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.