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.

Shadowy Crime

Crime is a shadowy word broadly applied to ungovernable nature when it displays itself in human struggles against moral and ethical codes concocted to maintain inflexible interests. But life cannot be contained. No religion, no political philosophy, no moral imperative can encompass the mystery of existence. "Whenever you think you've got your mind wrapped around boundless life," said Joseph Campbell, "the trickster comes and blows the whole thing and you get the Becoming Thing again."

America's founders transgressed the moral and ethical codes of their time and place when they rose up against King George of England. They succeeded not because of their much-touted moral and ethical superiority, but because a relatively small group of colonial patricians had accumulated enough wealth and power to extricate themselves from Britain's parental grip. In their success, the fledgling American aristocrats rewrote the moral and ethical codes of their time, giving birth, ostensibly, to modern democracy. Today, notwithstanding our high-minded pretensions, those who control the money and the police insist that America's current codes be enforced exactly as King George enforced his, with a violent, heavily armed constabulary backed by a fiercely demonic penal apparatus.

Those who hold real power are dead set against any extension of the American revolution that might further generalize liberty because it would diminish their own power, just as the revolution of 1776 diminished the power of King George. How many new jails are being built? How minimal is the minimum wage? How many farm families (Thomas Jefferson's bulwark against tyranny) have been shattered, their farms stolen by transnational corporations? How long before the political economy of King George reemerges from our colonial past?

--Rick Marcus, Eugene

Redistribution Revisited

Thank you for Davis Oldham's thought-provoking commentary on global organizing. As he well illustrates, organizers and activists everywhere have to forget about national boundaries.

Having been a union shop steward, however, I don't think any movement will build mass support by telling workers in the U.S. or other wealthy countries that "we're going to have to give up a lot of what we take for granted, or our kids will." A different argument might be: American workers' standard of living has been dropping during the last thirty years of corporate globalization. We can stand around and watch it keep dropping, or we can recognize that workers around the globe have a vital stake in each other's well-being.

A 100% equal distribution of world wealth might mean a drop in the American standard of living, but the world is never going to be that egalitarian. Better to focus on changing the economic system that produces such a gap between rich and poor.

In solidarity,

--Peter Cole, via e-mail

Spewage!

Let me see if I understand this. After quoting some facts and figures which you do not source, you arrive at a conclusion that the US has a disproportionate share of the worlds wealth (so what?) Are we not leaders in medical technology et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? Would you eradicate this aspect of the Great American Experiment in Freedom, leaving no successor? You also claim that widespread wealth is unattainable (yet poverty somehow is) and then declare that the only solution is wealth redistribution?

You argue for larger, more invasive government (wealth redistribution), not what "Eat the State!" implies, not what any decent human being who desires to earn a living and keep what s/he earns wants. Just what sort of socialist/marxist are you, anyway? If those other countries you named observed the same Bill of Rights that permitted you to send this papery, I daresay you wouldn't be able to quote them as a justification for your personal politics.

The itinerant and liberalist spewage of this one post has nearly overcome my ability to withstand - and this; only the third issue of your mailing I've received so far.

You'd better stand tall and defend yourself, or suffer a backlash derived wholly from common sense.

--Reese, Hawai'i, via e-mail

Yours for a more settled spewage, D.O.

Book 'Em!

http://www.pan.ci.seattle.wa.us/seattle/spd/wto/spdwtosuspecthome.htm.

The Seattle police department has a crimestoppers-like setup to catch (photogenic) activists. Please notify everyone you know that might be intersted in seeing who Seattle's finest want.

--Geordie, via e-mail

Community Radio Up North

It has been interesting for those of us in Canada to watch the new FCC low power regulations. From what I've been told by people who are close to the FCC, they are actually modelled to a fair degree on the rules used up here by the CRTC (Canadian Radio- Television and Telecommunications Commission).

This year marks 25 years of community broadcasting in Canada. Up here the sector has has been actively encouraged by our regulators. What we have seen is that commercial and non- commercial broadcasters can co-exist quite happily, and on occasion can even support each other.

Canadian community stations range in size from 10 watts to 15,000 watts. That's still small by commercial radio standards, but more than adequate to cover a city or town. Our experience is that there simply aren't problems with low power stations interfering with the Big Guys. Since any licenced station has to provide an engineering report (showing the impact of their proposed power level and frequency choice) before being licenced, interference is never an issue. The same will be true in the U.S., despite what the NAB might claim.

The stipulation that licences be held by a not-for-profit group, and one that exists primarily to run a community radio station, is also very similar to the Canadian regulations. Experience has shown that by removing the profit motive, and building a diverse membership base, you will also build a stronger radio station.

Will there be room in big American cities for Low Power FM? Right now it's assumed that the answer will be no, but our experience suggests that an Engineer with patience and knowledge can often find a low power "drop in" frequency where the big guys say it's not possible. The trick is to find an engineer who understands and appreciates community media.

As you point out, Black Liberation Radio and Free Radio Berkeley will find new organizations to apply for licences. But isn't that the whole role of community? We're all supporting each other. Besides, re-inventing organizations is sometimes a good thing.

As it happened, new Canadian regulations for community radio were also released last week. Our regulators have created an entire new class of "Developmental" licences. As many of your new community broadcasters will know, it can be hard to sell the community radio idea in a town that has had only commercial radio and NPR. It's new, it's often volunteer run, and it doesn't play the top 40 hits. Unless you're familiar with community radio it can be a confusing idea.

Now in Canada a community that is small or significantly lacking in resources can get a three year, five watt licence with very little paperwork, and very little expense. This will get them on the dial, and will give them time to build community support.

At the end of three years (or sooner) when their community is involved and actively supporting them they can apply for a full fledged community radio licence with as much power as they need.

This new class of licence was introduced *specifically* to encourage to the growth of the Community Radio sector.

Over the years we've supported and advised lots of new community radio stations in Canada. Much of what we've learned is equally important to American groups who want to start a new station. Please invite your readers to check out the resources on our website at http://www.synapse.net/~rueger/.

We've collected answers to a lot of common questions that new community broadcasters face. While the specifics of FCC regulations might differ, most else does not. And we're always happy to answer questions.

Thanks again for continuing to produce ETS!. It's a favourite, and I recommend it to everyone. And thanks again to everyone in Seattle for giving the WTO such a warm welcome!

--Barry Rueger, Ottawa