By Gustavo Arellano
By R. Scott Moxley
By Alfonso Delgado
By Courtney Hamilton
By Joel Beers
By Peter Maguire
By Charles Lam
By Charles Lam
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.
Rich Kane's review of the so.cal.sonic festival at Cal State Long Beach was about as insightful as a freshman frat boy reviewing a Jackson Pollock painting ["Metal Machine Music," April 29].
There seems to be a bit of inconsistency with your coverage of so.cal.sonic. You first print a positive and informative feature by Chris Ziegler on Aaron Ximm. The next week, you run a review by Rich Kane that includes the words "Ximm's a fraud." Ximm's performance, as Ziegler had prepped, was a highlight of the festival. Never again should the childish Kane be sent to review something he obviously doesn't understand. Stick to punk, Rich.
As curator of so.cal.sonic, I'm not afraid of a negative review. But farts? C'mon, Kane, you can do better than that—you're not 10 anymore, right? Right?
In attempting to write a detailed description of my performance Rich Kane listed every element he could see and hear, from the tools that I used to the tonal moods that I created. He almost got the point, if it wasn't for his lack of an extensive vocabulary that led him to the downward spiral of locker-room mentality. This seemed to be the tone of Rich Kane's entire review of the other performers and the event. What couldn't be understood got bashed.
Thanks, Scott Moxley, for ruining my day ["Sex!," April 29]. I was looking forward to reading the latest about Saint Carona (He watched them have sex? Does this mean no more appearances with Dr. Schuller?) and was getting to the good part about the greasy Tony Rackauckas and even greasier George Argyros and—where have I been?—I read that Ambassador Jorge has resigned. Please tell me that he is not coming back to ply his felonious trade once more in the OC. Does he think the trail has cooled sufficiently on the apartment house scandal, or does he have a deal in place with Tony R—you know, something along the lines of $X million for the campaign in return for each felony count that could have and should have been brought?
Kate Carraway's assertion that Nylon's music coverage is "preposterously dated" is mind-boggling ["You Are What You Read," April 29]. Nylon's April 2005 issue includes stories on Hot Hot Heat, the Bravery, Kaiser Chiefs, Fischerspooner and Keren Ann, all of whom have new albums. But considering the fact that her article showcases the April 2005 issues of Vogue, Lucky, Wand Janeand the May 2002 issue of Nylon, could it simply be that your research is preposterously dated?
HE SAID "HEAD"
While I can think of many other things to do with the Headlands of Dana Point than grow multimillion-dollar homes on it, the fact is this development followed established legal procedure [Nick Schou's "Deadlands," April 29]. Mike Lewis of Surfrider laments, "When we were fighting this, everybody was really apathetic . . . But as soon as a bulldozer goes up there, everybody is calling Surfrider . . . Where were these people when we were trying to raise money and fight the project?" Exactly so. I suspect the apathy is on the part of those who know that OC supervisors and city councils are in the thrall of developers. There is no mention that Save the Headlands ever attempted to purchase the property themselves, or work with a group like the Nature Conservancy that actually buys threatened parcels. It seems Save the Headlands wanted money extorted from taxpayers to pay for all this. It strikes me that if there were really a large group interested in preserving the Headlands, they would have bought it. The time, effort and money spent by Surfrider and Save the Headlands would be much better spent electing candidates who support their positions.
SHE SAID "POPE"
I rush to get OCWeeklyso I can rush to read Steve Lowery's "Diary of a Mad County" column first thing. But even by my standards, his column about the new pope was one for the ages ["Pope-Tacular!!!" April 22]. How he managed to fill us in on what was going on and do it by using killer whales, gay hairdressers and Unitarians is truly amazing.
I'd like to thank Steve Lowery for writing that the new pope "doesn't like the moral 'relativism' of today in which people decide on their own . . . what is right or wrong for them. You do that and some people might decide that it's okay for one man to love another, or worse, you might end up with Unitarians." I've reread this numerous times to friends and family. And yes, I'm a Unitarian.
Mr. Lowery may think he speaks for American Catholics when he writes about the new pope that "just like John Paul II, we won't listen to him either." Well, he doesn't speak for me. Like most Catholics I'm grateful for the years of inspired leadership by John Paul II and am excited for the reign of Benedict XVI. And I will listen to him. I don't think Mr. Lowery really is a Catholic. I think he just plays one on TV.