STRANGER: Wow. Yet another pseudo-hip, caustic editorial on the oil war, this time supposedly from someone (Sandeep Kaushik) who sympathizes with the anti-war movement ["War Games," Dec 19]. With allies like Kaushik, we might as well shoot ourselves in the head.
Just for the record, not all of us are under the illusion that the war will be stopped. As for whether the war is going to play well in what Mr. Kaushik refers to rather patronizingly as "mainstream" or "modern" America, no doubt right-wing lapdogs like the editor of your rag will do their best to see that it does.
On the other hand, I think the "mainstream" of this country is a lot more complex than the bunch of self-satisfied know-nothings Mr. Kaushik presents them as. No doubt the backward element is real, otherwise we'd hardly be in the thick of this mess as we are. It's true that as a West Coast goofball, I don't have the clarity of vision or gritty expertise that your average East Coast know-it-all snotrag has, but I've lived in every corner of this country, and I don't believe our population is anywhere near as resigned to this bullshit as the geniuses say.
I don't believe that the bulk of the population is going to be resigned for long to the one-party state at war with everyone in the world that this country is rapidly becoming. The electoral farce that plays itself out every two to four years in the U.S. involves barely half of the electorate, and this is a foundation upon which a hardy and tough opposition can build, and is building.
Michael Hureaux, via e-mail
STRANGER: Sandeep Kaushik's "War Games" essay states that "the left wants to err on the side of dead Americans, while the right wants to err on the side of dead Muslims and Arabs." I am frustrated that liberals are frequently portrayed as less patriotic, and less concerned with the welfare of our fellow citizens than conservatives. I think I speak for many of my liberal friends when I say that while our reasons for going to war are presently unfounded, in no way would I prefer the spilling of American blood over the blood of our enemies. Just because I am a liberal doesn't mean that I am a pacifist--there is a time to go to war. However, the current situation doesn't yet merit an attack by the U.S.; it will not only result in the loss of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, but will lead directly to the unnecessary loss of American civilian and military lives. The Bush administration is not doing nearly enough to preserve peace, but if it does come to war, better them than us.
Edward M. Galore, via e-mail
STRANGER: Sandeep Kaushik's article "War Games" is among the silliest things I have ever read, ranking with the poetry of Jim Morrison and the romantic fiction of Lynne Cheney.
"The government has a tacit deal with the suburban and urban middle class"??? Well, I wouldn't call it exactly "tacit." The suburban and urban middle class compose the majority of voters in this country--they are the ones who (according to the Supreme Court, I know, I know) elected the government. Voting is not a tacit act. And the "deal" is called representative democracy.
Because of this "tacit deal," Bush gets to "do what he wants in Iraq"??? What does he want to do? Why? Look, I'm no fan of an Iraq war either, but there are reasons Bush is supporting it, and those are the issues to debate, not whether Junior wants a hummer (hey, who doesn't?). Kaushik's unsophisticated thinking--so emblematic of the anti-war left--is why no one gives a shit about what he thinks.
Seth Kolloen, via e-mail
STRANGER: Finally--a sensible piece about the whole Iraq situation and American politics, written by a lefty. But my compliment ends there. Kaushik pointed out with disdain that an average suburb-dwelling American would only worry about 401(k)s, property taxes, cholesterol, and so on. What is wrong with that? What do you want for Christmas? World peace? Even the bimbos on pageant shows don't spew that out anymore. Get with the program and learn to be a software engineer like the rest of the Sandeeps. Maybe then, you'll be making 60 grand a year and granted a few stock options to worry about.
Shane Mora, via e-mail
CHARLES MUDEDE: For some time now I have been dismayed when reading your reviews and articles concerning hiphop. If you weren't being grossly inaccurate (sometimes you come off as one who hasn't in fact listened to U.S.-birthed rap since Fear of a Black Planet, and wasn't paying great attention even then), you were making ridiculous and sometimes dead wrong statements concerning our own scene here in town.
Occasionally you seemed to come up with something insightful on the subject of hiphop (your review of Slum Village's first album, and that great article on ODB you did a ways back), but mostly I found myself cursing whoever put you in charge of writing about something you seemed to have no understanding of whatsoever. I appreciated your article after Jam Master Jay's death (even if it was mostly an interview with the very bona fide Daddy-O)--he was a cousin of mine, though we never met. Sadly, the attention span of the hiphop-buying demographic is too short to allow a tribute comparable to his contribution.
But it was your latest article that actually prompted me to write, though I'd always sworn I was about to ["All Apologies," Dec 19]. It takes big cojones to admit you've been wrong, particularly when you write for a popular periodical, so I just wanted to tell you, as someone who has repeatedly been angered by your writing: apology accepted.
Larry Mizell Jr., via e-mail
CHARLES MUDEDE: Your "admission" of omission and myopia is indeed an inspiring thing! I read your article this morning and was stunned, truly stunned, by your honesty and desire to look more closely and sincerely at matters (of hiphop--groups, music, etc.) now and in the future. I suspect that your candor and humility will put other critics and would-be critics on notice to be present--fully present--in their dealings with those they desire/are compelled to write about. With all due respect (and much is due), that is the LEAST a journalist can do! What a beautiful thing for you to do for yourself, hiphop, journalism, and humanity as a whole. Now, if we could just get some of your constituents to follow your lead... in 2003 and beyond!
Michele Rose, via e-mail
STRANGER: I'm not sure if Dina Martina and Victoria Renard, along with the rest of the editorial staff at The Stranger, are anti-religion, anti-Catholic, or just bigots who would like nothing more than to offend a large proportion of the Christian community in Seattle. The latest front cover [Dec 19]--depicting the Virgin Mary in some sort of grotesque pose with a turkey, in something that could be misconstrued as the Immaculate Conception--may have seemed very clever to you all. However, as we run up to the holiday season, I wonder: Did you ever stop to think what it might mean to others? Everybody has a right to an opinion, but when that opinion serves no purpose but to degrade and offend, sometimes it's better to keep that opinion to yourself. In this current age, when religious beliefs are played upon to serve many horrific ends, I think you would be well-served to avoid publishing such offensive and demeaning media.
Fergal Cahill, via e-mail
STRANGER: The cover of your December 19 issue (Dina Martina and a plucked turkey) was uproarious. Maybe someday you could depict a Buddhist monk roasting marshmallows by self-immolation, or a rabbi circumcising an Uzi.
Mark P. Martinez, via e-mail
STRANGER: What the hell was that cover art supposed to say? I'm not even Christian, but I found that turkey-birthing, Tammy Faye Bakker drag queen almost offensive. I'm all in favor of making fun of religion, but nobody needs to see clowns giving birth to poultry.
