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.

Covering for Bush at the P-I

I was listening to the Randi Rhodes show Friday (webcast from http://www.airamericaradio.com) when I was galvanized by a short audio clip she played of Bush at a meeting of journalists, where the audience actually broke out in laughter at his inability to formulate an intelligent answer to a simple policy question.

You may have heard of this public appearance (at the Unity conference) since then, because Bush made several statements there that have found their way into the news.

A curious thing became evident as I compared the unedited video to the news coverage of the event. Although Bush's performance was at best banal and at worst cringe-inducingly inept, most of the news stories reporting on it gave the impression that Bush had delivered coherent, intelligent statements on a variety of topics.

I was particularly surprised when I read that Seattle's Mark Trahant, the journalist who asked the question that functioned as set-up to Bush's gag, had this to say about it: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/185202_trahant8.html

So I had no choice but to write this letter to the Op-Ed page of which Trahant is editor:

I don't know how many people have seen Bush's appearance at Unity, the Journalists of Color convention. I've watched it on C-SPAN.org, and listened at Indianz.com. I know that the P-I's Mark Trahant had a ringside seat, because, as a panelist, he asked Bush about Native American tribal sovereignty. So it's surprising to read Trahant's account (Sunday, Aug. 8), which gives the false impression that Bush competently fielded his question.

Trahant asked, "What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st Century, and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and state governments?" Bush's response, with his telling hesitations and stammering left intact, was:

"Yeah. Uh, tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. It's, you're, you're a, you're a--you've been given sovereignty, and you're...viewed as a s-s-sovereign entity. (Audience laughter.) And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and...tribes is one between s...s-s-sovereign entities."

Trahant relays that as: "When conflicts arise, he said they should be worked out sovereign to sovereign." That's one heck of a paraphrase. The President's actual words leave one wondering if he's certain what sovereignty is, besides being something "given" to occupied nations.

Trahant indicates that he found encouraging answers in Bush's bumbling evasions. I wonder if he's indulging an overactive imagination. Newsweek's Marcus Mabry more accurately describes Bush as "looking like a schoolboy unprepared at the front of the class" while his audience "snickered."

Likewise with the news that Bush came out against legacy admissions at the same event. One would think he'd announced a new policy. In fact, he was cornered by a Black journalist who slyly asked, if Bush opposes any college admissions system except one that's based on merit, then what about the legacy preference, without which the young Bush could never have gotten into Yale? Bush was cornered, so he apparently tried to save face by repudiating the legacy system on the spot.

If Bush were as exposed to the public eye as the contestants on reality shows, putting his shortcomings on regular display without scripts or handlers to make him look good, his political career would be toast. No wonder such unmanaged encounters are rarely allowed.

But why do journalists like Trahant, upon whom we depend to give us the facts, habitually rewrite Bush's embarrassing goof-ups to make them seem like smart, substantive statements? If this is what's currently meant by objectivity, how can we possibly rely upon anything the press tells us about the powers that be?

--Kenneth Huey, Seattle

Other Progressives Running

I like Chris La Roche. I agree with him most of the time. But when he stated that he was the only Seattle Progressive running this time, I have to gently remind him that Alice Woldt and Deborah Senn also hale from Seattle, and are both very progressive ladies. I would include Maralyn Chase, but she resides in Shoreline, and, alas, does not qualify based only on geography.

--Linde Knighton, coChair, Progressive Party of Washington, Seattle

L.S.: Alice Woldt is indeed running a progressive campaign for state legislature this year, as is Bob Hasegawa in the 11th district. But both of their races will be decided in the Democratic primary in September (since the chances of a Republican winning a legislative race in Seattle in November is roughly the same as the Mariners winning the World Series in October). LaRoche's claim was specifically about legislative contests in November. (Senn is running for Attorney General.) The print edition had a parenthetical clause clarifying Chris' claim that was left out of the web and email editions.

Irony or Stupidity?

Pris (Darryl Hannah's character), not to be confused with Rachael (played by Sean Young and saved by the happy ending convention), most certainly ended up in doornail land.

It was indeed Lincoln who said, "You can fool all of the people ...". The comparably famous line from Barnum is: "There's a sucker born every minute."

Tsk! Tsk! In a column bemoaning the slack-jawed ignorance of an entire nation, the disregard for details seems...well, ironic.

--Karen L. Barrett New York

In the intervening many years since I last saw Blade Runner I had obviously changed a few details around in my mind and engaging in some kind of wish fulfillment I had made Pris live and Rachael disappear (and no doubt subconsciously put myself in the role of Harrison Ford, riding off into the warm Hollywood glow...