POSING AS THE HOMELESS
TO THE EDITOR: As a homeless person I am deeply moved
by the Portland Mercury‘s concern for our plight and your harsh criticism
of Mayor Katz’s policies regarding the needy [“Who’s the Boss?” Jan 25].

May we join you there on Northwest 23rd? Could the millionaire wackjob who backs your snotty little pose-fest of a paper throw a few bucks our way instead of pouring tens of thousands of dollars each week into your cutesy irony and predictable self-serving rants? Just checking.

Homeless Bob, Hovel #9, Camp Dignity, USA

Phil Busse responds: Bob, I was so moved by your elegant writing that
I went down to Dignity Village (certainly, as an alleged resident, you
knew that it had been renamed!) to offer you a job. Strange, no one there had
ever heard of you! Oh, well. Perhaps you’ve packed your typewriter into a shopping
cart and moved onto greener pastures?

THE EVER PRESENT POOP PROBLEM
TO THE EDITOR: I agree with your I, Anonymous
column [“Dog Poop Patrol,” Jan 25], in regard to the problem of pet owners
allowing their pets to defecate freely on private and city property.

The part I disagree with, even though it seems justified, is the depositing of the doggie doo-doo (excrement) on the front steps of the perpetrator. An “eye for an eye” may have been appropriate in Christ’s day, but in this day and age to put a human health hazard on someone’s front steps is nothing more than a crime, any way you look at it.

A responsible pet owner

PARDON ME, BUT THE SSC DOESN’T MUMBLE!

TO THE EDITOR: [RE: “Getting Out Alive,” D. K. Holm, Feb 1] Holm is a decent
film critic and his description of Film Festival realities is accurate. But
his trash talk about Silver Screen Club members is meanspirited and wrong.

Holm offers a hatchet depiction of SSC members as rich 80-year-old film snobs from the West Hills in Patagonia windbreakers who annoy others by mumbling and chuckling inappropriately throughout the films. I’m 64, but some of my SSC buddies are in their 30s and 40s. I live south of Milwaukie, and I buy my jackets from the Vietnam Vets at Red White and Blue. SSC members’ behavior during films is far superior to the average–no mumbling around where I sit.

Of course there is a poseur or rube in every group. Holm ought to pick his seatmates more carefully. But gratuitous stereotyping, unbecoming in anyone, is grounds for deeper worry coming from an arts critic.

Roland Atkinson

IT’S CALLED “PRO-CHOICE” FOR A REASON

TO PHIL BUSSE: Sweet fucking Christ. I hope your review of Sugar & Spice was an attempt at humor [Film, “Rah! Rah! Vs. Wade, Feb 1]. I’m pro-choice and
boggled by why it’s such a horrible and insidious idea for a girl to decide
to keep a baby instead of having an abortion. It’s called pro-choice for a reason.
Choice. Make sense? If it was a joke you should work on your attempts at humor
’cause they’re pretty, how did you put it? Oh yes, “lukewarm.” I’m sure you’re
right about it being a shitty movie though.

Anonymous

YOU HURT MY FEELINGS; I’LL HURT YOURS

TO JAMIE S. RICH: I really must protest your criticism of Stephen Malkmus.
Despite a (perhaps) lackluster performance, he is still a large jewel in Portland’s
crown and the leader of the best indie band of the ’90s. You are a very mediocre
novelist with very little to say, and I am sick of your self-promotion as a
music aficionado. Please do not attempt to write another novel (or at least
don’t publish it) and be kind in criticizing those whose artistic genius is
far beyond your ability.

A Concerned Cultural Avatar

And i don’t like your hair, either

TO JAMIE S. RICH: Your contempt for every aspect of the Malkmus show was quite
clear. However, I’ve seen you around and your hair is certainly nothing to be
proud of.

Mike Wu

Want more information about Mike Wu? Consult your Library of Congress, or see Music pg 17!