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
'Let the Truth Come Out'
Letters may be edited for clarity and length. E-mail to email@example.com, or mail to Letters to the Editor, c/o OC Weekly, 1666 N. Main St., Ste. 500, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Or fax to (714) 550-5908.
CHRISTIAN ROCK & A HARD PLACE
It’s a pretty sad day when Jerry Springer’s world invades the body of Christ [Matt Coker’s “Rock Angel,” Oct. 17]. Scripture lays out loving and firm guidelines for dealing with sin. Hitting a guy when he’s not here to speak for himself any longer is pretty low. Larry Norman is deserving of an honest look at his life—the good and bad—by someone who has not had personal issues with him and is objective. I’ve always admired Randy Stonehill’s music and life—that is being diminished by his involvement in this project and other activities that smack of hypocrisy. If David Di Sabatino wants to be the Michael Moore of the Christian world, he needs to set his sights a little higher.
I liked Larry Norman’s music but was dismayed by his actions. He seemed to be saying one thing on stage and doing another. I saw the Lonnie Frisbee movie and thought it was bang-on. Unfortunately, like everyone else that got close to Larry, the filmmaker is going to have to endure the stuff that Larry put others through: assassinating their character and doing this sort of shameless thing on the Internet. I am betting they’re paying for people to write this sort of stuff everywhere on the Net they can. Let the truth come out.
It’s simple, Larry lived a dual life and his die-hard fans, the real fanatics are thrown for a loop here. But to be angry at a filmmaker who set out to make a movie of one of his heroes and well, got the same history from person after person after person that lived life alongside Larry Norman—what did they want him to do? And to the person who said “Don’t believe everything you read in newspapers”— The same can be said for Larry’s falsehoods in his liner notes, and on his website. He supported an orphanage in India? HOGWASH! He was the king of self-promotion.
Michael, Woodland Hills
I have personally followed Larry’s career and music since around 1970. I actually listened to and processed what he was saying. Subsequently, I supported his efforts by purchasing and sharing almost everything he ever put out, from the beginning, as it became available. His faith, life and music clearly changed my own life and creative direction in a positive way and continue to do so to this very day, yet, I am not naive, either.
I know of no human being, if their life was forced under the microscope of painstaking recollection, examination and post-event commentary would not, could not be portrayed in the most dismal of lights. This misguided notion that “humanizing” any of us, does in fact do that to some redeeming, noble value is dubious at best. Sure, facts are facts; opinions and subjective, personal perspectives of various people are no more than just that. All of this whole matter actually goes to intended motivation of Di Sabatino; something which in truth, none of us will ever know... that being something only God is in on.
What does this mean? Be wise. Understand and thoughtfully process everything you see. Remember that without commercial ($) success, no film gets circulated or brings accolades to its producer/director. How far will someone go in their efforts to titillate people and build audience buzz in order to get their efforts to pay off in cinema bucks? Do the makers of films with dubious motivations inadvertently reveal within themselves the same types of “foibles” they seek to “expose” in their subject matter? Hmmm.
Think about it... but not too long; don’t forget to love.
G Brown, Dallas
This article is a complete hack job on Dana Rohrabacher [Nick Schou’s “Seeds of Change?” Sept. 19]. I’ve followed his career for many years, and just about all of these allegations are erroneous and embellished. No wonder he doesn’t respond to your rag of a publication.
What a delightfully irrelevant news/opinion piece. The item that makes Debbie Cook’s run so very irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent, is the fact that the Democratic National Committee will not spend a dime on her. The DNC simply has conceded the district to the Republicans—strange, since this election year the Republicans seem to be especially hated. . . . Cook is simply a place-marker, someone who is running to show that the Democrats exist in this district—in hopes of some future change, not unlike the situation with Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez. And her lazy campaign validates the DNC decision.