Please! Another boring story on marijuana, this one featuring a Canadian biker angle ("Cops & Angels," 10/22). Jennifer Vogel does a nice badge-polishing job on>"/>
Please! Another boring story on marijuana, this one featuring a Canadian biker angle ("Cops & Angels," 10/22). Jennifer Vogel does a nice badge-polishing job on Officer Furac, who dredges up the same old drug-war propaganda, while giving lip service to the legalization angle. News flash to Vogel and Furac: Legalize this relatively harmless herb (compared to alcohol) and the Hells Angels' easy income will dry up. Those big scary bikers will turn into broke, overweight clowns, left to lounge around their "booze clubs," which are not doubt a far greater threat to public safety.
The cannabis business (notice that I did not say drug business; cannabis is not a drug but a naturally occurring herb with 3,000 beneficial medical uses), like any black market business, is always overseen by some group or another ("Cops and Angels," 10/22). The Hells Angels are better than the Republicans and even the centrist Democrats because they only kill a few people rather than thousands or even millions, and they also have a poverty awareness second to none. Better ex-cons run a business than those who haven't been there and don't have an understanding heart.
Finally, the cannabis business even with enforcers is a much harder business to oversee because it does not require a chemical plant to manufacture, only a patient green thumb, a connoisseur's eye, and a winemaker's fine tasting sense. Please see my Web site at http://www.speakeasy.org/~dopewar. Enjoy if you can.
Blind and biased
I have just read the 10/29 issue of Seattle Weekly and I can guarantee it will be my last! I can't believe your incredibly biased view on this last election. To suggest that your readers should blindly vote 100 percent for a complete liberal/Democratic agenda and to ignore the lying and arrogant attitude of the president and to accuse all Republicans of a whole variety of "threats to freedom" makes me sick. I, and most people I know, vote for candidates based on their record and capabilities, and not on some emotional "paint them all with the same brush" biased viewpoint! What kind of people are you?
You should apologize to the long list of true hard-working professionals that have given their time and effort to run for office and, by and large, do the right thing. They don't deserve this kind of treatment and name calling!
We've been Knute-ered!
And here I thought it was only conservative Republicans who were capable of the political Newt-ering of the public at large. Now I see from your election coverage that liberal Democrats can do some political Knute-ering of their own (Endorsements, 10/29). Is it not bad enough that the far right has heaped on the age-old "The end is nigh" of millennium fever without the liberal left chirping in that it's now or never on the political landscape? Last I checked, there is another election in two years and another two years after that, and so on. Why the alarm bells? More to the point, why blame the Republicans?
In the Weekly's readership area, the Dems outnumber the Reps nearly 2 to 1. That's right, that's nearly twice as many Dems who did nothing about transportation over the last 30 years. That's twice as many Dems who did nothing to stop the Mariners Stadium fiasco. That's twice as many Dems who did nothing to stop the sucker sell of Paul Allen's football fantasy. Right-wing Republicans have derived their strength by peeling it off the backs of the do-nothing Democrats of this region. "Start your own militia!" shrieks the Knute-ered one. Great for a few years of rule, but then what?
How about a chapter from our own governor's ancestry: "If you wish to rule for three years, form an army. If you wish to rule for five years, collect taxes. If you wish to rule for 100 years, educate the people."—Confucius.
Hey, folks, in the realm of all things political, don't be Newt-ered or Knute-ered, and don't "start your own militia." Start your education.
(an un-newt-ered Republican)
Kudos to Knute Berger's excellent opinion in the Weekly's Election Endorsements '98 (10/29). Although I voted by absentee ballot, it reflected his advice down to the last filled-in circle. It's no wonder so many GOP candidates chose not to identify themselves as Republicans in their paid political ads—obviously they were concerned the voters of Washington will follow Berger's advice.
On his lame list
So you're scared "shitless." Does that justify acting witless? (Election Endorsements, 10/29.) How does one decide to endorse 37 Democrats and 0 Republicans? Let me count the ways. Your claim to have "looked at the candidates and issues" isn't one of them.
Having been endorsed by the Weekly, under different ownership in the 1996 Democratic primary, I looked forward to competing for your endorsement again, this time as a Republican in the general election. Unfortunately, you did not attempt to contact me. You did not invite me to appear before your editorial board for an exchange of views. You did not even send me a questionnaire or ask for a copy of my campaign literature. All of these events occurred before you endorsed me in the '96 primary. Indeed, when I phoned you to elicit whether or not the Weekly would be making any endorsements in the 32nd, no one returned my call.
I have no problem with your desire to endorse 100 percent Democrats, the mentally lame along with the politically agile, if that's what you truly believe is best for the state and nation. Only, please, don't pretend you're still journalists! You'll give your colleagues at other papers a bad name.
former GOP Candidate for State Representative
32nd District, Position 1
The Dangerfield of SF
What did you miss? How about the largest publisher of fantasy fiction in the US? That would be Wizards of the Coast, down in Renton. (See "Literary Universe," 10/22.) Yeah, those guys. They're a game company. They make Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons. They also publish best-selling novels and have hosted the resurrection of Amazing Magazine, that venerable and acclaimed ancestor of modern SF. Their books are regular fixtures on various best-seller lists, they attract nationally known authors, and their paperbacks command a nice chunk of space at your local Barnes & Noble.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I should also mention that they have published a number of my novels as well, and their game-design area is currently my day job.)
The book department of Wizards of the Coast, under its TSR imprint, has been the Rodney Dangerfield of SF and fantasy literature for years. In an ever-growing world that accepts fantasy and SF in almost all its stripes, it remains excluded, the literary ghetto of the ghetto.
Check out your telescope, guys and or at least get an updated star chart. You mention Fantagraphics (which is good) and a number of small presses (which is great), and ignore one of the titans of fantasy in your own backyard.
If Margie Slovan's article "Driving Blind" (10/22) was meant to be a serious piece of reporting, I am afraid it was seriously flawed. Margie subjects us to a tunnel-vision explanation of the problem of road accidents/deaths: why it's age-related degeneration, especially macular degeneration.
In all fairness, Margie does acknowledge that "they [seniors] have more traffic collisions per miles driven than any other group save 15- to 24-year-olds," but then blows that off like it was a zit on the butt of a rhino.
As if to lend credence to her story line, Margie cites studies (of what and the parameters of which she does not tell us) and statistics. Her use of statistics reminds me of the caveat sounded by the statisticians' conundrum: Statistics are like a bikini; what they reveal is very interesting, but what they conceal is vital.
The issue of road accidents/deaths is much more complicated than this article suggests, and while some seniors are certainly part of that problem, they shouldn't be the whipping boys that Margie has made them out to be.
Margie's "obvious solution": cancellation of driver's licenses. I can hardly wait for her "final" solution.
We welcome succinct letters commenting on articles in Seattle Weekly. Letters may be edited for length. Please include name and daytime telephone number for verification. Write to Letters Editor, Seattle Weekly, 1008 Western Avenue, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98104; fax to 206-467-4377; or e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.