Without the distraction of sexist tropes, please.

In response to: "Peace movement: dead or alive?" and "Cockburn replies," The Nation, September 10, 2007

Dear Mr. Cockburn,

I read with interest your column “Support Their Troops?” and your exchange with Phyllis Bennis in the most recent issue of The Nation. The points you make strike me as incisive and worth thinking about.

Nonetheless, as a feminist and someone concerned with the impacts of language, I wanted to call your critical attention to your own word choice. Especially when the scholars you argue with are women, I'd urge you to avoid characterizing their strong words as hysteria or their ethical reservations as distaste for the “Not Very Nice.” Nothing in Ms. Bennis' letter struck me as prim. The notion of the hysterical woman, since Freud -- and the irrational, emotional woman long before that -- has been systematically used in the West to discredit women's opinions and actions. Best to engage the important issues at hand directly and respectfully, without the distraction of sexist tropes.

In solidarity,

Why the press must not do the government's job

In response to: “FBI asks: Who are the men in this photo from ferry?” Seattle Times, front page, 8/22/07 and "FBI's release of ferry passenger photos resented," Seattle Times, 8/23/07

[Update: This letter was printed in the Seattle Times, Monday 9/10/07, as What's vitally important.]

I was dismayed that at the request of the FBI, The Times decided to publish photographs of people not charged with any crime but only suspected of "exhibiting unusual behavior."

Preventing violence on the ferries is important to everyone's safety, and that's why it's appropriate for the FBI to investigate potential threats. But keeping journalism independent of government is also vitally important to everyone's safety, and that's why it's inappropriate for The Times to agree to act as an arm of law enforcement.

If we are to have real democracy, we need a vital media to evaluate, report on and hold accountable the work of the government. Even when the press thinks the government is doing good work, the press must never do the government's job, because the press has its own job to do.

The federal government, which employs plenty of full-time investigators and also runs the postal service, is quite capable of communicating directly with the people. In the future, please do not act as its agent.

Privatization won't solve the jail problem

In response to: "Pastel elephant on a rampage," The Oregonian, Editorial, 8/26/07

[Update: I didn't even know! But this letter was published in The Oregonian, Sunday 9/9/07, as Private jails no answer. Thanks for mentioning it, Jean!]


I was dismayed to read your editorial suggesting privatization as a solution to Portland's jail woes ("Pastel elephant on a rampage," Aug. 26).

Abundant research now makes clear that privatizing incarceration is good for no one except those who stand to profit.

For a time, some argued that private prisons would maximize efficiency, but this proved untrue. Instead, private facilities find ways to shift costs disproportionately to remaining public facilities, and they cut corners in ways that are unsafe, unhealthy and unjust for prisoners, employees and communities.

The true elephant in this conversation is our unwieldy, ever-growing system of mass incarceration. The fact that we cannot sustain funding for that system as it stands is only the least of several good reasons to devise alternatives rooted less in retribution and more in reconciliation, reparation and prevention.

Belabor the point

In response to: "Belabor the Point," John Fund on the Trail, Wall Street Journal, 7/17/07

I am both disappointed and baffled to read John Fund's assertion that the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation "have nothing to do with the interests of teachers." Is Mr. Fund under the impression that teachers are all white and straight? How about students? Bravo to the National Education Association for recognizing that dismantling discrimination is an important part of building fair workplaces for teachers and safe learning spaces for those they teach.

Anyone can succeed, or everyone can?

In response to: Ben Stein, "Getting a Boost Up the Ladder of Success," 7/15/07, New York Times

I appreciated Ben Stein's reflections on how inherited privilege has made his success possible ("Getting a Boost Up the Ladder of Success," July 15). We need this kind of frankness in our public discourse on the roots of inequality and how to solve to it.

But in his proposal that rich professionals mentor poor kids, Mr. Stein misses a crucial analytical step. As long as our economy requires that a great number of people work depressing and insecure jobs for poverty wages, the rich will find ways to use their privilege to ensure that their children are not the ones to suffer. Wouldn't you? As quickly as poor kids learn to do well on college admissions exams, the rich will enroll their kids in special courses to learn to do better.

Unequal access to success is only a symptom. The underlying problem is how few total slots are allotted for success and how many are allotted for want. This is why we must work to build an economy no longer dependent upon the underpayment and underemployment of large swaths of the populace, no matter how our lucky ones are chosen.

Careful what we advocate...

In response to: Send Scooter Libby to Guantanamo -- Or Shut It Down

Dear Mr. Easton,

Eeek. I think it's worth being careful what we advocate for here.

I couldn't agree more that Libby's treatment, compared with the treatment of people at Guantanamo, reveals an unacceptable double standard in our legal system. The rich and powerful, whatever their crimes, have access to a different set of safeguards and options than do the people who are imprisoned at Guantanamo right now. The difference speaks volumes about the power of racism and entrenched privilege in this country, and about the hypocrisy of our current administration.

Nonetheless, I think it is probably a bad idea to advocate for things we don't actually want to see happen. No human being, not even Scooter Libby, should be deprived of their legal rights or subjected to inhumane treatment. If the neocons took Working Assets at its word, made a sacrificial lamb of Scooter Libby, and shipped him to Guantanamo, it would solve nothing. The mixed message confuses the issue. We should call for the prison camp at Guantanamo to be shut down, and for everyone's constitutional rights to be respected. Period.

Thanks for your time and for the good work you do.

Nationalism does not serve the interests of workers

In response to: http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/video/china.html

Dear Mr. Blank,

I am a supporter of WakeUpWalMart and appreciate the good, hard work you do. Wal-Mart's irresponsible policies are bad for workers and families, both here in the United States and around the world. Your work holding Wal-Mart accountable is an exciting part of the movement to build a new kind of economy that values fairness, well-being, sustainability and democracy.

However, I was dismayed to see your new ad today. Of course, you are absolutely right that moving manufacturing jobs overseas is a cynical and destructive move. But it is essential we find ways to talk about these issues that do not pit the workers in different countries against one another. The trouble is not that Wal-Mart is somehow enriching Chinese workers at the expense of American workers. No, the trouble is that when corporations freely cross borders that workers cannot cross, they are able to drive down standards for all of us, in the U.S. and in China, and that hurts workers everywhere.

We should certainly support good union and middle-class jobs here in the U.S., and we should loudly criticize companies that move to wherever they can find lower standards. At the same time we need to build solidarity with workers around the globe and support their unions. Our opponent is not the people of China; it is the international capitalist class. Only when we can stand together and speak with a united international voice will we be strong enough to win a world economy that is truly good for working people.

Especially in the current political climate -- as our leaders funnel working people's money away from health care, education, jobs and public services into a catastrophic war, grounded in fear and lies, that further enriches the rich -- it is disappointing to see WakeUpWalMart playing into that climate of nationalism and fear.

I will not be making a contribution to air this ad. I urge you to find more progressive ways to talk about international trade politics in the future. Thank you for the good work you do.

In solidarity,
Alexandra Bradbury
Portland, OR