STRAIGHT OUTTA SAMMAMISH
DEAR MIKE SEELY: When I first read your article on Grubz Grill [Bottomfeeder, "Fear of a Black Sandwich," Oct. 3], I thought it was another of Jonathan Kauffman's high-handed, self-important, socially obtuse ramblings on his personal feelings about the restaurants he's supposedly reviewing. Oh, how I wish it were so.
Sir, and I use that term loosely, your article on Grubz Grill is an embarrassment to your paper and your readers at the very least. Your fear, your self-absorption, and especially your pathetic ignorance of black people are all fatal stains on what could have been an interesting, off-the-beaten-track food review.
Instead, you paint a picture of "blacktism" by virtue of living in a "dangerous" city where African Americans make up the majority of the population. One gets the impression stealing cars is an essential part of black culture in St. Louis! You then complain South Seattle isn't black enough, and go off in search of "old-school blacks" and thrill in the fear of finally finding "the sort of dudes who populate a Curtis Mayfield song."
What does your writing say to the black community in Seattle? What does it say to your readers? It says to me the Seattle Weekly has no clue how to reach beyond a white readership it must think is as ignorant and racially challenged as its managing editor.
You should be ashamed—not only did you write this piece of utter crap, you enabled it to be published.
And while we're at it, over the last year Seattle Weekly food reviews have just plain sucked. I really don't enjoy reading food reviews that are 90 percent self-absorbed, clueless shoe-gazing and 10 percent about the food and the people who create and serve it. Hell, this piece on Grubz Grill doesn't even meet that standard. Take your heads out of your collective navels, or stop writing about restaurants. You just don't know how to do it well, if this is what you're publishing.Scott OrangeSammamish
DEAR EDITOR: Thanks for the mention of my book, The Dead Guy Interviews [The Weekly Wire, Oct. 3], though I must say, if Laura Onstot wants to trash my work (and make me look like a racist in the process), she should do her own research first: George Washington Carver actually had a policy of avoiding public statements on his political philosophies, and would respond to repeated queries about whether or not African Americans had themselves to blame for not achieving higher status in the South by stating he was "sticking to peanuts." My interviews, all factually based and researched by Harvard historian Anne Kaiser and the staff of mental_floss magazine, attempt to give readers a true indication of how the participants would have responded. That's hardly "history lite."Michael Stusser
TAFT NOT DAFT
DEAR JOHN METCALFE: Thank goodness Ellen Taft has stood up for dog control and leash laws in the city ["The Critter Taste of Defeat," Sept. 26], since a moderate percentage of dog owners couldn't care less about the problems their dogs create for other people. I like animals in general, but found myself hating most dogs I encountered at Volunteer Park because they were not controlled by their owners. You want a dog to run loose, then get a farm with a big fence around it. The strange thing about the article is its sarcastic references as to why Taft has become an activist. Maybe you don't think that being harassed or mauled by dogs and sick of their stink is a problem, but I do. I commend Ellen Taft, even if she is a bit wacky. Most people who are passionate about something come off as a little over the top, but that's because if they aren't, no one will ever listen.Sienna Reid
KAUFFMAN NOT SO BAD
DEAR JONATHAN KAUFFMAN: I would like to extend my thanks on behalf of the staff of Spice Route to you for writing a great article about our restaurant ["Tarted Up With Tamarind," Sept. 26]. We were very impressed by your knowledge of Indian cuisine and your amazing command of the English language. Thanks again for all your efforts."Tom"
WHY HONOR FLYNT?
DEAR LAURA ONSTOT: Larry Flynt hasn't a constitutional bone in his body [The Cutting Room, "Hustling the Jesuits," Sept. 26]. He never intended to be and has never been a devotee of constitutional rights. He's just an icky man who is devoted to publishing smut in an effort to amass wealth by indulging his obsession with denigrating women. If Hollywood had made an accurate fable of the life of Larry Flynt, it would have been a remake of The Emperor's New Clothes, only this time the emperor would have an erection. When a serial rapist with stacks and stacks of DNA evidence proving his guilt is freed from prison because of a constitutional technicality, the ACLU doesn't go on and on about the dignity of the rapist, sponsoring events to honor the man and insisting that we, too, acknowledge his greatness.Gil CostelloSeattle
Write to Seattle Weekly at email@example.com. Letters should be less than 250 words. Please include your name, location, and phone number. 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.
In his Sept. 26 review of Lone Star Love, Tim Appelo misidentified the performers over whose duet he would prefer hearing Texans break wind. They were Robert Cuccioli and Lauren Kennedy, not Dan Sharkey and Dee Hoty, as stated in the review. We apologize for the error.