After reading your article about the supposed graffiti artists in Spokane, in the June 21 edition of The Inlander, I felt compelled to respond. First of all, anything that destroys or defaces another person's property is not -- and never will be -- art.
I watched an older woman up by 29th Avenue having to scrub and repaint her fence after that little moron "Zemek" wrote his name along her fence in six-foot high letters.
If I ever caught Zemek, and the graffiti crew OMT, they would have to go to the emergency room to have their spray cans removed from their nether regions!
And to the graffiti brats, you are a bunch of self-important, insignificant little wannabes. Let's face it, you have appropriated urban culture because you are too ignorant to come up with original art or ideas.
Political! Ha! There has to be some kind of commentary for art to be political. And who cares about your name? You are nobody.
Ms. Breanne Wright, whose letter about Rob Brezsny's Horoscope ran in the June 21 edition of The Inlander, has my sister and I confused.
She purports to enjoy that The Inlander as it "represents the different whims and tastes that the Spokane-area people tend toward."
However, she was "disturbed, offended" and "appalled" by Brezsny's horoscope because "the impression [Wright and her friend] were left with was of a mocking nature imposed by Brezsny toward Christianity."
Though it may be shocking to some, Christianity is not a religion that every person -- even an astrologer -- is required to believe in and/or think positively of. I, personally, don't know what Rob Brezsny thinks of Christianity, but my impression from reading his horoscopes for the past three years or so is that he deeply respects spirituality, in whatever form it may present itself. He writes about religion, in various incarnations, all the time!
Finally, she writes that Brezsny "offers no argument to back up the statements he made in this reading." He writes horoscopes, for Pete's sake! He never gives proof for any of his readings, and if he had said that the message was delivered directly to him from an angel of God, it is doubtful Wright would have believed that anyway.
The latest lawsuit filed by the River Park Square developer against four Spokane City Council members and their families makes a mockery of the law profession. A great laugh around the office water cooler is one thing, but filing an unnecessary -- if not illegal suit -- against elected officials is completely out of line.
The Revised Code of Washington, specifically, R.C.W. 4.24.470 defines "Liability of officials and members of governing body of public agency." It reads: "(1) An appointed or elected official or member of the governing body of a public agency is immune from civil liability for damages for any discretionary decision or failure to make a discretionary decision within his or her official capacity."
R.C.W.s are replete with language that states "individuals of any state or local government shall be immune from suit in any action, civil or criminal, based upon any official acts performed in good faith" and most notably, this covers everyone from boards and commissions to utility workers.
This public relations stunt to threaten elected officials and upset families because the vote didn't go your way is a waste of the court's time.
Edward Thomas, Jr.
I'm sorry (oh hell, I am not)... I can't get over the attitude of Mr. Peak and his stand against "Rails to Trails" signs along the Plummer to Mullan portions of the Trail of the Coeur d'Alenes. He was quoted in the article, "Sign language" by David Bond, which ran in the June 14 edition of The Inlander.
He seems more concerned about his possible loss of tourist revenue from signs warning people of heavy metals health hazards than citizens' rights to crucial information.
Peak states that he has lived in that area for 23 years and is healthy enough to run marathons. That's great. But heavy metals do kill, and people have the right to know of their presence.
As for the group Citizens Against Rails to Trails (CART), who have banded together apparently to stop the conversion of old railroad beds to public bike paths open for all to enjoy -- I'm confused: is CART against the trails because they want Union Pacific to do a better job of cleaning up the heavy metals left in its wake, or simply afraid of "losing" their property to common citizens?
If they feel the railroads have a duty to cleaning up the right of way, I agree. But if that's it, why name the group so? Something's not making sense here. Apparently, their ancestors deemed freight train commerce just cause to relinquish rights to the land, but today's heirs cannot see their way to repeating that gift for unmotorized enjoyment of the masses.
This all reeks of a new American brand of greed becoming more and more prevalent these days. Fewer of us seem willing to participate in any common good, if it is not mostly good for ourselves as individuals. It's a trend so pervasive that it is not only pulling us apart as a society here at home, but is winning us new and numerous enemies abroad. And for that, I truly am sorry.
Patrick M. Murphy