Contact us via e-mail (email@example.com), 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. All correspondence must include your home city and a daytime phone number.
COKER: SELF-HATING CRACKER
Re: Matt Coker's review of Disney's California Adventure park ("California's Misadventures," Feb. 16): the Walt Disney Corp.'s goal, like all other capitalist enterprises, is to increase revenue by meeting consumer needs. Disney chose to make "diversity" a selling point of its new theme park; the public will decide whether it's worth the price of admission. But does anyone attending a Disney park or watching a Disney movie expect to learn an historical lesson? If any "hatred" is to be rooted out, Mr. Coker should start with his own seeming hatred of white people. Every culture, "race," religion, creed, etc. lasting longer than 100 years has played both the roles of oppressor and victim. Now the trend is to forever cast "whitey" as the villain. To what end? To direct equal clouds of fear, mistrust and lawlessness at white people?
Ben La Rosa
Re: Alison M. Rosen's "Moss Appeal," March 2: Michael Lewis once wrote, "Snobbery has a logic all its own," which may be why when I saw a cool Mossimo hat at Target, I had an impulse to buy it until my brain screamed, "There's no effing way I'm going to wear anything from Target, unless it's a pair of underwear that no one can see!"
TAX AND MEND
A recent article about a bill in Congress that would help anyone whose savings are in a mutual fund mischaracterized what the bill would do (R. Scott Moxley's "Cox Proposes $6,000 IRS Loophole!" Jan. 26). It would benefit more than 87 million Americans, including more than 51 million teachers, union members and others whose retirement is in mutual funds. Anyone should pay tax if he or she sells a mutual fund at a gain or receives interest or dividends. Currently, however, the IRS requires individuals to pay tax while they still hold the mutual fund—even if they don't receive any interest or dividends. (They are charged tax when the mutual fund receives dividends.) This bill would fix that.
Although the Weekly identified House Resolution 168 as my bill, it was in fact written and introduced by New Jersey Representative Jim Saxton. But I support his bill and joined as a co-sponsor because it will help so many people and because it restores fairness and balance by fixing a tax inequity.
Finally, if the Weekly's statement that legislation benefiting mutual-funds savers is only for "rich white guys" is meant to be factual rather than funny, it isn't. Women and men of all backgrounds and ethnic groups are working and building modest retirement savings through mutual funds.
Newport Beach R. Scott Moxley responds: Despite Cox's claim, I correctly identified House Resolution 168 as a bill proposed by the congressman and other Republicans. Cox asserts that the bill was designed for the working class. In fact, the proposal creates yet another massive tax loophole for capital-gains income—loopholes disproportionately used by the very rich. But you don't have to take it from me. The Republicans' own Congressional Budget Office warned that HR 168 would create additional "tax-avoidance schemes" for "wealthy individuals." Not surprisingly, Cox—who has single-mindedly pushed the interests of the mega-rich—ignored that warning and continues to preposterously claim he is serving "workers." Nice try.
Re: Nick Schou's "Welcome to Orange County, Now Go Home," March 2: "Local police officers aren't supposed to enforce federal immigration laws; that's the job of the Immigration and Naturalization Service." Are you kidding? Is it just the immigration laws you don't want local police to enforce or all other federal laws, too? And is this just the INS you don't want the local cops to cooperate with, or other federal agencies, such as the FBI, as well?
I hope that answering the above questions will help you to understand how wrong and dangerous—not withstanding all the noble objectives you may have had in mind—your crusade for selective law enforcement is. We are a nation of law, aren't we?
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!
Dr. Marek A. Suchenek
Redondo Beach Nick Schou responds: No, I'm not kidding about the division between federal and state law enforcement. And neither are local police departments, at least two of which are on record as saying they don't want to shoulder yet another federal mandate —this one to seek out people who might be in the U.S. illegally.
Re: Nick Schou's "Bad Rap," March 2: Schou should know that attempting to convince an Orange County jury of Joshua Moore's innocence was infeasible. Who could believe his story: that on one occasion —despite eyewitness identification—he was not at the location of the robbery (his alibi), and that on the other occasion—despite being there, driving the get-away car and having a replica gun under his seat—he knew nothing of the robbery in progress? Maybe being caught at the wrong place at the wrong time can happen once in a lifetime, but twice in less than a year?
The evidence that is described in the article is not all the jury heard. What it did hear was days of evidence, and it was enough to convince 12 people that Joshua Moore was not at work as he claimed and that he did know of the plan to commit the other robbery. It's too bad his parents can't come to grips with the actions of their son.