Would you like to know how many people have read this article? Or how reputable the author is? Simply
sign up for a Advocate premium membership and you'll automatically see this data on every article. Plus a lot more, too.
Dear Senator Hutchison,
I wish to thank you for your replies to me regarding my signing several on line petitions which were deposited in my email box in the past few months. Your stylized responses to my petitions prove to me that you really don't read anything that you are presented. The fact that each one of these form letters bears not only your name, but your digitized signature prove that you have a crack team of underlings who do the dirty work so you don't have to worry about messing up your manicured fingers, or muss your impeccable coiffure by sweating the pesky details of listening to your constituents. It is good to know that there are folks such as you in the Senate of the United States who feel it is your right to wear sensible shoes while at the same time ignoring those who put you into the office that necessitates the need for such.
I would like to know who you get to ghost write the responses to your constituents. Since I am unemployed, and also a pretty good writer, I am sure I could do the job just as well, and with pretty much the same air of condescension I read in some of your "replies". I might even be able to add a touch of panache to the writings since I have mastered some of the Texas stand-by sayings such as, "Y'all", "bless your heart", "fine as frog hair", and some other regional favorites. I also have a deep passion for Tex-Mex food, as well as Mesquite smoked brisket. While I know that's not really germane to my being a writer for you, it might be one extra thing to push this transplanted Texan over the top. When one presents a resume, padding is so important. You should know all about padding!
Further, as your writer, I can assure you I can fill both sides of a page with non-sequitur nonsense just as well as the writer who penned your response dated October 18, 2006. While I don't want to plagiarize the author of this particular response, suffice it to say, I am frankly amazed how this author could fill two sides of an eight-and-a-half by eleven piece of paper, and say nothing at all. While I am gifted with gab, and I can also fill a piece of paper with thousands of words saying nothing, I must take a moment to bow to the superior talent of this author. In the space provided, that author pumped out ten whole paragraphs, and said absolutely nothing. I stand in awe, but I still remain undeterred in my desire to be a staff writer for you.
I want to also thank you for your response dated October 17, 2006 which not only informed me how upset you were with Representative Mark Foley's reprehensible behavior in regards to congressional pages, but also informed me how you support even more legislation to deal with children and sexual predators. Obviously you missed the point that my problem with ex-Rep. Foley wasn't his preying on congressional pages, but the clear ethical violations his actions and the actions of those working to cover it up represented. Obviously, you missed the point that while I find the actions of sexual predators to be reprehensible, I find immoral and unethical elected officials to be an even more pernicious and pervasive damaging force to our society. I am sure your missing the point was merely an oversight on your part. We all make mistakes, and I could hardly hold you accountable for not caring enough to read the things I wrote in the body of the petition I signed anyway. You have other, more important things to worry about than the wishes of your constituents anyway. Got to keep those nails and that hair in order!
I am also sure with time; I could perfect your writer's inability to recognize my point in writing to you in the first place. In a reply from you, once again dated October 17, 2006, your writer took the time to ply me with much useless information in direct response to the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
The writer begins by saying, "Thank you for contacting me regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I welcome your thoughts and comments on the issue." Then said writer blathers on for two paragraphs giving me a bunch of useless, unwanted information about Hadman v. Rumsfeld, and how it precipitated the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Frankly, I don't care what brought it into being. My point was I found it to be an affront to the constitution, and American rule of law, points that both you and your ghostwriter obviously missed.
In the petition I signed on this issue, I was clear in my outright condemnation of it. I don't think I could have been any clearer on the issue, yet for some reason I will never fathom, either you or your ghostwriter or both of you either missed my point, or ignored it entirely. You end this particular response thusly:
"I believe it is vitally important that Congress deliver legislation allowing our Nation to move forward in collecting intelligence and bringing captured terrorists to justice, while protecting the common rights we all believe to be applicable to all of mankind. I am proud to have supported this Act."
I ask you, which "common rights" were you protecting by allowing Habeas Corpus to be nullified? I ask you, which "common rights" were you protecting by allowing torture to be legalized in the United States of America? I ask you how you can say you are proud to, "have supported this Act," when you effectively ignored my concerns, and also you have effectively given support to perhaps the most draconian bit of legislation to have come from Washington DC in decades?
Do you support it as proudly as those who supported the interment of Americans of Japanese descent in World War II? Do you support it as proudly as those who supported the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798? Do you feel it will actually help in this so-called war against terror, or do you even have enough knowledge of history to realize how damaging it is for our country to silence voices of opposition?
On second thought, Senator Hutchison, I hereby nullify my offer to work for you in any form or fashion. As I have written this letter, and have read and re-read your replies to my petitions, I have come to the conclusion I cannot and will not work for an elected official who has such a complete lack of understanding of the documents and principles that effectively created your Senate seat in the first place.
It is clear from your support of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, you have barely a nodding acquaintance with the Constitution of the United States of America. It is also just as clear by your seeming uncaring attitude towards the fundamental document that underlies American rule of law, the Writ of Habeas Corpus, you also have no idea the underpinnings upon which this country is built. Why else would you support a legislative act that effectively nullifies this basic legal writ? While you and your cohorts in this crime may be blind enough to believe that we are only suspending this writ for so-called "enemy combatants", in truth, any American citizen could be defined as such under the vague language of this act.
Effectively, I could be defined as an enemy combatant and be denied my right to Habeas Corpus at the whim of the President. I am not an enemy combatant, unless one can define a patriotic American voicing his dissent thusly. By supporting the Military Commissions Act of 2006, you have effectively defined me, one of your constituents, as a criminal.
Further, not only do I not want to work for you, I cannot in good conscience vote for you either in the upcoming midterm election. You obviously do not listen to your constituents, nor do you read what we write to you either. Since this is the case, you can rest assured that even though your campaign has been relatively benign, you will not receive my vote this coming Tuesday.