Letters may be edited for clarity and length. E-mail to email@example.com, or send 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.
NOTE TO ANONYMOUS: YOU'RE WEIRD
Your article of 8/10 meets and exceeds your already low level of decency by suggesting that a gabacha go down on a Mexican to eat his penis ["Ask a Mexican," Aug. 11]. What will be next? Suggesting that a Mexican perform anal work on a gabacha? That a gabacha swallow a Mexican's cum? Or that perhaps she smear a Mexican's cum on her breasts and face? How obscene! That's why we have Guantanamo here in the U.S. for filthy minds like yours so that our GIs can show you their genitals and perhaps even make you observe someone having sex or masturbate himself. I bet you even like vatos. You should be deported, on foot . . .
THE EDITOR RESPONDS: If your intention was to shame us, wow, mission accomplished. Here we are, by reputation, the nastiest, sexiest, kinkiest publication this side of the OC Business Journal and yet, in your brief but thoroughly repellent letter, you expose us for the choirboys/girls we are. White girl going down on a Mexican guy? Sunday school. Only a truly gifted—and thoroughly depraved—mind (yours) would think of such appalling possibilities as, well, we can hardly reprint the words, but "ejaculate" on a woman's "mammary glands." And please, don't insult us by saying that you just got lucky. It's obvious from the detail in your writing that you've spent years dwelling on these things. Years. Every day. In a quiet, dark place that only you know. So, congratulations, you have vanquished us. Allow us to figuratively shake your hand—'cause there's no way we're getting near that thing in person.
NOTHING SAYS FUNNY LIKE ICED TEA OUT THE NOSE
I was sitting outside this morning perusing an old, sun-faded copy of the Weekly and was absolutely tickled with your U.S. Open of Surfing entries in your column "Diary of a Mad County" [Aug. 4]. Mad County, indeed. At first disgusted with the story about the bikini-clad women at the beach inciting a riot with their beach balls, I moved on to Sunday's entry concerning the win by Mr. Machado. You would have enjoyed the stream of mucus-laden iced tea which spewed forth from my nose when I got to the end of that quip, stating, "his opponent was forced to forfeit when local police found that he did not have a surfing permit and was wearing board shorts." Well-written, Mr. Lowery. Very, very well-written. Yours in platonic admiration.
Maxson Bixby Smith, II
A KHAN-MAN 'ROUND EVERY CORNER
I just read your recent article in the OC Weekly [Gustavo Arellano's "Khan Game," July 6]. You're definitely on the right track to bring this issue to the attention of the American public (although I suspect most OC residents will read it and not think much of it since they don't realize the impact it can potentially have on their lives). I also flinch when I think about A.Q. Khan living the life of "captive" luxury, previously enjoyed by the likes of Pablo Escobar in Colombia. While I understand the sensitivity of American-perceived domination in Pakistan, I really don't see why we can't have nondescript low-key access to the man for questioning. I will say, however, as one who was recently deployed across Central Asia for two years, that the A.Q. Khan situation—indeed, Pakistan in general—is a very, very complicated issue. It's true that A.Q. Khan did irreparable harm to American security interests, but it's also true that the toppling of the Musharraf regime—if it were replaced by a Jamiat-inspired jihadist faction (and that is, unfortunately, the most likely successor right now)—would be far, FAR worse for our security interests. In fact, for a variety of reasons, a nuclear-armed Islamist-aligned dictatorship in Pakistan might even be worse than Iran developing nukes. Despite what Congressman Royce's panel might have you believe, the A.Q. Khan network really isn't that much of a threat to the U.S. these days—Pakistani nuclear sites are secured not just by Musharraf's men but by U.S. security operatives as well, and we have the proliferation problem (there and for now, at least) more or less under control. But the jury is still out on whether Musharraf is going to become Ataturk or the Shah, and we shouldn't be doing anything to encourage him becoming the latter until after we've helped establish the conditions for a moderate, non-jihadist, democratic alternative to emerge in Pakistan. As much as I hate that A.Q. Khan has become an "untouchable," I would hate a jihadist-style regime in Pakistan even more.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE
Love was my favorite band when I was growing up in LA [Jim Washburn's "Love Is Dead," Aug. 11]. My friends and I would regularly go dancing to them at the Brave New World, Bido Lidos and the Whiskey. Their music was magical. It epitomized the '60s for those of us who grew up in the Hollywood area. Buffalo Springfield was another one of our favorites. Within the last two years I saw Arthur with his latest band at the Coach House. He did not disappoint me. He was as good as ever. He looked great and sounded as good if not better than ever. My best friend saw him three times in LA and loved him every time. I'm not sure what you are talking about when you criticize him. I find it hard to believe that he produced, in your words, "insensate tone turds." It's very painful to read such words about someone who meant so much to the shaping of my tastes and my life in many ways. I want your readers to know that Love was one of the best and most influential bands that came out of that era, and no matter what negative state you saw him in, there are very few bands that are or will ever be that talented. My friends and I will truly miss him.