Views in brief

Fire and brimstone for Palin

IT IS quite a surprise to see that Sarah Palin, John McCain's pick for vice president, is a member of a church called the Assemblies of God. I am scared about the prospect of a member of this church becoming vice president, because I used to be a member of this fundamentalist sect when I was young.

I was taught in the Assemblies of God that Jews and Catholics were evil. Not misguided or off on their theology, but evil. I was taught that we must pray so gay people could be converted to "straightness." I was specifically forbidden from attending science class on the days that evolution or sex education were taught.

My family was taught that if we were having money problems or some other problem in our life, we must be "sinning against God." The way to fix this problem was to give more money to the church or whatever evangelist was in town.

Equally as troubling was the idea that adherents of Pentecostal theology must push to turn the United States (and other countries) into fundamentalist theocracies--"one nation truly under God"--called "Dominion Theology."

When we are talking our politics with others, it is not enough to merely oppose the "rich people first" mentality of the Sarah Palins who infest our political process. We must alert folks to the danger of dominionists who are trying to control every aspect of our life.
Trey Kindlinger, Fort Meade, Md.

Going in the right direction

TO SAY that the Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney's joint press conference with Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin confused things is to insult people's intelligence, and I'm very disappointed with Socialist Worker's take on this ("Going in the wrong direction").

The participants were clear that their positions on the issues were not the same, but like a member of the corporate media or one of the corporate parties, SW spun the event into something it wasn't.

The candidates did draw attention to their common ground, primarily their opposition to the rigged system created by the major parties. Why shouldn't they come together to decry that? Why shouldn't they come together to demand inclusion in the debates? Do you really think some Nader supporter, for example, got so baffled watching the press conference that he or she will vote for Chuck Baldwin, thinking they're the same?

I may disagree strongly with Paul and Baldwin, even be repulsed by certain positions and attitudes I believe them to hold, but they have a right to be heard. And in this case, I don't see them saying anything that taints the candidacies of Nader or McKinney.

You seem to suggest Nader and McKinney are at fault for being open to standing with Baldwin, Paul and Bob Barr at a press conference on concerns that they share. You would rather Nader and McKinney stand steadfastly against them regardless of their common goal--breaking up the two-party duopoly. But where does picking fights with each other lead? Perhaps to coverage in Ballot Access News, Third Party Watch and Socialist Worker.

If they work together, however, to raise awareness about the rigged system that keeps them off ballots and out of debates with Obama and McCain, and it pays off, then Nader, McKinney, Barr and Baldwin have a better chance of gaining the opportunity to stand against one another in national televised debates, from which a much wider audience can learn of their competing positions and opposing beliefs.

Your article does not explain why you condemn the strategy of third-party candidates working together to demand a stronger democracy. Also, I don't recall a denunciation from you of the Green Party's David Cobb for partnering with Libertarian Michael Badnarik to break into one of the debates in 2004. Did I miss that?

Supporting Barr, Baldwin and Paul's right to be heard does not taint Nader and McKinney's candidacies. This is about reaching the voters with their alternatives so that the voters can decide. I would have thought that endeavor would be something Socialist Worker could get behind.
Bri, from the Internet

Sexism in the college classroom

I HAVE been a student at Hunter College in New York City for six years, and I was very disappointed on the first day of my biology lecture this semester.

I'm familiar with the fact that women are very underrepresented in the fields of science and math. In 2005, former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers attributed the lack of women in the math and sciences to "innate differences." So, as a woman studying math and science, I hoped my female professor would have been an inspirational factor--proof that we can make it even in a field where sexism is historic.

But sitting in the auditorium, amidst 750 students, at least half of whom were women, I was dismayed when she showed us a number of her reviews from the "Rate My Professors" Web site--one of which read: "She really is a very nice and caring person, and really hot. She makes understanding immunology so simple, and looks amazing in tight pants. To do well in her class, you must take down good notes and look at her adjusting the microphone on her shirt. Participate in class, and pretend you're interested in bio, and she'll hook you up for med-school."

I was shocked, angered and frustrated! Rather than be proud that this professor is a doctor and working in a male-dominated field, she is sending a message that, for us women, knowing science is good, but being a sex object is what is really important.

In a world where women are constantly reminded that we are sex objects, I am totally disappointed to get that from a professor, too. We need a new women's rights movement that actually defends women as human beings, not as sex objects, who have every right to control our own bodies.
Hannah Fleury, New York City

Standing up in the stands

THANKS FOR the incredible write-up on this situation ("A protest in the stands").

There has been major progress achieved by Section 8 Chicago due to our solidarity and fortitude leading up to the protest, in the execution of our protest and in the negotiations that have followed. It is very impressive how Section 8 Chicago--an extremely loose-knit community of soccer fans from a wide variety of cultural and political backgrounds--has come together to demand that it is treated with respect and to make it explicitly understood that racism will not be tolerated.

I have found it very inspiring that a group of sports fans were willing to step out of the role of passive customers to stand up for themselves using their collective voice and actions to achieve their goals.

Thanks again for the article. See you in the stands. Go Fire! Vamos Chicago!
Anonymous, Waukegan, Ill.

Repression not only a Republican tool

DURING THE excellent protest against the recent Republican National Convention, one of the most unavoidable sites had to be the bloated police presence. On nearly every turn of the march, cops sporting riot gear, clubs and rifles lined the streets.

I learned that this police presence was funded to the tune of $50 million in federal grants (taxpayer dollars). After word of the arrest of hundreds of protesters and three Democracy Now! journalists, I heard from many activists who were appalled at the repression.

While I totally agree with that sentiment, most people I talked to wrote this off as the logical "police state" or "fascistic" nature of the Bush administration. While the links between the Bush administration, the gutting of civil liberties and egregious violations of human rights are undeniable, I think it's important for leftists to know the history of state repression in the U.S. under Republican and Democratic administrations that has been key to maintaining their control on the political system.

A few examples come to mind: the crushing of the Bonus Army following World War I; the Palmer Raids in which thousands of radicals and Reds were rounded up; COINTELPRO and the systematic destruction and murder of members of the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement; and the brutality of the attacks on activists 40 years ago at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The violence at the 1968 Democratic National Convention took place under both a Democratic president and mayor.

Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin's conception of the state--as the vehicle for serving the interests of the ruling elite, which needs a repressive apparatus given the fact that it is a minority--holds true for all forms of government: fascist, parliamentary or liberal democracy.

Repression of leftists and radicals is nothing new in this country. It is a necessity to prevent threats to those who are raking in super-profits while millions are uninsured, without work and being sent to fight and die in wars abroad.
Jesse Zarley, Madison, Wis.