinions with their aforementioned official.
My concerns with the response I received from Senator Stabenow are two-fold. First, I am frustrated that the Senator has the gaul to send out emails that claim her support of two directly oppositional viewpoints. On one hand, she claims to support ‘cutting wasteful spending.’ On the other, she opposes the current budget. I understand that her position is legitimate, but her articulation of that position belies her primary concern: People pandering. And, to employ some alliteration, people pandering positively pisses me off.
My second concern with the Senator’s response to my email is probably more troubling. First, it is clear to me that whomever read my communique with the Senator got as far as the words ‘proposed budget’ and ‘I am unapologetically Christian.’ From those two phrases, it would seem that the Senator–or her aides, but the letter did go out under her name and as such, I’ll be referring to it as hers–made a grievous assumption about me. Namely, ‘You are Christian, you must be conservative.’
Ironically, the point of my initial correspondence used the currently proposed federal budget as an exemplar of how Democratic officials could begin to speak out their vision for the US as a vision that corresponds, although not exclusively, with a faith-based vision for the US. The bitter irony of the situation lies in the fact that the Senator thus sent me a response belying her belief that “faithful” or “Christian” means exclusively conservative.
Perhaps, this is an isolated instance of jumping to conclusions. I don’t know for sure. Perhaps, Senator Stabenow truly espouses a marvelous comprehension of how a progressive vision of politics in the US corresponds to a faithful vision of US politics. Perhaps, someone just had a lapse in judgement, someone just used heuristic knowlege THIS ONE TIME to process my letter about faith and the democratic party. Perhaps.
I’d love to be proven wrong. But, I doubt it’s going to happen.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/03/21/i_really_don_t_mind_form_letters/trackback/
Posted in faith, politics at 12:59 pm by
Taking a few minutes to clarify my frustration about the responses I received from Senator Stabenow seems to be in order. You see, I really don’t care that the Senator sent me form replies. Doesn’t madden me in the least, actually. I wouldn’t really expect more than that reply from them.
It’s actually a little encouraging as the getting of a form letter (aka canned response) actually implies that enough folks take their civic responsibility to communicate with their elected governmental officials seriously enough to take the time to share their opinions with their aforementioned official.
My concerns with the response I received from Senator Stabenow are two-fold. First, I am frustrated that the Senator has the gaul to send out emails that claim her support of two directly oppositional viewpoints. On one hand, she claims to support ‘cutting wasteful spending.’ On the other, she opposes the current budget. I understand that her position is legitimate, but her articulation of that position belies her primary concern: People pandering. And, to employ some alliteration, people pandering positively pisses me off.
My second concern with the Senator’s response to my email is probably more troubling. First, it is clear to me that whomever read my communique with the Senator got as far as the words ‘proposed budget’ and ‘I am unapologetically Christian.’ From those two phrases, it would seem that the Senator–or her aides, but the letter did go out under her name and as such, I’ll be referring to it as hers–made a grievous assumption about me. Namely, ‘You are Christian, you must be conservative.’
Ironically, the point of my initial correspondence used the currently proposed federal budget as an exemplar of how Democratic officials could begin to speak out their vision for the US as a vision that corresponds, although not exclusively, with a faith-based vision for the US. The bitter irony of the situation lies in the fact that the Senator thus sent me a response belying her belief that “faithful” or “Christian” means exclusively conservative.
Perhaps, this is an isolated instance of jumping to conclusions. I don’t know for sure. Perhaps, Senator Stabenow truly espouses a marvelous comprehension of how a progressive vision of politics in the US corresponds to a faithful vision of US politics. Perhaps, someone just had a lapse in judgement, someone just used heuristic knowlege THIS ONE TIME to process my letter about faith and the democratic party. Perhaps.
I’d love to be proven wrong. But, I doubt it’s going to happen.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/03/21/i_really_don_t_mind_form_letters/trackback/
adam said,
March 21, 2005 at 1:23 pm
I have a suspicious feeling that “frustration” will continue to be the standard attitude towards our government for the forseeable future. Frustration in government, frustration at church, frustration at work (wait, that might just be me…at the moment). But as much as I support what is being called the “emerging church,” and other groups of people seeking a more progressive approach to faith in politics, I have a hard time believing that significant ground will be gained anytime soon.
Frustration.
zalm said,
March 21, 2005 at 6:00 pm
seeing as how sen. stabenow voted for the bankruptcy bill, i don’t know how progressive she’s felt like being this month.
but i’d be curious to know whether senators have a mail filtering program that shunts email into different folders or recommends response emails based on keywords. it’s possible that just because your email contained the words “budget” and “cuts” in close proximity, you got the email that you did.
then again, our government apparently can’t even replace the antiquated computer system at the fbi, so assuming technical sophistication in the senate is probably not the way to go.
either way, if she didn’t read your letter, it’s a shame, because our senators need to hear more voices like yours.
Eric in Detroit said,
March 23, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Sad to say, I’ve repeatedly had the same experience with Stabenow’s office. It’s not nearly as well run as Levin’s. One doesn’t always get a reply of any kind.
That said, senators get obscene amounts of email every day. Levin’s aide told me they get upwards of 6000 emails, so that have to use pretty aggressive filters to weed out stuff from non-constiuents and spam.
We go and lobby her office in person once a year as progresive Christians (www.advocacydays.org), but I don’t think we’ve gotten far with changing their stereotypes.
In person, she’s really nice, and a fine, progressive populist, and I hope you get to hear her speak sometime.
She regularly stops by to visit the annual Keep Making Peace conference, so you might try there on April 9th.
Whatever, don’t stop trying to educate them…
Top rated online casino bloghoster. said,
February 17, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Top rated online casino bloghoster….
Best rated online casino. Top rated online casino bloghoster….
Casino careers online casino gambling. said,
February 20, 2008 at 3:36 am
Online gambling guide amp casino reviews got bet….
Gambling phd com online casino news march. Casino free money online results gambling play. Gambling phd com online casino news. 1 casino gambling online. Ql directory gambling gt online casino….