Patrick Range McDonald's look at Big Oil (supporters of Proposition 23) versus Big Green (fans of AB 32, which 23 aims to derail) (“Greens vs. Big Oil and Prop. 23,” Oct. 29) was a commentary gusher. Tim McCord toes the oil-company line: “This issue is not as simple as the greed of two Texas oil companies against California. The fact is those dirty oil refineries are California refineries, and among the cleanest & technologically advanced in the world. If they are shut down: Greenhouse gas emissions to atmosphere will increase, because demand will have to be met by places that have no concern about GHGs. Fuel & electricity costs and unemployment will increase significantly for everyone, for the many years it will take for the heavily supplemented green technologies to come in and make any difference to the average household. Postponing aspects of AB 32 until the economy is healthier will allow all classes of society the ability to recuperate.”

Tom M must be Tim's twin: “Too bad these energetic young people don't realize that No on 23 means California's economy will be hamstrung. Businesses are already leaving the state. This will accelerate and stop new business from starting up. Too much airy-fairy idealistic nonsense and too little common sense and facts.”

Matthew says, “Tom M. and Tim M. miss the point entirely. 'Financial burdens' and job statistics will mean nothing in a barely habitable world. We have nearly reached that point. This is not an alarmist statement, but a scientific fact. We must radically reconceive our energy policy and indeed our society simply to survive. Defeating Prop. 23 does not accomplish that goal, but it is another tiny step. The contentious California clean energy standard sets a positive precedent.”

Jim Jenal asks a simple question: “What type of world do we want to leave to our children? We are at a crossroads and we simply cannot continue with business as usual — the path that the pro–Prop. 23 folks want us to take. Out-of-state oil companies are not concerned about California jobs; they are only concerned about maintaining their profits here. AB 32 threatens to reduce those profits by forcing these oil companies to reduce their emissions — which will reduce the overall increase in GHG levels and help improve general air quality at the same time. When California leads, we always come out on top.

But why listen to reason when it's so much more fun to listen to alarmist whackjobbery, such as this missive from Billsocal: “I hope the idiots are going to like their high-rise apartments and the mass transit. They won't have any cars because it will be too expensive to drive. This will happen because AB 32 is a plank in UN Agenda 21. Why do you think the gangster Mayor of L.A. is pushing the subway to the sea, UN Agenda 21. There is a good video on your tube [sic] about UN Agenda 21. Just go on you tube [sic] and type in the search box UN Agenda 21. You will get a enlighten [sic] to what is coming.”


Josh J makes this worthy observation: “Also opposing Prop. 23 is Governor Schwarzenegger, who travels on private jets and drives a Hummer. If we the people are the cause of global warming and therefore a threat to our environment, the governor needs to set a higher standard. Yeah, he might buy carbon offsets, but the damage is still done. That's like eating a double cheeseburger with extra bacon, spread, chili cheese fries and a thick milk shake and then eating a tomato to set off all the unhealthy aspects; it doesn't.”

It doesn't?! Damn.


To listen to various conservatives sling the shit after last week's piece on a Tea Party candidate in Lake Arrowhead (“Tim Donnelly's Revolution,” by Gene Maddaus, Oct. 29), you'd think the Weekly had crossed over. Either that or it's a clever ploy to show just how petty the Tea Partiers are. Either way, it was scarier than West Hollywood at 3 a.m. on Halloween. “This guy is all hype and no substance,” writes Robert Gosney of Donnelly, who happens to be Gosney's opponent for state Assembly in the 59th District. “He has no problem bending the truth when he thinks that he can benefit from it. He is not worthy of the office! I offer a better alternative. I am a true conservative. I do not patronize. I will always just plainly say what the truth is without embellishment.”

Rick Dressler responds: “Mr. Donnelly is 'not worthy of the office'? Why, because he stands for the rule of law, supports individual freedom, challenges political duplicity, opposes illegal immigration and argues against the perennial intrusion and cost of government? Or is it because he is willing to smack Political Correctness upside the face without apology?

“Elsewhere,” continues Dressler, “you refer to Mr. Donnelly as a 'loose cannon.' Frankly, I think many Americans — at least those of us fed up with government's ongoing usurpation of our freedoms and its unabashed greed — would like a metaphorical cannon sitting at one end of every legislative floor, just as a reminder of who works for who.”


In response to his review of the Korean restaurant Jae Bu Do, which features a sea creature that even the Indiana Jones of food critics found difficult to stomach (“Ode to the Slimy Hagfish,” Oct. 29), Jonathan Gold received a couple of early valentines. “Now that, Mr. Gold, was some nice writing,” writes Sarah. “Well done, sir.”

Adds Elise, “You are the only food writer who can make me get lost in the writing and physically cringe.”

We think that's a compliment.


Write us a letter with your name and phone number attached and we'll give you credit for it — at

Advertising disclosure: We may receive compensation for some of the links in our stories. Thank you for supporting LA Weekly and our advertisers.

LA Weekly