ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

Spread It Around

I read with interest your article about apologies and reparations for slavery. Although an apology is obviously in order, reparations are problematic. In addition to the obvious problems of what to do about wealthy or mixed-race descendents of slaves, the idea of reparations goes against an egalitarian approach to social justice which would radically redistribute wealth based on need. I think people sympathetic to the reparations idea would have a better chance (though both are marginal) of getting justice with an egalitarian approach instead of reparations.

--Bob Brister, Western Ancient Forest Campaign

Editor's reply: The main point of Davis' article is that the demographics of wealth and the history of racism in the U.S. makes the richest strata of the population predominantly white, leaving the poorest strata of society composed primarily of people of color. If you accept that fact, then reparations are not necessarily non-egalitarian. A secondary point that Davis makes is that reparations are not likely to succeed, but the argument and the effort should be welcome by us, since it expands the narrow scope of discourse in the public media.

Here Comes the Judge

In a saddening and frightful look at the judicial system, a judge in Snohomish County District Court decided to ignore the jury's verdict and find the defendant guilty, even though the jury decided otherwise.

In the case, Puget Sound Investment Group v. Robert Bridges (case: 96-2-09183.7), the Internal Revenue Service sold property owned by Robert Bridges to the plaintiff, without the benefit of having legally seizing it. Basically, it's as though I sell your house or automobile or most anything you own to anyone willing to pay for it, regardless of the fact that I do not own the items myself. I'd call it fraud, and apparently the jury in the case did too.

But Judge Richard Thorpe was not so impressed. He decided that the jury's verdict was merely "advisory," issued his own motions, and then issued judgment to the plaintiff, regardless.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the "case and controversy" requirement in Article III of the Constitution bars "advisory" opinions. In this case, the judge just plain decided to ignore the jury's verdict, and to issue his own. He acted as prosecutor, judge, and jury, all wearing one hat (his own). It's a scary legal system, considering the fact that the judges themselves do not obey the law. I hope that I never have to appear before this judge's bench. The American people deserve better than that. And judges, as well as anyone else in government, need to be held accountable for their actions.

--traveler@serv.net