The Malibu Times staff has gone through its archives of last year and have pulled out the “best of 2004” in cartoons, quotes, letters and photos, which we will reprint here and throughout the A and B section.
Something to chew on
It is rumored that Malibu’s public figures no longer write their own “Letters to the Editor,” and there is some evidence that they can’t or don’t read the community letters either. Perched on top of my improvised soapbox, I write this impromptu letter to comment on a recent “Dear Editor Letter.”
Malibu activist Doug O’Brien should get off his pedestal and stop sermonizing about no longer protecting the California mountain lions. Mountain lions are good for the ecosystem as research suggests that mountain lions eat only cats, dogs and environmentalists. As chair of the Malibu City Parks Commission, Doug should spend more time trying to find out where the new city parks are located that council person Ken Kearsley says the City has recently purchased (without a special bond measure) for our children, grandchildren and tourists, as I can’t find them.
The only items of substance I can locate that the city has purchased are the bus benches and trash containers located along PCH with the city of Malibu logo imprinted on them. I guess this purchase was made in event unpopular vacationers get off course and can’t find what city they are lost within because transit tourists don’t use those containers for trash. Those Malibu City bus benches are the root of all the Malibu City Council’s problems. When former Mayor Walter “you don’t have to remember anything” Keller approved the bus benches and waste cans for purchase by the City of Malibu, he failed to advise the installers to Feng Shui them for installation in a Northeastern direction for “wisdom.” Instead they are positioned (Feng Shui’ed) in Southeastern, Southern and Westerly directions for “chaos.”
And that is all I have to say (sure)
Tom Fakehany
Jan. 28
Fair and square election
A few weeks ago, Sharon Barovsky’s friend, Lloyd Ahern, recommended an outside election monitor to prevent finance fraud and other illegal acts during the upcoming election. Lloyd must have skipped class on the day he could have learned how Shakespeare taught us that the guilty protest the loudest.
Last week it was discovered that Lloyd Ahern had broken campaign finance and ethics laws to help a relative run for office and was ordered to pay fines. Once again we can see just how this election is going to be run. The disturbing developments just keep piling up. Maybe it’s time for the voters to change the way the city is doing business by making big changes in April’s election. We need caring people with the right focus to come back and take charge. At the very least, we must try and inform local citizens and voters about these issues so that they know what is being done in their name.
Kathy Sullivan
Feb. 5
CAN candidate disappoints
You have got to feel sorry for the few admitted members of CAN. Last week was a rough one for them. First, at their forum, one of the council candidates accused Steve Uhring, CAN’s president, of giving questions in advance to two of the candidates. In defense, Uhring said all he did was meet with two of the candidates a few days prior to the forum and went over the issues important to him. His answer wasn’t very reassuring. Next, The Malibu Times reported that Ozzie Silna, CAN’s main backer, reneged on his pledge to Malibu Urgent Care because they supported Measure M. (I wonder if Ozzie would refuse lifesaving treatment at the Urgent Care facility because he didn’t agree with their politics). The week ended with CAN member and candidate for City Council, Jay Liebig, admitting he filed three lawsuits against the city, which cost the city almost $200,000 to defend. He lost all three suits. Jay also filed a fourth lawsuit siding with the Coastal Commission, the result of which is the city is prevented from issuing permits on new houses. Score one for Jay and the Coastal Commission. If this is the best candidate CAN can come up with, they are in big trouble.
Leslie Schwarz
Feb. 19
Disseminating hatred
Remember Bambi’s mother? Some 55 years later, I can still see images of fire raging through the forest, a young deer with spots raising his head and sniffing the air while standing against the ridgeline. It did not matter that this was “only” a Disney cartoon; the devastation filled the screen and my seven-year-old mind. Mothers could die, and Bambi’s mother was dead. It was those evil hunters. No one in my generation has ever forgotten that lesson, engraved onto our psyches by the power of film.
Imagine, then, if it was not a fantasy fawn, but the one who is the Son of God, the Christ himself, seen as being tortured on the screen. For a child watching the movie, there is no Vatican II, no thoughtful disclaimers and no editorial on interfaith relations in the church bulletin. There is only the image of the man that they are taught is their God whose body is being flayed, and the evil hunters are the Jews, the men in the funny costumes with hook noses and yellow teeth, who keep demanding “crucify him, crucify him,” despite the pleas of that nice Roman man who has pity on Jesus.
As a Jew watching Mel Gibson’s movie, I found it to be as anti-Semitic as any Passion Play in the last 2,000 years. Its effect, I fear, will be the same, namely to keep the stereotypical, visceral hatred of the Jews alive for the next generation. Children age 12 and younger are being taken to see this horribly brutal film as a part of church gatherings, and the effect will be incisive for these children beyond any feel good panel discussions about interfaith relations in the years to come. That child will have deeply internalized the image of the Christ, Son of God, dying in a torturous and unspeakable way because of the evil Jews. That image has been imprinted forever, and it will lurk there in the dark recesses of the mind, underneath all the discussions of the flexible interpretations of the Gospels and the historical veracity of the power of Rome. My fear is not that Mel Gibson has made a movie that will incite a pogrom or anti-Semitic riot in New York, Los Angeles or even Mobile, Alabama, my fear is that in subtle, uncharted ways the movie will give birth to the next generation of fundamentalist anti-Semites. Never underestimate the power of the Big Screen.
It is true that Jews and Christians are seeing different movies, when they enter “The Passion.” It is important for non-Christians to understand the pivotal role of the suffering of Jesus, and it is important for Christians to acknowledge, as did Vatican II 40 years ago, the fear evoked by the anti-Semitism that has been exacerbated by Passion Plays during the last 2,000 years. Malibu is a community that has been defined by its openness and understanding. Mel Gibson has given all of us a great opportunity to talk.
Rabbi Judith HaLevy
Malibu Jewish Center and Synagogue
March 11
Reporter taken to task
How disappointing your “special report” was by David Wallace. His rambling about the “Passion” was confusing and insulting. Star Wars merchandise compared to Christian bookstore merchandise, the “de rigeur” of gay clubs, etc. Does he think it is OK to insult and offend various groups through a local paper? Shame on him. He can’t even name a source or an observer so I have to think it is his own personal agenda being presented reminiscent of Jayson Blair, formerly of the New York Times. Doesn’t this belong on an editorial or letters to the editor page?
I am happy Mel Gibson is in Malibu. He has been generous to this community. David, go see the movie. It may do you some good. As for the Times, use someone else for special reporting so your paper can be more credible.
Robert Sutton
March 11
What Ken Starr’s new law students will learn
The Malibu Times reports that Ken Starr has been appointed Dean of Pepperdine Law School.
Apparently law students at Pepperdine will learn from the top that it is all right to investigate consensual sex when no one complains, tape friends’ conversations without permission, force legal-age young people to testify about their friends’ consenting sexual lives, make mothers testify against their daughters when no crime is committed, force Secret Service not to be secret, subpoena records of books bought at bookstores about legal subjects, secretly subpoena home phone records of innocent witnesses and force them to testify in front of grand juries about private conversations with friends, write pornographic reports you know will be used fully in the press, and claim you are doing all this for the good of the nation despite virtually all precedents protecting privacy and First Amendment rights.
They will also learn to build perjury cases by using stings and coercive techniques to generate defensive statements by someone protecting the privacy of a personal physical relationship where no one expressed harm.
Let’s hope they don’t use these lessons either as special prosecutors or even in traditional legal procedures.
And let’s hope they don’t decide to spend $60 million of federal funds over six years in proving someone has a private consenting relationship with no complaining party.
As one of the more than 100 Clinton staff and friends whom Ken Starr interrupted our lives by insisting we testify in front of his grand jury investigating the president’s consensual relationship, I can personally testify that his distorted view of the law is not one which should ever be disseminated to students as a model of what is right.
Robert S. Weiner
April 22
Smoking mad about ban
Councilmembers, congratulations on your recent vote to make criminals of those who smoke cigarettes on your beaches. You could not merely enforce existing litter laws as opposed to banning smoking on your beaches? You and yours must be quite proud of your actions. You’ve managed to make your beaches more exclusionary while concurrently solidifying California’s attempts to claim the title of Most Fascist State in the Union. And here we all thought Mussolini was dead. Hardly, as you and others like you continually remind us, the spirit of the fascist dictator lives on proudly in the beachfront communities of SoCal. Can’t we do better for the rights of the individual than your actions? “Ingested by young children playing in the sand?” You (in your press release) have to be joking.
Adam Trotter
Redondo Beach
June 3
Pledge phrase offensive
Fifty years to the day after Congress inserted the words “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance, the Supreme Court issued a resounding opinion refusing to say whether making schoolchildren utter these words violates the Constitution. California atheist Michael A. Newdow, the court ruled, lacked standing to challenge the pledge, because he does not have legal “control” over his daughter, a student in a school district where children recite the pledge daily. The decision turns one of the court’s hot-button cases into a real dud. Resolving a case on grounds of the legal standing of a litigant always has the feel of a cop-out. In contrast, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit considered his complaint despite Mr. Newdow’s lack of custody.
Writing for a five-member court majority, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that being a father was not enough. However, it could have been worse. Three justices-Sandra Day O’Connor, William H. Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas-disagreed and wished to reach the merits of the case and uphold the pledge.
The 1954 addition of the phrase “under God” to the government-established Pledge of Allegiance was an unqualified and unconstitutional endorsement of religion. This pairing of faith and patriotism is offensive to millions of Americans.
Furthermore, the political implications of ducking this hot button issue are disturbing. The Court conspicuously chose, in the midst of a presidential campaign, to announce its decision on the 50th anniversary of the inclusion of this exclusionary phrase in the Pledge. It’s hard to believe that this was a coincidence.
Ingemar Hulthage
July 1
The lonely Republican
Thank you for the informative articles regarding the status of the battleground states in the upcoming election. Arnold York mentioned in his piece on the red and blue states that he liked discussing politics, which I also enjoy. But I can’t-not with my neighbors anyway. Why? I’ll tell you.
Do you know what it’s like being a Republican in Malibu? Lonely. It’s also a little risky. After seeing so many Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers, I decided to put a Bush/Cheney sticker on my car to show my preference. Not only do I have to be careful where I park my car, but also, I regularly get the “finger” as the BMWs and Volvos zoom by!
It’s no secret that at the local schools if you are a Republican parent, student or teacher, you’d better not express your opinions. Just stay in that closet with the door locked tight!
We now have a bookstore in Malibu. There is an abundance of anti-Bush books everywhere, but no Republican-type books of any kind. I guess they thought no one would buy them in this city. (Can you imagine what would happen if I asked for a copy of “Unfit for Command” by the Swift Boat vets? I’d probably start a riot.)
When I’m listening to talk radio in my car, I have to turn it down when waiting for signals for fear the driver next to me might hear the name Sean Hannity, Larry Elder, or… (worst of all) Rush Limbaugh.
Have you noticed? The only four-letter word that you can’t utter in this so-called tolerant city does not start with an F, it starts with a B. I love Malibu, but this otherwise nice community doesn’t seem to have the stomach for Republicans or their ideas. Of course, I could change my ways and become a liberal Democrat to fit in … but I wouldn’t have the stomach for that.
Cindy Linke
Sept. 9
Why reward tie games
I heard that AYSO is giving a pizza party to the team that ties the most. Anyone who has played soccer knows it is a battle. The sweat, effort and emotion make the game a precious thing, all for the mutual goal of winning. When you win, it is the best thing. But losing is good, too. As upset as we seem after a loss, it is still good. We work harder next time and feel happier after a win, because of the struggle. The only real sense of loss is when it’s a tie.
Some people say a tie means everybody wins. I say it means everybody has lost. Is AYSO trying to tell the kids not to try, not to sweat, score or win? If AYSO continues trying to stamp all the competitiveness out of soccer, we will end up, in the future, with two teams who walk onto the field and sit down as the referee blows the whistle to start the game. They have been taught not to compete. The game ends, and the teams tie the game, zero to zero. Both teams will earn the pizza party.
The best analogy to AYSO is a short story by Kurt Vonnegut called “Harrison Bergeron.” It is about a futuristic world in which the government has decided that all people must be equal. Beautiful people must wear masks. Strong people must carry weights. Intelligent people have speakers in their ears that make piercing noises to scatter thought. In this way, everyone is equal. It has a tragic ending when Harrison Bergeron, age 14, tries to show people what has happened to them. Too much equality is a very bad thing.
We should have equal opportunities. At the beginning of the soccer game, each team can win. But only one will. AYSO will never be able to take the competition out of a competitive sport such as soccer. It’s no fun for kids when there’s no competition. I want to know why we have to tie in Malibu, and why we can’t just play here.
Gianna Fote
AYSO player, girls under 14 Nov. 11