By Peter Maguire
By Charles Lam
By Charles Lam
By Andrew Galvin
By R. Scott Moxley
By Gustavo Arellano
By R. Scott Moxley
By R. Scott Moxley
Letters may be edited for clarity and length. E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, or send to Letters to the Editor, c/oOC Weekly, 1666 N. Main St., Ste. 500, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Or fax to (714) 550-5908.
"A particular brand of cheery, glassy-eyed Christianity infiltrates everyone and everything at Chick-fil-A in Irvine." Here's the perfect example of West Coasters just not getting the most mundane aspect of Southern culture [Rich Kane's "You Want Christ With That?" March 5]. Who'd have thought explaining Chick-fil-A to a Californian would be like explaining nanotechnology to a caveman? Is it still cool to make fun of Christianity out there? Isn't that even lamer than people who still have to tell you how much they hate Starbucks and Wal-Mart? Besides, Chick-fil-A chicken sandwiches and waffle fries are delicious.
Obviously, Rich Kane has been completely misinformed. Then again, I'm sure by his tone he does not consider the truth before displaying it to the world. Further, it appears Kane has a personal issue with God, not Chick-fil-A. Yes, I am from the "deep South," as you call it, Rich, and I feel you mock me for this. To sum it up, have some basis for your articles before you insult an entire section of our country.
I believe that bitter taste you have in your mouth has nothing to do with the chicken, Rich. What priest or minister messed you up? Sure appears that a simple chicken restaurant brought up a lot of unresolved issues in your heart. Remember, bitterness destroys the container in which it is held, not the one it is held against. Hope you get it out so you can not only enjoy a chicken sandwich, but your life as well.
I'm writing to thank Gustavo Arellano for his piece defending Howard Stern and his First Amendment rights [Gustavo Arellano's "Rally 'Round the Racist," March 5]. I am a longtime fan of the Stern radio program, though I would guess Mr. Arellano is not. I don't believe the show celebrates racism or hatred, but instead satirizes the true evils that exist out there. The show's target is pretentious behavior and arrogance coming from anyone (celebrities, politicians, Stuttering John, etc.). What is as stake right now is our right to tune in or tune out. I don't appreciate some guy at Clear Channel or any other organization making that decision for me, especially just to cover his own ass. Like the Ramones said, "We want the airwaves, baby." I'll fight for mine.
To start with, I do not accept your premise that Howard Stern is a racist. Is Norman Lear a racist just because he brought Archie Bunker to American television? Howard is an "equal-opportunity offender." Whether by his statements or those of his guests, he shakes up the status quo, comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. The part of his show I most enjoy is the news that ends the program. If only Dan Rather or Peter Jennings felt emboldened to make such editorial comments as Howard routinely does, skewering true bigots and blowhards. I know that broadcast-speech rights are not the same as individual free-speech rights, but this is an ugly climate to operate in and does not bode well for the future.
READS EVERY WEEK
Although I regularly find Commie Girl's column to be inane and unimportant, I think this week's marked your lowest, most pathetic point ["Denied!" Feb. 27]. Are you really so hard-pressed for anything interesting to say that you resort to some sad, hanger-on story about getting ignored by a B-list celebrity? Is your life really that sad? Get a life, or at least inform yourself a little about pop culture and/or world news events and write something relevant for once. Every week, all I see in your column is your sad, Orange County escapades in white-trash watering holes, and it's fucking insufferable.
Big Bill Bronigan
Gustavo Arellano, how do you figure the 69th Assembly seat should belong to Claudia Alvarez ["Loretta-Lite," Feb. 27]? What exactly has she done to earn it? The fact that she was born in Mexico City does not mean she is the best fit to serve the Latino community. You need to look no further than her Santa Ana council cohort, Mayor Miguel Pulido, to drive this point home. Claudia has shown nothing in her time on the council that gives me reason to want her in Sacramento. Not only did she support the lynch-mob attack on Nativo Lopez, but she also supported replacing him with a white Republican instead of one of the Latina mothers who started the recall effort. If this demonstrates support for the Latino community, then Barbara Coe may be your ideal candidate for the seat. Since Ms. Coe resides outside the district, you'll have to settle for La Malinche, or as her many white friends call her, Assistant District Attorney Alvarez. Enjoy her "charm" while you can; after we defeated her Tuesday, we'll finish her political career off this November.
Sean H. Mill
Gustavo Arellano responds: In saying Claudia was the "most logical candidate" to represent the 69th, I was merely using the rhetoric that local Latino leaders have used since time immemorial—vote Latinos because they're Latinos, nothing else. Their opposition to Claudia stems from her independence, a philosophy you also seem to subscribe to: tell me, exactly how is Claudia a traitor to Latinos? Because her friends refer to as a district attorney? Because she has white friends? Last I checked, this doesn't constitute grounds for treason amongst Latinos.
A Kucinich fan