The fire this time

Your readers’ response to the Question of the Week asking “Is the wildfire threat different this time?” were predictably politically partisan.

More frequent droughts and extreme winds fuel Invasive toxic grasses.

Especially fountain grass.

Nevada has banned fountain grass, a noxious weed.

The state has a law that bans “non-functional grasses,” ones that are not needed.

I have railed against this landscape cancer for 29 years. Apparently on deaf ears.

This wildfire fuel continues to proliferate from our yards and roadways into our foothills and canyons.

I strongly urge our state legislators to immediately pass a law like the one in Nevada.

Don’t be misguided into thinking fire has killed off this scourge. When the first rains fall the invasives will grow back.

It must be rooted out, completely.

As Pogo said “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

— Bob Ginn, Arcadia

The conflation

The conflating of societal issues (DEI) and environmental policy (Sacramento Delta water management) in the face of the tremendous human suffering and loss is reprehensible. Whatever opinions Mssrs. Musk and Trump have re these issues, using this disaster as a platform to espouse their sick ideology is revolting and intolerable.

Yet this is where we find ourselves: Not even even utter physical and emotion desolation can stop these two from their disrespect and breakdown of human decency.

— J.E.Becerra, Whittier

The mystery

I’m perplexed about the anger and ferocity of letter writer Dave Matson’s response (Jan. 5) to the Christmas Day editorial about the story of Christmas.

The editorial was just a gentle and pleasant piece about the mystery of Christ, yet Dave objected with a lengthy diatribe about the dangers of religion? About religious people having a club in their hands?

Mentioning the names of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, for some reason? And then saying he was offended “when religious or ideological doctrine is preached with unrelenting certainty to everyone within earshot, even on Christmas Day.”

Sheesh. One day out of 365 days in the year we get to talk a little about the magnificent story of Christ, about a story of love, and people get their feathers all ruffled up! Maybe next Christmas certain people should just chill out and pass on reading their paper that day, sparing them the outrage.

— William Stremel, South Pasadena

The tax code

Re “Simplify the tax code for all,” Jan. 5: Ms. de Rugy’s column suggesting a “fair flat tax” is intriguing, and while it was noted that her idea of personal deduction before the tax would be applied of $30,000 was just an example, it’s a bad example at least for those of us living in Los Angeles County.

Said deduction for a family of four should be based on typical necessary essential living expenses, and $30,000 doesn’t even cover housing much less food, clothing, medical, transportation, Social Security and Medicare employment taxes, utilities and other essential expenses that elude me right now.

Furthermore, if said deduction were set at a reasonable level there would be no need to limit the tax rate as those paying it would already have their necessary living expenses exempted.

The rate could be set at a level that would balance the budget and maybe even pay down the debt.

— Ron Garber, Duarte

Freedom of speech

Re “Trump restores freedom of speech in America” (Jan. 23):

Trump‘s executive order concerning some Americans who were censored and deplatformed on social media contains the statement, “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”

Does this apply also to Trump’s often stated plans to prosecute his opponents, denying their right of dissent in a democracy, or does Trump believe that all Americans are equal, but some are more equal than others?

— Richie Locasso, Hemet