stereotype & society

An Open Letter to Barack Obama on Iran: Reject the Repertory of Fixed Impressions

Dear Senator Obama,

We the undersigned may have different views on U.S. foreign policy with respect to Iran. We all, however, are deeply concerned about the stories in the press in the past few weeks suggesting that the Bush administration might be considering a military strike on Iran, that it might give a green light to such an attack by Israel, or that it might engage in other acts of war, such as imposing a blockade against Iran.

We welcomed your stand against the war on Iraq in 2002. And we were encouraged by your early campaign statements emphasizing diplomacy over military action against Iran. Today, you have an opportunity to forestall a repeat of the tragic Iraq war. We hope you will use that opportunity.

We agree with the conclusion of Muhammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that "A military strike ... would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball..." A military attack, he said, "will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West." ( Reuters, June 20, 2008.)

We don't know, of course, whether an attack on Iran is in fact being considered, or if there are serious plans to initiate other acts of war, such as a blockade of the country. But we call on you to issue a public statement warning of the grave dangers that any of these actions would entail, and pointing out how inappropriate and undemocratic it would be for the Bush administration to undertake them, or encourage Israel to do so, in its closing months in office.

An attack on Iran would violate the UN Charter's prohibition against the use or threat of force and the Congress's authority to declare war. Moreover, the
public right to decide should not be foreclosed by last-minute actions of the Bush administration, which will set U.S. policy in stone now.

We were heartened by your earlier comments suggesting that an Obama administration would act on the understanding that genuine security requires a willingness to talk without preconditions (something Iran has offered several times to no avail), and that threats and military action are counterproductive. We hope you will follow through on these commitments once in office, but also that you will speak out now against any acts of war by the Bush administration.

Sincerely,

Please join these signatories and sign here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ObamaIran/

(organizations listed for identification purposes only)

Michael Albert ZNet

Cathy Albisa exec. director, National Economic and Social Rights Initiative

John W. Amidon U.S. Veterans for Peace

Stanley Aronowitz Professor of Sociology, Graduate
Center, CUNY

Rosalyn Baxandall Distinguished Teaching Professor,
SUNY Old Westbury

Phyllis Bennis Institute for Policy Studies

Stephen Eric Bronner Professor (II) of Political Science, Rutgers University

Charlotte Bunch exec. director, Center for Women's
Global Leadership, Rutgers Univ.

Noam Chomsky Institute Professor (retired), MIT

Ray Close retired CIA Middle East specialist; Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Rhonda Copelon Professor of Law, CUNY Law School

Hamid Dabashi Professor of Iranian Studies and
Comparative Literature, Columbia Univ.

Lawrence Davidson Professor of Middle East History,
West Chester Univ.

Ariel Dorfman author

Stuart Ewen, Distinguished Professor, Hunter College &
the Graduate Center, CUNY

John Feffer co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus

Bill Fletcher, Jr. exec. editor, BlackCommentator.com

Libby Frank Women's Internat'l League for Peace &
Freedom, Philadelphia

Arthur Goldschmidt Professor emeritus of Middle East
History, Penn State Univ.

Tom Hayden author

Doug Henwood Left Business Observer

Doug Ireland journalist

James E. Jennings exec. director, U.S. Academics for
Peace

Nikki Keddie UCLA (emeritus), historian, Iran
specialist

Janet Kestenberg Amighi v.p., CDR (sponsor of Holocaust
child survivor research)

Rabbi Michael Lerner chair, The Network of Spiritual
Progressives; editor, Tikkun mag.

Mark LeVine Prof. of Modern Middle Eastern History,
Culture and Islamic Studies, U. Cal., Irvine

Manning Marable director, Center for Contemporary Black
History, Columbia Univ.

David McReynolds former chair, War Resisters Internat'l

Rosalind Petchesky Distinguished Prof. of Poli. Sci.,
Hunter College & the Graduate Center, CUNY

Rachel Pfeffer interim exec. director, Jewish Voices
for Peace

Katha Pollitt writer

Danny Postel No War on Iran Coalition, Chicago

Matthew Rothschild editor, The Progressive magazine

Stephen R. Shalom Prof. of Poli. Sci., William Paterson
Univ.

(Rev.) David Whitten Smith Univ. of St. Thomas,
Minnesota (emeritus)

Meredith Tax writer; president, Women's WORLD

Michael J. Thompson editor of Logos

Chris Toensing editor, Middle East Report

Cornel West Professor, Princeton University

Stephen Zunes Professor of Politics, Univ. of San
Francisco

_________________

Just Out in Paperback

The newly revised, 2008 paperback edition of Stuart Ewen and Elizabeth Ewen's Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality is now out. 

Order yours now.

Mandates v. Rights: An Open Letter to the Democratic Candidates

Dear Barak and Hillary:

I'm dismayed by the fact that the term "mandate" is being used by both of you to discuss the pressing issue of health care. A simple browse through any Thesaurus will reveal that the word connotes: "directive," "decree," "command," "order," "injunction," "edict," "ruling" and "fiat." Language is a powerful way to stereotype and discredit good ideas, and this is the wrong language to be using.

Why are you two dickering over the question of the "M-word" when discussing ensured health care? By doing so, you are employing the language that right wingers have successfully used for over sixty years to malign the idea of universal health care in the United States. It is a language they will use again. Why play their cards for them? You should be embracing the idea of a "guaranteed right to health care." 

Barak is right. As with many democratic rights--including the rights to vote or to speak freely--not all people take advantage of them. This is a shame.  But in a just society, constitutionally protected rights need to be there for all, and health care must finally stand among them.

By moving the language of the debate from one of government dictates to one of human rights, the argument will move away from technocratic jargon and into the more congenial arena of democratic values. That should be a matter of principle, not simply words.

In recent times too many Americans have become so complacent, cynical, or scared, that they think a concern for "human rights" must stop at U.S. borders. By extending the question of rights into the political debate, you can assume a necessary high ground that presently remains unoccupied.  It is essential that you note the difference between mandates and rights, and change the terms of the debate.

Whichever of you becomes President, the difference may have a fateful impact on how the move to provide guaranteed health care will play out.

In planning for the upcoming and final debate between the two of you, and then afterward, I hope this letter may be of use.

Sincerely,

Stuart Ewen

Distinguished Professor

Ph.D. Programs in History and Sociology
The Graduate Center, City University of New York

Department of Film & Media Studies
Hunter College, CUNY

Art Imitates Artifice

Ewen and Ewen on KDVS Radio (Davis, CA)

On Monday, July 16th, Elizabeth Ewen and Stuart Ewen discuss Typecasting in an interview on KDVS's free-form program, "France" hosted by France Kassing.  Visit the KDVS site and access the interview as a download or subscribe to the podcast.