<HTML>This exchange, which Nathan summarizes fairly well below, goes to the core of my frustration with Doug's rhetorical style. Unlike Carrol, I do not mind Doug's habit of asking questions. But I think that when a question is asked, if it is an honestly and sincerely asked question, one has the obligation to pay attention to the reply, and to engage in really dialogue and conversation over it. What I find is that Doug asks a question, I give a reply, and then we are off the races, with another forty issues, most of them 'red herrings', thrown into the fire. Now I would have no problem in having a dialogue on the state of municipal labor in NYC, or on what was wrong with DC 37, or how the UFT and other democratic unions have long institutionalized practices that would prevent a DC 37 fiasco from happening in them, regardless of whom was in charge. [I must add, however, that raising the DC 37 fiasco in the context of a discussion of the UFT is akin to blaming Doug and LBO for the sins of some other radical journal; Nathan is correct that this is a pure guilt by association argument, and the association is at the level of a distant, fourth or fifth cousin.] But first I would like to have a dialogue about the initial issue Doug raised, and I would like him to follow through rather than avoid challenges to the position he takes. For example, does he agree or disagree with my explanation of labor solidarity that I put forward specifically in response to his question? Or does he think ! ! that one need to silence political and strategic differences to practice labor solidarity? Does labor solidarity mean, as he appears to suggest, that one must appear on public platforms in efforts and with others with which one has important political differences? Is it not the logic of the position he puts forward that we are all obliged to go to Washington and be the "bodies" for the WWP/IAC power grab over counter-inaugural protests -- despite the deep differences we may have with their politics? The reason why questions must be sincere, and followed with substantive dialogue, is because critique -- at least on the left -- should bear with it a responsibility of attempting to formulate an alternative position and practice. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Yes, Stanley Hill was scum- now what does that has to do with SandraFeldman - who may be scum but in no way related to the corruption involving DC37.  Now you are doing corruption guilt by association. This is not argument, but ad hominen attack.  I am no fan of the AFT in many ways but corruption as in DC 37 is not considered a major sin of that union. This seemless gliding from one group to another with different sins is all of the character of red-baiting and cop-baiting and all the other ad hominen attacks that undermine serious discussions of strategic and political differences between groups. - -- Nathan Newman</BLOCKQUOTE> Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869) Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass -- </HTML>