Oh, November 19 is certainly a Black Wednesday! Where are my Red Meat, Shoehorn Technique, Basic Instructions, and the rest of my weekly comic reads? Only Neal Obermeyer this week? Promise us this was a mistake!
Cartoons run as space permits. — Editor
Patrick Daugherty is right on target in pleading with SDSU to drop football (“Sporting Box,” November 20). I’m old enough to remember the glory days of Don Coryell, when his Aztecs of the late ’60s would not only destroy their competition in dazzling fashion but also outdraw the Chargers in attendance every home game. Those teams sent dozens of players to the NFL (Fred Dryer, Haven Moses, Brian Sipe, et al.). The memory of those teams was enough to keep the passion alive until Marshall Faulk brought the program to new and exciting heights. After he graduated, it has been one laughable and pathetic season after another. Like Daugherty, I don’t know why, and I don’t even care anymore. Quit embarrassing the school and the community. Either drop down in division or dump the program!
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong Wrong
It is incorrect to say that labor costs are the reason for the City’s shortfall (“Double Ulp!”, “City Lights,” November 20). Republican misappropriation of pension funds for stadiums and the convention center are the cause of the City’s deficit.
It is incorrect to say that labor costs should be cut. It is management salaries that need to be cut; labor is very low-wage.
It is incorrect to say that voters won’t vote for taxes. Voters would like to see higher taxes on the rich, not on themselves.
It is incorrect to say that privatizing jobs saves money. Privatizing jobs makes more profit and costs more, at the expense of workers’ pay.
It is incorrect to say government workers make more money than private. Legal and medical secretaries earn more in the private sector than sheriff and health-department clerks.
It is incorrect in (Neal Obermeyer’s) cartoon to imply Pilgrims and Indians drank. Pilgrims and Indians did not drink, and then Puritans killed Indians after taking their food.
It is incorrect to imply that police are taking away a right to drink on the beach. It is unsafe to drink at the beach, which exists for the purpose of swimming in a dangerous ocean.
Service Employees International Union
Brizzolara’s “T.G.I.F.” is the first thing I read, every time I open up an issue. There might be a lot of reasons why. But I think he is the best writer you publish, in most issues.
I’m also from Chicago, about his age. I come from that “dour and Slavic reality.” Left there for the summer of 1960 to get away from the continual war that was my parents. Had alcoholics and drug addicts in my family too.
I think I’m about John’s age, 70; by his picture I think he’s younger. My brother missed WWII and got into machine-shop work. I ended up with the education and the expectations. Wish I could be some help with his box of memories and radio scripts. I did send his November 13 piece, “Sympathy? Of course I want your sympathy,” to a friend in Manhattan, though.
I love all kinds of music, rock included. Hope one day John and I could cross paths.
Name Withheld by Request
Foot-Dragging In The Park
I was happy to see the Reader finally address our so-called Olive Park in “Ping-Pong Park” (“City Lights,” November 6). How can attorney Mark Brandon, son of Dr. Milan Brandon, say “the idea that the McKees and the Woods gave the property to the City as a gift” is misinformation and a misconception? The documents speak for themselves. Then he continues on with wild tales of “what really happened” and “somewhere along the way.” Where are his supporting documents of evidence for his figment of imagination? Was he there in 1909? His claims that “we are not taking anything from the City” are false. It’s the takings of the taxpayers’ public park (appraised at $1.9 million) for their own selfish private use. Anyway, how did they ever get to excavate the park property (midway back in the park) for that underground ramp into their underground garage? They already had access on Third Avenue into their garage and office.
Attorney Brandon’s claim that “we shouldn’t be paying rent on this” — most folks in the community would agree with. The community would say they should have their revocable permit revoked and they should be forced to pay back rent for the last 40 years and the park should be given back to the rightful owners, the taxpayers. If he is claiming prescriptive easement with “an established access to our property,” you can’t get prescriptive easement against any government property no matter how long they have been there. And it is a revocable permit! His hints of a probable lawsuit are just that — that would be the ultimate frivolous lawsuit! No unbiased judge with a jury would ever grant this taxpayer park to the Brandons. Why don’t they just pay the back rent for the 40-plus years of use of this park and now graciously completely remove themselves? Why is the City dragging its feet on this? It has been a year since Turko presented this on KUSI. Why isn’t Councilman Faulconer correcting this?