Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
We were offered up to $70,000 at 0% interest for buying in City Heights
Javajoe, I don't know if it was the tequila talking or if you really are so intolerant that you truly want anyone with opinions different from yours to leave the country. But clearly History has some vaild points - many of these programs have had a certain amount of graft. This doesn't help anyone except certain well-connected insiders and crooks. Sorry, I'm with history. I don't want my tax dollars going to programs that result in complex bureaucracies which resdistribute those dollars by a complex set of rules that ends up enriching a few well-connected crooks.— March 24, 2012 6:33 p.m.
We were offered up to $70,000 at 0% interest for buying in City Heights
The current recession is largely due to the bursting of the housing and mortgage bubble. Yet, amazingly, the key root causes of the mortgage and housing bubble 1) Lax regulations on Wall Street 2) Excessively low Fed interest rates 3) Numerous gov't programs pushing banks to make loans to less qualified borrowers than the banks originally wanted to - continue full steam ahead.— March 22, 2012 9:36 a.m.
The return of the Chargers scandals
I would agree that those in government - who are expected to represent the PUBLIC interest - may be worse than those in private industry who are expected to represent PRIVATE private interests.— March 5, 2012 11:44 a.m.
The return of the Chargers scandals
Moores is not a good man. Giving away millions of dollars after stealing hundreds of millions doesn't make someone a good person.— March 4, 2012 12:45 p.m.
The return of the Chargers scandals
Clearly Moores is a criminal - his most egregious (sp?) crimes were the securities fraud at Peregrine but the bribery was illegal too. This really isn't even debatable - you can easily google or wikipedia the Peregrine case and the only conceivable scenario in which Moores is innocent is that as CEO he was totally and completely unaware of anything that was happening at his company. We have a justice system which for many good reason often times allows an obviously guilty man to go free but that doesn't mean that an informed voter can't make a reasonable assessment that the man is a criminal when the voter is asked to make decisions about how money is to be spent.— March 4, 2012 11:17 a.m.
The return of the Chargers scandals
Great work as always on the topic Don. I'm curious about whether municipalities have considered filing anti-trust suits against major sports leagues. Maybe I'm naive but it seems pretty clear to me that a big issue is that the leagues are all monopolies in their particular sport - so they can all restrict the number of teams and always entice munipalities to outbid each other for biggest taxpayer subsidy. As far as I know only MLB has an exemption from antitrust law (but even that is a rather ancient exemption which could possibly be overturned).— March 2, 2012 9:14 a.m.
Fed H-1B Visa Probes May Help American Engineers
I think having a large number of H1-B workers is a shortsighted policy for the country. In the short run it benefits companies like QCOM who can hire better workers for less money. In the long run, many of the temporary workers will return to their native countries and bring their expertise with them. This is already helping to foster high-tech centers in many other countries - which will compete with the U.S. Also, the additional competition for employment obviously lowers the wages of U.S. engineers - which will serve to discourage young American students from becoming engineers. On the one hand, I think that allowing and encouraging high-tech workers who wish to immigrate here for permanent residence would be a good thing. But the H1-B program only seems to serve the short-term goals of companies like QCOM. In the long run it seems like these programs will tend to lessen or even America's technical superiority.— February 9, 2012 10:36 p.m.
Baseball Owners Wonder If Moorad Partners Have the Money
Actually I mean't to say marginally super-wealthy. Mere multi-millionaires need not apply. Better have a B next to the number of your net worth - or at least something approaching that.— January 22, 2012 8:15 p.m.
Baseball Owners Wonder If Moorad Partners Have the Money
I think for all intents and purposes Moorad admitted in the U-T http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/09/moorad… that this aquisition was highly leveraged and that at present they cannot afford to put a decent team on the field. “As revenues increase, profits will flow back into the club and ballpark improvements. We will operate at break-even every year. If we create more revenue, we will spend more. “There is nothing to hide here. It’s a solid corporate business model. The plan is so simple it confuses people.” So Moorad is basically saying that he can't afford to have a decent payroll right now but that after several years of revenue and the value of his investment increases then maybe the Padres will have some chance of having a good team. Sorry, but MLB ownership should not be for the marginally wealthy seeking to increase their wealth with leveraged investments. Look at what happened to the Dodgers. I don't think Moorad can afford the Padres and MLB is right to turn down this deal.— January 22, 2012 8:11 p.m.
Redevelopment promoters weep over supreme court decision
"What is fair?" I think that question has gone missing in recent years from political dialogue and debate. It used to be that much political debate was about how much money should be taken from the middle class and the rich to help the poor. Is it fair to take money from hard-working and productive people in order to help less productive people? On the other hand, is it fair for some people in a wealthy society to be so poor? What level of income inequality in society is fair and healthy for the economny and society? And what level of income inequality requires government intervention? I think now, with many projects, especially with redevelopment, these pesky and difficult questions get bypassed with the notion of: "It's a win-win" The political leaders don't have to bother discussing whether it's fair to take money from the middle class to subsidize wealthy developers and sports team owners because the it's a win-win - or technically a win-win-win. The lower class wins because of affordable housing, the middle class wins becuase of economic stimultions, and the upper class wins because of additional investment in their developments and business ventures. Problem is the "win-win-win" story is intellectually dishonest. It relies on overly optimistic studies and analyses to somehow conclude that you can take money from A and B to give to C, but that somehow A and B will benefit as well. I think we need to get back to asking the tough questions about "what is fair?: how much money should be taken from the rich and middle class to help the lower classes. And let's stop asking the absurd question about how much money should be taken from the middle and lower class to give to the rich.— January 21, 2012 1:04 p.m.