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.

The A Files

Dear Editor,

If Morris Dees is trying to paint the opposition to globalization as some sort of witting or unwitting support of racism, he is hardly the first to take that tack--and it is important to rebut that kind of garbage.

As to the suggestion that Dees is acting as an agent of the government, because the FBI can't surveil political groups anymore, I am afraid that the premise of the argument is extremely implausible. I believe that there is no mechanism in place that prevents FBI officials or other police agencies from surveilling or otherwise obstructing constitutionally protected political activity in the U.S.

There are certainly orders and rules in place purportedly intended to achieve those ends. However, there are also orders and rules, not to mention well established constitutional principles, that prohibit and have prohibited the various and sundry oppressive actions that the FBI, numerous police departments, etc. have carried out with regularity for decades--like assassinating and falsely imprisoning Black Panther Party leaders. Indeed, in the mid-1980s, years after the FBI was "reformed" and spying and "dirty tricks" aimed at domestic political groups supposedly eliminated, evidence became public showing that the FBI was spying on citizens opposed to the savage U.S.-backed military regimes in Central America.

Similar reforms had supposedly been implemented by the San Francisco Police in the early 1980s. Yet, by the late 1980s and early 1990s, police undercover agents were discovered surveilling manifestly non-violent groups such as ACT-UP, and the anarchist group Food Not Bombs. (Of course, Food Not Bombs required police surveillance, because they were truly dangerous--they gave away free bagels and vegetarian soup to the homeless in front of City Hall.)

Absent reliable enforcement--for example, an FBI director or police chief who fires officers for political spying or a justice department with a civil rights division that prosecutes such violations--it is unreasonable to believe that covert FBI or other police surveillance of (and perhaps direct interference with) constitutionally protected dissent has ended.

Randy Baker, via e-mail

The View From Backstage

Editor,

This is an interesting little story from the IMF actions in DC. I managed to get backstage at the labor rally on Sunday at the Ellipse. The area was fenced off to keep things contained. On the other side of the fence was a line of mounted police. To get to the direct actions you had to walk the long way around. They were really good at making things difficult.

Anyway, I was watching things unfold long about 1:30 or so--speakers, music, the usual labor rally stuff. Michael Moore was about ready to go on stage, carrying a potted plant that he was going to run for office. There were a thousand people out there in the hot sun. Suddenly I heard someone shouting from across the fence line: "The cops are starting to attack the blockades--you have to make an announcement!" So I approached one of the rally officials, a middle-aged guy sitting at a monitor table directly behind the stage. They had a lot of security so you couldn't get any closer than that. I repeated what the guy at the fence had said: "The cops are starting to attack the blockades--you have to make an announcement!" I figured it was priority.

His face changed and he got huffy. "That has nothing to do with us. This is a legally sanctioned rally." I pressed him and he got angrier. He would not allow any announcements to be made about "those people." He was very serious about the difference between the "legal" and "illegal" events. No one would help. I had that awful feeling of powerlessness that you get in the face of bureaucratic stupidity. I managed to get Moore's attention and shouted out the message to him. He nodded his head and went up to the mic. He worked the announcement seamlessly into his talk; you could miss it if you weren't paying attention, but he did say it and some people did start to move out of the Ellipse.

I went with them. I was glad to get back to the streets where something real might happen.

Jim Page, Baltimore, MD

And Patty Didn't

I can't believe that I'm saying this, but I think that we should voice our thanks to Senator Slade Gorton for introducing an amendment in the Senate Appropriations Committee that would have reduced the Colombia military aid package by 9/10ths. While a package of $1 billion was being pushed though Appropriations, Gorton introduced an amendment to reduce it to $100 million, saying "It's irresponsible to be spending $1 billion in this fashion without any serious debate on it."

I think that we couldn't agree with him more. Unfortunately his amendment lost, but only by a vote of 15-11. The $1 billion package passed Appropriations, but the good news is that $600 million was cut out of the package. In addition, important human rights conditions were attached to the package that would force abusive members of the military to be tried in civilian courts.

So the new package is not as terrible as the one introduced by the Administration, but obviously we should still oppose it, because it still involves large amounts of military aid that will escalate the violence in Colombia.

Justin Delacour, Seattle Colombia Committee, oakleyruth@igc.org

Exposing Himself

Dear Eat the State!,

I assume that many ETS! readers write off the jock subculture as being as irrelevant as that of soap operas, without considering how important it is to so many people. Something scary has happened (yet again) in jockworld that should concern friends of civil rights. In the December 27, 1999, issue of Sports Illustrated there was a feature article about Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker, who revealed himself as a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, redneck jerk. The Lords of Baseball suspended him without pay from his extremely over-paid unionized job for saying things that they ruled as being politically incorrect.

Although I totally disagree with most of what Rocker said (with the possible exception of disrespect for residents of New York City), I am really concerned about the right for people to say whatever asshole things they want to say with relative impunity. Reading the article seems more likely to convince people that Rocker is a jerk than convince them to be like him and, as much as I disagree with what he has to say, I am concerned about his right to say it without authority figures coming down heavy on him with their versions of political correctness.

If there's public acceptance for John Rocker being prevented from expressing his dumb-ass, red neck for saying things that authority figures consider offensive, I'm scared semi-shitless that it's a hand in the bra for them being able to declare what I want to say (like questioning why plutocrats should run baseball). I'd rather have jerks be able to say what they want (and expose themselves as jerks) than have multimillionaires decide what is politically correct for anyone to say.

Tony Formo, Seattle, WA