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.

Hey ETS!,

I've been glancing at or reading your publication for a month or so and on the whole enjoy it. It's certainly a thought provoker, whether I agree with the opinions stated or not. A short description of my philosophical outlook. I've always accepted the moniker of "liberal" though as I age, I probably fit into that mish-mash group of "social liberal, fiscal conservative" that we hear so much about. I vote my convictions regardless of party, but tend to lean Democratic.

Regarding "Pol Pot Photo Ops"--right on and quite humorous. I for one relish the sci-fi idea of the U.S. taking a moral stand on human rights, but I also recognize the intricacy of the situation. I'd be very curious to know what you and your staff would advocate with respect to US-China relations. Do we take the high road and totally disassociate ourselves from 1/4 of the world's population? Do we continue to make weak suggestions to their government like "hey, treat your people better?" Do we cozy up to them and play friends all the while thinking of subversive ways to change their cultural and political traditions to match our own more closely? I for one am truly stumped on this one. Our chummy associations with deplorable regimes in the past is truly sickening, but our erasure of Cuba from our political map hasn't been very productive either.

Regarding "Barge Right In"--here I must speak from my personal experience only (but isn't that what we always do?). I simply do not understand the connection between organized labor movements and free-thinking "liberalism." They seem at utter odds to me, particularly in 1997. Let me explain my very shunted viewpoint. My image of unions is this (and this is firsthand observation of the IAM). The union consists of mainly middle aged men (the young ones were all laid off due to low seniority, even though they were the hardest working of the bunch) who are comfortable in their job position. They perform "tech" work...hands on, torquing nuts, operating cranes, transferring propellants, etc., which requires a high-school degree and some minimal training. In most cases they make far more than your average college-educated engineer (what with higher pay-scales, mucho overtime, etc.). They do actual work to a procedure on average around four hours a day. They hop in government vans to drive to job sites and consistently travel five miles below the speed limits, which among other things, hampers traffic. They clump in groups and look down on anyone that isn't in the union. They demand set yearly increases no matter the financial stability of the company or contract on which they work...there is absolutely no company loyalty (but then again, I don't have much myself). They demand free health care despite the fact that all non-union employees pay upwards of $40 a month for their health care. When a strike occurs, as did three years ago (which lasted for four months), and which may occur again come January (gotta get those paid holidays in first!), direct and dangerous sabotage is rampant. Valves which should be closed are opened, integrity control seals are removed at random, compressed gas cylinders are allowed to drop to zero pressure, etc. They demand that other non-union workers support their efforts, but this is difficult when the union guys are already making $2 more an hour than I am.

Cooperation in general is non-existent. As you say in your response to Robert Carman's gun-rights e-mail, "Our culture is one of the worst in the world for knowing how to work together." I'm not sure if I agree with that statement, but in this case it sure rings true. If you sense that I am bitter towards unions and the ideals they hold, you're right. It's the mob mentality. If your position or department goes union (which only requires a majority vote), you either go union or lose your job. Dues are mandatory...and the union bosses sit at a higher level. They are no longer subject to the seniority rules. Ugh. It just seems to me that this sort of thing has seen its day and served its purpose. I don't want to sound totally against the idea of groups of people sticking up for themselves against cruel working conditions and what have you, but eventually this sorta thing settles into your mindset and can cause more harm than good in the long run...not to mention fostering ill-will towards government and business (which may or may not be justified).

Regarding "Sex Ed For Dummies"--eh, I'm sorta halfway on this one. While I support comprehensive school sex ed and recognize the results mentioned in your article, you shift off into an anti-papal rant that really doesn't address the issue at all. Sex education has long held a place in Catholic schools (ask me, I'm the product of one) and the classes I took were fairly comprehensive (birth control was discussed, homosexuality, etc.). The interesting part of my formal education was that the sex class was mirrored the next semester by a "morality" class...albeit with a Judeo/Christian slant. Nevertheless, I tend to think it was helpful (and that was back in 1984). Sex Education does not automatically equate with handing out or promoting condom use, and I think it's wrong to fault the Pope for preaching traditional Catholic dogma. I don't want to sound like a Catholic zealot or anything. But I think the issue is "irresponsible" sex plain and simple, and the purpose of a sex education class is to help define and teach "responsible" sex. Irresponsible sex causes teen-pregnancy. Irresponsible sex causes the spread of STDs. Not sex, but irresponsible sex. So what? So the Catholic Church defines irresponsible sex a bit more broadly that most of us (as in "sex outside of marriage"). That's the Church's right. I don't hear anyone saying we should edit the Bible. If you have problems with what it says (as I do), then ignore it. And that's what I say about the Pope...if you don't agree, ignore it. The Pope's teachings have little to do with our U.S. public school morals and teachings.

Human sexuality and the world at large has been around a hell of a lot longer than the U.S. public school system, and the human race is still around and screwin'. I am a parent (albeit with a baby that has a long way to go before needing the "birds & bees" talk) and I resent the implication that I am "clueless" or only perform "heterosexual penetration." Give us all a break. A group of teachers that have attended "sex conferences" and know how to roll a condom down their middle finger are not the saviors of this dastardly world you portray. (And again, irresponsible sex has "murdered enough people already," not the tired grumblings of an old Pole in Rome.) Thanks for letting me rail on.

--Mike Runion, via e-mail

The white, aging, privileged male elite of the world (personified by the Pope and conservative politicians) are my targets. If I ignore these scumbags, as you suggest, they won't just go away. They've spent their whole lives acquiring a disproportionate amount of power over women, children, and people of color, and they abuse that power regularly. That's the real point of my article.