thumbs_up “THIS THANKSGIVING, ONE MAN IS GRATEFUL FOR POLITICAL MAILERS,” Nov. 24 [ By Anthony Pignataro ]

I think continuous robocalls are tantamount to harassment, not free speech. Theyshould be illegal. / LB CITY GIRL

“STATE COASTAL COMMISSION ORDERS HITCHCOCK TO RESTORE WETLANDS HE ILLEGALLY RAVAGED IN 2009,” Nov. 19 [ By Heather Altman ]

Darn. I was hoping the Coastal Commission would order Mr. Psycho to clear out the garbage dump first, so as to begin with a clean environmental slate. However, I suppose one shouldn’t look a raped gift horse in the impacted buttocks, as they say. / JASON

Rats. I was hoping for the city to get investigated. Because that landfill is next to coastal waters who knows what could be leaching from beneath into the water table or the ocean? Back when it was filled I don’t think they lined landfills. At least now they will clay cap at least in part, which will keep the water from seeping through the trash if Hitchcock doesn’t figure out a way to wiggle out of this one, too. I don’t know why the government does not require clay cap resealing every X-amount of years; clay will naturally erode away, breaking the seal, or so say all the waste management trade publications I’ve read. / CINDY

“COMMIE GIRL: MY GRAD-SCHOOL SOCIOLOGY CLASS THINKS I’M RACIST!“ Nov. 11 [ By Rebecca Schoenkopf ]

Dude…Your all-over-the-place breathless schoolgirl rap is tiring to read. To be blunt, unless I’m trying to fuck you, I’m not going to read it. Nobody of sound mind would want to wade through your self-satisfied candy-assed rhetoric. You have some good points buried somewhere in that rat maze of shit you call “writing,” but I’m here to read an essay. I’m not supposed to be panning for gold. Turn that shit DOWN. Again, I can’t understand what the hell you’re saying, and by about halfway through, I don’t WANT to. You’re probably a good writer, but we’ll never know if you don’t try. Note to the Editors: EDIT, goddammit. / JASON

Jason, thanks so much for your thoughtful critique! And also thanks for turning it into a referendum on whether you’d want to fuck me! That is pretty much what a breathless schoolgirl always wants to know! Jason, dude, I don’t care about whether or not you wanted to finish my rat maze of shit, or at what level you think I should be turned. (11?) I mean it. I don’t care even the littlest bit.  Poor Jason, isn’t it weird how some things in the world aren’t about you? Don’t you just hate that so much? / REBECCA SCHOENKOPF

“SOMETHING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO BUYING CALIFORNIA’S ELECTIONS” [ By Adreana Langston ]

Thanks for this interesting article, Ms. Langston. Is it your position that “unlimited spending by corporations and the uber-wealthy would have a corrupting influence on the political process,” but that’s to be deemed acceptable so long as one’s personal preferences in candidates and causes are supported? Political corruption is bad, but it’s tolerable so long as it helps our cause? The public policy ends justify the political means? Does that accurately summarize your thoughts on the matter? You seem pleased that Richardson won with 69 percent of the vote despite that Parker’s supporters out-donated Richardson’s, 2-1. Do not Richardson’s actual voting record and its clear correlation with the overall abysmal condition of our national and state economies enjoy some small consideration in your cost-benefit analysis? I completely agree with the idea that all aspects of politics and government should be fully and readily open to public scrutiny. But I have a problem with the idea that “big money” in elections is bad unless, of course, it benefits the “correct” political point of view. By the way, I think it would be wise for readers to better inform themselves about “The Disclose Act” you are advocating that your congresspersons vote for.

 Mr. Greet, my article is about the following, as you apparently did not read it all the way through before posting your comment. A) I at first thought that there was a direct relationship between outspending one’s opponent in a campaign and garnering enough votes to win; B) Because I assumed A, my gut reaction to the Citizens United decision was totally negative; C) The outcome of elections in California in which one side outspent another side but then still lost (sometimes by quite a large margin) caused me to question Assumption A; D) My questioning of whether or not A is true caused me to have less than a totally negative gut reaction to the Citizens United decision; E) I still think there is reason for concern with the Citizens United decision—namely, I am concerned that the Citizens United decision allows for people and corporations to attempt to influence campaigns with cash without disclosing that they are doing so. F) I am supporting the Disclose Act in order to allay some of those concerns. I am not pleased that Richardson won with 69 percent of the vote, though I am glad Star Parker did not win. I didn’t vote for Richardson. I was showing genuine surprise that Parker garnered so little of the vote when her supporters outdonated Richardson, 2-1. I wasn’t commenting on the loss, per se. I was commenting on the severity of the loss vis-a-vis Parker outspending Richardson. This was just one example where spending more money in a campaign than one’s opponent did not produce the outcome that those who feared the Citizens United decision (of which I at first was one) thought it would. / ADREANA LANGSTON