By Hillel Aron
By Joseph Tsidulko
By Patrick Range McDonald
By David Futch
By Hillel Aron
By Dennis Romero
By Jill Stewart
By Dennis Romero
KATE & RODNEY
Re: “A Man Out of Time” [cover story, June 13–19]. Kate Sullivan’s article gives Rodney Bingenheimer the kudos he deserves and informs a mostly unaware public of a DJ who has touched all of our lives by helping to create and shape rock & roll history. It’s sad and frustrating when execs in entertainment conglomerates have the power, but neither the creativity nor the balls, to back new stuff, when they rely on being trend followers rather than trendsetters and frontiersmen. Thanks, L.A. Weekly, for always speaking up, speaking out and helping us keep our groove on.
Kate Sullivan wrote a great story about the Rodney Bingenheimer documentary, but everyone I know agrees with me that the issue had the creepiest cover photo in the history of the L.A. Weekly. I think you did Rodney no favors with that picture, even if he approved it. My girlfriend brought it home, and it scared the shit out of me!
—Shaun Mason Silver Lake
PETER & CHRIS
Why don’t you let Peter Fletcher write just one more puff piece about Chris Carter [“Do Look Back,” June 13–19]? That way, he’ll have written not four but five Weekly pieces kissing Carter’s ass since January 2002. Carter has been one of the biggest self-promoters in L.A. rock circles, for longer than Coyote Shivers. He’ll certainly continue with the latter activity just so long as there are fine Los Angeles journalists like his friend Peter Fletcher placing stories about him in the Weekly.
—David Meyers Los Angeles
HILLARY & MARTHA
Re: “Iron Maidens” [On, June 13–19]. I was sorry to see John Powers use so many political clichés in his article about Hillary Clinton and Martha Stewart. I don’t believe most men are “unnerved” by strong women. I sort of like Martha. Does that make me part of the Wall Street right wing Mr. Powers refers to? I respect that she built a business, created jobs and appears to make her own decisions. Unfortunately, her decision to lie to the government is a mistake she shares with Hillary. But I can see why Hillary has support: Any person who can play so many roles and turn a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 profit overnight need not reveal her gender at all.
CHERUBS & RUGRATS
Re: “Decapitating the Friedmans” [June 13–19]. I could have done without the bit in Ella Taylor’s Capturing the Friedmans review describing children as “firm and round and perfectly formed.” Is this generalization useful to anyone besides pedophiles? Children are also sometimes funny-looking, bony and smelly. I get that the film and the reviewer are both trying to raise issues of sexuality that don’t get dealt with enough — and I’m fully in favor of that. I just don’t see why one has to make blanket, pointedly titillating statements in the middle of an otherwise engaging review. Looking over the other L.A. Weekly capsule reviews, I find a few other references to “youthful beauty” and “spectacular tits.” It seems that shameless superficial ogling is the one questionable behavior that the Weekly consistently allows itself.
—Dominic Mah Los Angeles
Re: Stephen Lemons’ “Dear God!” [June 13–19]. Thank goodness I’m not the only one who considers the so-called shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe at the Plaza of the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels an insult to that sacred personage, as well as to those who revere her. She belongs inside the cathedral, in a properly appointed chapel, with flowers and candles — and I don’t mean in one of those cubbyholes they call a “chapel.”
If the Latino community is not offended by this treatment of this, their most sacred of images, then they should be. Officials from the archdiocese claim that the Virgin is outside because they don’t want to “keep her from the faithful.” How is placing the sacred image of the Mother of God in a place of honor inside the cathedral going to keep her away from the people? This is an outrage. Thanks to the L.A. Weekly for bringing this issue of the Blessed Virgin into the public eye. She deserves our love and support.
Reading Stephen Lemons’ article, one gets the impression that the new Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels has some serious shortcomings when it comes to recognizing the diverse cultures of Los Angeles Catholics. I want to offer my point of view that the cathedral is an incredible monument to diversity and inclusivity, a bold recognition of the Virgin’s position as patroness of the Americas (as declared by Pope John Paul II). The shrine is a very important place of prayer for pilgrims and a key attraction for visitors, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. The great bronze doors at the entrance to the cathedral reveal different images of the Virgin from the visions that have been passed to us through various cultures represented here in Southern California. These include the Immaculate Conception, the Pietà, the Mater Dolorosa, the Virgin of Pomata, the Virgin of the Rosary of Chichinquira, the ‰ Divine Shepherdess, the Virgin of the Cave, the Virgin of the Candlestick, the Virgin of Mercy and, yes, the Virgin of Guadalupe. It’s worth noting that none of these other than the Virgin of Guadalupe enjoys a permanent shrine at the cathedral.