By Besha Rodell
By Patrick Range McDonald
By Michael Goldstein
By Dennis Romero
By Sarah Fenske
By Matthew Mullins
By Patrick Range McDonald
By LA Weekly
RADIO JOCKEYING AROUND
I love Paul Cullum’s Phil Hendrie article [“Radio Provocateur,” June 11–17], which I find to be the best description of the guy and the show I thoroughly enjoy. I just wish you didn’t print the expletives. I would have liked to send the article to a couple of friends, but it becomes impractical when there’s language in there that many people don’t like. Great writing otherwise.
As a straight man and straight journalist, I’m thrilled that Phil Hendrie’s finally getting some ink — if not his own TV show. Very few people ever get to do big-time, non-pandering radio on their own terms. Hendrie’s pulled it off night after night, for the better part of a decade. I’ve stayed in my car on many occasions, missing countless eyebrow-rejuvenation appointments, because I couldn’t drag myself away from Phil’s genius. No one will ever do it better, including Carrot Top.
—Howard Leff Los Angeles
Your articles on Ronald Reagan [Deadline Hollywood, “Bye Bye, Bonzo”; Dissonance, “Reagan Without Tears”; On, “The Gipper”; Open City, “Lying in State”; Powerlines, “Local Boy Makes Good,” June 11–17] reveal a dark shallowness and a cynicism that perfectly matches the petulant Southern California liberal lockstep mindset. L.A. Weekly certainly knows its core audience. The sadly predictable hit pieces are angry, depressing, faux-witty, campus-level tantrums that merely whine while they should enlighten. To aging hippies and young sophisticates I say: Socialism lost. Get over it.
—B.H. Fitzpatrick Redondo Beach
During the past week of rewritten history and maudlin retrospectives, the liberal press has emerged to depict Ronald Reagan’s true (and rather frightening) legacy. John Powers’ criticisms of the plaintive national press, and the other writers’ depictions of Reagan’s entropic career, are on target. I read three papers a day, and in the last week none have demonstrated the same journalistic integrity and responsibility to its readership regarding Reagan’s life and death as L.A. Weekly.
—Brigid McManama Los Angeles
I agree with Gloria Ohland’s praise for the work of Doug Suisman, Deborah Murphy and others who are focused on the public-way, pedestrian orientation and the importance of good mixed-use projects, especially in transit-oriented districts [“Brave New Cityscape,” June 11–17].
However, I think landmark buildings are equally as important, particularly those on Grand Avenue, which does have an impact on daily life in that it creates an important civic and cultural center. While one can of course critique the urban design qualities of some of these buildings, one has to commend Gehry and his office in particular for creating a piece of work [the Walt Disney Concert Hall] that has brought back architecture as an important topic of discussion for all of the city’s residents.
In addition, I have to strongly disagree with Ohland’s assessment of Morphosis’ Caltrans headquarters. This project creates a well-scaled public space oriented to the corner across from City Hall, and helps create a dialogue with the neighboring buildings, as well as provide pedestrian orientation on First and Main. The way the building meets the ground responds in a different and appropriate way to each street edge.
I believe we as architects and urban designers should promote both good infill and important landmarks for our cityscape.
According to Corn, George Tenet has “essentially [said],” “[Implied] — though not [stated],” “strongly hinted” and delivered extensive “between-the-lines” indictments regarding the Bush administration’s culpability on the issue of WMDs. Did George Tenet actually say anything or was he Vulcan mind-melding with selective reporters? While I applaud Corn’s selfless willingness to read between the lines for us, he might consider sticking to the facts.
“The Bush camp has tried to make Tenet the fall guy for Bush’s WMD predicament.” Really? Prove it. But don’t call it news. And while you’re renaming your propaganda section, don’t forget that the Clinton administration claimed there was a direct link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and that Saddam had WMDs. Also, David Corn’s leading man, John Kerry, clearly believed that Saddam was a serious enough threat to mandate war. But maybe I’m being presumptuous about Corn’s allegiance to the Kerry campaign; it was implied, though not stated.
—Christian Duguay Los Angeles
“Burning Blades” [June 11–17] is the poorest piece of journalism L.A. Weekly has published in a long time. Ben Quiñones was obviously too thrilled by the idea of riding with buzzards like pilot Mel Stevenson or trying all those high-tech toys to ask real questions. When he does ask about noise abatement and safety regulations, he’s satisfied with the most inane pap: a study conducted by NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the early ’70s, claiming that 89 percent of the population polled was in favor of helicopter patrols. Never mind asking people living on hills bordering Sunset Boulevard, in Echo Park or Silver Lake, who are constantly buzzed and shaken by these sky cowboys. Quiñones pays them lip service with “Ghetto Bird” and some smart shit from Ice Cube.
—Philippe Garnier Los Angeles