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 editorial@eatthestate.org.

Viaduct and Cover

Editors, ETS!,

There are some issues that the proponents of "Surface/Transit" are not addressing, and I was surprised to not see these addressed in Geov Parrish's "Pox on Both Houses" editorial.

For example, small and large industry has grown to depend on the viaduct for delivery of goods between the Duwamish valley and the north end for the past 50 years. Additionally, container traffic from Terminal 46 (and in the future, Terminal 30) uses many of the surface streets in SoDo to reach other destinations, such as warehouses in SoDo, Georgetown, and many points southward--as well as other terminals on and near Harbor Island. Putting them all on I-5 may quadruple the trip time of these vehicles while diesel emissions are pouring into the air.

While replacing the viaduct with transit and "other options" might sound good for a would-be commuter, none of these address how this will impact industry, and by default, people's jobs. Higher operational costs pressure employers to pay lower wages and cut benefits. Some will simply relocate to Tacoma, resulting in layoffs and longer commute times. Finally, all of those idling diesel trucks on I-5 and downtown will add to emissions. It's too bad people like Friends of Seattle and People's Waterfront Coalition are not taking these issues straight-on, as it perpetuates the notion that job security and a sustainable environment are mutually exclusive. It does lend argument that it is more important for the green-left to talk to downtown developers instead of blue collar working people.

What's more, the comparison to other cities like San Francisco is rather moot. In SF, the [San Francisco-Oakland Bay] bridge was already unusable before the earthquake of '89; the shipping industry, by and large, had already been relocated to the container terminals throughout the 60's and 70's away from SF's waterfront; and the arterial along the SF waterfront was not a crucial industrial transportation link between two major hubs of industrial and warehouse activity. In Seattle, the viaduct corridor is a crucial link for industry, is still used by the shipping industry, and is still useable.

That the Viaduct is ugly is not a compelling reason to do without it, unless we want to replace it with a wall of condos, because that is precisely what will happen if we replace the viaduct with nothing. But because the local economy has been driven by a real estate bubble that is deflating fast, fueled by the dot-com boom leftovers, civic leaders are desperate (e.g. the hyperbole--"crumbling" and "collapsing" Viaduct). It is unfortunate to see progressives buying into this hysteria, while blue collar jobs--the real economic base--are not part of the discussion, not to mention the other effects of gentrification on the homeless and other working class people.

So in a perfect world, tear it down. But in the real world, "ugly" but functional will do. If the Surface-Transit people have no answers to these questions, then rebuild it.

--John Persak, Georgetown, Seattle

Lansing Scott replies: Actually, surface/transit advocates do address the need for freight, but, with freight constituting only 4,000 out of 110,000 daily viaduct trips, argue that there are better and cheaper ways to meet that need.

No Presidential Primary!

ETS!,

During the last round of presidential primary circuses, then-Governor Gary Locke and the legislature decided that Washington State would save its money by not participating. It was the right decision.

On Sept. 15, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Washington's blanket primary system was unconstitutional because it violated the political parties' right of free association. On Feb. 23, 2004, the United States Supreme Court refused to review the Ninth Circuit decision. These rulings effectively confirm that the political parties are private corporations, not public entities. Private corporations like Starbucks or Microsoft have the right to chose their own internal processes for picking their CEOs and so political parties have the right to chose their own internal processes for picking their candidates.

And this is the way we did it in Washington State from 1907 to 1934. The blanket primary system did not come in until 1935. Democrats rarely paid any attention to primaries because we use the caucus system. Republicans have used a mix of primaries and caucuses. Both parties may also use conventions. The point is that, however a party chooses its candidates, it is their ballgame and they should foot the costs themselves. Presidential primaries cost $10 million each. We have better places to spend that kind of money.

--Janice Van Cleve, PCO 43/1858, 43rd District coordinator, areas 21 & 22, Seattle

Rethinking Watada

ETS!,

I had formerly supported Lt. Watada and his refusal to serve in an illegal war.

But I've had to rethink that.

The first duty of soldiers is to obey orders. As they are told in basic training by every sergeant, "It's not your place to think!"

Regardless of illegal wars, the rights of fellow humans or even basic citizenship, soldiers only have one duty or right--to shut up, suck it up and do as they're told.

After the war, if their side loses, they should quietly continue to follow that duty. If their leaders have led them into war crimes, they should simply square their shoulders and go with their heads up--to be hanged.

Every soldier should be aware of this contingency, and accept it as part of a possible part of his or her duty. No trying to claim "I was just following orders." Every soldier should simply say, as a plain truth, "I followed my orders."

If that means a soldier can be hanged after a war for criminal acts, then so be it. Any honest, decent soldier should simply accept it and face it directly as part of the territory.

--Donna Barr, Clallam Bay, WA

Bush's Favorite Flock Of Seagulls Song

ETS!,

To fully comprehend the folly of attacking Iran I would suggest you take a look at the map of Central Command or Centcom facilities on Muslim soil, at www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/centcom.htm. As soon as I saw these maps, I fully understood the madness of our war planners. Centcom says it depends on the good will of host nations. What would any rational adult expect to happen if we used dozens of nuclear weapons, one-third to one-half the size of the Hiroshima bomb, against Muslim civilians in Iran? We currently have over 550 airplanes stationed in Centcom nations with dozens of facilities and support units. The reactions in those nations could range from cutting off the water to sabotage and terrorism and full-scale assaults by armored divisions against poorly equipped base security staff. We would be lucky if our troops got out alive.

Now comes the scary part. What if the people who hatched this mad idea of attacking Iran did not care? What if, to paraphrase IT workers, "it is not a bug but a feature"? What if the plan was to place our troops in such peril that the nation would accept full-scale nuclear war against people who are currently our allies in order to commit genocide? Would you even want to live under a government where the leaders were that insane?

--Daniel Fey, via e-mail