Views in brief

BDS and Cuomo's real hypocrisy

IN HIS excellent analysis of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's recent anti-BDS Executive Order 157 ("Cuomo's modern-day witch hunt"), Ryan de Laurel incorrectly calls Cuomo a hypocrite for boycotting BDS while previously advocating a boycott against the state of North Carolina for its passage of anti-LGBT legislation.

In reality, there's nothing particularly hypocritical about Cuomo's position. His executive order--like other state anti-BDS initiatives--doesn't condemn boycotts in principle. As Cuomo himself put it at the press conference announcing the order, "If you boycott Israel, New York state will boycott you."

Rather, the order targets BDS because BDS targets Israel--which is prominent among a number of vital watchdogs for U.S. imperial interests (or, as the order euphemistically calls them, "allies and trade partners of the United States"). In this sense, Order 157 is a model of consistency.

Cuomo's real hypocrisy, however, is of an altogether deeper order: Claiming to uphold generally liberal, humanistic, "enlightened" values while at the same time supporting a racist settler colonial state based on dispossession and ethnic cleansing.

Of course, that inconsistency characterizes not only witch hunters like Cuomo, but the U.S. political and media class in general. Or for that matter, anyone who claims to stand for justice and equality while simultaneously defending the existence of an apartheid "Jewish state" on any part of historic Palestine.
David Letwin, co-founder, Jews for Palestinian Right of Return, New York City

An error in your Verizon coverage

REGARDING "WHAT can labor learn from the Verizon strike?" I thought this was a very good article altogether, and I agree with the main points.

However, you have an important factual error. Sara Steffens was Chris Shelton's running mate, not Annie Hill (see, for example, the Labor Notes article by Donna Cartwright linked to in your own article). This is important because Shelton chose to run someone against the same person that Local 1400 President Don Trementozzi had previously ran against. And Steffens' victory and the uproar at the convention led by Don that ushered her in didn't complicate Shelton's rise but strengthened it.

This complicates your argument a little bit, although the underlying points remain true.
Zelig Stern, New York City

Editor's note: The article referred to here was corrected and edited slightly to correct this factual error.

Who was at fault in Cincinnati?

REGARDING "Do gorillas matter more than Black families?": The family's race was not even mentioned, nor was there a picture of them in the vast majority of the news accounts of the incident. None of them mentioned the family's race nor showed a picture of them until well over 24 hours later.

Although I'm far more critical of the zoo for not designing a child-proof fence and for existing as an entity confining and exploiting animals for profit, as a parent who once had a 3-year-old child, I don't think the mother of the child should just be let off the hook, and neither did many other parents who, like me, had no idea of the family's race when reports of the incident came out.

According to those reports, Michelle Gregg was the sole adult accompanying half a dozen children (a couple of them her own) to the zoo. That is not an adequate parent-child ratio to ensure the children's safety and security in any situation involving being out and about in a crowd of people, regardless of the fact that the zoo had an insecure enclosure.

Was it appropriate for Nicole Colson to criticize the significant amount of racism that did occur once news accounts began to include (and in some cases, such as Fox News, focus on) the race of the family? Of course, and it was entirely appropriate to discuss it extensively.

What I have a problem with is the implication that that was the only reason why the mother's parenting was criticized. There was a lack of adequate supervision. Many people were critical of her for that who had no idea what race she was, and their criticism doesn't suddenly become illegitimate after it comes out that she is Black.

What also disappoints me about this article is the exclusive focus on the racism of some of those commenting. The fact that there's a dead gorilla who should be alive is an afterthought at best.

Gorillas should not be imprisoned for the sake of public entertainment in the first place. That there is so little outrage over this in comparison with unjust confinement of humans speaks to our society's deeply rooted speciesism, which causes untold suffering (and ultimately death) to tens of billions of animals every year.

Because they have the misfortune of not being dogs or cats, most species of animals are regarded as mere things by our society. Were Harambe in the wild (barring poachers) or in a sanctuary instead of a zoo, he would be alive now and likely for decades to come.

Many primate experts, such as Jane Goodall, have weighed in on the incident and argued that Harambe showed no signs whatsoever of anything other than a nurturing intent toward Isiah, and there have been other incidents of this sort where humans who accidentally or intentionally entered animals' cages have been rescued with no harm befalling the animals.

That Harambe was immediately killed based on the possibility of harm befalling the child shows how little value many in our society place on the life of animals imprisoned in zoos outside of their "value" as objects for some humans to gawk at and others to profit from the gawking.
Jeff Melton, from the Internet