America's best read urban weekly | Learn More »
Kelly Rae Mathews
Member since Feb 23, 2014
Recent Comments
Re: “Snow Removal Blues”
Interesting when the Inlander, the liberal publication, writes a sympathetic article, to the "plan" and the Spokesman-Review, the conservative paper writes an article comparing other cities management to Spokane's versus the statements of those in charge of the budget for our streets. When the SR makes a criticism it's probably well beyond the time for something to be done. I'm surprised, Inlander. I think we'd all like to know how, in a multi-million dollar streets budget, the city only allotted $750,000 to snow-plowing, knowing this was going to be terrible winter? If Madison, WI and other cities about our size are doing a better job, it's time to ask some different questions. The revenue being lost from lack of plowing may be greater than that spent on not plowing, not to mention accidents this year. I think it's time for a lot of us to speak up at City Hall next public opportunity. People getting stuck on Main Street Downtown, a major thoroughfare. Plows going around with their blades up. People want answers.
Re: “I Saw You”
Response to "Love Always Only For You I saw you waiting for me." When people write these "love letters" that are so generalized they need to start including a detail that is specific of significance that the person they are writing to will recognize. There are to many people who've been put in these same positions time and again. Imagine how many people, like me, were reading it over and over again until reasoning out it wasn't intended for them. Even if it's a been a long time, words you might have always wanted to hear from a former lover even from years ago, can make a person stop in their tracks. While I know this wasn't intended for me, a detail like for instance "You wanted to know if we could share a life together after Pig Out in the Park, I said no, I was wrong" that would be a detail more specific. Otherwise it's just more of the same vagueness and mixed messages and mind changing that led to the heartbreak in the first place.
Re: “I Saw You”
I am really disappointed the Inlander did not post my response to "Love Always Only For You I saw you waiting for me." From last week. So here I am, posting it now: When people write these love letters that are so generalized they need to start including a detail that is specific of significance that the person they are writing to will recognize. There are to many people who've been put in these same positions time and again. Imagine how many people, like me, were reading it over and over again until reasoning out it wasn't intended for them. Even if it's a been a long time, words you might have always wanted to hear from a former lover can make a person stop in their tracks. While I know this wasn't intended for me, a detail like for instance "You wanted to know if we could share a life together after Pig Out in the Park, I said no, I was wrong" that would be a detail more specific. Otherwise it's just more of the same vagueness and mixed messages and mind changing that led to the heartbreak in the first place.
Re: “I Saw You”
Hey LJ. Try getting some therapy instead of blaming everyone else.
Re: “Healing Forward”
Thank you for posting this meaningful peace towards healing. "While there is a bothersome strain of "Spokane nice" among professional circles, the kind of generosity and concern that Dolezal generally benefited from in our community is actually a strength to be proud of, not a weakness to root out.
Ultimately, only Dolezal can take responsibility for her actions. No amount of personal doubt or collective grief around false narratives of Spokane can absolve her of the need to provide the accountability our community deserves." Well said.
Re: “Snakes in the Class”
YES! Looking forward to this, sounds like a blast!
Re: “Finding the Words”
What a great piece. Surprised such a huge event was stuck in the very back of the Inlander. I remember that in order to get women's rights, women for suffrage endured being force fed and did in fact do things not considered "nice things," like protest the president right at the white house. Women were arrested in order to get the vote, as well. In England, women were down right militant. Voting is just one part of democracy. Democracy is also about freedom of expression. The hats were cat ear hats, a metaphor for what the now elected President referred to grabbing, the man in the highest office of our nation being voted in and what he says about women brushed aside and then women attacked by others for not being nice or civilized or polite for wearing pink cat ear hats is a paradox of the times and says a lot. Satire is a time honored tradition of protest and wit and tongue in cheek wry, humor. It was a play on words, and very much the sort of thing a woman might have done then as well as now. And yes, back then, those against suffrage said it was about "getting attention" and not rights. That women were being selfish, instead of tending to their womanly duties. Over a hundred years later and still the same story.