By On the occasion of our 20th anniversary
By Gustavo Arellano
By R. Scott Moxley
By Alfonso Delgado
By Courtney Hamilton
By Joel Beers
By Peter Maguire
By Charles Lam
Contact us via voice mail at (714) 825-8432, or by e-mail: letters@ocweekly. com. Or write to Letters to the Editor, OC Weekly, P.O. Box 10788, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Or fax: (714) 708-8410. Visit our Web site at www.ocweekly.com. Letters may be edited for clarity and length. All correspondence must include your home city or service provider and a daytime phone number.
A hearty "BRAVO!" to "Elian Go Home!" (Lost in OC, April 21), Jim Washburn's eloquent rant about freedom, America and Elian. I have been trying to finish Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, but Rand's glorification of the dollar exemplifies everything wrong with how we Americans think.
Washburn's article provided me with not only my exact feelings on the state of America today but also the perfect counter to Rand's drivel.
Now when my friends ask me why I don't like the book, I'll hand them Washburn's article and say, "Read this!"Matt Brown
Jim Washburn has the wrong idea about Cuba. It's not all that he makes it out to be. He has depicted one great society that gets off on sharing, where things seem like they are cheap because they are rationed. He criticizes U.S. markets because a pound of oranges costs $1. He makes no mention of the fact that blue jeans that cost $10 in the U.S. cost close to $200 on the Cuban black market. He criticizes the U.S. because of its gap between rich and poor. Well, it is true that Cuba does not have a large gap between rich and poor. This is not because Cuban society is more equitable; it is because everyone is poor as a result of wage limits placed on salaries. Most people can only make a maximum of $30 per month—and that doesn't even come close to covering the costs of living in Cuba.
Before one goes crusading against the U.S. and criticizing it for something it hasn't even done, maybe Mr. Washburn should take the time to look at things from another perspective. Furthermore, if he will show me where the official U.S. policy for acting like "we are the cat's meow" is written, I will be silenced. But as we all know, there is no such policy. People perpetuating such notions are obviously clueless in the ways (and I am not referring to Washburn) of international relations. This notion of superiority is held by only the very few, and therefore an article of this magnitude should not be based upon it.
If Mr. Washburn wants to write an article degrading the U.S., that's fine; it's his constitutional right. But leave innocent children out of it. This article had very little to do with Elian Gonzalez other than his use of it as a lead-in.Shana Newman
In Buddy Seigal's Creedence Revisited article ("Visiting With Buddy!" April 21), he gave a very edited version of the shit-flinging feud that has become the sad story of Creedence. Seigal fails to mention John Fogerty's orchestrated and brutal humiliation of former band mates Stu Cook and Doug Clifford at the 1993 Rock & Roll Hall of Fame event—among other things. This is a very complex story and is difficult to understand. I believe your cut-and-dried version does two decent fellas a disservice. It's a very dangerous thing to say John Fogerty was the band. It's Doug, Stu and Tom that you hear on those records doing an equally terrific job of backing up the talents of John Fogerty. Don't discount that.
Perhaps Revisited is a bad name for this outfit, and, yes, two of the other three guys are poseurs. But Cook and Clifford just want to play some good-time music and try as best as they can to do it justice. Fans have enjoyed them as much as Fogerty the past four years.Mike Robby