Contact us via e-mail (, regular mail (Letters to the Editor, OC Weekly, P.O. Box 10788, Costa Mesa, CA 92627) or fax (714-708-8410). Letters will be edited for clarity and length. By submission of a letter, you agree that we can publish and/or license the publication of it in print and electronically. All correspondence must include your home city and a daytime phone number.


You lazy asses have done it again—recycled a Democrat's press release and called it an article (R. Scott Moxley's "Rogue Statesman," Sept. 6). Did the Weakly ask Dana Rohrabacher about the allegation the hopeless Gerrie Schipske has made in her release? Obviously not. What happened to equal time? Everyone knows that Rohrabacher has been the biggest enemy that the Taliban has ever had. Moreover, this story is old; this shit happened almost two years ago. That's why no one is touching it. It isn't news. It was news at the time—by the Weakly's own admission, it was in the international press. Now, it's nothing; the story is only in circulation because there's a desperate Democratic candidate from Long Beach who is willing to tell any lie to get elected. You guys suck.

Evan Harris
Huntington Beach

An ass too lazy to suck says: Reading Moxley's investigation into Rohrabacher's double-dealing, Salon's Joe Conason observed, "So far the only media outlet with the courage to cover this story is theOrange County Weekly. BothThe Orange County Register and theLos Angeles Times are averting their gaze from this bizarre and troubling story."


I take severe objections to your ranting on Los Angeles Timessports columnist Bill Plaschke (Dave Wielenga's "William 'Millionaire' Plaschke," Sept. 6). Questioning someone's integrity? How much integrity is in that act itself ? Could it have occurred to you that there are two possibilities here? A) Someone's views could be the result of where he works (as you seem to have made the connection in this case), and B) where someone works could be the result of his views. I don't see how you could judge which one applies. I mean, is Bill supporting the Major League Baseball owners because he works for them, or is he working for them because he supports them? I appreciate Bill in the sense that he stuck his neck out and wrote what he thought was correct at the risk of criticism like yours. Did the possibility occur to you that Bill could have written what he thought was right, irrespective of where his paycheck comes from?

Udayan Joshi
via e-mail

Dave Wielenga responds: Not only did that possibility occur to me, but I also put it in my story: "It's entirely possible that Plaschke's bread-and-butter relationship with the owners of the Dodgers and Cubs did not influence his anti-players-union opinions." I also answered your question—"Is Bill supporting the owners because he works for them, or is he working for them because he supports them?"—when I wrote: "We'll never know—because Plaschke opted not to disclose his place on those corporate family trees." Thanks for restating my point, even if you missed it.


Matt Coker need not even feign surprise at the boisterous reaction of the usually passive Angels fans during the game before the threatened strike (A Clockwork Orange, Sept. 6). It is likely those who took part in throwing things at the players were Republicans or Limbaugh-soaked "independents" who hate it when uppity workers, especially well-paid uppity workers, threaten to strike. We heard them constantly over the past months. They piss and moan about ballplayers who make a couple of million per year while they say nary a peep about the even-richer owners—or worse, about the fact that Mike Eisner makes more money in a bad-performing year than Randy Johnson makes in a multiyear contract. The Angels fans who threw stuff at the players are the type who would be scabs in any strike. Worse, they are the type who think "questioning authority" is walking through a union picket line. In all, it's pathetic but not surprising.

Mitchell J. Freedman
Newbury Park

It may be too late to write concerning the disturbing correspondence between two women in your Health & Wellness issue, but I just read it at the doctor's office and had to get this off my chest ("This Is an Actual E-mail," May 3). The first paragraph tells us the two women are beautiful, not in the sense of having beautiful souls or smiles that light up rooms, but simply stunning physically. The e-mail between them proves that they are not beautiful souls and seems to suggest that smiles rarely grace their beautiful faces. Celeste worries that Jeff will read her letter and think she is "shallow and a total idiot." She's right to think that—she is shallow and a total idiot. The very fact she would allow a personal letter like this to be published shows the lengths she will go for validation. The saddest part of all is the aforementioned opening paragraph, which only serves to confirm her fears. We women are judged on our appearances and not our souls and smiles; those are secondary. As for wanting to have sex with them, maybe, but I can bet you that Celeste's husband, Pat, isn't getting action from a woman so insecure. I guess the rest of us can sit and drool along with her husband. Noelle, who seems a lot more together, should find a new friend before this one burns her out.

Ann Castan
Huntington Beach

Thank you so much for dissing LA Times pop critic Robert Hilburn (Rich Kane's "A Robert Hilburn Follow-up," Aug. 23). It's high time someone skewered that bogus pantload. Hilburn used to be THE MAN. Whenever a major pop-music event happened (such as the Sex Pistols' Anarchy in the UK or Michael Jackson's Thriller), Hilburn's column was required reading. He should have quit when the quitting was good. Hilburn's byline has been in the Times since at least the '70s. He's nearing that age, I'm sure, when people are going to start asking, "Isn't he dead yet?"

Janey Ruth Rimmer
via e-mail
Show Pages