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.

Monorail Yes!

Maria Tomchick's "paving the lake" story demonstrates clearly that:

1) "Sound" Transit is a loose cannon with taxpayer money, is interested in only preserving its own bureaucracy (which interestingly enough, didn't even exist a few years ago!), and will do little to nothing to alleviate congestion in the area, assuming ANYTHING is EVER DONE. This is why I voted "NO!" on both their plans--a tax fiasco without direction is an unending tax fiasco--at least the Mariners aren't talking billions with no "sunset clause" in their taxing abilities (doesn't excuse them, though)!

2) The Monorail Initiative has NOT, repeat NOT, "come and gone without a trace." If you go to www.elevated.org, you will see what the Elevated Transit Council has been up to for the past year, their current series of meetings with all those companies (14!) who responded to their RFI of May 15, and what's happening next. Just because the ETC is effectively volunteer only with only a pittance of a budget from the City, doesn't mean they haven't been working hard. They just aren't filling your mail with misinformation about what they AREN'T doing (i.e., "Sound" Transit).

If you go to our site (Friends of the Monorail, www.monorail.org) you will see a links page to all Seattle Media, upon which you can search all their sites for monorail articles, and you will see (especially from the Daily Journal of Commerce) that there actually is quite a bit going on. Again, it's simply not PAC-esque "political schmoozing" a la "Sound" Transit.

We are out there, we are working hard to make this a reality. Let the ETC know you support our efforts--send them some email, volunteer to help, show up at a meeting or two (they're held in the City Council chambers, everyone knows where that is, and broadcast on Channel 28) the schedule is on their website.

We can't rely on "Sound" Transit, or the Legislature (unless you want double-decker freeways through every neighborhood) to do anything that will help, especially anytime soon. While not the complete regional solution, monorail is a great start--help us out!!!!

Kevin Orme, President, Friends of the Monorail

M.T. replies: Yes, the monorail working groups are still around, there are companies that can build a monorail system for us, etc. But the question remains: where's the money going to come from? In those terms--not the "political schmoozing" you refer to--the monorail initiative is still trying to get past Go. Far from trying to diminish your efforts, my comment was to make the point that the money--whether it be private funds or taxpayer money--is going to fund bad projects: more express buses and more freeway lanes.

Gun Zealot #1

Sorry to see you falling for the mainstream media's (c)rap on gun control ("Gun Lobby Control," ETS!, 6/23/99). The simple fact is that the vast (nay, overwhelming) majority of gun deaths are caused by handguns--accidents in the home, kids playing, crimes of passion, robberies gone bad, et cetera. This is not due to the availability of pistols compared to rifles; long arms (rifles and shotguns) are much more numerous than handguns.

Military and military-style arms make great copy when we hear about drive-bys and school massacres, but these are a tiny minority of gun deaths. What access to military weapons technology does for the ordinary citizen is to give him/her a fighting chance against the state.

Yes, one can always be wildly overwhelmed (as with MOVE in Philadelphia or the Branch Davidians in Waco), but if the apparatus of repression felt completely unopposed by force of arms (and I'm not talking about bolt-action .22 target rifles or hunting bows), imagine how much bolder they'd be. One of the things that slows would-be oppressors in this country is that no one knows who is armed or to what extent. Besides, more folks die of cars than of guns: let's see your article on limiting purchase of autos.

Mike, via e-mail

Gun Zealot #2

I read your editorial on gun control with great interest. I think we both agree that the main point of all the current ballyhoo in Washington is to build an image that can be sold to the voters in the next election. The politicians and their advisors all know the proposed changes will do little to prevent further tragedies, but the changes do move their agenda in the right direction: registration of all firearms. I view gun registration as the last step before the government attempts to confiscate our weapons.

Although many of your readers may support the concept of banning all firearms, I ask them to think about this:

1. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Do you really think it's a good idea for civilians to be completely defenseless against the FBI assassins and their right-wing cohorts?

2. I read that in Kosovo, the government had armed all the ethnic Serbs, but mostly prevented the ethnic Albanians from having guns. How many Albanian deaths would have been prevented if the Albanians had been able to defend themselves?

Sincerely,

Jim Ellsworth, Clinton, Maine

M.T. replies: To address specific questions in the above letters: right now the government owns all the nuclear warheads, tanks, F-22 fighter planes, helicopter gunships, etc. What should we do about that? Let private citizens own them, too? In regards to Kosovo: the Serbian repression against Kosovar Albanians began in earnest when the KLA began its armed struggle. Read my article above to find out where the KLA got its guns.

Who for President?

I was wondering, who do you guys want to win for president, or do you think it matters? A couple opinions will do.

Thank you.

Amy Wolf, via e-mail

G.P. replies: We're 16 months away, and the candidate I want isn't running yet. That would be a real campaign by someone like Nader or Hightower that would put a populist agenda in front of the nation's electorate. That's the only purpose worth caring about in a presidential race; the electoral system in this country is so corrupt that by the time anyone rises to the very top there's very little they can do, except to continue the evil empire. Do I care whether it's Gore or Bush? Not much. Here are the advantages: both of them are reactionary assholes. Gore is a little better on a few issues, but like Clinton--who is, incidentally, more of a "liberal" than Gore--on the issues where he's bad there will be no opposition from the SFDs ("Stupid Fucking Democrats"). So it's a wash, and either way it's bad. Corporate America wouldn't be spending so much money on these guys otherwise. After eight years of Clinton--who was supported by some progressives because "at least his court appointments will be better," and then turned around and appointed a generation of judges even more pro-corporate than Reagan or Bush--anyone who thinks Gore has any credentials at all as, say, an environmentalist, is a complete idiot. Let's indict them both as war criminals now, before they've had a chance to actually commit the deeds. Or maybe we can retroactively grant the Confederate States of America their secession, disenfranchising them both and dumping Jesse Helms and Disney World in the bargain.

M.T. replies: I pay very little attention to the presidential race, because there seems to be no little or no difference between the candidates. At that level of politics, we're looking at corporate whores, no matter how you slice it. Remember, when Bill Bradley came to town, his first stop was Redmond--to hit up a few Microsoft millionaires for their campaign donations. Gore did the same thing. Six of one...