"And regarding my alleged lack of a sense of humor, this is coming from the paper that published 'Broiler & Nutter'?"



I want to thank Seattle Weekly for writing such a complimentary article about me [Campaign Cocktail, Aug. 9]. Yes, I AM


"And regarding my alleged lack of a sense of humor, this is coming from the paper that published 'Broiler & Nutter'?"

  • "And regarding my alleged lack of a sense of humor, this is coming from the paper that published 'Broiler & Nutter'?"

  • ">


    I want to thank Seattle Weekly for writing such a complimentary article about me [Campaign Cocktail, Aug. 9]. Yes, I AM passionate. I'm passionate about this city, and because of this I'm trying to speak to the (true) sense most Seattleites have that transportation is our #1 problem.

    But you missed something in your enthusiasm to label me the "Monorail Maniac." True, Mr. McIver twice tried to kill I-41, the popular Monorail initiative that I co-authored. My beef with Mr. McIver about the Monorail initiatives is history, except when he pretends he never tried to kill it. In an election year, everybody loves Monorail!

    My concern is that Mr. McIver, as the council's transportation committee chair and a board member of Sound Transit, has in neither capacity offered any vision for transportation solutions for this city. In fact, he's sat by while Sound Transit's light-rail plans rush blindly forward.

    Where's that light-rail extension to Northgate? Where's the financial accountability for the enormous cost overruns, now at an estimated billion dollars? Council member McIver doesn't have any answers. And, no, I don't believe that Monorail is a "magic bullet" . . . [but] even if you safely assume that Monorail costs are higher than initial expectations, a regional spine could still be built at about one-fourth the cost of a light-rail boondoggle.

    As far as the issue of race is concerned, yes, Seattle should have an ethnically diverse leadership. But Mr. McIver's votes on civil rights and the Sidran laws were the same as the rest of the council's progressive bloc, which I would join. To consider Mr. McIver's seat untouchable because he is black defies the late Dr. King's words about judging a person on the content of their character.

    It's time we demand accountability and do something to ensure that our quality of life here doesn't go up in car exhaust. That's the real reason I'm running for City Council.

    And regarding my alleged lack of a sense of humor, this is coming from the paper that published "Broiler & Nutter"?

    Grant Cogswell

    Candidate for Seattle City Council, Position 8


    I wish to clear up a misconception in George Howland's election column [Campaign Cocktail, Aug. 9]. I am not running "to protect my investment" from the 1999 campaign or to lay the groundwork for a 2003 campaign. I am running to win a seat on the Seattle City Council now. And I fully expect to win.

    I will win this election because:

    1. Jan Drago is vulnerable. By her own admission, she is not a leader. And Seattle is looking for new leadership. I will bring a new citizen-inclusive attitude to the Council.

    2. Seattle is getting tired of campaigns measured by the size of large corporate donations. We are a people city, and Seattle elects its candidates based on the quality of the person and their stand on the issues of the day.

    3. I am fortunate enough to have 100 volunteers working in my campaign. This is a working people's campaign.

    I bring fresh new ideas and a desire to create a City Council which sets policy for this city based on the needs of its residents. I want everyone in the city to believe that this is their city and that it works for them.

    Curt Firestone

    Seattle City Council Candidate


    I took the Left Wing Wacko test in Tom Tomorrow's Modern World cartoon [Aug. 9] and, much to my surprise, I am one. Answering yes to several of the cleverly posed questions made me realize how important it is to test everyone's political ideology. The following is a test to find out if you are a Right Wing Ditto Head.

    1. Do you think people should be denied jobs and promotions because of skin color?

    2. Do you think government is entitled to 40 percent of your income?

    3. Do you think a bureaucrat can manage your health care better than your insurance company?

    4. Do you think public officials should be able to lie under oath?

    5. Do you think public schools are the best education option for your children?

    6. Do you think Social Security can manage your retirement money better than you can?

    If you answered no to any of these questions, then you are a Right Wing Ditto Head who wants to kill the elderly, poison the children, and pollute the planet. Don't try to deny it.

    Bob Kingsbery

    Mill Creek


    We are writing to express our concern about the article "Preaching Revolution Now" regarding Dustin Washington, AFSC, and the Quakers [Aug. 9].

    It's difficult not to interpret Nina Shapiro's article as an attempt to undermine or belittle the work of Dustin Washington. After all, of the five people she quotes in her story, Washington is the only one who is physically described, and then Shapiro describes him as "boyish looking," and "with a wisp of a beard." These are, at best, odd characterizations, since she could just as easily and more appropriately have described him as the recent recipient of the Fellowship of Reconciliation's national Martin Luther King, Jr. Peace Prize, or of the Church Council of Greater Seattle's Samuel B. McKinney Award for Racial Justice. Surely these are more relevant features of Mr. Washington than the infantilizing caricature offered by Shapiro.

    Shapiro's "agenda" is also clear in her efforts to find (or create) conflict between Seattle Quakers, AFSC, and Washington's work. None of the quotes that she extracts from Bobbi Kelly, Chuck Fager, Pablo Stanfield, or Susan Segall provide much evidence at all for her overreaching claim about there being "inevitable tension between Quakers and the AFSC." Dustin Washington, AFSC, and the Quakers are doing outstanding work and should be congratulated for same, not subjected to patronizing, unsubstantiated accusations masquerading as "journalism."

    KL Shannon, Steering Committee Chair, The People's Coalition for Justice


    In your Best of Seattle issue [July 26] you listed Neighbours as the best dance club. You wrote about "young fags frolicking." Thanks for that. As a big "fag," I appreciate your use of the term. (No sarcasm intended.)

    Gary Zinter



    Re: Melissa Lefton article [Two Ears and a Tale, July 5]: I don't really appreciate you [Kurt B. Reighley] making comments about Britney Spears' implants, unless you were the one that performed the surgery. Because you have no way of knowing if she has implants unless you were there, which I'm quite positive you were not. You should also lay off of the Joey remarks, because they weren't funny. You would probably call yourself a writer, but if you were a real writer, you wouldn't have to resort to calling people names just to get a few laughs.

    Melissa Brown


    Letters to the Editor, Voice of the People! Write to Seattle Weekly, 1008 Western, Ste. 300, Seattle, WA 98104; fax to 206- 467-4377; or e-mail to letters@seattleweekly.com. By submission of a letter, you agree that we may edit the letter and publish and/or license the publication of it in print, electronically, and for archival purposes. You also agree that we may rub it or a printout thereof all over our bodies. Please include name, location, and phone number.

    comments powered by Disqus

    Friends to Follow