Contact us via e-mail (firstname.lastname@example.org), 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 have every right to attack District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you bend the truth to do it (R. Scott Moxley and Anthony Pignataro's "Missing Wives, Lousy Lies & Mob Ties," July 5). When you adamantly condemned the way the DA's office handled an investigation of GOP leader Jo Ellen Allen's husband, the reader was left with the impression that the current DA was guilty of collusion and favoritism. Not once did the rather lengthy article mention that the alleged favoritism happened before Tony Rackauckas became DA. Don't try to tell us that this underhanded attack on Tony was an oversight. It intentionally left a false impression, and the Weekly knows it.
Making matters worse, you rehash old charges against Tony. These charges, originated by his political rivals, were thoroughly aired during the last election. The voters saw through the inflammatory rhetoric and rejected the accusations as rotten politics couched in pious pronouncements.
Rackaukas dramatically beat the former DA's henchmen twice at the polls. The public correctly sensed that the charges you again repeated are false and that Tony is an honest and good-hearted person. They also sensed that his detractors were not so benevolent.
One weird angle on all this is that the members of the DA's office who were involved in the alleged favoritism, highlighted in Moxley's first article, are likely the same gang attacking Tony in Moxley's second article. They are holdovers from the last DA and were deeply involved in the political shenanigans, abusive prosecutions and, yes, favoritism that led to the inglorious end of the last DA's career. He even lost Orange County in his bid to be Attorney General. Compared to his predecessor—and the gang of tough guys his predecessor held around him—Tony is a breath of fresh air.
After reading your article, with its own inflammatory and misleading headlines and wordsmithing, one would think the grand jury had concluded that Tony had broken the law and should be indicted. In fact, much of what was presented to the grand jury as abuse was nothing more than Tony trying to clear out the bad apples from the old regime. These entrenched thumb-breakers have spent all of their time, not going after crooks, but trying to destroy Tony, their new boss and political adversary. This is exactly what they used to do to anyone who dared get in the way of their former boss. These guys know how to make a hit. They know how to manipulate the system to protect themselves and cover their own wrong-doing by pointing fingers and shouting accusations.
I've been impressed with some of the Weekly's investigatory work, especially in spotlighting those unjustly accused and convicted of crimes. Unfortunately, you are now unjustly attacking our DA, doing the dirty work for the gang of thugs who were responsible for prosecutorial misdeeds in the past . . . you know, the shady stuff the Weekly wants people to think was done by Tony.
Member of Congress
R. Scott Moxley and Anthony Pignataro respond: Well, Dana, we don't mind admitting that you do a pretty fine job of wordsmithing, yerownself. For theWeekly's latest on the grand jury's report on corruption in the office of DA Tony Rackauckas, see "DA Puts 'Pub' Back In Public Funds.". For a history of our stories on Rackauckas-related shenanigans, type "Tony Rackauckas" in the search engine.
THE PART WE NEVER COULD SAY RIGHT IS 'INDIVISIBLE'
It was a pleasant surprise to pick up the Weekly on Independence Day and see someone exercising independence (Jim Washburn's "The Pledge: God and the Devil Are in the Details," July 5). I'm glad they got rid of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools; it's a hypocritical statement and an oxymoron.
Would Jim Washburn have had Connie Chung kiss Michael Newdow's ass? Should she have given him a sweet, supportive interview because he is so brave and wonderfully godless? Screw that! Give him as tough an interview as any conservative, faith-in-God supporter of the Pledge of Allegiance. So Washburn stopped saying the Pledge in fifth grade? None of us know if this young "progressive" really did it. I would bet not. I guess it's Washburn's word against—ha, ha, ha—God's.
B. Dirk Yarborough
Why am I not surprised that President George W. Bush knew in advance about the impending terrorist attack on the World Trade Center (James Ridgeway's Mondo Washington, June 7)? Just as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew in advance about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor—and, in fact, wanted it to happen in order to (1) give legitimacy to and salvage his presidency and (2) cast himself as a great hero in the eyes of the free world for combating the axis of evil—so, too, did George W. Bush need to (1) convince the American people of the legitimacy of his presidency and (2) cast himself as a great hero for combating terrorism. Dec. 7, 1941, was a day of infamy because an American president knowingly allowed more than 2,300 innocent Americans to perish in order to further his own agenda. Sept. 11, 2001, was a day of infamy, too, because an American president allowed nearly 3,500 innocent Americans to perish in order to further his own agenda. Shame on both Roosevelt and Bush. They are not heroes, but rather corrupt and morally bankrupt individuals who became presidents, not because of their innate abilities, competence or leadership, but rather because of their wealth, egos and names.
Get the ICYMI: Today's Top Stories
Catch up on the day's news and stay informed with our daily digest of the most popular news, music, food and arts stories in Orange County, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.