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.

Don't Steal This Newspaper!

I was so happy to find your paper again and then I noticed your evaluation that 9/11 Conspiracies are "a bunch of shit". I take this to mean that you prefer the official 9/11 Conspiracy with its gaping holes--The 1001 Problems of the 9/11 fable as I and my Master level and PhD friends call it. And to think we were fooled by all those gaping holes and the obvious lies in the story when you assure us that the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY theory is the only valid conspiracy theory...even though the non-official conspiracy follows Ockham's Razor law and accounts for the gaping holes. Gee and I got A's on all my research papers. Thereafter you impale the Criminal Bush Junta for its non-stop lies and perversion of truth. I notice you do not address any of the 1001 Problems of the 9/11 Reichstag. Why not, since you obviously have the goods to disprove them? This is a standard technique of propagandists....smears and labels devoid of substance. Bizarre to say the least. I say get back in your hole so that the real opposition won't have to contend with the disinfo of you losers. I will be removing your lie sheets if I find lies in them. My duty as an informed patriotic American.

Belinda, MBA MHA RPh

Your conclusion that ETS! writers are Bush Cartel stooges simply because they don't believe, for example, that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by airplanes flown by remote control from the Pentagon (one of the many conspiracy theories going about) is a bit oversimplified. And since you haven't bothered to provide us any details regarding your one true version of 9/11 events, I don't know how right you really are. Oh, and since one of your degrees is an MBA, you might not have been clued in that stealing is ethically wrong.

Still Looking For Proof

I just went through the article: Weapons of Mass Destruction: Where's the Proof? by Maria Tomchick. I agree with some of it. There are some problems in it, I think. You mention only the Bush administration and Blair as being the "hard evidence" and that of course is not really evidence. This I would agree with you on, but UN Weapons Inspectors, past and present, know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. That does not mean that only Americans and Brits think that. Also you say basically that everything was destroyed in the Gulf War and after 1998 as well. Only what we found was destroyed, and what is being destroyed are AAA, SAMs, radar sites, etc... not suspected weapons factories.

Also you finish a paragraph mentioning how accurate the Scud was. That is because they modified that old Soviet design to hold more fuel, thus messing up the accuracy, and don't try to tell readers that you have to be accurate when you are launching a warhead that has weapons of mass destruction, because you can miss by miles and have the same effect.

Lastly many sites that were destroyed in the Gulf War are being rebuilt right now. The US has the satellite pictures to prove it. I respect your fact finding and giving credit to your sources but the fact remains: The UN Weapons Inspectors knew and know he has the weapons, they are there to make him disarm or face the fury of the American military machine. That's that.

Anonymous, via e-mail

Regarding SCUD missiles: the term "weapons of mass destruction" includes long-range missile capability, because it implies that a long-range weapon would be needed to deliver a nuke beyond Iraq's borders with enough accuracy that it wouldn't pose a risk to Iraq's territory or people. The SCUD missile is neither long-range nor accurate. Saddam may be a bad guy, but he's not stupid enough to hit his own country with a nuclear or chemical SCUD. (Saddam used planes to gas the Kurds, not missiles.) The US government has yet to release any satellite photos that show anything resembling weapons of mass destruction. As far as I'm aware, they've only released two photos: one which shows some buildings, and the other which shows a runway with a couple of dark smears on it that we're supposed to believe are long-range missile launch pads. UN inspectors have visited those sites, and told the British press, unofficially, that there's nothing there. Until I see more evidence from the Bush administration, I'll have to believe the inspectors. And that's that.

Equal Opportunity Exploitation?

Recently, in the e-mail version of ETS!, Maria Tomchick wrote, "PETA's ads include not only nude women, but naked men and people of color, too--in short, they're equal opportunity nudists." It is true that PETA has a few so-called nude ads that feature men and people of color, but does this make them "equal opportunity nudists?"

Many of PETA's ads, including those rare ads featuring men and people of color, reinforce a value-hierarchy based on sexual and racial stereotypes that cannot accurately be termed "equal opportunity," as they portray some people as inferior. Tomchick wrote: "To be fair, folks ought to also check out PETA's website ... for comparison." I think this a good idea, so long as your comparison includes an analysis of the ads' content, and not just checking to see if there are also ads with men or people of color. A comparison of content can be quite revealing. If PETA's ads give the impression that some people are inferior, then by definition they cannot be called "equal."

One ad on PETA's site is of a naked black male in a cage--perhaps one of those "equal opportunity" ads Tomchick was writing about. The man is seen snarling while lunging out from behind the bars of a small cage. Compare this image created by PETA with the image white racists created of blacks, and similarities will become obvious. For example, Thomas Nelson Page in his book Red Rock refers to his black character as "a hyena in a cage" and "a wild beast."

Another of PETA's "equal opportunity" ads is of a naked Latina woman; she too is in a cage, but unlike the ad with the black male this woman is not snarling or lunging out of the cage. The woman is on her hands and knees--in a submissive stance--with her rear highlighted while staring passively out at the viewer. Both of the above ads are saying something about the sexuality of the models; that the individuals represented have a non-human sexuality. In the case of the black male the image suggests he is an aggressive sexual predator; a common myth attributed to black men.

The image of the woman suggests a sexual object: submissive, passive, and available for rear-entry sex. After a closer look I think it is more accurate to call PETA an equal opportunistic exploiter of oppressed groups, not an equal opportunity nudist.

Historically, women and people of color have been classified as occupying a space between humans and other animals. Considered "neither Man nor beast," this has been a means by which a supposed "superior" group has justified the degradation and oppression of alleged "inferior" groups. We should all be aware that the regurgitation of derogatory images of other human beings does not help, but hinders, other animals. Ads like PETA's simply recreate value-hierarchies with men over women, whites over nonwhites, and humans over non-humans. We should be working to deconstruct and eliminate such reactionary dualisms and recognize that the oppression of humans and non-humans is tied-up in the same logic of domination.

Daniel Hammer, via e-mail

Because these models volunteered to pose for these ads, I'm more inclined to view them as self-expression than as PETA exploitation. I'd also like to point out that other PETA "cage" ads and actions have featured white people (the one in Seattle certainly did), while people of color have appeared in several PETA ads (with their clothes on as well as off) that don't feature cages.

Poor Mr. Lott

Senator Lott resigned as Senate Majority Leader. He made an uplifting remark to an old man, failing to consider the historical context of the statement. The statement contained the smoking gun of history's bigotry. A simple apology should have sufficed. Democrats, the party of historical segregation, made a circus around the Republican Senator's remark.

Democrats demonize in their ever-present double standard. In the Presidential elections Al Gore sought to overturn existing law while George Bush attempted to uphold existing law. Democrats still whine about the "stolen" elections. Then there is Bill Clinton who lied, stretching truth as a mode of operation. Defending Democrat leaders claimed personal life has nothing to do with ability to govern. Democrats then drudge up every little innuendo to attempt to demonize President Bush.

They have the Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a Ku Klux Klan member in the 1930s, writing about "race mongrels" in the 1940s. It's more recently reported that up through 1992 he was in a group that promoted lynching African-Americans. Byrd filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and has voted against every Black appointee to the US Supreme Court.

On March 4, 2001 Democrat Byrd, not once but twice used the N-word on television. Not a single condemnation from Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, or Kweisi Mfume. Not one leading Civil Rights leader, including Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, commented.

It is time to take a stand. Where racism rears it's ugly head it must be dealt with but not selectively.

Roger W Hancock Auburn, WA