ANN ROMANO—Besides criticizing the story of Xenu, you have to step on the toes of protesters too [One Day at a Time, Oct 6, in which the author characterizes the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Portland as "vague" and "aimless"]? Maybe you enjoy it in this prison, where we are surrounded by concrete in every direction we look but up, but the dramatic consequences are obvious. What do you expect these people to do or say to make all of their dreams come true?
DEAR MERCURY—Really cool to be a bitch about celebrity gossip, really not cool to be a bitch about the Wall Street protests [One Day at a Time, Oct 6]. Simply said... fuck you.
MERCURY—Every time I pick up an issue of your paper, the first thing I do is indulge in a few chuckles with Ann Romano's One Day at a Time column. So it was with dismay that I saw you offer up a nice fat "fuck you" to those of your readers participating in Occupy Portland in the last issue [One Day at a Time">One Day at a Time, Oct 6]. By dismissing the demonstrators and claiming that we are "aimless" you are also misinforming the general public. I am curious why you chose to strike such a reactionary tone. Are you parroting the corporate media's feeble lines because you're angling for a job at CNN? Do you disagree that wealth and power in society are unjustly arrayed against people who work for a living? If you agree that the system needs to change, what methods would you suggest other than a show of the people's sovereignty in the form of street demonstrations? The tactic seemed to work during the civil rights movement, of which the current agitation is a hopeful heir. On the other hand, I thank the Mercury for its blog reports of the event [on blogtown.portlandmercury.com] and for Denis Theriault's helpful reminder on how (not) to talk to the police ["How Not to Get Arrested," News, Oct 6].
MERCURY—Never thought I'd wonder this, but is Ann Romano just another chick lit-y Ayn Rand wannabe [One Day at a Time">One Day at a Time, Oct 6]? Cuz her coverage of NYC's Occupy Wall Street was clearly, sadly, right out of the FOX's mouth (or other rancid orifices...). What's next, Ann? "Let them eat cake... ??"
The food is good, the staff are pretty great ["Every Rose Has Its Thorn," Last Supper, in which Pink Rose restaurant is unfavorably reviewed]. The location, however, took balls to attempt. During the summer, with the patio, they had some real traction. The test will be whether people will venture down into the restaurant proper. That used to be a cocktail lounge, as that it kind of made sense, as an airy restaurant... not so much. If the food's good though, it won't matter. Time will tell.
-posted by idontcurrr
FOLKS—The dude [Wm. Steven Humphrey]'s current entry ["People You Hate," I Love Television, Oct 6] is living proof of my statement, that yes... it really is okay to hate (or to feel an emotion that isn't all sweetness and light). See, people here think fancifully. It's as though they all want to be in terminal denial of hating, when NOT liking stuff (broccoli, liver, brussels sprouts, etc.) is doable and perfectly A-okay. You can hate Kim Kardashian (although feeling so vitriolic about a gal one hasn't even MET, or never cared to get to know, seems a bit far-fetched to me) without being ethnophobic toward Armenians, for example. Just like you can feel hatred without being homophobic or racist, as well. I don't think folks here realize this in their incessant hippie-dippy idealism. I'm just advocating passionate feeling, is all. And apparently, so is Mr. Humphrey, thank Gawd.
THAT'S, UH, QUITE PHILOSOPHICAL, Abbie. Go forth and proudly, passionately dislike all the foodstuffs and Kardashians you desire, and for your trouble you'll receive two tickets to the Laurelhurst Theater, where you can feel free to also dislike a variety of current cinema.