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 editorial@eatthestate.org.

TweedleMike and TweedleMaria?

Eat the State! bills itself as "a forum for anti-authoritarian political opinion, research and humor," and after reading Jeff Stevens' article on the Senate race ("Nipping McGavick in the Bud," ETS!, Aug. 10) I can only conclude he was going for humor--because his article is full of too many naive and useless political musings to be taken seriously.

McGavick's corporate puppeteers are a threat? What about Cantwell's? She's just as much a corporate shill as McGavick--her biggest contributor is Boeing, a corporation which profits handsomely from the US's wars. Both the Democrats and Republicans are corporate parties and we're never going to have an alternative or win any reforms if we don't fight for it. The US government is taking our money and wasting it on war: against the people of the Middle East and Afghanistan, against Muslims and Arabs, immigrants and pretty much all people of color.

Instead of building schools we're building prisons. Instead of national health care we're cutting taxes for the rich (and there isn't a single Bush tax cut that Cantwell hasn't voted for). Instead of warding off climate change the best the Democrats can offer are some token defensive maneuvers around drilling in Alaska. The problems facing our country and the world are grave and they require making changes that neither corporate party will ever be willing to make, because their fortunes rest on maintaining the status quo and keeping corporate America happy.

If we really want change we have to re-learn the lessons of our radical history, organize ourselves and fight for change. Progress has never been given to us on a silver platter by politicians. It's won through earnest struggle. Conceding the struggle to the cynical calculus of lesser-evilism politics means shifting the debate to the right, and putting off change.

Aaron Dixon has been fighting for working people for 40 years. As part of the Black Panther Party he defended his community from police brutality. The BPP established the first breakfast programs for school children (which the government co-opted). Aaron helped to found Seattle's first free health clinics. His nonprofit Central House has helped hundreds of at-risk youth. His genuine grassroots campaign is bringing together a multiracial group of activists from all walks of life who are fighting for a different future than the Democrats and Republicans can offer. Finally, this campaign is about more than an election. It's about re-invigorating the antiwar movement and giving it a voice--which would otherwise be ignored in a race dominated by two pro-war shills.

The way ETS! columnists Stevens and Parrish seem to like bashing Aaron Dixon and the only real viable third party alternative to the Democrats makes me wonder if it's time to take the "anti-authoritarian" out of your paper's slogan. Perhaps "Enjoy the State" would be a more accurate name for your publication.

--Nicholas Hart, Seattle

And where in that article did I "bash" Aaron Dixon? Nowhere. The intended gist of the article's conclusion was to acknowledge the current facts on the ground in the race for Cantwell's seat: Yes, both Aaron Dixon and Hong Tran are outstanding candidates in terms of their platforms and their activist credentials. And, unfortunately, they both lack the money and momentum to seriously challenge Cantwell as November quickly approaches. Nicholas, are you going to tell us, seriously, that McGavick and Cantwell are truly indistinguishable? Did you also consider Al Gore a "corporate shill," indistinguishable from George W. Bush, as the November 2000 election approached? If so, having any second thoughts lately?

McGavick, by contrast, is the clearly irredeemable corporatist between the two, and he would likely be, if elected, a dreadful exemplar of the revolving door between government and industry (in his case, the insurance industry). This part, in my opinion, is simple: We need to keep Mike McGavick out of our government. I'm not fond of lesser-evilism, either, Nicholas--but the tweedledee-tweedledum theory you seem to be promoting is, honestly, bad news for critical thinking. Personally, I'll be voting for Hong Tran in the primary--and then voting, shall we say, strategically on Nov. 7 to keep Mike McGavick out of the US Senate. Interpret as you wish, but that's not an endorsement or an apology for Cantwell. That's called pragmatism--which beats more-Mao-than-thou-ism in my book every time.