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.

The Teet Offensive: Shock and Awe

While the exposure of Janet Jackson's nipple appears to be in the spotlight, the incident ultimately reveals the truth about the true priorities and vulnerabilities of the Bush administration and its appointees.

If only FCC chief, Michel Powell, had been so "outraged at what I saw" when confronted with the fact that about 2/3 of Americans believed, mistakenly, that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and Al Queda, due largely to over-exposure to FOX news and other pro-war stations. One might think that at least one major network intentionally misleading the American public would be called "classless, crass and deplorable stunt."

But what gets an avowed "thorough and swift" investigation? A bare naked breast--on a beautiful woman, I might add. Duck and cover everyone! It's the Teet Offensive! Maybe it was a planned attack by MoveOn.org and PETA who were outraged about their ads being censored by CBS for being too controversial. Powell is the second Bush appointee to rally against a WMD (Woman's Mammary Display.) Ashcroft could not bear to be seen under the bare naked breast on the Statue of Justice and had her offensive teets, like our civil liberties, shrouded in shame. If only the millions of protesters who tried to stop the Iraq invasion had thought to wear something as simple as Power Pasties, we could have won with our own "shock and awe" maneuvers. What does it say about our TV observers and our leaders when fleeting images of attractive nipples raise more outrage than censorship, dismembered bodies and maimed children? Somebody should be ashamed, and it isn't Janet Jackson.

Jackie DeVincent, Seattle

Democratic Imperialism

While President Bush continues to speak of his commitment to democracy in the Middle East, the events of the past few months make it increasingly difficult to distance our policies in Iraq from those of other imperial powers of the past few centuries. The forceful methods used by imperialist powers such as the British in India until the late 1940s, the French in Algeria until the early 1960s, and those of the US in Iraq are beginning to look strikingly similar.

As resistance continues in Iraq, US-led forces have become increasingly violent and lethal towards protesting Iraqis. Angry and frustrated by the struggle to feed their families, more Iraqis have begun to take to the streets in protest over loss of jobs. On January 10, according to CNN, in the southern city of Amarah, a peaceful protest against unemployment turned violent when a shot was fired from the crowd. The Iraqi police immediately opened fire, and US-led forces moved on the protestors with armored vehicles and fired indiscriminately. Instead of using non-lethal methods, the soldiers killed six protesting Iraqis and wounded eleven others. The message was clear: opposition to US rule will be violently suppressed.

While anti-American violence has become more frequent, the US response has been to attempt to scare and frighten dissenters into submission. On Monday, January 12, Human Rights Watch sent a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accusing the US of war crimes. The crimes include demolishing homes of the families of suspected resistors and detaining relatives not suspected of any wrongdoing.

As civilian and American deaths pile up, our administrations response has been to tighten controls over Iraqi media. After the ousting of Saddam, many state-run media sources were bombed or taken over by the US forces. These stations are currently run by a US defense contractor, Science Applications International Corporation. More recently, the US gave a $96 million contract to Harris Corp., a large US company, which established the Iraqi Media Network. The company hopes to have over 30 TV and radio transmitters to counteract the news reports of local news channels. Instead of promoting a diverse media, and encouraging dissent, protest, and discussion, our administrations response has been to crack down on those who disagree.

US forces are assassinating protestors, brutally detaining Iraqi's without charges, destroying the houses of suspected dissidents, and controlling Iraq's media. The justification is that by suppressing political dissent and muting images of US violence in the media, we can bring about democracy. Similar means have been used by other occupying powers to bring about order. China in Tibet, Britain in India, and the French in Algeria, claimed that quelling unrest with violence was for the eventual good of the people.

It is hard to believe that our administration supports increasingly harsh measures against political dissent while, with a straight face, claiming to be building a government based on democracy, human rights, and the rule of the Iraqi people. It is clear that assassinating those who speak out, suppressing independent media and violating peoples rights is immoral and hypocritical. Our actions in Iraq are beginning to look less like a human rights effort, and more like those of other violent occupiers.

Jeb Koogler, Vashon Island