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.

Lies or the Truth?

ETS!,

In the November 7th Issue of ETS, article "Dateline Oblivion: The Dead They Won't Discuss", the author writes:

"On Oct. 22, Taliban officials claimed that the US is using chemical weapons in Afghanistan. They said doctors in Herat and Kandahar described "a state of poisonousness" in patients injured by shrapnel. They could be referring to sickness caused by depleted uranium munitions, which produced sickness in injured soldiers and civilians in the Gulf War, Serbia, and Kosovo."

First off, it is in the Taliban's best interests to make false claims about our troops using chemical weapons, so I find this statement to be highly suspect. Secondly, depleted uranium is used to make armor and armor-piercing warheads. The vast majority of munitions dropped on Taliban targets have been standard MK80 series bombs or GBUs (guided munitions). Bombs generally do not use depleted uranium warheads, since they are not designed to penetrate armor (the explosion is more than sufficient in most cases). Even the "bunker buster" bombs are composed of steel alloys, not uranium (though I cannot verify for a fact that all of them are uranium free). After some research, I can find no information that would lend any credibility to the claim that depleted uranium is used in general purpose bombs. Tank shells and even high caliber machine bullets, yes. Bombs, no. And so far, all we've been dropping on Afghanistan is bombs and food.

On another note, I added up the casualties that you listed for a grand total of 436. This is including the Taliban figures of hundreds killed. While every civilian death is regrettable, 436 is an arguably low number of civilian casualties for the amount of ordnance used--and this is a liberal figure at that. The military is doing its absolute most to avoid civilian casualties, and is even trying to help with food drops--a move unheard of in any military conflict until now.

And finally--this is the last point--another article in this issue claims that the 5000 dead figure in the WTC attack was "vastly inflated." If you people do not provide corroboration of this "fact" in the article, be it in the form of Web links, magazine/newspaper citations, or what have you--I have no choice but to call you liars flat out. I had heard reports that the death toll had dropped from 6000 to 4500, but even these reports were uncertain, and I have heard nothing of them since the day they were mentioned. Your publication is the first I've seen to make this claim, and it is more than shoddy journalism on your part, it's outright an falsehood.

The first time I read ETS! (about a month ago) I found I disagreed with most of what it said, but at least you weren't telling outrageous lies. It doesn't appear to be that way any more.

Jon Hamel, via e-mail

4. The number of dead at the World Trade Center. While the New York Times sometimes prints falsehoods, I think they're right on this one. "A Nation Challenged: The Toll; Numbers Vary in Tallies of Victims," by Eric Lipton, NY Times, 10/25/01, puts the number at 2,950--considerably lower than 5,000. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's short piece "Few applying for death certificates; city puzzled," 11/1/01, puts the tally at 1,800. It also quotes an ongoing Associated Press tally of the victims which lists only 2,500 names.

What About Districts?

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 council members 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.

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