Congressional momentum is apparently building for HR 3439, Rep. Mike Oxley's bill that would overturn the FCC's decision approving a new class of community-based, non-profit Low Power FM radio stations. The bill, now with some 169 co-sponsors, is being pushed hard by the National Association of Broadcasters, the lard-filled special interest group that gave democracy a trillion-dollar slap in the face with the porkish merger-friendly gift known as the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Oxley's bill has another friend: it's been backed by National Public Radio, those liberalism-at-its-worst yuppoids who fear the competition a real media alternative could provide. The info-muzak provided by NPR (locally, on KUOW and KPLU) studiously avoids any stances that might be hostile to or even mildly questioning of government power, as with their patronizing, snide coverage of the IMF/World Bank protests last week. When the alternative is just as corrupt as the rest of the mainstream, it's no wonder listeners want something else. How telling that Congress is afraid of it.--Geov Parrish

Confirming the rumor reported in this space last issue, Port Commissioner Jack Block was indeed acting as foreman the night that giant transnational Stevedoring Services of America (SSA) tried, unsuccessfully, to unload a cargo of toxic waste from the Chinese container ship Wang He at Terminal 18 last month. The attempt was unsuccessful, due to the quick mobilization of ILWU Local 19. But it gets even more interesting: it turns out that Block, a 25-year veteran as Port Commissioner, was on hand because he's on retainer and gets paid for 50 hours a week of foreman's duty by SSA whether he's present or not. That big fat gift to a Port Commissioner--an elected official who decides, among other things, contracts for the Port of Seattle--by one of the Port's biggest customers is, at the very least, a massive conflict of interest. "Bribe" is closer to the truth. The stench from the Port of Seattle--an enterprise that's much, much too cozy with the business interests for whom it gives away public assets--just gets worse and worse. --G.P.

This time, there's tape. And the KING-TV video footage of the Queen Anne police shooting of the inevitably African-American David John Walker on April 12 puts the lie to police reports that he "lunged" at officers; rather, he turned toward them, with an empty upraised hand and a knife in a lowered hand. A situation that demands caution? Most definitely. Does it demand that cop Tommie Doran, who has a history with pulling guns in tense situations, murder Walker in cold blood? Undoubtedly, the King County Coroner, who has found every cop murder in the last 20 years to be "justified," will say yes. But Walker's murder only adds to the urgency with which citizens are demanding an independent review board to reign in this city's cops. As the city prepares to hire a new police chief, sign a new contract with the police guild, and sign off on multiple whitewashes of the remarkable civil rights abuses that occurred during last fall's anti-WTO protests, only a focused and loud movement of folks wanting police accountability is going to make this an issue outside the CD and Rainier Valley. It's time.--G.P.

We all know the absurdity of the argument being put forward by the Seattle Police Department and their fearless leader General Schell that the excellent anti-surveillance law was a hindrance to gathering information about potential criminal acts during the WTO protests. Either the SPD and General Schell are a bunch of uninformed idiots who don't read the local press or they are being openly deceitful. I believe that the latter is far more likely than the former, but you never know. Even a person stuck on Mars with a computer with Internet access could have known what was coming down during the WTO protest. Namely, that the Direct Action Network's organized civil disobedience was definitely going to happen and that the trashers of Eugene were likely to strike during the protests, as well.

The absurdity of the SPD and General Schell's arguments readily apparent, just what is the real motive for wanting to get rid of the anti-surveillance law? There can only be one reason: The SPD is looking for another way to increase its overall appropriations. If the law is overturned, then you can bet that the SPD will go running to the federal government, hat in hand, saying something like, "See, we've gotten rid of this hindrance in the war against 'terrorism,' now send us more money so we can buy more high-tech surveillance equipment, riot gear and the like." Not only would the lifting of the anti-surveillance law make life miserable for the community organizations getting harassed by the SPD on a regular basis, it could make the repression of a repeat of WTO demonstrations in the future even more harsh.--Rick Giombetti