DEAR PAUL CONSTANT: Your obituary for Gerald Ford ["Gerald Goddamned Ford," Jan 4] was the most accurate obit I've read. My friends and family have actually been saying almost exactly the same words to each other over the past few days. These are people who are ex-military from the 1970s and '80s who would have been his biggest supporters. But even they thought Ford stunk like a wet, greasy turd when he pardoned Nixon. And the pardon really did lead to many decades of corruption in government and the private sector like this country has never seen before. I was 16 back then and knew it stunk to high heaven. I'm in my late 40s now and in no mood to forgive the man for what he has done. And neither is anyone else from that time period who had a pulse and a heartbeat back then. I hope Ford rots in the hell he so richly deserves.

Michael H


PAUL CONSTANT: Thanks for shaking me out of my Christmas torpor. In the spirit of the season and the avalanche of articles about the "healing" President Ford, I was going to forgive Ford as just another hopeless, helpless mediocrity who blundered into the Presidency. But you reminded me that he set the precedent that America will never hold its national leaders accountable for their crimes, no matter what size.

Dennis Williams


ANNIE WAGNER: I thought your review of Children of Men ["Without Feathers," Dec 28] was dead-on. The immediacy of the photography just never quite coupled with an immediacy in the story. I'm such a fan of dystopia and wanted to love this movie, but it just never... got there. Just too many instances of "And!?! What does this mean?"



ANNIE: Thanks for blowing the major plot point that Julianne Moore dies midway in Children of Men. Now what would have been a memorable, well-written review will only be remembered for someone mean-spirited enough to reveal a key character's death in a positive review of a movie. Next time, instead of eagerly getting your shots in, think about the sake of the reader.

Mario Villanueva


EDITOR: I don't expect much of substance from The Stranger's chow reviews, but I would expect that you would just check in with your motley crew of supposed food critics to see if they actually might care about the type of cuisine they are reviewing before you make assignments. This past week's review of Coco la ti da ["Sweet Bites," Dec 28] by Bethany Jean Clement, a self-proclaimed non-dessert eater, makes as much sense as sending a vegan to review Salumi. I'd much prefer to read a review by someone who isn't initially biased against what they are eating, and might even have a certain level of experience with—and perhaps even passion for—the cuisine.

It might also be nifty to provide reviews that aren't filled with precious self-referential commentary at the expense of discussing the restaurant. I know she's not the only one to abuse the review pulpit, but I really couldn't care less about Ms. Clement's post-feminist evaluation of dessert. Sue McCown is a Seattle food treasure. As with any new venture, I'm sure there's room for improvement at Coco la ti da—but as far as a professional review goes, she and your readers deserved much better.

Kurt A. Schlatter