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.

What About Districts?

This morning I attended an event which promoted a new campaign to change Seattle's system for electing its city council from "at-large" to "districting." I was dismayed to see that the campaign has the support of usually nice people such as Nick Licata and Dawn Mason, because the idea inspires in me a feeling of great revulsion. Here are some of the reasons why:

* In this election, I have four votes to cast for city council candidates. Under districting, I would have only one. I don't want people taking away my votes!

* With at-large elections, I am a constituent for all nine members of the council. All nine of them have, at least in theory, some obligation to listen to my concerns. Under districting, eight of them would have no more reason to pay attention to me than do, for example, Norm Dicks or Trent Lott.

* The campaign claims that districting would improve the accountability of the elected officials. I believe it would do just the opposite: the Nordstrom family (or whoever it is that gives Jan Drago $100,000 to spend on an election) would still be able to hand out money as it does now to all

council members, but my vote would affect only one of them.

* The campaign has an air of false populism similar to that of term limit initiatives: both claim to strike at the power elite, but by dodging the question of campaign finance reform, they ensure that the plutocrats and party hacks will still call the shots. They even try to pass the council's recent doubling of the campaign contribution cap as evidence in favor of districting, when it's really just evidence of corruption. If they really wanted to improve accountability, why not start with campaign finance, perhaps by forcing the council to repeal the raise and put all such future raises on the general ballot?

* Switching to districting now will postpone further the (admittedly remote) opportunity to adopt any truly innovative form of proportional representation, because districting's supporters will entreat us to "give it a chance" just long enough for it to become entrenched as the status quo. If we must change now, why not go for something good? Most of the country uses districting, and most of the governments so elected are less than admirable.

* I live in the 43rd state legislative district, where none of the incumbent state legislators have faced a serious challenge for the two elections I've been here. In contrast, three of the four incumbent city councilmembers running for re-election this year have a fight on their hands. I can't say how much districting has caused that, but it sure doesn't make districting look good.

At the event this morning, Seattle Weekly editor George Howland mentioned that the Seattle Times has come out in favor of districting. The Times also endorsed Bush the Second. What does Eat the State! think about districting?

--John Franco, via e-mail

G.P. replies: I haven't seen this specific proposal, John, and with most of these the devil is in the details. However, most of the ones floated recently don't make all of the seats districted; they're some combination of districts and at-large, like 6/3 or 7/2.

In this sense, district-elected members could make much more of a case that the city's various departments are everyone's business, not just the fiefdom of whichever council member snagged that particular prize. As I said, the devil's in the details -- but that structure is as much a problem as the need for districts right now. Probably more so. And if districts can break those firewalls down, it might be a good idea.

The Kashmir Connection

Thank you for posting this article, it's refreshing to read the truth once in a while. Since the U.S. needs their cooperation, it's only natural for the Bush Administration to look the other way regarding Pakistan's sponsoring of terrorists in Kashmir. I don't know what the incentive is for the mainstream media not to discuss this. In particular CNN (The News Leader?).

Much Credit to Troy Skeels.

Thanks Again.

--M. Chopra, via e-mail

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave

Do we care about a group of people who have allowed the Taliban to rule and starve them?

NO, we don't.

I care about all those people burned alive, crushed, killed on 9/11.

I care about those who had to jump from the WTC to their certain deaths.

I care about their families, their kids, their lives that were lost.

Our people, you idiots, not the Afghans.

If I lived next door to Taliban and I knew they were being bombed, I would leave.

They were too stupid to do anything about the Taliban and now they are too stupid to get out of the way. Tough shit. This isn't Viet Nam and you in the media are not going to be allowed to pull that again.

--Donna Remini, Colonia, NJ

Time to Act!

I am interested in facilitating the formation of small affinity groups interested in nonviolent direct action. I'm hoping to meet on weekend afternoons in StudioX in Belltown for discussions and planning. When we're ready we can stream audio program at 6pm over the microradio network as a way to focus our thoughts and encourage others to join our effort. The two books "A Force More Powerful" and "The Quiet Revolution" are the recommended readings. A donation of time or cash to StudioX will be requested. The focus is on group empowerment to promote self-government that includes social and ecologic responsibility, in defiance to the present decline of cultural and democratic institutions. If you are ready to engage or have questions please contact me through e-mail at mosstone@scn.org.

--Moss Stone, Seattle

Unpublished Letter to the Editor!

Killing innocent people is never justified. True or false?

When asked to ponder the grievances and anti-American hatred that led terrorists to kill thousands of innocent Americans, commentators such as Leonard Pitts Jr. (Times, Oct. 18) and many others proclaim that such self-examination is irrelevant. Killing innocent people is never justified, they argue. Case closed.

Now it's the U.S. military that is killing innocent people in Afghanistan.

The combined toll of innocent Afghani deaths from military attacks, dislocation, and starvation will likely rise to many times the toll from Sept. 11.

Is this justice? The question is not even open to public debate: Either you're with this killing or you're with the terrorists. Polls indicate an overwhelming majority of Americans support it.

Killing innocent people is never justified. True or false?

Some would argue the crucial distinction is that terrorists deliberately target innocents whereas U.S. military attacks only kill innocents as "collateral damage." I doubt this distinction is very important to the Afghani families who have had their lives uprooted and loved ones lost to U.S. military attacks.

While much of the country unites in patriotic pride, I can only hang my head

in sorrow and shame at the moral hypocrisy that has made U.S. foreign policy much reviled throughout the world.

God bless America? I just hope God has mercy on us.

--Lansing Scott, Seattle

Got a letter you didn't get published by the Big Corporate Dailies (or Weeklies?) Try us--maybe we'll publish it, especially if it makes them look bad...ETS, PO Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145 USA, or e-mail ets@scn.org