AMY JENNIGES: I hadn't quite counted on such stupidity from a Stranger writer: "Schell and Kerlikowske acted quickly... something that didn't happen as readily after a similar situation with the police in the Central District two months ago." ["Unequal Profile," Amy Jenniges, July 19.]
Roberts was using his vehicle to drag a police officer down the street (he caught the cop's hand in his window). The Asian American incident was NOT at all like the Central District incident. There were several dozen Asian youths instead of one lone black man; none of the Asians were engaged in violence.
Maybe you don't realize that although Asians and blacks each respectively constitute about 11 percent of the greater Seattle area population, the latter account for 60 to 70 percent of violent crime here.
Schell and the SPD are "kiss[ing] Asian ass" [Table of Contents, July 19]? What defamatory, insulting, biased rubbish!
Denny Chiu, via e-mail
DEAR EDITOR: Emily Hall's thoughtful and gentle reporting on the Center on Contemporary Art's woes addresses yet again one of the most painful sagas in Seattle's contemporary art scene. However, she tactfully avoids the ugly truths of the situation, although I can't say as I blame her.
CoCA appears to suffer from a fatal loss of its sense of purpose. Seattle is full to the brim with a traveled, sophisticated constituency of artists and patrons; merely hanging paeans to art-from-somewhere-else isn't going to cut it. Seattle is not a cultural backwater, and there is work being made here that is as contemporary and challenging as anywhere else.
Artists here would be well served if they stopped hoping to be sanctioned by someone, and stopped trying to whip a (for now) dead model for experimentation and presentation. With some vision (and less overhead), CoCA could be responsible for leading the charge to take art into the streets, where it really belongs right now. But somehow, I expect that the people who are involved with CoCA, in their attempt to do the right thing, will go with the safe bet, the one that makes sense, rather that the more radical possibilities.
It is not too late, however. There is still a chance for CoCA's board to display a blinding flash of humor and bravado: It is time for a real, genuine, balls-to-the-wall wake, complete with drinking and dancing till dawn. Everyone could come celebrate, cry, reminisce, and lay to rest the good and the bad. In the morning, with a parade and a short service, bury it all: Have a headstone with a proper epitaph, and then move on.
Christian French, Seattle
PLAYING GOD
DEAR EDITOR: Dan Savage's response to "Doggie Comes First" [Savage Love, Aug 2] is a sad social commentary on the reason that millions of animals are abandoned, abused, and killed each year in the U.S. Savage's comment that "the Godlike power of life and death is one of the thrills of pet ownership" only perpetuates the tragic reality that animals are property, and are disposable for any reason at any time. A responsible animal guardian would recognize that specific dog behavior could be linked to the dog's environment and care (or lack thereof). However, if guardians are unwilling to respect the individual needs and personalities of their companion animals, the humane and compassionate thing to do would be to find a home that is loving and permanent. Savage's advice to his reader to kill her dog was irresponsible, cruel, and unfortunately, the route too many people take.
We do, however, agree that thongs are now and forever a fashion don't.
Tamar Puckett and Jennifer Hillman, Progressive Animal Welfare Society
DEAR EDITOR: In his review of The Trial of Henry Kissinger by Christopher Hitchens, Jeremy Lott states that "it is difficult to argue that one regime (Nixon's) should be strung up for [saturation bombing] while another (Clinton's) should be encouraged and praised for doing the same thing in Bosnia." ["The Incredible Shrinking Kissinger," Jeremy Lott, Aug 2.]
The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia is not comparable to the U.S. bombing of Southeast Asia. NATO's relatively restrained campaign against the Milosevic regime caused nowhere near the carnage that resulted from the U.S. military's zealous carpet-bombing of Southeast Asia. Indeed, Yugoslavia's civilian death toll from NATO bombs is seemingly negligible when compared to the million noncombatants who lost their lives in Nixon and Kissinger's expeditions in Cambodia and Laos.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the NATO air war against Yugoslavia, it simply does not withstand even a perfunctory comparison to the U.S. bombing of Southeast Asia.
Peter Sipe, via e-mail
IMPOUND SUBORDINANCE
EDITORS: Saul Bunford and Paige Ward deserve to have their car impounded ["Dude, Where's My Car?" Amy Jenniges, Aug 2]. You get the ticket, you pay it. And to those people who claim they can't afford to pay their tickets, don't get them in the first place--which I know must be difficult for a lot of people, what with having to obey traffic laws and all.
Why is it that people like Bunford and Ward act like assholes, and then when the system finally catches up with them, they whine about it?
H. Griffin, via e-mail
DEAR AMY JENNIGES: The fact that Saul Bunford either chooses not to or cannot remember that he has outstanding tickets doesn't mean that those tickets will disappear. The guy knew he had tickets and bailed on them. Why should it be the state's responsibility to babysit his car? He can't keep track of a boatload of tickets but can drive 2,000 pounds of steel? Fuck him.
The officer who had Bunford's vehicle towed was actually acting responsibly, due to the fact that Bunford had already ignored a number of other traffic laws (tickets, speeding, and license suspension).
I support the basic idea in your article. The thing that [irritates] me is the irresponsible example you picked out.
Jason Welch, Angry Motorist
EDITOR RESPONDS: As Jenniges' article states, Bunford did not pay his car fees because he could not afford them. Nowhere in the article does it state that Bunford chose not to pay his fees, or that he simply forgot.
EDITORS: Surveillance cameras in intersections set up to catch rogue vehicles running red lights is a FANTASTIC notion, but only if the cameras are placed in major intersections leading to and from DONUT SHOPS and POLICE STATIONS ["Red Eyes," Pat Kearney, Aug 2]. How many times have you witnessed cops running red lights in this city? You know the situation: A cop car pulls up to a red light, pauses, flashes lights for a second, runs the red light, and then turns off the lights and sirens, leaving those of us without badges, guns, and sirens in the dust. There's no emergency, no pressing situation--just abuse of power. So put the damn cameras in those intersections! We'll see that the average citizen can't compete with Seattle's finest. What's best is that cameras can't be singled out for HARASSMENT once they've shown that a cop has been naughty. If only there had been a camera in that intersection on Aurora last year, when that man was run over on his bike by a cop racing into the intersection.
David McGraw, via e-mail
DEAR EDITOR: Josh Feit's article last week about Seattle City Council Member Richard McIver made an important point ["McVulnerable," July 26]. By openly opposing the monorail, McIver has openly ignored voters' wishes.
Unfortunately, Feit lumped all of McIver's opponents into a single group. He did not mention that candidate Grant Cogswell co-authored the first monorail initiative, and that Cogswell is the only one in the field with enough grassroots political experience to actually defeat McIver.
Grant Cogswell isn't running against Council Member McIver because he's "vulnerable" on transportation issues. Grant Cogswell is running because McIver has failed to seek workable transit solutions for this city and this region. As a result, McIver is toying with long-term quality-of-life issues that will affect the Seattle area long into the future.
Phil Campbell, Campaign Manager, Grant Cogswell for Seattle City Council
DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS: Due to a typo, we stated in "Red Eyes" by Pat Kearney [Aug 2] that the fine for running a red light in Los Angeles, California is $27. The correct amount is $271.
Due to a production error, most of the gallery listings for our Aug 2 Visual Art Listings [Calendar] were accidentally dropped. We are so sorry. Don't kill the visual arts editor.
