Letter to the Editor of the New York Times, unpublished, 27 September 2009
Re: “In Honduras, Talking, Takeout, but No Accord” (International, September 27):
Clarity from Washington is urgent. The Times reports the State Department’s ambiguity: “it might not accept the election result if the Micheletti government remained in power to administer them.” Acceptance would endorse the use of a coup d’etat and the use of force against the Honduran people who have valiantly opposed the coup government. Reinstatement of elected and forcefully deposed President Zelaya is a necessary step to revive democratic process. Washington should act on their promise of a new era of U.S. – Latin America relations, eloquently posed by Mr. Obama to the April Summit of the Americas. Continued ambiguity from the State Department is de facto support for the coup, a position that revives Washington’s horrific history of support for military regimes in Honduras and leaves the Honduran people under a government instated by the military whose repeated use of violence and repression against them suggest a bleak future.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
no need for typecasting
Letter to the Editor of the New York Times, 27 September 2009, Unpublished
Re “With a Receptive White House, Labor Begins to Line Up Battles”
Stereotyping and theoretical propositions are disservice. The U.S. Government placed tariffs placed on tires made in China in full compliance with international trade law, specifically the WTO provisions accepted by China upon its joining the regulatory institution. The United Steelworkers supported the decision of the U.S. Government to use international law to support their membership. The article cites the “risk” of protectionist outbreak and pain inflicted on other North American workers, both speculations based on theory. In reality there is no commerce that fits the economic models underlying those statements. It also frames the union’s action as “battles”, messaging not so loosely charged against corporations whose lobbying efforts reach the absurd. Tagging the union reinforces a stereotype that prevents progress towards mature industrial relations in the U.S. It would be a service to readers to replace conjecture with more news, perhaps the United Steelworkers campaign for greener energy jobs.
Re “With a Receptive White House, Labor Begins to Line Up Battles”
Stereotyping and theoretical propositions are disservice. The U.S. Government placed tariffs placed on tires made in China in full compliance with international trade law, specifically the WTO provisions accepted by China upon its joining the regulatory institution. The United Steelworkers supported the decision of the U.S. Government to use international law to support their membership. The article cites the “risk” of protectionist outbreak and pain inflicted on other North American workers, both speculations based on theory. In reality there is no commerce that fits the economic models underlying those statements. It also frames the union’s action as “battles”, messaging not so loosely charged against corporations whose lobbying efforts reach the absurd. Tagging the union reinforces a stereotype that prevents progress towards mature industrial relations in the U.S. It would be a service to readers to replace conjecture with more news, perhaps the United Steelworkers campaign for greener energy jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
