THE JOY OF QUIXOTE

EDITOR: I was thrilled to happen upon this perfectly random article ["A Knight in Winter," Gabriel Heller, March 9]. I had a similar quixotic epiphany 12 years ago and started to learn Spanish so I could one day read the Quixote in the original. A couple of months ago, I finally started to make good on my promise. I could not face the original without some help though, and launched a reading club. A few fellow devotees of the Don now meet every month at my apartment to read and discuss a few chapters over wine, and the blaring sun of La Mancha soon dispels the Seattle clouds.

Girindre Beeharry

CANTWELL'S FOLLY

JOSH FEIT: Good piece this morning on Maria Cantwell [CounterIntel, March 16]. "Them's my sentiments exactly."

It is baffling why she follows such a centrist line. Perhaps in the hopes of getting votes in Central and Eastern Washington? We have 80,000 voters in the 46th Legislative District alone who—if they are motivated enough to actually get to the polls—vote over 80 percent Democratic. It would seem a matter of strategy (even if not of principle) to want to get us "super-liberals" as you call us motivated and excited to work for her.

Thanks, as always, for your great reporting.

Gail Chiarello

PAT ON THE BACK

JOSH: Good piece on Cantwell! It's amazing how soon the Democratic establishment has forgotten (or never understood) the lessons of the Gregoire race.

Bev Marcus

BROAD-SHOULDERED SOLUTION

EDITOR: Only two terrible choices for the future of the SR99 viaduct are to be presented ["False Choice," Erica C. Barnett, March 16]. There ought to be a third choice: a single-level, elevated road that is 50 feet wide, with one 12-foot-wide lane and a 10-foot-wide shoulder for each direction. It should stand six feet taller than the lower level of the current viaduct, which would let in more light and lessen the uphill grade at its north end. There is no reason to blow $2 billion–$4 billion on one mile of road.

Christian Michael Fuchs

BENEATH HER PEARLS

ELI SANDERS: I found virtually nothing in your piece regarding Darcy Burner's views on key issues ["Fighting Mood," March 16]. It's not enough to be Democrat or "blue" or anti-Reichert. What qualifies Burner outside of her Microsoft money and connections?

What is her view regarding Iraq and finding solutions to that mess (other than a simplistic U.S. withdrawal)? What is her thinking regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions and the U.S. response to this? What is her plan regarding the entitlement-program debacle or reducing the budget deficits?

One of the major voting issues in this country is putting people into office simply because they're "blue" or "red," or Republican or Democrat.

Let's start elsewhere: Let's see if candidates can articulate solutions to the difficult issues this country faces.

James Cameron, Seattle

FROM THE FORUMS

POSTED BY ORGANIC RULES ON MARCH 10: Religious people and politics... are they compatible?

Do you believe that an individual who is religious should be able to vote in such a way that reflects their religious beliefs, thereby imposing their beliefs upon others? (Assuming whatever they voted on passes.)

POSTED BY PIKE ON MARCH 10: The simple answer is yes.

Somebody should be able to vote as long as they are an American citizen and live where they registered. Not a huge fan of people implementing their personal beliefs on other people, but you can't stop somebody from voting because of how crazy they seem, and how would you know that anyway? You can't prescreen voters.

POSTED BY THALASSUS ON MARCH 10: I think you've pretty much pointed out the core benefit and core drawback of the "democratic" process. Anybody can vote any damn way they please, and it doesn't have to make any bit of sense or be justified by anything at all. If my neighbor, the wacky guy who is quivering with anticipation for the day he gets taken up to see Lord Jesus H. Christ Jr. in the Holy Rapture, wants to vote for a candidate who feels the same way, I say more power to him. It's the only way to ensure that I get to vote the way I want.

Setting forth the idea that someone can't or shouldn't be able to participate in the political process, based on their certain beliefs that you happen to not agree with, is pretty much one cornerstone of fascism.

Certain members of certain political parties have been using such practices to excess in the last few elections. Google "voter suppression" for more info than you (or I) would probably care to stomach.

Join the discussion at forums.thestranger.com.