Illustration by Jenna Lechner


RE: "Hop Along, IPAs" [Lush Life, Dec 10], a salute to local breweries that don't make IPAs, a staple that has (literally) flooded the market.

IPAs, to me, are like hearing a song you really love and then hearing that same song five million more times. Eventually the song you loved just pisses you off.

by Jeff Tharp


RE: "Proper Identification" [News, Dec 10], regarding new rules that make it easier to change gender identifiers on state-issued IDs, and using the sub-headline "It's About to Be Easier Than Ever for Transgender Oregonians to Tweak Their IDs"

So sad that your editor had to use the word "tweak" in the headline. It isn't just a tweak; it's a stumbling block in a transgender person's whole life. Every time they write a check, provide ID to a police officer, visit a physician or ER, [or] sign a form, the gender marker raises a question.

posted by Meg Cowie


RE: "Yes. Let's Ditch the 48-Hour Rule." [Hall Monitor, Dec 10], opining that the Portland Police Bureau should do away with a 48-hour grace period for cops facing discipline to get their stories straight.

Cops don't lie because they are evil; they lie because they are bureaucrats. Most people are totally comfortable lying to their boss at work to save themselves from punishments and financial reprimands. Cops are no different in this regard. What is different is that they could be covering up misconduct that puts the public's well-being at risk.

posted by ThatOneBrownGuy


RE: "Poll! Is Uber's Sacking of Portland the Best or the Worst?" [Blogtown, Dec 8] and "A Two-Front War" [News, Dec 10], addressing Uber barging into the Portland driver-for-hire market, at the same time the city is still negotiating local terms with another member of the sharing economy, Airbnb.

I'd be happy to have them here, but don't like their tactics. It's pretty much anarchy if we excuse the "good guys" we like from following local laws.

posted by Blabby

The city can't just keep a business interminably in limbo because they haven't put a regulatory debate on the agenda. I applaud Uber for forcing the city council's hand when they had no incentive to ever let them in.

posted by gdub

When you call Uber, you're making a decision to remove money from the local economy and send it out of state. That money could put a computer in your kid's classroom, fix a pothole on Sandy, or modernize a fire station in your neighborhood. Instead, you're sending 20 percent of your fare into the pockets of venture capitalists in California. Portland talks a lot of talk about micro-craft this and locavore that. Just keep in mind that Uber is part of the same continuum of enterprises that either uphold local, autonomous, community-based values, or undermine them.

posted by Red Diamond

This argument seems like a perfect example of two people who feel like they really love Portland. One sees an out-of-state, union-busting startup that would literally blackmail critics and choke local business, while the other is frustrated that Portland is kvetching about something that other larger and fancier cities enjoy. The former loves Portland and wants to protect it, the latter loves Portland and wants it to be "all it can be." Guess which one turned Division into a horrifying shitshow?

posted by Spaceman

I have a problem when a company comes into our city and demands that the city council drop whatever it is doing and address the company's needs. Flip Uber—they have no right to boss my elected officials around. That's MY job. Why should they set the agenda? As for Airbnbedbug, they also have no right to rewrite my city's housing rules. That is for Portland voters to decide. I don't understand how you can criticize the Koch Brothers for their influence and then turn around and support Uber.

posted by Reverend Bite Me

OOH SNAP, nice Koch Brothers dis, Reverend! You win this week's Mercury letter of the week, which means you get two tickets to the Laurelhurst Theater, which has yet to fall into the hands of the McMenamin Brothers.