that's about the direction i was heading in. then i remembered all the people telling me to put more personal in, and i got tangled up. i think i'll go back to that plan, i fell far more confident commenting on the bill. unfortunately, i'm trained to write that way.
...i'll send it to you both in a few hours... gotta get some "real" work done before.
dagmaraka wrote:Walter, I'm not so tired of writing, more because of the whole visa mess. The euphoria of activism can only go so far, then one burns out and depression sets in.
I know. My response was only thought as a cheering up ...
Newsweek magazine: "My Turn"
Submit your essay for the "My Turn" column at
www.MyTurn.Newsweek.com.
A personal slant here would greatly increase your chances of publication.
Stops duly pulled out -- emails went to Kerry, Kennedy and Capuano (he's also our Rep, so it helps to say we voted for him).
I have invoked the highest power there is, Jewish guilt.
Jespah, you're wicked awesome! When I come to immense riches because of all the offers following the praises you sang about me, I'll remember to buy you cozy mansion on the Cape. Or wherever you choose!
My dear editors, Roberta and soz,
I'm running late, have to finish a few things for work... See, I'm already doing the job I'm applying for, the trick is I get paid through "graduate fellowship" from the organization I work for... that was the only legal way how to set it up for now. I still hope to get to it tonight though. Just so you know.
Again and again... thanks so much, everybody who's been helping and supporting me. Sniff. What would I do without you?
Depending on which way your article goes, I'd like to make one more suggestion. The title of this thread is powerful. Sums up the whole freaking thing very pithily.
Damn, Roberta, you posted that and I was thinking it.
Roberta, please suggest away. I felt kinda stuck. I reshuffled things...didn't like it. Shuffled back...didn't like it. I swear I can write (at least better than that) but this for some reason is like a Spanish boot, or Iron Maiden or something. Also, I know, it's a quick op-ed, not a piece of high literature that aims to win Nobel prize, but still...I'll have to get back to it with a fresh head, and today was a bad bad day.
It was the first day when the fighting spirit sorta left me. Tomorrow I have a big workshop, but I'll have time in the afternoon unless boss finds me. I won't let him. In the meantime...time is running out, and I know that. In a few days, it will be old, unwanted news.
Are you still boxing, dag?
You need to hit something.
You know, that's very very true. I pay monthly membership through my nose (cannot be stopped, it's a contract for a year), but i had a bad wrist, traveled, and was lazy since i came back. plus, i'm still insecure about my wrist. But I was told by my doctor that if I hit straight, I'll be alright. Sounds like now is the prime time to go back to the boxing gym. I'll do my best to go tomorrow.
(i already tried chocolate today, and that didn't really work).
Oh, wait, please don't mess up your arm..
Suggest away? Okey dokey.
First, I have to say that if I didn't know that you were not a native English speaker, I would not have been able to tell from your writing. Don't put yourself down.
First, the article addresses the present situation--the lottery. What you say is cogent, potent, and personal. Relevant to you and to thousands like you.
Then there is an abrupt switch as you begin to discuss the bill in Congress. This is not relevant to the present situation. The only things they have in common is that they are both related to immigration. And the bill is not about the present state of immigation. What you say about it relates to the future.
Therefore, you can do one of several things.
1. Focus on the here and now. Perhaps expand a bit on your work. (I couldn't figure it out.) Remember that the people who will be reading this don't know you or what you do. I would also perhaps expand on the link between your father and you. This intrigued me.
2. Make the whole thing about immigration--present and future. What the situation is now with the lottery and how things will be affected by the new bill. This will greatly depersonalize the article, but the scope will be broader.
3. Figure out a way to make a transistion from the first part to the second part. If you are determined to include discussion of the bill, this can probably be done with a sentence or two. However, more info needs to be provided about the bill. Again, you assume that readers know more than they do. Keep in mind that I walked in almost cold. Wasn't sure what you were talking about. How much info you provide has to be determined by who the audience will be. You have to assume that a general audience (like me) knows nothing. Think how this would affect what you intend to say.
When I first read what you wrote, it took me a while to realize that the bill will have no affect on what's happening now. I had to go back. I got confused.
One more note. I am not a newspaper or magazine decision maker. But I believe that your article will be more likely to be published if you follow suggestion 1. Second best chance, suggestion 3. Least likely, suggestion 2.
Hope you don't mind my putting this here.
Thanks in advance for the aforesaid mansion.
Dag, I sympathize -- during the Gallaudet university flap ("not deaf enough" etc.) I tried to seize the moment and write an Op-Ed, it started easily enough but I had the hardest time finishing it. (I didn't.) It's a difficult form.
I got a response from Kennedy today. They TOTALLY didn't read my letter before they responded.
<waiting>
now that you mention it, I never heard anything back from Durbin either.
Kennedy's office yadda-yadda'd about illegal immigration and alien rights.
