Send your letters to the Free Press, PMB #178, 1463 E Republican St, Seattle 98112. Keep them short. Longer letters will be edited down. Letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Free Press. Letters which respond to Free Press articles will be given precedence.

Sales Tax Math Quandary

Your article, "Tax Pollution, Not Income" [March/April 2000] has some interesting ideas, but I am not inclined to take them at face value if the author's math or his eating habits are a recommendation. He writes that a family of three, making $50,000 a year, would typically pay $3,800 in sales tax. At Seattle's rate of 8.6%, they would have spent $44,186 to be taxed that amount, on stuff over and above grocery store food, rent, and mortgage payments, which are not subject to the sales tax. That sure is a lot of fancy restaurant dining. Go ahead and tax 'em!

--Flo Beaumon

Police Were Violent to Begin With

I've been fascinated and infuriated for so long by how mainstream media frame and just plain distort their reporting that I've finally become resigned to it--so much so that these days I usually just snicker or roll my eyes if I'm paying attention at all. But when the ubiquity and repetition of a particular media lie results in its propagation by many progressives and radicals and their media, maybe it's time to make a bit of a fuss.

In the March/April Free Press your columnist Dr. John Ruhland [Nature Doc] wrote, "Because a handful of people broke windows and spray painted buildings [during the WTO protests], thousands of people were sprayed with carcinogenic chemicals, clearly demonstrating that property is valued more highly than people." He'll get no argument from me that the pigs' job is to protect corporate property regardless of who they hurt, but we need to correct the record again and again about why police violence was used during the protest. One more time with feeling: The police use of tear gas, pepper spray, night sticks, rubbers bullets, and all the rest had nothing whatsoever to do with people breaking windows or spray painting. It had everything to do with the state's willingness to violently suppress an overwhelmingly effective protest of corporate power.

In case anyone reading this letter is not aware of the facts, Seattle police, with the likely participation of (and great pressure from) federal authorities, made a strategic decision to use violence without warning to regain state control of Seattle city streets. They did so very early in the day on November 30, well before people started to break windows or otherwise target corporate property. I know this in part because I was present at the site of the police's first use of organized violence at Sixth and Union, far from any property destruction.

The repetition of the lie that the police used violent tactics because people were breaking windows and spray painting not only does a repressive government's PR for free, it also marginalizes and mistakenly puts the blame for police violence on decent radicals who take strong action against corporate/government power. Let's be more vigilant about such things.

--Henry Hughes

Needn't Fear Fluoridation

Your letter about fluoridation [letter to the editor "Fluoridation Boosters Busted" from Emily Kalweit, March/April 2000] left me somewhat confused and I'm wondering if you would clarify a few matters.

First, you say that "most of the additives used for fluoridation are fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate." Isn't this all that is added to water for fluoridation?

Second, you note that "the fluorosilicic acid solution used for fluoridation is primarily composed of pollution waste that contains arsenic, lead, etc." How can a chemical compound with the name "fluorosilicic acid" be "primarily composed" of arsenic, lead, aluminum, uranium-238, phosphorus, petroleum products, naphthalene, chlorides, and dioxins? I thought that fluorosilicic acid was composed of fluorine, oxygen, hydrogen, and silicon.

Third, you don't give any figure for the amount of fluorosilicic acid added to the water supply, like parts per million. What might that figure be?

Fourth, if we are to be scared off municipal water, what alternative are you suggesting, bottled water? Have you read about the sources of some of these products? What about the plasticisers that leach into the water, to name one of several problems with bottled water? Since we are supposed to drink about ten cups of water or equivalent a day for our healthy functioning, where do we turn? And how do kids protect their teeth? Fluoridated water is so convenient.

Finally, as a consumer of Seattle water for the last thirty-five years I still am a pretty healthy retiree who appreciates the meticulous care our city water gets. I suggest the excellent summer tour the water department offers.

--Christian Melgard