ON THE MARK ABOUT MAHONY
Methinks [Raymond Boucher] protesteth too much [Letters to the Editor, “Satan’s Little Helper,” March 12–18]. From my personal experience with Cardinal Mahony over the very issue about which Jeffrey Anderson writes [“Cardinal Sins,” February 27–March 4], I would say Mr. Anderson is pretty much on the mark. Certainly more so than some of the other accounts we have seen in the past several years.
—Thomas E. Brandlin Deacon, Archdiocese of Los Angeles
MOORE-OVER
Michael Moore doesn’t need anyone to defend him, but the Weekly’s twin hit pieces by Ella Taylor [“American Bigmouth,” March 5–11] and Marc Cooper [“Moore Is Less,” March 5–11] cannot go unchallenged. I find them full of elitism and hypocrisy. Both articles are replete with veiled references to Moore as a blue-collar slob. So be it. It doesn’t alter or diminish his message. I’m sorry that Moore doesn’t have the same class and polish of Mort Sahl, whom I also admire. If Michael Moore looked like Brad Pitt and spoke like William F. Buckley, perhaps he would have been caricatured as a saint on the cover rather than a clown.
—Joe Stemme Culver City
Marc Cooper, you old codger, oh how I wish I unexpectedly discovered the smart, comedic genius that is Mort Sahl when I was a teenager, just like you. Instead, as a ’90s adolescent, all I was interested in were the Smashing Pumpkins, Janeane Garofalo and Michael Moore.
I had no idea what the right and left were prior to discovering Moore, at the age of 15. It would take an episode of Moore’s TV Nation, featuring guest star Garofalo trespassing on a private Greenwich beach, to spark my interest in society and politics. I soon tried to become more aware of progressive views and society’s inequalities. Later, Downsize This, The Awful Truth, The Big Oneand Stupid White Men had a transformational effect on me. I also credit a 1998 L.A. Weekly contribution by Moore [“Get Out and Vote,” October 23–29] for making me more of an idealist and less of a cynic when it comes to voting.
Without Moore using the corporate media to get his message across, I’d likely be an apolitical nonvoter, like most people my age. When denouncing Moore, Cooper suggests liberalism as an elitist political philosophy reserved only for those partial to independent bookstores and Sahl’s brand of humor. I find this embarrassing. It is this kind of rhetoric that alienates the non-believers, not Moore’s bashing Bush at last year’s Oscars. It’s irrelevant whether it’s Mort Sahl or Michael Moore delivering the message. What’s important is that progressive views and ideas are promulgated by someone, anyone.
—Christopher Perez San Fernando
Unlike Ella Taylor, I’m not amused by the obnoxious Michael Moore, and want him to shut up. I find his shambling slob, populist shtick boring. Mr. Moore is a self-righteous exhibitionist whose specialties are bullying minor functionaries and ringing doorbells for the camera. Liberalism deserves better than this folksy fraud.
—Dan O’Neill Los Angeles
RADIO’S T&A KING
Though it’s nice to read someone come to the defense of Howard Stern [“Really Hot Air,” by Kate Sullivan, March 5–11], your column unfortunately propagates the myth that his show is shallow and his rights somehow less important than those engaged in real political speech. In doing so, you miss the point entirely. There’s a reason sex, religion and politics are taboo topics in dinner conversation — the three are inextricably linked. When Stern tells a girl she has nice tits, and his critics call that politically incorrect, the very wording of the criticism acknowledges the inherent political nature of even the seemingly shallowest sexual comment.
Is there really a parent who can’t control what their child is doing between 6 and 10 in the morning? I’d like someone to explain how that’s possible. Besides, the talk on the Stern show is so couched in euphemisms it would be completely unintelligible to those children who do hear it.
The people trying to take Stern off the air aren’t worried about his influence on children — they’re worried about his influence on adults. Whether it’s a priest lecturing from the altar or a president working on an anti-gay-marriage amendment, sexual control is political control. And allowing someone with a large audience to talk freely about sex undermines this relationship.
—Steven Kedrowski Los Angeles
SCREENER-SCANDAL SKIT
I’d like to clear up a few misunderstandings regarding the Independent Spirit Awards and the lawsuit against the MPAA ban on awards screeners mentioned by Ella Taylor in her review of the Oscars [“Big Oscar Cover-up!,” March 5–11]. The Spirit Awards allow IFP/L.A. to fund year-round services to independent filmmakers, ranging from our mentoring program Project:Involve to our Filmmaker Labs to the Los Angeles Film Festival, and dozens of other programs and benefits. If we were to divert those funds to litigate against the MPAA, we would no longer be able to provide the critically important services and resources that independent filmmakers rely on. Ella Taylor objected to David-vs.-Goliath analogies for the lawsuit, but the reality was that the plaintiffs, including IFP/L.A., IFP/N.Y. and several independent producers, were so outmatched by the resources available to the MPAA that no journalist or studio executive or filmmaker whom I spoke with thought we could possibly win — even though most of them agreed that the screener ban was ‰ potentially devastating to the independent-film movement. We were only able to undertake the first phases of litigation by securing additional revenues for the lawsuit.
