TO THE AUTHOR OF THE I, ANONYMOUS ENTITLED "A ROSE IS A ROSE" [Nov 20]—I am a burlesque performer as well as a stripper. When I am stripping and when I am performing burlesque I am doing two different things. If the author of said I, Anonymous has a problem with the "pretension" within the "community" that he/she is being exposed to, then I suggest this individual confront the source of their anger rather than do their best to negate the relevance of a whole art form, as well as further misinform the public as to what burlesque is.

-Delilah Sinn of the Rose City Sirens, AKA Harlo, stripper at Casa Diablo, AKA Sterling, human being and art lover


DEAR MERCURY—"... Richard Raddon helped fund a political campaign to strip a vulnerable minority group of its civil rights." ["When Are Your 'Privately Held Religious Beliefs' Not So Private Anymore?" posted on, Nov 26] Dan Savage boldly goes where logic has never gone, offering up two Big Lies in one oxymoronic phrase: (1) that homosexuals are a "vulnerable minority," and (2) that homosexual activity is a "civil right." This is why my church must be silenced, and its members who dare to exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech and free exercise of religion be fired from their jobs, because we dare to proclaim that all sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral, and that immoral behavior is not a "civil right"?

-Posted by Tracy Hall Jr


DEAR MERCURY—I was thoroughly perturbed when I read Neil Anderson's letter ["Out of Sports," Letters, Nov 27] and thought it was going to win letter of the week, but I must commend the truly enlightened minds at the Mercury for dismissing him as either "a pompous ass, killjoy, or asthmatic sports-hating pussy." Since I can remember, I have found irrational joy in watching the Portland Trail Blazers play basketball. As they say in my neck of the woods, Neil Anderson can EAD. (EAD stands for eat a dick.)

-Dan O'Day


EDITOR—While reading Matt Davis' interesting piece on the shifting usage patterns of Tasers around the globe and perhaps Portland, I was struck by new union chief Scott Westerman's quoted response in the Mercury on behalf of Rose City bobbies: "As more and more people mistakenly believe it's socially acceptable to publicly challenge the police, it creates an environment where people think that it is okay to ignore a uniformed police officer giving them commands. The environment in Portland allows this more frequently than in other cities." ["Less-Lethal Weapons," Feature, Nov 27] Westerman pretty clearly agrees with the suggestion that you can be Tasered in Portland for ignoring their commands or publicly challenging them, both of which might be unwise and a quick way to gain no slack—but neither of which generally threatens public safety. His response amounts to "we crack skulls because we have to; some of you out there are just mouthy punks whose parents never taught them respect." But maybe, just maybe, some Portlanders also understand their legal rights better than the average city shlub in other 'burbs, and sometimes [we don't] let PDX's finest cut corners with due process like they can elsewhere.

-Mark Bunster

CONGRATULATIONS TO MARK for winning this week's letter of the week! He gets two tickets to the Laurelhurst Theater and lunch at No Fish! Go Fish!, where you are unlikely to get Tasered as long as you behave yourself, punks.