Here’s an opportunity for liberals, moderates, and conservatives among us to agree on something and take action. (I’m not holding my breath that we’ll agree. I’m just hopeful).
The White House has changed its procedures for emailing the President. One is now required to go through a highly complex system on the webpage which BEGINS with the writer having to declare whether he or she agrees or disagrees with the President. It also forces the writer to declare a subject from a LIST OF APPROVED ALTERNATIVES. There is a news report about this at
I am going to contact the White House to protest. If you AGREE with this policy, I have a suggestion for you. Try emailing the White House to tell them so!
Of course. Wasn’t always that way. I used to get
a message that said:
Dear Professor Stone,
We never expected that you, sir, dissaproved
of our economic stimulus package.
Your opposition has shaken us to the
very fiber of our being. The cabinet is
meeting as we speak to discuss your
alternative proposals, and the president will call
you this afternoon.
Sincerely, Ari
P.S. Regards to Mr. Wisely.
No more. Probably what’s going on is that
they’re trying to turn it into a public opinion
poll, which reveals on its face what they’re
interested in–how popular or unpopular
this or that is. 15,000 e mails a day!
Yes, by all means protest, or deluge 'em
with snail mail. Best
Or, better yet, deluge me with whistles. Maybe a few Busman’s in purpleheart or pink ivory. A couple of Colin and Bernard Overtons. Some Copelands. Maybe a Sweetheart or two. A Reyburn, a Rose, and a Skip Healey flute or two.
Since you didn’t list an address, I assume you’re not serious, Walden. That’s a shame, I was going to send you a Copeland. No no, the moment is gone now.
Chas - apparently not. A couple of quotes from the CNN story:
"When Mr. Matzzie sent an e-mail protest against a Bush administration policy, the message was bounced back with an automated reply, saying he had to send it again in a new way. "
"It is still possible to send a traditional e-mail message, he said, but the sender will receive the automated reply and there is no guarantee it will be read or responded to. "
The article also mentions that you could be forced to wade through nine web pages of Q&A, and hand over a lot of info, before you get to send the message. The purported reason for all of this – to improve communication, of course!
Do not always assume that the person at the top is intimately familiar with all that his underlings are up to. Is P.B. aware of this? Maybe. Is he in control of or cares how it is implemented. Maybe, but probably not.
Takes more than one person to control things. It also does not matter WHICH party is in control. I felt just as ignored by the past ol’ What’s His Names as I do by the current What’s His Name.
Since when has ANY politician done what the public has wanted or needed. Hard or Digital copy sent, they are going to do what they want to anyway. All they think about from the day they are elected or reelected is the next election. No?
It was only a metter of time before the thread deteriorated into Bush-bashing. The White House e-mail system is unwieldy but to project that onto the president personally is a stretch.
If the White House receives 15,000 e mails a day,
that’s over 100,000 a week. It’s impossible to
read these, obviously, unless the executive branch of
goverment does nothing else.
Probably what was happening was that a sample
of them was read and the vast majority ignored, as probably
happened with past administrations. All received
a form reply.
Well, it’s possible to see this new development
as a clumsy beginning at trying to insure that everybody’s
input has a good hope of actually being counted–an effort
at more democracy, in fact.
It was, of course, a lot easier
to write before… Best
From a PR perspective, it might help if the webmasters building the emailing system would add “Neutral” to “For” and “Against” (or whatever it is) so people wouldn’t feel they were being forced into a category against their will, along with adding more topics. Those seem like things they could adjust based on feedback. It may not have been intentionally manipulative on their part to set it up the way they did. It just may need a bit of tinkering.
The general idea of creating a quick “pulse of the nation” communication device on a list of issues seems, on the face of it, like a good idea. It would give some quick numerical information about public opinion without forcing staffers to try to categorize and tabulate the content of every email received. And the messages themselves would still be available, just as before, for staffers to review as resources permit.
Although I have misgivings about some aspects of Mr. Bush’s program, I do believe he’s competent and pragmatic. It’s my impression that those elements of his platform that are too far from center to be practicable, he’s willing to temper to accomodate a broader scope of public and legislative opinion. In that respect, I think the general idea of the kind of instant polling/emailing combination his office is setting up might be OK.
And of course, we can still write letters if we feel the details of what we have to say are particularly important. I could be mistaken, but my guess would be that letters would be more likely to get individual attention nowadays, since there are so many electronic communications, perhaps there are fewer letters to compete with.
I hate you as I have never hated any man before.
Yet I voted for you. Why would I, a Marxist Leninist, vote for
a man who tears the bread from the mouths of the poor?
Because I knew you would appoint Condoleezza Rice
National Security Advisor. Condoleeeeeeza, Condoleeeeeza.
I’ve only seen her photo emerging from your pathetic
‘cabinet meetings,’ yet I love her with a passion that cannot find expression in words.
Every cell of my body despises your tax cuts for the rich, your numbskull excuses for aggression. And yes,
I know Condoleezza has an oil tanker named after her.
Do you understand, you running dog of imperialism?
I… hate… her… too.
I have just donated my lifesavings to your
reelection campaign.
What comes to mind is, “I’d like to see more of this kind of writing. Really entertaining and thought provoking. I wonder if I could get ahold of a whatever else this Stone’s published.”
Something similar happened to Queen Victoria.
She read Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, liked them and asked to see everthing the author had written. Turns out, most everything else the man wrote was about mathematics, logic and the like – very dry stuff and not funny at all – since Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) was a mathemetician and logician by profession.
I wonder what Queen Victoria would think of “Why There are No People”?
The president has been busy hosting Tony Blair, and so
he has asked me to respond in his stead to your e mail message.
Both the president and I agree that your affections
are misplaced. Mr. van Gulag, I ask you:
what future has a union between a woman who
lives to increase oil revenues and a man who wishes
to overthrow the state?
Consider, too, that Ms. Rice
is spoken for, married in fact–though I appreciate that
this means little to a godless Communist like
yourself. Have you considered all
the available female former KGB operatives
with steel-rimmed glasses and steel-capped teeth?
The president appreciates your donating your entire life savings to his
reelection campaign. However $3.47 won’t take us very
far, I’m afraid. Please don’t expect radical changes
in policy. Running dogs of imperialism generally
contribute more to our coffers, so if you want
to have more clout, you might consider becoming
one of them yourself. Of course, then you
will agree with us.
As your message seems to have been forwarded
from the chiffandfipple message board, quite
popular here in the Executive Branch, will you
kindly give my thanks to Mr. Wisely for the
whistles? Lynne can’t put the Feadog down.
Sincerely, Dick Cheney
P.S. We are modifying the automated message system
to include a ‘cupid-with-a-bow’ icon, for people with
crushes on members of the administration.
