SEATTLE WEEKLY OR COSMO?
I found it ironic that you chose the third place color winner for the cover of your paper ["Seattle Weekly Women Photo Contest," Oct 18].
Granted, there was an idea behind the shot chosen for the cover, but because of the people involved, a professional model and a professional makeup artist, the end result was very "fashion" in flavor. Like most fashion photography, the photograph is about looking not understanding.
By contrast, in the winning color photograph you can see the understanding the two women have of each other. By viewing the photograph we can begin to have our own understanding of them and perhaps a new understanding of women in general.
So in choosing a photo for the cover, the Weekly chose the photo of a woman rather than a photo about women. I think this demonstrates the Weekly's position toward women: to look at, not to understand. But in your defense, this is how society views women and, more important, how advertisers view them.
David M. Brown
Seattle
SLOPPY STATEMENTS
As a firm believer in meaningful and progressive tax reform, I was pretty horrified to hear Geov Parrish state that "sloppy tax reform is a lot better than no tax reform" ["Cut Taxes, Now!" Oct. 18]. Are you kidding?!
Sloppy tax reform in the form of I-747 will strangle local governments around the state, requiring them to run elections EVERY SINGLE year in order to find funding for services we all agree are necessary and wanted—firefighters, libraries, courts. And after public employees spend a quarter of the year running an election, what if the measure doesn't win? Then the local government is out thousands of dollars that were already scarce.
Furthermore, to think that the legislature is going to be spurred by I-747's passage to propose a progressive income tax is ludicrous. The legislature has been loathe to violate the will of the voters over the past few years. Think 695. If the voters pass I-747, they'll do so because it represents immediate (albeit totally false) tax relief to them. Are we really supposed to believe that this kind of sentiment will prompt the legislature to suggest an income tax?
There is no doubt that we need tax reform in this state, but to suggest passing a measure that highlights a problem without offering an iota of a solution is shortsighted and irresponsible. "Don't tax us" isn't tax reform, it's a quick way to choke off the public services we all use and expect to be there when we need them.
Becky Kavoussi
Seattle
WACKY BUT LOVABLE
Regarding Geov Parrish's "Cut Taxes, Now!" [Oct. 18], it's nice to see that even a Lefty like Mr. Parrish is willing to take an honest look at the problems inherent in the Democrat mantra of "No New Tax Cuts." Unlike most Seattleites, he seems to understand that there is a need to force accountability on our legislators, and Eyman's initiative is a step in the right direction.
As for his comments concerning Honorable Jim McD, Mr. Parrish is right again. As a Republican, I couldn't ask for a better Democrat in a safe seat. He's shown over the years to be incredibly ineffective in getting any of his ideas passed into law. Thank God.
Geov, for a wacky socialist, I love you.
Nick Slepko
Bangalore, India
THOSE AIN'T FACTS, JACK!
How some people (such as the Post- Intelligencer editorial staff) have come to the conclusion that "the facts" were revealed at the Aaron Roberts inquest flies in the face of credulity [see "Rights and Wrongs," Oct. 18]. When "facts" are merely the testimony of clearly guilty parties, one can only conclude that those who believe this are merely stooges of the institutions of power. I followed the testimony of the white police officers responsible for the death of Roberts, and it is beyond belief how anyone, beyond the P-I, bigots, and police apologists, could take their version of events without a measure of disbelief. Furthermore, attempts to portray the victim as the "guilty" party only makes such hypocrisy all the more despicable.
Others make the ludicrous claim that the officers did not seek this confrontation. The fact is that police officers not only seek confrontation with minorities, they slobber over the chance. One would think that, to avoid bad publicity, white officers, before allowing bigotry, racial profiling, and mere whim to govern their actions, would think twice before seeking confrontation over what is often merely "intuition," but they do it anyway—often with bully-boy delight. That is fact—and just because white-skinned suits (at the P-I, for example) are fortunate enough not to be subjected to police harassment does not give them the right to say it does not happen.
The bottom line is that the police cannot be trusted to tell the truth—and why should they worry about lying? All across the country, police are allowed to get away with murder by white jurors, apologists, politicians, and newspaper editors.
Mark Kittell
Seattle
YOUR MATH STINKS
Let me add this Mayor's race up:
One guy has never done anything in his life but play politics. Didn't even graduate from college. This guy is so beholden to the construction unions that he voted to build a light-rail line to the airport that stops a mile away from the airport. That vote last month cost us $2 billion and will evict busses from the downtown bus tunnel.
