The Coming Cataclysm

As the world doubles in population--during the next decade--and both China and India struggle to become industrial nations, do you think we will use less oil? In a world using more petroleum than ever, what do you think would be the result of even a ten percent decline in the supply of oil? What is the energy source that will sustain our civilization as the supply of oil declines? Why is it not being developed right now? Are we going to wait until after the oil is gone to think about it? Or is the problem that there is no alternative energy source, and the next ten years are too horrible to think about?

The real problem we face is not the unjust wars our country fights, or the corrupt government that oppresses its own people--as well as the rest of the world. The emergency is that we are using up the energy source that has allowed us to become demigods in only 150 years. This is the underlying issue that is the cause of all our belligerent and self-destructive national policies.

And until we, as a progressive movement, can face this future, we will find ourselves fighting windmills. With each day that passes, there is less chance of avoiding the cataclysm. Do you think the human race will save itself?

--Kurt, Seattle

Huh?

If we are to learn anything it is not to rely on our government for anything. Although Paul Loeb [911 in New Orleans, September 29, 2005, Vol. 10, #2] believes our President is all powerful--so powerful he can actually control the weather--it is the individual who is ultimately responsible for himself/herself. Although an argument can be made that the carbon dioxide exhaled by Mr. Loeb was directly responsible for Katrina, only a idiot [sic] would say he is responsible. The weather cannot be controlled by humans. All we can do is observe and get out of its way if it comes toward us. For all you concerned about global warming, we are coming out of an ice age. Get used to it. Hurricanes have hit New Orleans before, and they will hit there again.

Mr. Loeb also has a curious view of where wealth comes from. The poorest among us have no resources to take. That is what makes them poor. Wealth comes from the inside. There are plenty of resources going to the city of New Orleans, and there will be plenty of work available. If the poor decide that they want to help build they will gain wealth. It is the decision to do something valuable rather than waiting for your government to do it for you that really creates wealth. Rather than blaming the President for all the ills of society and the environment I would suggest Mr. Loeb concentrate his efforts on something that is actually constructive and create a little wealth himself which he can give to the poor if he choses.

--Greg Pellar, Seattle

We Just Don't Get It

Perhaps it's time you folks changed the name of your paper to "Accommodate the State!" Reading your 9/14 commentary on Seattle City Council Position 4 certainly made me wonder whose side you're on.

First, columnist Geoff [sic] Parrish takes a redbaiting swipe at Radical Women, calling us "strident." How passe! That's the same word sexist white, male legislators called Radical Women back in the late 1960s when the organization demanded abortion rights. Abortion was legalized in 1970 in Washington state by popular vote, due in no small part to Radical Women's bold organizing.

Parrish also suggests my calls for affirmative action and rent control are "tilting at windmills." Such demands are unrealistic, he chides, because they are "both now illegal in Washington state, and likely to stay that way."

Yes, of course! If cynical armchair radicals like Parrish have their way. And that would be a real tragedy. After affirmative action was gutted by I-200, race and gender inequality worsened at worksites and schools. And rent control would do a lot more to reduce homelessness than the city/county's underfunded ten-year plan to end homelessness.

Affirmative action and rent control are perfectly rational, doable solutions to very serious problems of discrimination and unaffordable housing.

So what if they are against the law? Unions, abortion rights, integrated public schools, and gay equality have all been illegal at one time or another. They became legal because socialists and other radicals organized and helped build movements to change the status quo.

This is what Geov Parrish and Eat the State! just don't get. How sad, because your paper could play a positive role in the fight for a better world.

--Sincerely, Linda Averill, Freedom Socialist candidate for Position 4

Geov responds: First of all, congratulations. You pulled a lot of votes, and ran a campaign that stood head and shoulders above the usual socialist electoral effort for both its organization and its articulateness.

Does understanding the realities of legislative politics make me a "cynical armchair radical"? I don't think so, any more than having a political difference with your campaign's sponsoring group (amidst much praise of your candidacy) means I'm redbaiting. (News flash: McCarthy died nearly 50 years ago. Get over it. Being a socialist does not give you a free pass from criticism.) ETS! is a project of activists, but we've never specified whether our politics are socialist, anarchist, liberal, libertarian, or whatever, because first, our content is what matters, second, members of our core group are all of these things, and most of all, we could not care less what an ideal world would look like in somebody else's lifetime. We want one that's better, today. And we're in it to win.