STRANGER: It's easy to understand how frustrated Josh Feit has become in covering Sound Transit's light rail boondoggle ["I Give Up," Five to Four, Jan 23]. But Josh, stop whimpering about how you just can't care anymore because "they won't let you." I suspect your fine nose for the truth won't let you stop caring for long about this out-of-control project. Here are a few good reasons others should care, too:

(1) At a time when so many social service agencies have to cut funding for core services, Sound Transit is busy squandering millions of dollars annually on frivolous legal retainers, consulting, travel, lobbying, and public relations--everything except transit.

(2) In 1993, Sound Transit's own study nixed light rail as too slow and inappropriate for our regional transit system.

(3) Sound Transit estimates that their proposed light rail will collide with a pedestrian or car on an average of every 12 days.

(4) Light rail will cost approximately $100,000 a year to take one car off the road. (Can't we find some volunteers to stay home from work for that amount of money instead?!)

Ron Sims is fond of saying that we're building light rail "for the future." But whose future? Looks like it's only about the political future of Sims, [Dwight] Pelz, [Greg] Nickels, and their buddies on the gravy train to nowhere. The longer this sham continues, the fewer dollars [there'll be] for real solutions--like more buses, monorail, and commute trip reduction programs.

Tara Peattie

Secretary, Coalition for Effective Transportation Alternatives

JOSH FEIT: You're absolutely right--putting a light rail vehicle on display at Westlake was nothing more than an insidious ploy by Sound Transit to "glom on to the monorail's popularity" ["Ploy on Display," Five to Four, Jan 30]. Or wait--maybe Sound Transit simply wanted to finally give folks a chance to see what their taxes have been paying for? After all, even though Sound Transit has already implemented regional express bus service throughout the region (as well as Sounder commuter rail), all ST ever hears from its critics is "Why haven't they done anything yet?" I think it was a great idea to bring one of the recently received Tacoma light rail vehicles up here to Seattle and give people in Seattle a chance to see it. I have yet to figure out where you guys at The Stranger got this anti-Sound Transit thing.

You may not realize this, but there are plenty of folks around here (urban hipsters, even!), like me, who are very excited about light rail and think that it's going to make this city a better place to live--especially in the Rainier Valley.

David Shelton, via e-mail

STRANGER: You've got to be kidding, right? You can't see the difference between cops ascertaining whether or not you're here legally when you're being cited or charged with a crime versus [cops questioning your legal status] when you've called for help, or are minding your own business ["Bending the Law," Amy Jenniges, Jan 30]?

It's hardly "immigrant harassment" when you're being charged with a crime; you haven't been singled out for your ethnicity at that time, you've been singled out for your behavior.

Deporting illegals who have been caught committing a crime is clearly [a situation that's] different from someone calling for help, or other such encounters. If you can't see that difference, you're blind.

Brian, via e-mail

STRANGER: Seattle police have handed a few drunks and jaywalkers to the INS because they're in this country illegally? That's a bad thing? The fact that Ramon and Omar are in this country illegally has nothing to do with "immigrant harassment," since illegal aliens have no business being in this country in the first place. But don't worry, Seattle liberals, many illegal aliens in custody never get deported; just ask the families of the victims of John Lee Malvo, or the family of the nun raped and killed in Oregon by Maximiliano Esparza.

Anonymous, via e-mail

STRANGER: I'm a local person who reads your paper all the time, and normally I love all the fucked-up jokes you guys have in there. But I thought it was really wrong to fucking rip on Nell Carter's death ["Death's Nell," Wm.™ Steven Humphrey, Jan 30]. I mean, even though I don't give a fuck about her personally, it's like, why would you rip on a dead black lady? You guys totally slammed her in your paper, and it's wrong. It wasn't even funny--it was just fucking tacky and ridiculous, and it's fucking wrong to do that. Would you like that when you die, if someone slams you like that? You can write, "Oh yes, it's so funny," in your little paper, but it's really not. I think you're going to get a lot of e-mails and a lot of other shit for this one, because that's just fucking wrong. Buenos días, muchacho.

Anonymous, via voice mail

STRANGER: My name is Ian and I am a student at Seattle Prep. Long have I regretted choosing to attend this school, and I was quite offended by the dean's prayer on January 22. However, I found your article to be a little exaggerated ["Disturbing Announcement," Amy Jenniges, Jan 30]. It seemed to me that the information you obtained was very one-sided. I have talked to teachers at my school, and I am good friends with the editor of our school newspaper; all of them refused to comment on the abortion prayer. All of this disappoints me. I can confirm that Sullivan is spinning the prayer as a prayer for the unborn, which he has every right to do. However, he did not ask students to imagine they were being aborted. Most important in my mind was Sullivan's apparent abuse of power, position, and environment. As the dean of students and a teacher, he should not have made such a one-sided argument. Also, the morning prayer was not the right place for these comments. I don't care if we are a Catholic school; people are going to disagree with the statements he made.

This is a very important issue that Seattle Prep seems to have left with Sullivan's remarks, refusing further discussion. It must be addressed now.

Ian, via e-mail

STRANGER: I am appalled at your article "Disturbing Announcement." Did Amy Jenniges get her facts wrong, or did the young lady who was offended? Never once did the dean, as your quote states, "[attack] women who had abortions." I happen to know that the Seattle Prep students are not walking around in FEAR, as was implied. Relax, Amy; Mr. Sullivan is very well-liked and approachable. I guess diversity in thought and discussion is not a concept that you can understand. Last I heard, Seattle Prep was a Catholic school.

Hooray for Mr. Sullivan of Seattle Prep taking the stand of the Catholic Church. I, as a Prep parent, am very pleased that he voiced the opinion of many. Once again you take the opportunity to Catholic-bash, just as [you did with] your depiction of the Virgin Mary giving birth to a turkey. Well, you know what: I was offended by that and your portrayal of Mr. Sullivan, and I am not even Catholic.

Karen Hardy, via e-mail

SEAN NELSON: I'm a bit confused when you say the indie-rock crowd was anti-sex ["Maximum Tits 'n' Ass," Jan 30]. Perhaps I lived in a parallel-universe 1990s, but it always seemed that for every shy indie boy writing a fanzine alone in his bedroom, there were three others posturing and preening and trying to be the one who could name the most Slint side projects in front of the girls.

I'm also sort of baffled that a film critic could write: "The concept of 'mainstream' pornography was unthinkable before the 1990s." Maybe that's your experience as a member of Generation X, but I'd expect you, as a film critic, to be aware of the fact that "mainstream pornography" was quite thinkable--and was in fact thought and written about by film critics--in the 1970s, when porn was first shown in mainstream theaters. And then there's your credulous take on the websites. You simply print whatever the operators of a couple of carefully chosen sites tell you, without any apparent attempt to find a thoughtful dissenting viewpoint or examine sites that aren't woman-run, "sex-positive," or otherwise insulated from liberal criticism.

Your article disturbed me most, however, not because it lavished publicity on a couple of fairly innocuous porn sites, but because I see the piece as a case of a person of a certain generation obsessing over that generation, whitewashing its youth culture, and ignoring obvious relevant experiences of other age groups; this is, if I'm not mistaken, precisely the sort of behavior that Gen-Xers find so loathsome in their parents, the baby boomers.

Ed Slocomb, via e-mail

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS: In Amy Jenniges' article "Bending the Law" in last week's issue, the article's sub-headline used the word "flaunt" instead of "flout." This embarrassing gaffe was pointed out by a number of readers, most notably Tim M., who used the mistake as an opportunity to call us both dolts and dipshits in his letter. Thanks for the kind words, Tim, and rest assured we regret the error.