Views in brief

Stern is leading SEIU over a cliff

ANDY STERN wants to take labor and put it in his pocket ("Where does Andy Stern want to take labor?").History tells us that his approach is doomed to failure. He's eventually going to amass a mega-union and lead it straight over a cliff.

It is only a matter of time before the rank and file figure out that Stern is selling them down the river. His method of loyalty-based appointed staff, control and secrecy will soon show it lacking in experience, knowledge and people skills.

On one side, he is advocating unity. But on the other, he has successfully gained the power to divide locals that refuse to bathe themselves in blind loyalty to his vision.

At the 2008 convention, he advocated the decentralization of governance of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). He spoke for decision-making by local unions, closest to the work sites. But then, he advocated constitutional amendments that would give more decision-making powers to a centralized international entity.

As an SEIU steward for 17 years, it saddens me to have to tell members what will happen next. Stewards were the last line of defense against employer abuses. The call center is already showing signs of deficiencies and overwhelming volume. The employers are already noticing that union presence at the work site is no more, and the aggression against employees has already begun.

Unfortunately, I do know where Andy Stern is taking our union.
Dan Mariscal, from the Internet

Socialist Worker should support Sheehan

WHILE I agree with Socialist Worker's attitude to this year's election and the lack of traction for a third-party antiwar presidential candidate, I think you should be giving more publicity to Cindy Sheehan's campaign.

Sheehan is standing for the seat currently occupied by Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Her activism over the last three years is in stark contrast to the Democrats, who have voted to continue the war time and time again.

Cindy is the most prominent and authentic person to emerge from the opposition to the war in Iraq. She generalizes the issues and will not be used as a pawn by Democrats or ineffective antiwar "leaders." If you have anything left over after your tax refund, give her campaign a contribution!
Adam, Gainesville, Fla.

Why did Clinton pander to racism?

BRAVO! THIS is the most accurate article I have read illuminating the most recent political "strategy" applied by Clinton and her campaign operators ("Clinton's last stand").

I used to be a die-hard Clinton supporter, believing that she genuinely cared about the economic and social needs of average American as it stands. Sadly, she and her campaign advisors decided to fan the flames of hatred to gain advantage. Why?

Ms. Clinton and her current supporters do not seem to understand that the last leader this country needs is another person, man or woman, that would use manipulation and trickery to win a nomination. Surely there are other ways to "play the game." How about only speaking to the issues (and there are plenty of those) and describing, one by one, what might be done differently. How is that for a campaign strategy?

Thank you for your crystal, clear voice and analysis!
Cecilia Sheppard, from the Internet

Marriage is a patriarchal institution

WHILE I support gay marriage (as I support any reform for equality, and the right to be as fucked up as the rest of mainstream society), I think this is a reform rather than a revolutionary or socialist solution ("Which side are you on?").

As a woman who stood, romantically, hand in hand with my girlfriend, listening to Bette Midler singing "Going to the Chapel," I can relate to the euphoria of finally getting the right to be a "respectable" couple with all the privileges that entails (including tax breaks).

Since then, I have become a single mother (to make a long story short, my lesbian lover ran off, and my co-parenting collective broke up when the main member decided her new lover was more important than her prospective child, so I ended up having the baby on my own). Granted, we were a bit overly idealistic in those days, but returning to the locked-in, safe days of a 1950s monogamous marriage still does not seem like the solution.

But I am not worried about whether gay couples emulate straight couples and get stuck in a boring monogamous limited relationship--I am worried about the women, straight or gay, who get left as single mothers without the proper economic and social supports because the society only supports the "Noah's Ark" duo, based on the patriarchal model of one man owning one woman.

This "coupledom" approach to marriage and childrearing is essentially an individual solution, with one man (or fake man) owning one woman (or fake woman) in exchange for providing for the offspring--so that society as a whole doesn't have to deal with its communal responsibility or pick up the tab for the most expensive operation of all--raising the next generation of workers.

As a consequence, women (or men) who have one way or another fallen out of this pattern face numerous inequalities (i.e., tax breaks among other things).

So my problem with gay marriage is more a problem of gays emulating the patriarchal values and institutions of traditional patriarchal marriages--and leaving single people, with or without children (but especially those raising children--whether they are relatives, biological mothers or fathers, friends, etc.) out of the couple equation, out of the community and out of society.
Peg Rapp, from the Internet

A cheap shot at Ted Kennedy

I GENERALLY agree with most of your positions, but to condemn a man who has fought for universal health care is, I think, a cheap shot ("Why can't we all get KennedyCare?").

Sure, Ted Kennedy is lucky to have excellent insurance, but he also has a death sentence hanging over his head. We have enough true enemies without attacking a man who at least has his heart in the right place when it comes to defending the have-nots in our society.
Michael Quirrk, from the Internet