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 at ets@scn.org.

I Get Knocked Down

For those too young to remember, I set off a storm of vitriol by dissing Chumbawamba while lauding bands like early Suicidal Tendencies and Rage Against the Machine. Chumbawamba has a history, readers complained. They're more than a one-hit wonder; they're old-time anarchists, not like those Marxoid posers I like. Well, maybe. At the very least, their 15-minutes of fame seems to have dragged on much longer than I predicted.

And where I was once ignorant of Chumbawamba's "anarchy," now I can't seem to escape it. A story in the latest Rocket uses the word half-a-dozen times, including on the cover. In the old days, anarchists were smeared as "bomb throwers," whether they tossed Molotov cocktails or not. But the extreme image was fitting for a group that believed the State was an illegitimate authority, an occupying army that enforced unjust laws with guns and prisons. Nowadays, throwing water on a politician (Deputy head of the British Labour party) is enough to earn the tag. Call it anarchy lite. Or, to quote the Rocket article: "You thought anarchists had to be serious all the time? Forget it."

Of course, a band can't be blamed for its annoying publicity, just for its annoying songs. It's not their fault that Rosie O'Donnel could be coaxed into an "Anarchist" T-shirt, or that Tony Blair posed for a photo holding their album. Hey, they're lovable anarchists. Anarchists with a top 40 hit you can bob your head to. And they're fun!

Now where'd I put that Molotov cocktail...

Matt Asher, Seattle

Ed. note: Chumbawamba will be playing at the Paramount Theater in Seattle on Sunday, March 22nd, or at the Rage in Vancouver on March 23rd, for those who like lovable anarchists.

Antsy Authoritarians Unite!

ETS!,

Hello. Well, that was an entertaining exchange between John Persak & Geov Parrish (3/10/98). I enjoyed the fireworks, but I think a couple things got overlooked.

Geov, I thought you were a little unfair to John. Yes, a major chunk of his letter was rattling off dead white anarchists (and Chomsky!), and yes, most of his suggestions were impractical, even silly. I didn't think he was calling for more theory, though, rather, for more coverage of positive, active steps people are taking to resist oppression and create a better society. Reasonable, if not especially earth shattering. (He also didn't call any person "illegitimate"--just the publication.)

But John! John! You blew it, man! You used up all that space--and you didn't give one single example of what you were talking about! What gives? Kind of proves Geov's point in a way, doesn't it?

And what's up with this "average working folks" stuff? I mean, "average" is a myth. And I never met a Volk I liked, if you get my drift. The point is, separating "us average working folk" from everybody else creates a false dichotomy and a bogus aura of authenticity for whatever line you're pushing. The RCP plays that game, too. Since when don't "we" need sustained, articulate critiques of existing institutions in order to create better alternatives?

Ever your antsy authoritarian,

Davis Oldham, Seattle

G.P. replies,briefly: One clarification: I would happily agree with Davis, and John, if his call has been simply for "...more coverage of positive, active steps..." As noted, we've been trying to get the space for a regular column on that theme. Heck, two of the three folks who started ETS! have experience editing publications dedicated to it: myself in Houston, and Lance Scott publishing the Community Catalyst 1990-93, the last such pan-activist publication in Seattle. We decided to do something different with ETS!. John's call was for all of ETS!'s content to be "[anti-statist] activities that are building real counter-structures." That is, quite simply, a different publication. I really do hope he follows through, without the jargon, on his threat(!) to start it; it would be a welcome addition to Seattle. As for the phrase "...real anti-authoritarians [should] challenge your legitimacy," I assumed he was suggesting challenging us fake A-A's. Either way, it reminded me a lot of puffer fish.

New UW Degree Program

Maria,

Thanks for the great article on the stadium shenanigans. The title was clever, and fooled me at first. I just want to point out a few additional things that might be useful for future reports on this subject.

The attendance projection of 87% was for 11 games in a season (the article said 10--which would mean over 94% attendance; or, 100% regular-season attendance for 8 games plus 54,000 for 2 pre-season games--more than have attended in recent years). The figure of 87% was itself based on the Seahawks' 1997 regular-season attendance for 8 games. The attendance at the 2 annual pre-season games is usually a lot lower.

Someone who saw this stuff pointed out (I haven't verified it) that he thought the NFL (or the Seahawks?) altered their method of measuring attendance. Previously, only those who actually attended games were counted. Now, ticket sales are counted as attendance.

Where this matters is in the sales tax and B & O tax revenues that are a big part of the projected revenue. If 72,000 tickets are sold, and only 60,000 people show up, the team still collects the same amount of money. However, the city of Seattle will collect a lot less; city revenues are more dependent on people actually showing up and buying stuff. What I find so atrocious about all this is that, even by their own figures, the projected fiscal impact is lower than revenue projected under current conditions, and they have the gall to claim that this is increased revenue. Well, it is, if you assume no money would be coming in if the team/stadium weren't here. Then again, people could spend entertainment money elsewhere--at places where Seattle could be collecting the 5% admissions tax (instead of passing it on to Paul Allen).I suppose there should be a separate field of study called "Stadium Economics."

Newell Aldrich, Seattle