WE DO?
As if it weren't bad enough that the Seattle Weekly assailed, tried, and convicted a very decent human being in a cover article ["Where's Nate?" Aug. 2]. The insult to injury came with the depiction of Mr. Caldwell sporting a large "Afro" hairstyle. Did you dig through 20-year-old archives to find such a picture or simply alter the photo yourselves? Anyone who has seen Mr. Caldwell knows he has not worn his hair in such a fashion in well over a decade. How could he? He is almost completely bald.
Apparently readership at the Weekly is so low that you have stooped to the use of racially inflammatory images to create a stir. Next thing you'll tell us is that you sought guidance on the cover layout from the numerous African Africans on your staff. Oh, wait, I forgot—the Seattle Weekly prefers its African Americans behind bars.
Sara Taylor
Mercer Island
Eds. note: The photo is from the files of the Gainesville Sun.
CUTESY SARCASM
Regarding the Best of Seattle sarcastic puff piece about Reverend Robert Jeffrey of New Hope Baptist Church (winner of the "Best Al Sharpton Wanna-be")[July 26]: Unlike Al Sharpton, famous for causing divisions and disrespecting diversity, Reverend Jeffrey has been a staunch supporter of justice and dignity for all people. He was a founding member of the African-American/Jewish Coalition for Justice, has been a staunch supporter of equal rights for gays and lesbians, and has consistently pointed out the connections between local issues of justice and global concerns. He has opened the doors of his church to a richly pluralistic cross-section of Seattle. All of these have earned criticism and anger from many who are stuck in their own narrow, sadly simplistic view of the world.
Like all political activists, Reverend Jeffrey sometimes makes strategic mistakes. However, the short boycott of the 23rd and Jackson Starbucks, whatever one's perspective on its effectiveness, did force an all-too-rare conversation about the responsibility of corporations towards the communities where they do business.
The Seattle Weekly may not appreciate people who have a passion for justice, who don't always conform to conventional standards of etiquette. At least leave the cutesy sarcasm at home, and make an honest effort to report and analyze.
Rainer Waldman Adkins
Seattle
HEY, FAGGOT
In your July 26 Best of Seattle issue you wrote about Neighbours Disco, Best Dance Club. You wrote about "young fags frolicking" and then went on to say that the place attracts an increasingly diverse crowd. If this is true why did you not mention the young cunts and young niggers that were also there?
John Holcombe
Seattle
GRASS!
When Paul Allen's group sought nearly $400 million in taxpayer support a few years ago for a new Seahawk stadium, they sought to widen their political support by promising that this wouldn't be just a football stadium. No, it would be built to accommodate soccer as well— a possible Major League Soccer franchise, international exhibitions, perhaps even future World Cup matches. The signs around the stadium construction even describe it as the Seattle Football/Soccer Stadium.
It was no secret back then that soccer at that level is played on natural grass and on a field considerably wider than that required for football. So it would be rather dishonest for any Seahawks official to argue now that the campaign pledge of a soccer-friendly facility was not an implicit promise to install grass [see News Clips, Aug. 2].
If the Seahawks now believe that artificial turf better meets their needs, fair enough. But if they don't intend to plant grass, they should be made to honor their campaign promise by ensuring soccer can still be played at the stadium—on real grass—at no additional cost to the taxpayer. Underwriting purchase, operation, and maintenance of a portable grass field would be a small price to pay for the lavish new home the public has purchased for them—and to maintain their credibility.
Marko Velikonja
Bellevue
STUMBLING FORWARD
Thanks for your story on the interviews with the three assholes stumbling forward in the aimless wander for mayor [Campaign Cocktail, July 2]. The good, and the bad, thing about your story was that it confirmed what a lot of us felt about the three major idiots, uh, candidates, for mayor and the generally dysfunctional civic life of this town (and that includes the candidates and a surprising large percentage of the electorate).
And while I'll probably avail myself of the "write-in for Nick" option in the primary just to express my outrage "None of the above" is not on the ballot, I'd like to suggest something that I think could be of service to us, the people in la-la-land. At this point, I think continued, unrelenting, searing ridicule of the three "majors" is the only ethical (and sane) course for those of you in the media. In addition, I think it would be interesting, and hopefully not too depressing, for the media to give major ink to the views and ideas of the "minor" candidates. It's hard to say if any of them have anything of serious value to add, but on the odd chance one or more does, it might actually change the tone of this political season from truly nauseating to at least of passing interest.
