EDITOR: After reading Sandeep Kaushik's marginalizing profile of Paul Krugman ["Krugmaniac," Oct 16], I realized that I must have missed Sandeep's evenhanded profiles of such other strident pundits as O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh. Or is Sandeep on the GOP payroll?

The statement that "Krugman's argument isn't much of an insight to liberal policy thinkers" is bizarre: Krugman was offered (and declined) a post in the Clinton administration; Krugman is the only voice in the media who has offered detailed analyses of the "2 - 2 = 5" Bush tax cuts and Bush economic policies; Krugman is still the only American voice predicting a U.S. Third World economic-style meltdown ahead if we continue on our current path. Funniest of all is Sandeep's last paragraph: In a book review with no less than 10 smears against Krugman, Sandeep has the balls to state: "Krugman's critique (is) repetitive... and lacking in subtlety."

Robert Wilson


TO THE EDITOR: I want to thank Emma Margraf and The Stranger for "Diary of a Social Worker" [Oct 2]. I work in social services myself, and the never-ending budget cuts, the irresponsible management, the convoluted inefficiencies are all too familiar. Lately I can't shake the feeling that the quality of care that we can provide for our clients (the children who often have nothing else to depend on) is on a downward spiral. Thank you for giving the general public a peek into all of this.

Sarah Wheeler


HEY, JOSH: Really dug "Allen-phobia" [Five to Four, Oct 9]. As an employee of 911 Media Arts Center, in the shadow of South Lake Allen, I appreciate your 20/20 hindsight on the whole Commons vote. It's a shame we missed out on creating a public park in what's rapidly becoming a neighborhood filled with cookie-cutter offices and condos.

Peter Mitchell


EDITOR: What is wrong with Christopher Frizzelle? His piece on the Hugo House [Nightstand, Oct 9] is a catty, juvenile smear of a fine organization working hard to bring writing and literature to a broad audience. I suggest the place feels obscure to him because he lacks the mental equipment necessary to appreciate how writing fiction can help people--particularly kids in our schools.

As T. S. Eliot observed, the most dangerous type of critic is one who feels the creative impulse but, through some defect of intellect, is unable to produce fiction and is thus forever consigned to secondary comment. There may be a lesson here for you, Christopher.

Donald Summers


CHRISTOPHER FRIZZELLE: Thanks for your column about Heather McHugh. Just when I begin to think poets will forever be saddled with the curse of indifference (did anybody seriously think a poet would get a Stranger Genius Award??), somebody like you comes along to give due credit. McHugh gave me my first sting of rejection by not allowing me into her advanced poetry class. Looking back at the poems I submitted, I can see why. But that rejection, after all the torment and existential despair, energized me wholly, as her poems continue to do for me: They scald me with their brilliance, compel me to do something better with my own work. That's the best sort of teaching anyway.

Rob Arnold


TO THE EDITOR: Thanks for running the story about the ongoing battle between the dark forces of evil (Stuart Silk) and myself ["Silk Suit," Amy Jenniges, Oct 2]. A couple of "clarifications."

First, I believe Silk owes 20 million, not five million. As a result of my whistle-blowing, Silk has been forced to report additional assets of $629,000 plus another $900,000 for a real-estate option.

Second, the discrimination (laying off employees on the basis of gender) situation that got me fired occurred in February. There was another situation back in June 2002 where Stuart told me that he was hesitant to hire a black woman for a marketing position because he was afraid that if he laid her off, she would sue because "she black, you know." And [there was] a third act of discrimination in 2002 when he didn't want to hire a woman because she was too "large" for a receptionist position. [Silk calls these charges inaccurate and denies any discrimination in hiring or firing.]

Third, I did not quit. According to Silk's statement to Employment Security, I was discharged. [Silk maintains that Gormézano quit, but all legal documents The Stranger has seen refer to Gormézano's "discharge."]

Fourth, I did not call him a sociopath but said that "I'm sick of your antisocial, sociopathic, dishonest behavior."

Fifth, when I have been asked by potential clients if they should do business with him, I have always said yes, because Stuart is one of the top 100 architects in this country. Hardly the actions of a disgruntled ex-employee.

Sixth, Silk says he wanted me to stop my actions. If that is so, then why didn't he respond to my letter offering to sit down and negotiate? Instead, he filed a lawsuit.

Seventh, Silk has a responsibility to not diminish the value of his assets. Making statements I beieve are false and defamatory such as "[he] quit" or that I am a "nutcase" gives me grounds to bring a defamation lawsuit. I find this ironic as this is the behavior his lawsuit accused me of.

Keith Gormézano