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 Evils of Voting

I recently moved to Seattle and picked up a copy of your paper (September 1st, 2004 issue). WHAT A BETRAYAL OF YOUR NAMESAKE! Presumably "Eat the State!" means that your collective is against the State, right? How then is it possible to actually print an election issue that does not completely mock the voting spectacle that representative democracy has always been?

In an article titled "One-Party State" one of your editors, Geov Parrish, suggests that participating in such a repressive system is something other than the propagation of that system. I guess his disclaimer, "don't rely on voting to change things" is as meaningless as the rhetoric coming from (insert politicians name here). Don't rely on voting; how about DON'T VOTE! To me the idea of being anti-authoritarian means that you reject rule over yourself and others in all its forms. What other act does more to reinforce authority and authoritative relationships than choosing your master or representative?

Unfortunately, Geov Parrish, and by extension presumably the collective at Eat the State!, have failed to think critically and outside of the dominant framework that is the status-quo. In a second piece "A Stronger Campaign" Parrish states that, "The policy differences between John Kerry and George Bush are substantial." What has Kerry said or done that makes anyone believe that he is fundamentally opposed to "poverty, exploitation, imperialism, militarism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, environmental destruction, television, and large ugly buildings" as is declared in Eat the State!'s! mission statement? What evidence has Kerry exhibited that he wants such changes "fucking now" as your publication claims are your intentions?

Too many liberals and pseudo-radicals remain in their living rooms, voting booths, or publishing collectives waiting for surrogate revolutionaries (or worse, politicians) to tell them what to do and what to think. How anti-authoritarian is that?

Casey Coulombe, Seattle

Lastly, the opinion of a single author in ETS! is just that: the opinion of one person, not the collective. We can and do have disagreements among ourselves, and we're not shy about airing them, as we will next issue, when the topic of endorsing a presidential candidate in this wretched election will come up. Will we endorse Kerry? Bush, on the theory that it will have to get worse before it gets better? Nader? The Greens' David Cobb? No vote at all? Or all of the above? Stay tuned.