During the week ending May 2, The Times received 736 usable letters, 282 of which were in our Top Five Topics.  A pair of Op-Eds critical of Barack Obama's first 100 days in office -- one written by perennial mail magnet Jonah Goldberg --  received more mail than any other subject.

• Op-Eds on the first 100 days: 87 letters, reacting, for the most part angrily, to this Op-Ed by New Republic assistant editor James Kirchick and this column by Jonah Goldberg;
• Swine flu: 61 letters, addressing the swine flu outbreak;
• Propositions 1A - 1F: 54 letters, looking ahead to the May 19 special elections;
• Torture: 53 letters, addressing continuing developments in the torture memos story; and
• EPA and greenhouse gases: 27 letters, responding to coverage of the Environmental Protection Agency's announcement that it will regulate greenhouse gases and to this Goldberg column suggesting that such regulation threatens American democracy.

How the Top Five is tabulated: Each week, your letters maven receives thousands of e-mails, dozens of letters through the good old U.S. postal service, and even a few faxes here and there.

After she cuts out spam, obscene mail, letters addressed to more than one recipient, letters that seem to be the fruit of letter-writing campaigns and letters with attachments (which gum up our computer systems,) she is usually left with several hundred eligible items, represented in the Letters Top Five tally. From these, she selects the somewhere around 100 that get published in the newspaper. Faxes and snail mail are not reflected in the chart.

Starting next week, the Letters Top Five will take a brief hiatus, resuming this summer.

For more on The Times' letters process, visit our Letters FAQ.

Harsh words for former and current Republicans in today's Letters to the editor.

First, La Verne's Mitchell Harris slams Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter for switching to the Democratic party.  He writes:

Sen. Arlen Specter is becoming a Democrat because he can only win reelection as a Democrat.

Wow. Talk about raw moral courage. Remember John F. Kennedy's book, "Profiles in Courage"? It was about senators Kennedy admired because they did what they thought was right -- no matter the cost. Maybe somebody should send a copy to Specter.

Most of the Democrats I know are Democrats because they agree with the positions of the Democratic Party. Not Specter. Belief, conviction, ideals be damned. His party affiliation is based strictly on whatever advances his political power.

At least he's honest (or stupid) enough to admit he's unprincipled.

The Times also heard from dozens of readers who disliked the pairing, on Tuesday's Opinion pages, of pieces by conservatives Jonah Goldberg and James Kirchick.  David Salahi, of Laguna Niguel, offers a typical sentiment:

Tuesday on the Op-Ed page, James Kirchick castigates President Obama for his "obsequious behavior" and Jonah Goldberg takes him to task for his "arrogance" and "hubris."

I never could understand the thinking of the far right. Now I'm beginning to wonder if they understand their own thinking.

In any case, Kirchick gets it wrong when he lambastes Obama for apologizing to countries around the world. The U.S. has a lot of apologizing to do for our numerous offenses under the Bush administration, including waging an unwarranted war and torture.

Obama needs to make a clear break with the blustering unilateralism of the previous administration to regain the support of other countries.

 But a few readers liked the Op-Eds, including Mike MacDonald, of North Hills:

Is there a chance the Obama-hugging media can actually see what is going on?

The Obama administration's direction is appallingly anti-American. The apology tour was a disgrace. The appointment of tax evaders was pathetic. The hand in the management change at General Motors was socialism in America. The unbelievable spending will result in skyrocketing taxes for years and years.

Thank you, Times, for the two down-to-earth pieces. Let's get this Obama honeymoon over with. I've got to get back to work. There are taxes to pay.

Clearing the air about trucking, Pontiac's demise, and memories of Vietnam, too.

Photo: President Obama and Sen. Specter on Wednesday.  Credit: Mannie Garcia/Bloomberg News.

The Times received some 25 letters responding to comedian Bill Maher's Op-Ed about Republicans and the Tea Party protests.  We published a few in Wednesday's letters.

Wrote Rod Hallock, of Chino Hills:

Bill Maher makes the same mistakes as other pundits when he writes that he doesn't know what the "tea party" protests were all about and then goes on to imply that it is all about President Obama's race.

I went to the protest in Yorba Linda because I am concerned about the inevitable inflation that will result from spending trillions of dollars we do not have to spend. I am retired, after planning carefully to not need public assistance, and cannot afford a hidden tax increase disguised as inflation. The president and other advocates of irresponsible spending have picked up where the people who used their houses as ATM machines left off. Expect the same results.

Solana Beach's Paul Debban thought Maher could have done a better job arguing his case:

Come on, Bill. You know the "tea parties" were about too-high taxes and too-high government spending. So instead of defending these policies, you chose to write a name-calling rant.

This should be beneath someone who has his own political commentary show. We are laughing at you, not with you.

Linda Winders, of Culver City, loved the piece:

Bill Maher, you are so right. What is bothering Republicans is the plain fact that they lost the last two elections and haven't a clue what to do to clean up their sorry act.

Instead of acting like grown-ups and working together with the new guy, they can do nothing but pout and rant and call Obama silly names. The only "leaders" they have are a bunch of right-wing extremist radio and TV blowhards who don't care about the welfare of this nation and do nothing but incite hatred and prejudice.

Hey, GOP, I've got a flash for you: You were beaten fair and square by Obama, an intelligent, hardworking guy who will get this nation back on its feet, even if you won't lift a hand to help him do it. If you want to get back into power, the smart move would be to work with him so you get some of the credit.

If you want to become completely irrelevant, keep doing what you're doing. The only ones who will pay attention are your base, a group that is shrinking every day.

Letters about swine flu and healthcare for illegal immigrants, prisons and the mentally ill, the death of a pedestrian and the Wall Street bailout, too.

Photo: A protester in Atlanta, April 15.  Credit: John Bazemore/AP.

During the week ending April 25, The Times received 655 usable letters, 336 of which were in our Top Five Topics.  Fallout from the Bush Administration torture memos dominated our mailbag, making up more than a quarter of the usable mail we received.

In Friday's Letters, more outrage about the proposed -- and rapidly rescinded -- raises for Assembly staffers in Sacramento.  Mary Cifuentes, of Glendale, sums up reader sentiment:

It is becoming more clear each day in California that politicians care only about themselves. It's also nice to know that after the news leaked about the pay raises, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Minority Leader Michael Villines thought they were a "mistake."

What kind of people are we electing? Are Bass and Villines aware that the unemployment rate has skyrocketed and most people feel lucky to even have a job? Everyone I know is worried about the future. Many companies have slashed pay, benefits and expenses.

Don't worry, Speaker Bass, we will suffer while you and your staff work to save this great state from ruin.

More on torture, Rep. Jane Harman's wiretapping scandal, campaign finance and presidential debate history, too.

Photo: Bass and Villines in November, 2008.  Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli.

Tea, anyone?  During the week ending April 18, The Times received 669 usable letters, 322 of which were in our Top Five Topics.  More than 100 focused on last Wednesday's Tea Party protests.

• Tea Parties:  102 letters, reacting to Times coverage of the April 15 rallies, including this Op-Ed by Marc Cooper;
• Front page ad:  89 letters, most excoriating our newspaper for running a large advertisement for a new show on NBC on the front page. Also included here are a few letters about a Times ad for "The Soloist," based on the friendship between Times columnist Steve Lopez and musician Nathaniel Ayers;
• Pirates:  65 letters, responding to coverage of the pirate crisis off the coast of Africa;
• John Yoo:  37 letters, reflecting on this Op-Ed and this Op-Ed debating whether former Justice Department official Yoo -- one of the authors of the infamous Bush administration "torture memos" --  should or should not be allowed to teach law at Chapman University, where he's currently a visiting professor; and
• Rosa Brooks:  29 letters, commenting on the columnist's last piece for The Times and her new job at the Defense Department.

How the Top Five is tabulated: Each week, your letters maven receives thousands of e-mails, dozens of letters through the good old U.S. postal service, and even a few faxes here and there.

After she cuts out spam, obscene mail, letters addressed to more than one recipient, letters that seem to be the fruit of letter-writing campaigns and letters with attachments (which gum up our computer systems,) she is usually left with several hundred eligible items, represented in the Letters Top Five tally. From these, she selects the somewhere around 100 that get published in the newspaper. Faxes and snail mail are not reflected in the chart. 

For more on The Times' letters process, visit our Letters FAQ online. 

"Tea Party" protests are all the rage, so to speak, in Friday's letters.

So far, we've received around 100 letters about the tax day demonstrations, many from readers sympathetic to the small-government cause, like Studio City's Gary Aminoff, who expressed disgust with this Op-Ed written by Marc Cooper, director of Annenberg Digital News at the Annenberg School for Communication at USC. 

Writes Aminoff:

People like Marc Cooper can't seem to get their arms around what the Tea Parties were about. He says the Colonists rebelled against injustice, but he can't understand why people rebel today. I guess he assumes that bailing out failed private companies and incurring a multitrillion-dollar bill that we will pay off for generations is not an injustice. It is definitely an injustice to my grandchildren, who will likely have a lower standard of living because of it.

The American people are fed up with our government assuming that it is its right to spend the taxpayer's money in any way it deems important. That is what the Tea Parties are about.

Cooper also thinks the Tea Parties are a Republican activity. He is wrong. Of the seven organizers of the Van Nuys Tea Party, of which I was one, only three were Republicans.

 Of course, some readers saw the protests differently, including Stephanie Winnard, of West Hills:

I do not understand what the "Teabaggers" were protesting.

My understanding is that the Boston Tea Party was protesting taxation without representation. The last time I checked, we all have the right to vote in this country. I don't think that idea really makes sense.

Or maybe they were protesting higher taxes -- but Obama has given a tax break to 95% of all Americans, so it can't be that.

This "movement" makes me laugh. Who can take it seriously when their analogy does not even make sense?

(For more on Tea Parties, check out this blog post from my colleague Jon Healey, who analyzes the online response -- more than 1,500 comments! -- the Times received in response to Cooper's piece.)

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and pay cuts for city workers and Obama's new Cuba policy, too.

Photo: A Tea Party protest in Las Cruces, N.M.  Credit: AP Photo/Las Cruces Sun-News, Norm Dettlaff.

In Thursday's letters, readers speak out about the Los Angeles Police Department's new headquarters in the wake of a statement by former police chief and current city councilman Bernard C. Parks that the new facility should retain the name Parker Center in memory of legendary (but racially divisive) chief William H. Parker. 

Stanford Nelson, of Irvine, agrees that the name should stay but questions Parks' reasons why:

I worked under Chief Parker; he swore me in at my academy graduation. It was a proud moment. A few years later, he passed away. His funeral service was attended by thousands from around the world. Every ethnicity and religion was represented.

Parker was anything but a racist. What he was a chief of police who brought ethics to the Los Angeles Police Department. He established parameters, discipline and professionalism at the department that were mirrored and revered across the nation.

Parker Center should not keep its name for continuity's sake, as Parks suggests. Parker's name should continue for the ethical impact he created in establishing the finest police department in the United States.

But Ben Miles, of Huntington Beach, agrees with Tim Rutten's assessment that naming HQ after Parker doesn't work in 2009:

Bernard C. Parks' assertion that naming the still-under-construction police building after long-gone LAPD Chief William H. Parker would "assure continuity" betrays the City Council member's mind-set.

Parks is clearly more concerned about the superficial aspects of order and continuity than the actual message that would be sent by lending Parker's moniker to the new headquarters. The issue calls to mind the debates over flying the Confederate states' flag in South Carolina. 

Steve Freedman, of Venice, agrees:

Giving the new LAPD headquarters a name more suggestive of the reforms undertaken in recent years would offer the people of Los Angeles greater assurance of a police force we can depend on for fairness and justice than would retaining a name associated with a long-past era in order to "assure continuity."

Letters about possible fraud in California's home-care program, banks in Sioux Falls and animal rights activists, too.

Photo: LAPD's old Parker Center, in a photograph from 1955, when it was still known as the Los Angeles Police Department Police Faciliites Building.  Credit: Herbert Bruce Cross Photography.

In Wednesday's letters, Nancy Watkins of Lake Forest joins the chorus of animal lovers disappointed by the First Family's decision to adopt Bo, a purebred Portuguese water dog, instead of a shelter mutt.  She writes:

The Obamas have taken "limousine liberal" to a new level. They promised their daughters a puppy if they moved to the White House and, while they discussed rescuing a mutt, they in fact received a purebred Portuguese water dog from the Kennedy family, pledging instead to make a financial donation to the D.C. Humane Society.

The dog is absolutely adorable and has received worldwide media coverage, which will probably drive up demand for the breed exponentially.

What the Obamas have done is create a boon for breeders, while millions of equally adorable and sweet dogs suffer in shelters. They are role models for parents who recklessly promise pets to their children, creating even more shelter dogs. Shame on them.

In the meantime, others are already e-mailing in their frustration with the Bo backlash.  Bonnie Sloane, of Los Angeles, remarks this morning:

Regarding the kerfuffle over the Obama's family's choice of dog:  What a ridiculous waste of media attention.     

Adopting a dog is a family decision, not a fulfillment of a campaign pledge.   It's fine if the First Family chooses a rescue dog,  but these animals can have serious behavioral or health problems that not everyone is equipped to handle.   I assume the Obamas know their own pet needs better than we do.

I also recall that when our last three Republican Presidents -- Reagan, Bush I and Bush II -- chose purebred dogs, not a single protest was heard from the animal rights community.   Interesting.

Today's page also features three letters about Rosa Brooks' departure from the Opinion pages.  Most, but not all, of the correspondence we received was of the "good riddance" variety, including this note from James B. Davis of Beverly Hills:

I was overcome with tears of joy after reading the first sentence of Rosa Brooks' article last week: "This will be my last column for the L.A. Times." After suffering through her sanctimonious rants for years -- in particular her inability to write a single column without bashing former President George W. Bush -- I felt a great weight rise from my shoulders.

But then I read her second sentence: "After four years, I'll soon be starting a stint at the Pentagon as an advisor to the undersecretary of Defense for policy."

The Times will be better; the Pentagon will be worse. I guess we can't have it all.

Correspondence about HUD's dollar house programand Gil Cedillo's over-the-top spending habits, too.

Photo: Bo the dog meets the White House press corps.  Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

In Tuesday's letters, The Times features more on the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips from pirates off the coast of Africa and thoughts on immigration, taxes and police pursuits, too. 

Readers also react to this story about older job-seekers, wondering if The Times isn't itself perhaps a little ageist in its approach to the topic.  Writes Ventura's Anthony Lewis:

I enjoyed reading the article regarding the difficulties in obtaining meaningful work for those of us over 50. However, the piece reinforced many of the stereotypes that the younger generation holds regarding baby boomers.

We older workers too could write an article stereotyping the younger generation workforce, with generalizations regarding their lack of social and interviewing skills (unless they are on a cellphone), their inability to write a coherent memo using fully constructed sentences (not texting), and their loyalty to a workplace seldom lasting longer than two years. However, I would refrain from such over-generalizations....

I started using a computer 25 years ago. I don't consider myself "technologically challenged."

Mark O'Connell, of Irvine, makes a similar point:

Your "helpful hints" counsel older job seekers to be coy about their age. Where is there any mention of our wonderful age-discrimination laws that protect older workers so they don't have to obfuscate to apply for a job?

How about The Times showing a little leadership in pushing for enforcement of discrimination laws or beefing up existing laws so they actually are enforceable?

Photo: A boomer job hunt at Kinko's.  Credit: Los Angeles Times.