DEAR EDITOR: Congrats on sending the biggest piss-ass baby to interview Boots Riley from the rap group the Coup ["The Coup's Bomb," Brian Goedde, Sept 20]. Perhaps in future interviews, he'll find out what tragically insightful artists have to say about their work and make the most for each column-inch, rather than just crying like a piss-ass baby and making a brilliant thinker and performer repeat the same statement multiple times. Boots Riley is moving forward, while your crybaby reporter just drinks pee and cries. And drinks pee.
I think it would be useful to send someone with reverence for the art form on future interviews of this type. It's totally unique, fascinating, and eerie that the Coup had an album set to release this month with the album cover [depicting the destruction of the World Trade Center], which would otherwise be lost amid the sea of trite iconography that is rap and hiphop album-cover graphics, a prophetic example of tragedy meeting corny symbolism in head-on collision.
Whoever the genius was that pushed this article his way deserves high kudos, while Mr. Poopypampers needs a fucking glossary.
Anonymous, via e-mail
LAUREL: It is very sad that you chose to write about Kenmore Air without spending time with them, or understanding what their company does and how it all works ["Air Scare," Laurel Holliday, Sept 27]. It's a big, friendly air-taxi service. Nice people, good pilots, a great local company.
You also try to make it sound like the FAA came down hard on Kenmore after [September] 11th. The FAA came down hard on EVERYONE that owns and flies a plane smaller than an airliner. Not just Kenmore. So spend some time at Kenmore Air, try to keep up with the NOTAMs (I dare you), and learn a little about the physics of flight before you write about aviation again.
Dave Linger, via e-mail.
EDITORS: Your brief article on the urgent need to tighten security on Kenmore Air was inane. Utter knee-jerk reactionary pap written by someone who apparently has no idea how the small air transport system works.
If someone wants to do something bad, why try to do it in a seaplane? Or any small plane? You would have to overpower the pilot (and any other passengers), then you would have control of an airplane that is too light to damage much of anything. A car would be a more effective weapon of destruction.
If you're going to let people write about their pet nightmares in the wake of [September] 11, start a "Bad Dreams" column. But don't try to pass it off as news.
Craig Howard, Seattle
SOON-TO-BE MAYORAL LOSER ON MAYORAL LOSER SCOTT KENNEDY
AMY: Interesting article, Ms. Jenniges--I suppose if I'm going to be a dipshit, I might as well be the unchallenged queen ["King of the Dipshits," Amy Jenniges, Oct 4].
I will never understand why Scott Kennedy was viewed as the most credible or "viable" candidate of the nonincumbents--seemingly largely based on his ability to borrow money--but I guess y'all know everything.
Interesting also that he'd like the race expanded--just enough to include himself. It's actually a very telling article, in that sense.
As an aside, I'm afraid Scott can't run as a filed write-in for the general [election]--even if he wanted to--because he was on the ballot in the primary. After reading that article, I'm kind of glad.
Christal Wood, mayoral write-in candidate for the general election
HEY STRANGER: You cloud Scott Kennedy's image with your insulting headline, but his intelligence and sincerity shine through in the lengthy article that follows. At times, the guy does seem a bit cocky, and even naive. In fact, he looked like a 14-year old Young Republican when I first saw him at a mayoral forum. But when I spoke with him afterward about how we could solve the police accountability problem (he was the only mayoral candidate to bring it up at the forum), I realized that he was a mature, practical liberal, disgusted at the lack of quality candidates and ready to do something about it. From early on, Scott chose to do everything that the "establishment" did, to seem more viable. He wrote stump speeches that actually took a stand. He dressed respectfully. He designed a nice website, logos and signs. He sent out press releases and sponsored functions. It was a noble strategy, raising him $4,750, according to the SEEC web site. And it won him enough votes to clobber the other "alternative" candidates.
Contrary to your article, I think the voters did take him seriously. It was the press and other endorsement organizations who let his age and lack of experience overshadow his bold personality and sharp ideas. I think experience is less important to the voters than it is to the entities which educate them. But without the support of at least one of these entities, newcomers don't have a snowball's chance in Sidran's heart. On the flip side, awarding this support can carry even the biggest dipshit all the way to the general election (e.g., Grant Cogswell's Stranger-backed campaign). This November, we face two highly experienced, horrible mayoral candidates. I hope you'll forgive me if I write in "Scott Kennedy," in the hopes that more fresh faces are encouraged to stick their neck out for something they believe in.
David Matsumoto, via e-mail
DEAR EDITOR: I work for Scott Kennedy as a barista in his coffee shop, so when I read your story about his run for mayor, I was glad that you showed how hard he is willing to work for the things he cares about... regardless of the outcome. Scott doesn't run his cafe to make money; he runs it to serve the community. He runs his software company to solve complicated problems. And he ran his campaign to help restore control of this city to the people, because no one else would. If his performance as my boss is any indication of what his performance as mayor would be, our voices as a community would be heard, and our concerns would be a top priority.
Fawn Elise Stewart, via e-mail
HEY STRANGER: As soon as I am done blushing over your multi-page spread on my failed candidacy for mayor, I'd like to focus your readers' attention on a more pressing concern; a question more serious than the infotainment media (or the remaining candidates) seem willing or able to address. When are we going to demand accountability from those we choose to represent us?
While our federal government continues to inflict irreversible "justice" on other citizens around the globe, perhaps now is the time to investigate our own city. You know, just in case they begin disregarding the will of the people on issues like, say, monorails and stadiums and homelessness and labor and police and civil liberties.
History defends the cynics and political activists who demand this accountability. But I'd like to see their dialog taken one step further, where we propose solutions, and I invite your readers to help me transform some of these ideas into concrete action.
Let us discuss how to encourage more smart, caring people to run for office. How to reform campaign finance and reconsider our election methods. How to simplify voter registration, or how to develop a truly independent civilian review board or introduce a City Ombudsman position. And let's stand behind bolder policies regarding information availability and access.
If this democracy is to remain worthy of defending, it must ensure that serving our best interests remains the top priority. And if we are unable to find candidates who truly believe this, we must at least attempt to "check and balance" the system, so the city remains accountable for the money it spends and decisions it makes.
If Seattle offers equally bleak options in any future political race, perhaps I will run again. But in the meantime, you can join me in my efforts to keep these truly important issues at the forefront of the political dialog by calling me at my private line. Seattle is an educated, civic-minded, liberal community. If true democracy can be preserved anywhere, we can preserve it. So let's.
Scott A. Kennedy, former mayoral candidate, current barista, BitStar Cafe
