Richard Riordan and L.A.; the City Council’s vote to boycott Arizona; Stephen Hawking and alien life forms

Woofing about Riordan

Re “Unleashed,” Opinion, May 8

Where was Hizzoner in taking on the unions when he was in a position to actually do something? If former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan had fought to reduce the pension promises to all new hires who started with the city during his eight years, we would not now be looking at the ballooning pension costs that may cripple the city’s fiscal future.

If Riordan, with tons of his own money to finance his political career, and ostensibly no further political ambitions, couldn’t face down the powerful public unions, who can?

Julie Downey
Los Angeles

Thanks to Patt Morrison for her interview with Riordan, reminding us what a politician can be.

Riordan is pragmatic and intellectually honest, and he was very effective in office. He capably served the interests of all Angelenos and did not sacrifice his duty to the demands of his party, to nebulous ideology or even to his own political future.

Riordan remains the only Republican this lifelong Democratic ever voted for, and I only wish I could vote for him again.

Gwen Freeman
Los Angeles

Today Riordan worries about the city’s solvency.

In 2001, he advocated pay raises and urged voters to increase pensions for police and fire personnel.

And in 1993, he demonstrated that he didn’t want to pay for what he supports when he attempted to raid LAX coffers, by diverting $30 million from airport revenues into the city’s general fund to pay for police. According to our calculations, under Riordan the pension fund for police and firefighters was only 60% funded. The reason? For nearly 35 years, the city made no contributions.

Yet, with a pension funding ratio nearly 40% lower than the current 96.2% we calculate, Riordan was never heard during his time as mayor calling the pension issue a crisis or urging bankruptcy.

Of course, for Riordan, talking out of both sides of his mouth is habitual.

Marshall McClain
Los Angeles
The writer is president of the Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Assn.

LAPD officers working three 12-hour shifts work 156 hours per 28-day deployment period. Officers working eight-hour shifts work 152 hours per deployment period — four hours fewer per period when factoring in the holidays.

Flexible scheduling has increased officer morale and significantly improved retention and recruitment. Additionally, flexible scheduling has allowed LAPD officers to be more involved in community events throughout the day, from neighborhood early morning breakfasts to evening meetings.

Flexible scheduling has been proven a success. Those who say otherwise, like Riordan, are pushing politics, not public safety.

Paul M. Weber
Los Angeles
The writer is president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

Riordan perpetuates a common misunderstanding about how fire departments operate. He said: “And if you notice, almost every time a paramedic is called, a fire truck goes. It’s just the union trying to prove you need more firefighters.”

There are reasons fire engines respond with the paramedics. In most fire departments there are more engines than paramedic units. A fire engine can usually arrive at the scene of a medical emergency several minutes before the paramedics — several minutes that can be the difference between life and death. Also, on most emergencies, paramedics need help to perform the tasks required. The more hands the better. The engine company also has a fire captain assigned to it. He provides supervision at the scene of the emergency. Many times, tools and equipment are needed from the fire engine to effect a rescue, provide forcible entry or extrication and so on. Paramedic units do not carry all of this equipment.

Fire engines have accompanied paramedics since the latter were first developed. The system worked then, and it works now.

The unions may be a problem in some areas of city operations, but in this case, Riordan is wrong.

Mike Reardon
Fallbrook
The writer is a retired fire captain, Los Angeles County Fire Department.

Defending Arizona

Re “L.A. votes to curb official Arizona trips,” May 13

Instead of visiting Los Angeles this summer as planned, I will be taking my children and grandchildren to Arizona.

You are a national disgrace. Remember: Boycotts cut both ways.

Bernard Braginsky
Staten Island, N.Y.

Congratulations, L.A.. I live in Arizona but do not support the immigration law recently passed by our state “leaders.”

However, through your resolution, you have equally discriminated against hardworking Americans who happen to live or conduct business in Arizona. We may want to do business with L.A., or even visit, but may now reconsider.

Your ignorance is showing.

Kevin Duncan
Mesa, Ariz.

As an Arizonan, I don’t care what California thinks of our state laws.

It is we who live here — not you — who have to deal with the problems that illegal aliens (yes, I’m politically incorrect!) bring to this state. You need to fix your own state before you address Arizona’s problems.

Brian Davis
Tombstone, Ariz.

The L.A. City Council has voted to ban travel to Arizona. Good for them! Maybe they’ll stay home and do something worthwhile.

Arizona will be fine without them and their token posturing.

Richard Williams
La Cañada Flintridge

I’m assuming that this boycott means the Lakers — a valuable business and member of the Los Angeles community — will go ahead and forfeit the NBA Western Conference championship series to the Phoenix Suns?

Yeah, just as I thought. This boycott will hurt only the businesses in Arizona and Los Angeles that don’t count. Just another empty gesture by a group of politicians.

Ron Vogel
Carmichael, Calif.

When E.T. wants a new home

Re “Leading scientists dissect Hawking’s aliens warning,” May 8

Stephen Hawking’s speculation that intelligent aliens would be resource-suckers in search of new planets to drain is all too convincing as a description of the present earthly reality. Unless we accelerate the turn from addiction to hydrocarbons and radioactivity to sustainable energy systems and consumption patterns, we won’t need rapacious aliens to end Earth’s livability.

Joseph Maizlish
Los Angeles

Perhaps the best response to Hawking’s notion comes from Calvin and Hobbes cartoonist Bill Watterson: “Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.”

Lauren Siadek
Hawthorne

Asimov’s view of time travel

Re “Time travel? Well, maybe,” Opinion, May 7

Because we have nothing but theoretical speculation on the possibility of time travel and no actual evidence, I want to back up Dave Goldberg’s Op-Ed article, which argues that although time travel may be possible, “the fine print … is pretty daunting.”

In 1977, I asked my friend, Isaac Asimov (who knew more things about more things than any other human) to write an article for my science-fiction magazine, “Starlog.” In “Faster Than Light,” he discussed wormholes, black holes and the Einstein/Rosen theory that allowed imaginative writers such as Arthur C. Clarke and Gene Roddenberry “to explore vast stretches of space and time in the blink of an eye.”

Much as those of us who love such adventures desperately want “warp speed” to be possible, Asimov concluded, like Goldberg, that the reality is “maybe. But from where we sit here and now, it’s a very, very weak maybe.”

For what it’s worth, Clarke (who was also a dear friend) and I would have both added another “very” to Asimov’s sober conclusion.

Kerry O’Quinn
Hollywood