Lepine Drops Harassment Suit, Receives No Payment. Will Campaign Now Focus on Goldsmith's Domestic Uproars?

russl, thanks for correcting my typo. I did mean prostate. Either my fingers or my brain must have cramped when I typed that sentence, maybe both. I completely agree with your description of Mr. Zappa. I don't think he would have won or even come close, but if his performance at the congressional hearings on the labeling of musical content was any indication, his presence at presidential debates would have made for the most thought-provoking -- and hilarious -- presidential debates in history. I can picture his campaign slogan: "Let me see your thumb!"
— July 15, 2008 2:16 p.m.

A Solomonic Booze Ban Solution

Derek, you and I are the masses, don't kid yourself. I don't believe for one second that you or I need to be controlled or supervised. That's not the free society I signed up for and have valued so very much my entire life. Furthermore, far from living in a fantasy land where everyone is a good person, I am very aware of the fact that there's bad people out there. I'm not one of them. I don't have to give up my rights to make you feel safer about your kids. My accusation stands as you continue to make broad generalizations about the homeless population as an argument that extends to an unreasonable limitation on my personal liberty. The fact that I respect your concern for your children is the reason I'm proposing a "solomonic" beach booze ban -- one that accommodates the concerns of all parties. To quote the dictionary definition: "Adj. 1. Solomonic - exhibiting or requiring the wisdom of Solomon in making difficult decisions." I actually find your idea about drinking education to be quite intriguing. It may be a vital part of the correct response -- instead of a jihad-style ban -- to America's bipolar cultural attitudes about alcohol. We already tried prohibition and it was much worse than regulated consumption. That's a lesson in our recent history that's apparently being forgotten in the debate about dealing with alcohol and drugs in our freedom-based society. Alcohol is heavily taxed at every level of government. Our poor City Hall would be devastated if they lost this very juicy (so to speak) revenue stream, especially now that they've navigated our municipality into near-bankruptcy. Other cultures are much more permissive about alcohol regulation and are no worse off than America if not outright better off. The issue is complex and has no easy answers without unintended consequences. A complete booze ban is an example of such an attempt at an easy answer. Which brings me to another question for you: What's your take on the story about the homeless being driven inland by the booze ban? In case you missed it, here's the URL once again: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2008/jun/30/bo… I'm curious to hear your take on that. It's clear you have strong feelings about this issue and I feel that your opinion as a member of the community is important, as much as I disagree with your conclusions.
— July 15, 2008 1:55 p.m.

Lepine Drops Harassment Suit, Receives No Payment. Will Campaign Now Focus on Goldsmith's Domestic Uproars?

Anyone can make a mistake, Mr. Bauder. Don't beat yourself up too much about that. I personally find most of Burt Reynolds' work quite forgettable. Frank Zappa passed away in 1993 from prostrate cancer. He was becoming very politically active and was even considered as a presidential candidate for the Libertarian party in the late 1980s. He considered himself a "practical conservative". The American political debate would have been much richer and more entertaining had Mr. Zappa survived his illness. Speaking of the Marx Brothers, Jerry Coleman once described Randy Jones, who sported a curly blond mop-top in the 1980s, as "the guy with the Karl Marx hairdo." I suspect Harpo would laugh out loud if he were alive to hear that. You can hang a star on that blooper!
— July 15, 2008 12:36 p.m.

SDGE Should Push Rooftop Solar Program, Says City Attorney, Noting Utility's Lagging Response to State Clean Energy Mandates

Nuclear energy is not the way we should be going. As much as the technology has improved, there is no reasonable answer to the problem of the radioactive waste generated by the plants. Loading depleted uranium on the tips of missiles and spreading it all over the Middle East is not a reasonable answer. Burying it in Nevada may be appealing to some -- unless you live by the highway or railroad that's supposed to cart this deadly waste past your neighborhood. Additionally, the initial costs are very high and we wouldn't see a single kilowatt of electricity for years while the plant is being planned, designed and built. These caveats ultimately make nuclear energy a red herring in the quest for renewable and sustainable energy sources. In his visionary book "Plan B 2.0", Lester R. Brown, head of the Earth Policy Institute (www.earthpolicy.org) suggests that solar and wind power are the most cost-effective, earth-friendly technologies that can be deployed quickly and without a massive initial investment. He also mentions the huge and mostly unexploited potential of geothermal energy. Tidal energy could work in Southern California, but the cost of land on the shores is prohibitive and there are negative impacts to the environment. Desalination's greatest problem is that it's an energy-intensive process. With the deployment of large solar- and wind-powered plants, the energy can be provided in a much more cost-effective manner. Adding the potential of geothermal energy, there may also be more than enough to help along the much-needed change in transportation technology to the plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle. These vehicles won't do much for the big picture if we continue to produce the energy by using non-renewable and unsustainable technologies. An electric car that was charged with electricity generated with a coal-burning plant is basically a car that "pre-pollutes" the environment. The end result will still be an agonizing biosphere and accelerated climate change. The effort to change the energy paradigm must be led by the government. The Apollo Alliance (www.ApolloAlliance.org) proposes a strategy to invest Federal funds in a WPA-style program that would create jobs for Americans and expedite the switch to renewable energies. This would serve America far better than spending Federal funds on subsidies for fossil fuels or biofuels, another red herring of the energy industry. You can see what biofuels are already doing to staple food prices. I support Mike Aguirre's initiative to prod SDG&E into taking the correct and responsible action which is required by law. If they need to be sued into compliance, so be it. Let's make sure they pay for the City Attorney's time and expenses if it has to come to that.
— July 15, 2008 12:11 p.m.

The Spirit of OB

Patty, many thanks for the comment with more background on OBRag.org. More than a plug, I would say my post is a tribute to people like yourself, Frank, and the entirety of the membership of the Ocean Beach Grassroots Organization throughout the years. You have all been the real keepers of the Spirit of OB and deserve credit for it. By the way, Frank may have taken exception to my comment about OBohemians smelling funny. I did not mean that in a personal hygiene way, I was alluding to a comment made by Frank Zappa in his song "Bebop Tango (of the Old Jazzmen's Church)", when he says that "...jazz is not dead, it just smells funny." The funny smell from the OBohemians is kind of like patchouli on cedar wood -- or something like that. The scent is fortunately still in the air in spite of the suffocating plastic stench brought in by the fog banks of gentrification.
— July 14, 2008 10:54 a.m.

A Solomonic Booze Ban Solution

To Derek: I believe I addressed your point of view in the last paragraph of this post. I don't believe you offered a direct response to a very direct question: Why do I, as a law-abiding, reasonable and responsible citizen and taxpayer, have to give up any rights to accommodate the narrow-minded prejudices of people like yourself? Let's consider this example. Some people don't like children. A large number of the people who have to be rescued from the riptides are children that are not being watched by their guardians. Some may think that society would be better off if children were banned from ALL beaches in order to minimize the investment society has to make to keep them from drowning in our public beaches. I would be against that. Just because some parents are negligent is not a good enough reason to deprive you and your family of any rights. When I first moved to San Diego in the early 1980's, I noticed something a little strange in the classified ads for rental properties. The vast majority of 1- and 2-bedroom rentals flatly stated "NO KIDS". Property owners in San Diego had apparently decided it was bad for business to rent to families with children. I was always against that, and San Diego's municipal government eventually addressed it with legislation to prevent discrimination against families with children seeking to rent a house or apartment. Fast forward to 2008, and now we have the families with children I supported 27 years ago telling me I have to stop enjoying one of life's simple joys to make them feel like their children are safer. Wouldn't you feel betrayed? You don't even want to share a corner of the beach. Your mind can only accept total control -- all or nothing, no compromise. Do you really want a brighter future for your children? Forget the beach booze ban. Get active fighting the people who are sucking up all your tax dollars for illegal pension benefits and public land giveaways and are firing the best teachers in the area because they're scamming all the money that's supposed to go to education. Some of the people you call "bums", by the way, are war veterans that have run into hard times. It may surprise you that they have been good Americans at one time or another. In fact, there are already some very interesting mixed reviews about the effect of the beach booze ban, which is basically to force the homeless from the beach and right up your alley, so to speak. Check out this story as an example of what I'm talking about: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2008/jun/30/bo… So don't try to flog me with the argument "won't someone think of the children." Your thinly-veiled contempt for the homeless population is really what's behind your argument. Learn how to be compassionate towards your fellow Americans that have fallen on hard times and teach your children to do the same.
— July 13, 2008 3:52 p.m.

Lepine Drops Harassment Suit, Receives No Payment. Will Campaign Now Focus on Goldsmith's Domestic Uproars?

Thanks for clarifying the question about Goldsmith being a "lightweight", Mr. Bauder. I have not taken a very hard look at his past performance or his qualifications yet. I respect your opinion as it is better informed. I will certainly take it in consideration as I look at his record for traits that would make an effective defender of the public trust, which is what the City Attorney is supposed to be. At this point, I feel that Aguirre has those traits. I also agree that a candidate that runs on behalf of the big money special interests is a political lightweight. Anyone can play their monkey. It takes real guts for a politician to embrace a position that will challenge those interests, and that's one thing Aguirre should be given credit for -- he's not afraid to stand in their way or at least be the pebble in their shoe. If you are indeed correct about Goldsmith being another human rubber stamp of the sort Casey Gwinn turned out to be, it would be in the public's best interest to stick with Aguirre for another term. This is not a trivial matter -- the City Attorney's office may be the one remaining check and balance in a "strong mayor" municipal hierarchy.
— July 12, 2008 5:52 p.m.

Lepine Drops Harassment Suit, Receives No Payment. Will Campaign Now Focus on Goldsmith's Domestic Uproars?

I don't think the domestic issues either candidate had so many years ago speaks to much of any weight. This kind of thing reminds me of the "I didn't inhale" absurdities of the Clinton years. As Dennis Miller once said, Bubba would have been better off saying "Yes, I did bong hits and drank the bong juice. What about it?" The absurd defensive strategy spoke more about character -- or the lack of it -- than the original peccadillo. I would be disappointed in both candidates if the debate came down to how they handled their relationships when they were much younger. The question is whether or not they have matured since then, and whether or not they are qualified to hold public office at this time. In an earlier post on a similar subject, Mr. Bauder referred to Jan Goldsmith as a "lightweight". I must admit that statement piqued my interest. Mr. Bauder, would you please elaborate? I'm sure it had to do with more than a bad day with the missus, and could be something that we should really be aware of as voters. I will commit myself first, as a matter of general courtesy, and admit that I Like Mike. What about it?
— July 12, 2008 3:41 p.m.

County Democrats Endorse Aguirre for City Attorney; Only One Vote Goes for Opponent

JustWondering, political incumbency does typically equate re-election, but Aguirre is hardly a typical incumbent. Incumbents are usually supported by moneyed special interests and the media. As Mr. Bauder correctly points out, Mr. Aguirre is actually fighting the fat cats in the business, labor and media sectors. What's amazing is that he gained office against all odds in the first place, a sign that the voters seek change in our dysfunctional municipal government, and that he's holding his own with a minimum of campaigning in his reelection effort. You say Aguirre's reports are "riddled with holes, unsupported facts and innuendo... ." Perhaps you could actually read the document linked to my comment and point some of those out to enlighten the rest of us. I'd be curious to read what you make of the case being made for the termination of illegal pension benefits that are draining the city's coffers -- which is to say, your money and mine. By the way, I didn't say Mr. Aguirre is the second-coming and savior of the City. I said he has been a true champion of the taxpayer's cause. If you're going to put words in my mouth, please try to be more precise and articulate.
— July 9, 2008 12:12 p.m.

County Democrats Endorse Aguirre for City Attorney; Only One Vote Goes for Opponent

In spite of his toxic personality traits, Aguirre has been a breath of fresh air for those like myself who believe San Diego's City Hall needs more than a watchdog -- they need a raging pit bull to keep their dirty little games in check. In spite of his myriad unforced political and diplomatic errors, Aguirre has been a true champion of the taxpayer's cause, especially when one compares him to his predecessor, human rubber stamp Casey Gwinn, whose laissez-faire approach may have even made him complicit in the likely criminal acts that led to the still-unresolved pension crisis. Speaking of which, last December Aguirre's office released a report on the pension crisis that estimates the future pension liability at almost 2.6 billion dollars. The San Diego mainstream media likes to stick to that nostalgic figure of 1.7 billion dollars. The hole the "likely criminals" dug for us is not only deep, it's the size of Qualcomm Stadium. Check out the report on the pension meltdown at this URL: http://www.artzenith.com/sdcers_dec07.pdf I'm curious to read what you make of this document, Mr. Bauder.
— July 9, 2008 10:48 a.m.