The state legislature in Olympia has left to the very last moment the task of deciding what our new primary election system will look like this fall in the state of Washington. After waiting for the US Supreme Court to refuse to hear an appeal that might have saved Washington's blanket primary system, the legislature is now scrambling to find a substitute. Two systems are under consideration: 1) a "modified Montana" system that would force voters to choose either a Republican or Democratic ballot and vote for only one party's candidates, and 2) a "Top Two" system that would allow voters to vote for any candidate they want in the primary, with the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, moving on to the general election. So far, the Top Two system has won the most support in both the House (controlled by Democrats) and the Senate (controlled by Republicans), and it more closely resembles the old blanket primary system. But, of course, popularity--or, more importantly, democracy--can't be allowed to determine such matters. The Democrats and Republicans, who first sued the state to get the blanket primary scrapped, have declared that they'll sue the state again, if the legislature passes the Top Two plan.

What it boils down to is control. The political parties wanted the blanket primary thrown out because they felt they didn't have enough control over nominating candidates inside their own parties. They'd much rather have fickle voters declare which party they belong to and give their names and addresses to the parties' databases for endless campaign mailings and intrusive election phone calls, not to mention fundraising letters. The modified Montana system only goes part-way down that path: it has an option for voters to declare themselves independents and avoid signing the party lists, but they'd still have to choose an all-Democrat or all-Republican ballot when they vote. But the political parties support the modified Montana system, because, if any of the parties--Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc.--doesn't like how the modified Montana system works, they'll be allowed under law to hold a state primary caucus, instead. Caucuses, as the Iraqi people have recently decided, are not nearly as democratic--or convenient for voters--as an election. --Maria Tomchick

Not all political parties are enthralled with the modified Montana primary system. For smaller parties, which lack the resources to field candidates for all offices, making voters choose a primary ballot with only one party's candidates gives voters a disincentive to choose a ballot where they can vote in only a few races instead of all of them. Both alternatives to Washington's blanket primary now being considered in Olympia further hurt the chances of small parties in a system where the deck is already stacked against them. (Not surprising, since all the legislators currently in Olympia are from the two big parties.) But the other primary option is even worse for smaller parties, since if only two candidates qualify for the general election, it's difficult for a minor party to beat out the two big parties for one of those slots. Another alternative proposed in Olympia would have eliminated the primary election altogether (sparing the cost of the election) and determined majority winners in the general election by allowing voters to rank their preferences among all the candidates ("instant runoff voting," see story elsewhere in this issue). This alternative did not get the attention of the other alternatives and died in committee. --Lansing Scott

In other doings down in Olympia, our state legislators are haggling over how to spend a little extra money this year. After last year's deep cuts to fill a nearly $2 billion budget hole, the extra money is a nice windfall. But, as usual, the parties can't decide how to spend it. Gov. Locke and the Democrats have proposed funding some of the cuts made last year--up to a point. Their version of the budget would include $30 million for funding higher education, $45 million in funding for No Child Left Behind and K-12 learning assistance, and money to reduce health care premiums imposed on low income families by last year's budget fiasco. That's reduce, not eliminate. In the meantime, Gary Locke's $74 million tax credit for high tech companies passed both houses and was signed into law last month, under the unquestioned assumption that it would benefit small businesses. Microsoft and Amgen (the largest biotech company in the US, if not the world) stand to benefit enormously from this tax credit. Note that the $74 million could have easily paid for the Democrats' education initiatives, freeing up money for other uses, like building up the state's budget reserves, which is what the Republicans want to use nearly all of the extra money in this years' budget for. To compare the two, competing budget plans, go to http://www.leg.wa.gov. The House budget (Democrat) is under "House of Representatives," at the left of the screen, click on "Committees," then click on "Appropriations." The Senate budget (Republican) is under "Senate," click on "Committee Services," then on "Ways & Means Committee." --M.T.

Two years before our first issue, long before we'd figured out how to actually finance a then-weekly newsletter, the first mockup of a proposed publication called "Eat the State!" got printed up in 1994. Its lead story was about how badly the United States wanted to keep democratically elected Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide from being able to stay in power and enact his progressive ideals.

So here we are, 10 years later, and Washington finally found a way to get rid of Aristide without obviously having its fingerprints on the coup. Except that everyone outside America knows exactly who (literally) called the shots on this one. The preferred post-Cold-War method for US-backed coup d'etats isn't massive invasions ala Iraq, or even CIA death squads; it's a shadowy, complex network of "private" organizations that funnel weapons, train soldiers and opposition leaders, pour in the money, and make all the right introductions.

In this respect, the answer to the Aristide question of, after a full decade, "why now?," comes farther south. Democratic popular movements are sweeping South America, and Washington doesn't like it one bit, because nothing can turn a few hundred thousand people out on a Latin American plaza faster than the American Embassy telling the locals what to do. And there is no greater target right now than Venezuela and its elected populist leader, Hugo Chavez.

Chavez has already survived a US-backed coup in April 2002, and a year's worth of general strikes led by the country's business elites; now the attempted mechanism to get him out is a massive recall petition campaign backed by the same people. To give you an idea of how this works: the country's leading media mogul, who helped finance and tout the 2002 coup, is a billionaire named Gustavo Cisneros. Cisneros works closely with Kissinger & Associates. He also got over $1 million in funding from Washington's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) pre-coup, and he's now benefiting, along with other current petition drive leaders, from at least $800,000 in additional NED funding. Don't let the name fool you; for the last two decades, first in Central America and then Eastern Europe, the NED has been a one-stop shop dedicated to preventing democracy. And it's only the most visible of a vast array of private NGOs that incubate the Ahmad Chalabis of the world. Weep for Haiti--but keep your eyes on Venezuela, and after that, Brazil. --Geov Parrish

I voted for Nader in '96, and '00, and I don't blame him for Gore losing--in my mind his swing votes in key states were about sixth or seventh down the list of the reasons why Gore blew an election he should have won easily. And the subsequent corruption scandals of Enron et al. are as good a reason for a Nader "I told you so" as can be imagined.

But politics is all about timing, and Nader's time for a presidential run is past, gone, expired, kaput. He gains nothing by running he wouldn't already have, in terms of a soapbox, by his previous stature. Few of his 2000 supporters wanted him to run this time, and there is no pretense this time of working to build a viable third party. That, you'll recall, was one of the promises of his previous runs, but in fact there were poor relationships between Nader's people and Green Party activists. The Greens generally got very little in the way of the Nader Campaign's promise of local volunteers, names, and money.

I don't begrudge Nader's running; a man with his accomplishments, at his age, can do whatever he wants so far as I'm concerned. But Dennis Kucinich has done such a stellar organizing job in his campaign that even after the convention he will be much better positioned to carry the banner for progressive issues as Kerry and Bush ignore all they agree on throughout the campaign. I've been skeptical regarding the delusional assumptions of Kucinich and especially many of his more fervent supporters--but give the guy credit. Beyond superior organization and political credibility, Kucinich has the additional advantage over Nader of having long been an elected official and being oriented, on many of the same issues as Nader, toward not just critiques or proposed regulations or lawsuits, but detailed public policies. He can talk in October without the "spoiler" nonsense clouding any media attention he gets. He's done a much better job than I expected going into this campaign season, and I think he'll come out of it as the unquestioned progressive leader in Congress with whomever gets elected in November. And Ralph Nader's candidacy only gets in his way. --G.P.

In 2000 I drew up a list of something like 120 different issues on which Gore and Bush Jr. were indistinguishable--not to say that there weren't important differences, but the catastrophe of the last three years has to be laid not just as the feet of Bush, but of the Democrats who, before and after 9-11, offered no meaningful opposition to what turned out to be a far more radical than promised Bush political agenda. We need voices in the mix to make sure the Democrats hang onto what little spine they've discovered. Let's work to get Bush out--but let's also remember that when his father was voted out, people were so relieved after 12 years of Reagan/Bush that they relaxed and let Clinton get away with a lot of the Republican wish list Reagan and Bush Sr. had been unable to push through. Kerry's not as conservative as Clinton, but he's very much a creature of the Beltway political establishment--let's get him in office (because the alternative is unfathomably horrid), but don't ever think for as moment that we won't need to keep the heat on post-November regardless of the election.

To that end, next weekend's massive March 20 anti-war marches are as critically important as the massive turnout around the world was a year ago on the eve of Bush's invasion. Now, people are still dying in Iraq--most of them not American soldiers--and friends of the White House are getting unfathomably rich at the expense of the survivors. But beyond that, we need to build a global pro-democracy, pro-self-determination, anti-exploitation, pro-decency movement that builds on the momentum of 10 million people in the streets, and the stunning successes of the Global Social Forum, and the emerging South bloc threanened by Washington's designs under Bush or Kerry. The leadership is coming from all over the world, and what they need from us, here in the empire's large intestines, is visible opposition. Turn out on March 20, oppose the war, and even more importantly, make it a day that builds toward a permanent opposition to the sort of politics of empire this whole presidential race--and administration of Iraq--so brutally typifies

Be there! Around the world, New York, S.F., and here locally, noon marching from Harvard Ave. & Seneca St. (on Capirol Hill) to a 1 PM rally (with keynote Ed Asner) at Pier 62/63, at the Pine St. & Alaskan Way waterfront. For info: 1-877-MAR20TH, or www.MAR20th.org. See ya there. --G.P.

Lastly, it's not the Pax Americana, but the ETS! radio empire has just grown by two major new venues! First, the long-running Saturday morning show on KEXP-90.3 (8:30-9 AM, part of the excellent weekend morning "Mind Over Matters" program), is now being simulcast--along with the rest of KEXP's programming--in Tacoma! You were previously out of earshot, but now, Tacoma listeners can hear Eat the Airwaves every Saturday on 91.7 FM. And, of course, you can listen from anywhere to the programs on www.kexp.org, and archived on www.radio4all.org.

Secondly, ETS! co-editor Geov Parrish is now airing weekly commentaries Friday afternoons at 4:30 PM on Bellevue's KBCS-91.3. The slot is a lead-in to Democracy Now at 5 PM, and our goal is to eventually air the commentaries daily and use them to help KBCS to develop a local daily evening news program to complement Amy Goodman. And, to syndicate them to community stations all over. But, for now: I'm rocking out Fridays, on KBCS, at 4:30. --G.P.