"Let's just hope we don't end up curing our health care system like we do most illnesses today—waiting until the patient is out cold on the floor."


Thank you for Geov Parrish's fantastic story on his trip through health care hell ["Defending My Life," May 31]. Being a Type-I diabetic myself for 15 years with—thankfully—no complications as of yet, I fear the day I should have to venture through this maze.The most important thing his story highlights is that we must change our health care system so we can prevent the "crises" that come from years of bad care. I recently had to fight with my insurance company to get an insulin pump, which now allows me to maintain my blood sugars at normal levels. This $5,000 device (with supplies costing $300 per month) will likely prevent the $1,000,000 complications that can result from diabetes. For some reason, many health insurers don't see it this way, and I thank my lucky stars I am insured by one that does (after the standard quibbling, of course).

Let's just hope we don't end up curing our health care system like we do most illnesses today—waiting until the patient is out cold on the floor. We might never wake up.

Sara Johnson



Rick Anderson's May 31 article, "Fighting Words," is filled with insinuations, distortions, and lies about Council House perpetuated by Paul Trummel.

When Judge Doerty permanently restrained Mr. Trummel from being at Council House—or contacting its residents or staff—the judge had exceptional cause. Mr. Trummel has spent years seriously demeaning and harassing residents here, conducting illegal surveillance on us, spreading lies about us, threatening many of us he "imagined" were his "enemies."

Mr. Trummel has menaced this community and continues to menace this community. And Mr. Anderson's article makes it seem Mr. Trummel is the abused party. You want the truth? Mr. Trummel is vicious and dangerous; acting like a fanatical egomaniac. The Seattle Weekly should consider itself lucky that Paul Trummel hasn't come after you with the cruelty and savagery he mounts against us at Council House.

Nathaniel Stahl

Resident, Council House



I'm sure most "straight" readers of Jon Azpiri's article "Gay-Friendly Storm" [May 31] are wondering "What the hell is he talking about?" since he doesn't "get" what is the real problem with the Storm and the WNBA in general. But, before I mention what that is, I'd like to say that I find it curious how the gay, but particularly the lesbian community and their "radical women" cohorts, are given a free ride by the media (I'm not afraid of causing trouble), while blacks and other minorities are subjected to "rational discrimination" and constant negativity on "reality" television (COPS, etc.). We are only allowed to see the "normal" side of the lesbian/radical population, while the not-so-pleasant elements are safely tucked away from sight. . . .

Anyways, what is the problem with the WNBA? For anyone with an interest in sport, watching it is like having a 10-pound wrecking ball smack you in the head every five minutes—one headache-inducing affair. Otherwise, its principal attraction is that of a political statement, however its fans choose to define that. Azpiri and the like are quite welcome to it.

Mark Kittell



Re: "Dim Bulbs" [May 17] and subsequent G. Reed letter [Letters, May 31]: Some critics of the Bush Administration become overheated and so pleased with their outrage that they forget significant facts. If more crude oil is drilled, never mind where, the added supply will tend to reduce the price of that commodity. If the supply of crude oil or natural gas is increased—and it surely will increase simply because of the current brisk demand—then the price of that commodity will decline in relative terms.

Does that scenario mean increased profits for Exxon, Chevron, and Enron? Well, maybe yes, maybe no. They might make higher profits if the supply of crude oil were to be reduced. The ensuing price rise would benefit the above companies perhaps to a greater degree than increased volume. The recent price spikes (and unconscionable profit) in California did not occur because of increased supply .

So I think it could be argued that if the Bush Administration wanted to increase the profits of his friends in the energy business he might want to reduce, rather than increase, the supply of natural gas and crude oil .

So why the Bush hysteria at the Weekly? Well, you (and I) might not want to see cheaper gasoline prices. You may well believe that the U.S.A. would be better off with much higher gasoline prices—prices that just might begin to wean us of our automobile dependence and perhaps save a few barrels of crude oil for the future. If that's what you think, you should just say so and, I hope, find more coherent reasons to criticize Bush/Cheney and the energy companies who (horrors!) sell us what we want.

Kieth Nissen



Chris Carrington [Letters, May 31] lamented the disappearance of Route 86. Question for you: Did you ever use it more than, let's say, every three months? And you expect Metro to provide a bus service for such a route? You are misguided.

Public transport should offer travel options for those of us who can't afford a car. Metro, quite rightly, seem to have set out their priorities. Work locations first; leisure second. This seems reasonable.

Barry Whittle

via e-mail


In his article about the pleasures of touring by Metro bus ["The Wonder That Is Metro," May 24], John Longenbaugh does not mention the vast number of bus stops that are without timetables. There is one stop on the south side of Madison Street, near the junction with 8th Avenue (route number 12), that has been lacking a timetable for at least six years. If this continues much longer, I shall enter this achievement of the Metro management for the Guinness Book of World Records.

Samuel Wolf



Laura Learmonth reminds us of the oft-repeated maxim that writing about music is like dancing about architecture (a rather strange attitude for a music writer to have, no?)["Drinking About Dissection," May 31]. It's so oft-repeated, I wish for once someone would point out that it isn't true—at least, not in the way that it's generally meant to be.

One could easily make the case that people do "dance about architecture" (e.g., site-specific dance pieces), and the results are not only valid, but art in their own right. Similarly, writing about music is no less valid (and, at its best, no less enjoyable—and I say this as someone who loves music) than the music it describes—it's just that some people seem to expect writing about music to be valid as music, rather than as writing. I don't mean to split hairs, just to suggest that the aims of music and writing are not at odds. Music may be supposed to evoke something that can't be put into words (as the dancing about architecture line is usually taken to mean), but why should this mean that writing such as poetry, fiction, and even criticism is able only to report on the purely external, quantifiable, and material?

David Wright


Yeah, yeah, we're listening. Write to Letters Editor, Seattle Weekly, 1008 Western, Ste 300, Seattle, WA 98104; fax to 206-467-4377; or e-mail to letters@seattleweekly.com. Please include name, location, and phone number. Letters may be edited.

comments powered by Disqus

Friends to Follow