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.

Mutually Appalled

ETS!,

As a devoted reader, I was appauled at the complete lack of tact used by Geov Parrish, a usually more respectable writer than that. John Stanford made the Seattle School District a respectable one. Need I remind you that before his tenure as Superintentdant, the school district had some of the worst test scores of the entire nation. Since then, the scores have risen and the quality of education for Seattle's youth is much better, which is something we can all laud him for. And yes, he made corporate alliances that helped raise the revenue of a poorly funded school district. So what? It's about damn time they gave something back. What sickened me most is your feel-sorry-for-me-I've-had-hard-times-too bullshit. Give me a break! You write for a left wing obscure newspaper, John Stanford ran the Seattle School District. You want to know why you're not getting any press? You haven't done anything important, you've just whined about what's wrong. John Stanford made a difference.

--Justin Graden, Everett

G.P. replies: Justin, I doubt you're as appalled as I am. First of all, to deal with what my article wasn't: I at no point asked for sympathy for my own health issues, nor do I want it. I mentioned it simply to establish that I've been in a similar (not identical) situation; without that information, my criticism would have made far less sense. I at no point asked for "press" or claimed my "achievements" were similar to Stanford's, and the idea that I did is so ludicrous I scarcely want to dignify it with a response. I've been editing this publication for 121 consecutive weeks with virtually no mention of my health issues, when if I wanted the attention I could have asked for it at any time. I haven't because 1) It hasn't been relevant to the purpose of ETS!; 2) I don't want your, or anyone's, sympathy for it; and 3) unless I use my own experience to illustrate a political point (e.g., the pure evilness of health insurers), it's none of your goddamn business.

The point of the article also wasn't to question John Stanford's record as head of Seattle schools; but since you brought it up, there's plenty to question. Plenty of educators feel that the higher test scores in Seattle schools are due to reforms instilled before Stanford arrived; his impact could not possibly have been measured in less than two years. Meanwhile, his complete lack of experience in or commitment to education, his top-down management style, and his massive ego all bring into doubt the unquestioning adulation showered on him by Seattle's corporate and media elites long before his diagnosis.

All that aside, Stanford obviously accomplished some significant things in his life. So did lots of other people in our region who die every week without much, or any, fanfare. Stanford was accorded a hero's farewell in large part because he had a debilitating disease; my point was, and is, that focusing on the disease process was and is unfair to both him and everyone else with serious illnesses. People are heroes because of what they do, not because their microbiology goes awry.

Life's Better Here

ETS!,

You know, as much as i despised many-a-certain things living in Seattle, and witnessin g the corporate dominance, the yuppie gentrification, the lack of decent housing, shitty cops (well, that's hard to avoid anywhere) first hand, I can't believe all the amazing (and highly underrated) institutions that do exist there! And how I took them for granted. Left Bank, Books to Prisoners, Prison Legal News, Free Press, On Indian Land, Copwatch, Black Automomy.

--"Canadian Visitor," via e-mail

But That Would Be Honest!

ETS!,

In your next issue, how about an article on "The Emergency War Powers Act," and it' use by U.S. presidents to declare war without congressional approval? Love Your Site, --Vincent Ridgway, Ventura, CA

We Knew One Would Write In

ETS!,

When I have time, I enjoy scanning through ETS!. I enjoy the news analysis and commentary and feel you are right on with your message of cooperation over competition and compassion over capitalism. People call me an "activist's activist" whatever that means. I guess it's because I do my best to walk the talk. That said, I'm concerned when I read a progressive voice say:

"One More Thing: We're a year away, and I'm already so fucking sick of the fraud that is Y2K hysteria and general millenial kitsch that I could scream, barf, or maybe even turn the TV off."

I've been doing skeptical research since August of this on Y2K and now specifically on the effects on the environment, peace issues, and disadvantaged communities. I can assure you it's no fraud. Corporations don't spend a combined $1 TRILLION on a fraud that's not giving them a return on investment. In my organizing of nonprofits around this issue, in see nonprofits and the progressive movement way behind on this issue. I think it's great that we progressives have an extremely skeptical eye. But, what makes me want to barf is when we quickly dismiss y2k WITH NO EVIDENCE to back our assertions. Please do some investigative journalism on this issue and in would be glad to give you some inside sources. Thank you.

Infinite Peace and Love,

--Paul Kawika Martin, Washington DC; paulm@igc.org

PS I'm currently working on Y2K full-time and looking for a challenging position with significant responsibility at a progressive nonprofit working on the Y2K challenge. I would prefer an organization which either uses nonviolent civil disobedience or understands when I do. Relocation OK-even out of the country- and travel desired. Salary preference: $30-35k. I'm also available for part-time consulting $15-$25 an hour. Thanks for your help.

G.P. replies Hey, I'm an activist's activist! I want a salary of $30- 35K, too! I'm convinced!

Seriously--and I'm sure people are making a lot more than that doing Y2K consulting, and Paul is genuine in his desire to help nonprofits--the fraud isn't that there's a problem; there obviously is. The fraud is that that $1 TRILLION is one helluva lot of money being bilked out of you-know- who. How many Y2K-compliant PCs, VCRs, cordless phones, electric toothbrushes, and prayer towels do you think will be sold in the next year? The real problem lies in mainframes--banks, utilities, and the like--and they're not about to let civilization (and profits) collapse, no matter how much wishful thinking neo-Luddites engage in. The fraud is 1) the pass- through to consumers when big institutions pay a lot more than they need to to address the problem; 2) selling things to people based on unnecessary fear; and 3) progressives who should know better buying into myths of millenial apocalypse. Fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud.

So why can't we just declare next year to be 1900 again? The Japanese do it all the time; they start their calendar over with every new emperor. Maybe with an extra 100 years we'll have it all figured out. Roosevelt for President!

Mindy Breaks Free!

Dear Geov,

A few weeks ago I learned, from a Seattle Weekly story, about a Seattle group called The Community Development Roundtable. Sponsored by the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the group holds weekly meetings at the Washington Athletic Club; these meetings are attended by local corporate moneyed elite, past and present politicians and Seattle Times editorial page editor Mindy Cameron. All of the participants in these meetings are sworn to secrecy. Thus Mindy Cameron, a "journalist," is forbidden to reveal anything that is discussed at these meetings to the public.

After reading the story, I sent Mindy Cameron several e-mails expressing my concern that the integrity of Seattle Times' editorial opinion was compromised by her participation in these secret meetings. I cited past editorials in favor of the Mariners and Seahawks stadiums as possible evidence of corporate influence on Times editorial positions. She ignored my first few e-mails, but finally responded that since I was so insistent she would favor me with a reply. I don't recall her exact words, but the essence of her message was that the Times' editorials opposing the 2012 Olympics bid were evidence of Times editorial independence from local corporate influence.

Due to this exchange of e-mails with Ms. Cameron, I was made aware that the Seattle Times did take the unexpected and uncharacteristic position of opposing the 2012 Olympics bid-a bid promoted and supported by local corporate power. This awareness of the Times position caused me to notice that in a recent issue of Eat the State!, in your column about Seattle Times' support for public-private partnerships, and in a paragraph by Maria Tomchick in "Eat These Shorts," you two have made the erroneous assumption that the Times editorial board supported the 2012 Olympics bid. Committing an error is, of course, highly unusual in your fine publication, and it gives me no pleasure to point it out.

--George P. Hickey, Malcontent, Seattle

G.P. replies (again!) Partly correct. The Times has also published far more pro- than anti-bid material, including, most recently, a 12/17 sports column by Blaine Newnham interviewing bid guru Bob Walsh, and a 12/29 year- end op-ed bemoaning Seattle's lack of "vision." The casual reader--especially the kind who turns to the sports page first--would never know about the Times' bold independence. Accident?