Fortunately, there's Fox

Are your endorsements ["Death Race 2000," 11/2] a copy of the local union endorsements or what? To which union does your newspaper


"I am doing something unethical: I am voting for a—arrrgh—Republican! . . . You guys weren't just smoking stuff."

Fortunately, there's Fox

Are your endorsements ["Death Race 2000," 11/2] a copy of the local union endorsements or what? To which union does your newspaper pay dues? Fortunately, there is Fox News to get real election information.



The Reed guy

I am a liberal gay Democrat. I tend to vote party ticket and have even thought about Ralph Nader. I am doing something unethical: I am voting for a—arrrgh—Republican! I read your endorsement of the Reed guy for Secretary of State and then looked at his propaganda—he is Real. You guys weren't just smoking stuff. Even some of my friends on SEAMAC think he is a good guy—and he hires GLTP persons on his staff! I can't believe I'm doing this. I know Bonker has been a good-old-boy Democrat—but in the P-I he said he was a lobbyist living in Washington, DC, with a company called APCO. When I was involved in the WTO demonstrations, APCO, I was told, was a major sponsor of the conference—and Bonker was part of it! I wish you guys would say something about that—that really irritates me, especially since I've heard a couple of Bonker's commercials touting foreign hegemony— I mean trade. Thanks for the guidance.



Hitting the wall

As a music "critic," it must be so nice to sit up in your comfy throne and render judgement from on high. Would it kill you to consider that your opinion is purely subjective, and there may, in fact, be . . . say, 10 or 12 people out there who may be genuinely moved by Radiohead's latest opus [see The Culture Bunker, 11/2]? (Notice I didn't say "sober people.") I can't even muster up the energy to continue my wry retort. Kid A would have sapped my very will to consume had I left it in my stereo.

In all fairness, I am not a rock critic, nor even much of a connoisseur—all I knew was that I loved OK Computer and was perfectly willing to give them another shot. I listened to the whole thing once, uninterrupted . . . and lived to tell about it. If anyone out there compares it to The Wall within earshot of me . . . judgement shall be swiftly rendered.




Re: "Gored and bushwhacked" by Mark Driver [11/2]: "Assuming you're not a cunt who bought an SUV. . . ."? How did the author slip this one past you? I know the word has become fashionable for male would-be hipsters striving to show their free-thinking contempt for standards of verbal political correctness, and I look forward to seeing "nigger," "kike," and "jap" employed the next time your daring author feels like unleashing an insulting vulgarity.



Lovable losers

Are there really writers and editors at the Seattle Weekly so ignorant they think the Mariners had a bad season? I refer to the opening sentence of the introduction of the article "The Top 50 Haunts" ("Baseball, politics, and hosting major international events clearly aren't Seattle's strengths, but when it comes to drinking, we rock!") The Mariners had a spectacular season in 2000! They won 91 games, earned a spot in the play-offs, and came close to winning the pennant. Over 20 other professional baseball teams, many of them better established and with higher payrolls, would have been delighted to have accomplished what the Mariners accomplished this year. Seattleites should be bursting with pride for the Mariners. And, in fact, true fans are proud of the M's success this year. Your snide, off-hand remark is an insult not just to the players who worked so hard but to the millions of fans who supported their triumphs.

Or maybe it was a typo and was meant to read "football"?



Get used to it

I'm writing in response to James Bush's article "Attack of the 150-foot planners" [4th & James, 10/26]. I wonder what's so bad about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and putting small houses on small lots? These are actually fairly progressive ideas. What lies behind the "negligible" desire of citizens for these options in the neighborhood plans? Is it fear of higher density or having more single renters of lower income in certain neighborhoods?

ADUs provide affordable housing options and integrate renters into the surrounding communities, which is healthy for a city. I'm not arguing they'll solve our low-income housing shortage (they might not be affordable enough for the lowest income levels), but they could help provide housing for single lower- to middle-income earners. Also, the person offering the ADU has the benefit of extra income.

On a side note, Seattle is a city, and cities mean density! The more we center growth here, the less pressure there is for sprawling development further into the hinterlands. To make the city attractive for living (vs. the suburbs) it would help to have lots of different home sizes available to buy. There are plenty of people who would buy a small house on a small lot. When did this become such an anathema? You wouldn't have so much land and space to care for, and it would bring ownership within reach of more people. By the way, if you don't like living near lots of people (some of us actually do) you might want to try getting used to it: We're growing whether you like it or not!



Get on the phone

James Bush admits that he had to oversell so readers would look at his column about land use policies in the city's comprehensive plan ["Attack of the 150-foot planners," 4th & James, 10/26]. The fact is that of all the zoning policies he finds shocking, only one is new. The rest have been on the books for years. The proposal is merely to move those policies from one document (the city's land use code) to another (the comprehensive plan). The one new policy is to consider higher densities along some arterials where both transit and pedestrian travel can be improved.

Planning staff has been talking about these changes at public meetings since last November. A phone call to this office could have unearthed the lack of a scandal here and maybe led to a more thoughtful discussion of the one real change proposed.




So what?

How presumptuous and condescending of you to take a "father knows best" attitude toward the poor and minorities over lottery tickets ["Poor odds," 10/26]. If Nevdon Jamgochian is right, and the poor and minorities do buy a disproportionately large number of lottery tickets, so what? Is the article suggesting the number of lottery tickets an individual can purchase be based on income? Should ticket sales be only to the rich because they can afford to lose? Your implication that poor and minority individuals cannot be trusted to make their own spending choices is patronizing and elitist.



Universal agony?

For a couple of weeks, I've been trying to persuade myself that Geov Parrish's remarks in his article on abortion [Impolitics, "A bitter pill," 10/12] are minor errors or misunderstandings. But they are not. They matter. I'm referring specifically to this: "I have never known a woman who had an abortion who did not agonize over the decision beforehand and grieve over it afterwards."

I surely do hope you widen your circle of acquaintances, Geov. Since you're in a position to influence public opinion, it's important that you not make assumptions about what is normal or universal on the basis of a narrow sample.

I have known many women who had abortions and whose only agonizing was over the prohibitive cost and the possibility of something going wrong—the back-alley phenomenon. Many years ago, I had an abortion, and my agony was over the fear that I wouldn't be able to find someone to do it. Afterwards, I experienced only relief that I had suffered no medical complications, that I would not lose custody of my child or lose my job as the result of a pregnancy, and that I would not need to rely on public assistance to support myself and the child I already had, plus another. Many women I knew, in various circumstances, were extremely fearful of having an unwanted child or, as was often the case, a second or third child not planned for. Their reactions to the prospect of having an abortion and to its successful completion were similar to mine.

I realize that your personal opinions and assertions about what you imply is universal agony and grief are not the main point. But norms of what are appropriate feelings as well as actions are gradually set in just such a way: by media stating opinions from narrow perspectives in the guise either of reporting or of thoughtful surveys. When enough women are made to feel abnormal unless they agonize or grieve over abortion, it will be a short step to once more outlawing abortion.

Furthermore, you preface the above referred to remarks by saying, "all life, including potential life, is sacred." That means everything from cockroaches to the weeds that take over your garden. OK, you're a Ghandi-ite. I'd like to hear more about that in another column. Meanwhile, regarding sacred, the definitions in my Oxford dictionary are: 1. Consecrated to or considered especially dear to a god or supernatural being; 2. Set apart for, or dedicated to, a religious purpose; 3. Regarded with or deserving veneration or respect as of something holy; 4. Protected by religious sanction. These definitions speak to one of the important principles regarding laws against abortion: They are based primarily on religious dogma and violate the separation of church and state.

I am pleased that you are speaking against laws against abortion, but you begin with so many egregious errors and assumptions that it is difficult to credit the arguments in the rest of your article. This is particularly disappointing because I often enjoy your intelligent comments on other topics.



Letter o' the week

How's it going? This letter is updated as of October 21, 2000. Can you all send me an e-mail to confirm you got this letter. If you don't believe what I wrote in this letter bring the best Lie Detector possible. Contact the Interpol (Police Officers from all the countries all over the Earth). They have the best lie detectors possible! All the Honest Taxpayers of the Earth need to come here for a Global TV and Radio conference to understand about the MURDERS and the MURDERERS in your countries with the Weapon . . . Artificial Weather . . . Man Made Weather, etc.




Letters—good and good for you! Write to Letters Editor, Seattle Weekly, 1008 Western, Ste 300, Seattle, WA 98104; fax to 206-467-4377; or e-mail to Please include name, location, and phone number. Letters may be edited.

comments powered by Disqus

Friends to Follow