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
Chargers or Comic-Con? SD can't get both (and needs neither)
I suppose "Building convention centers is a legitimate function of government." is true. But I don't think building conventions center is a NEED of government and shouldn't be a high priority. The burden of proof of con ctr proponents should be to prove that money spent on con ctr will quickly show an overwhelming ROI to taxpayers.— March 21, 2016 10:05 a.m.
Chargers or Comic-Con? SD can't get both (and needs neither)
bbq and Don, You guys are sharp and can see through the scam of claiming that SD taxpayers shouldn't care about TOT taxes. Really, the questions about what the right level for TOT tax rate is and what tax money should be spent on are mostly separate questions. Certainly the question about about how much public money should be spent on an NFL football stadium (zero in my opinion) should be separated from the question about the TOT tax level. "Bundling" is often used by sellers to obfuscate costs and benefits (buying a car, cable TV / internet, etc). Once a lot of costs and benefits are bundled together it's more difficult for a customer to weigh the deal properly. This proposal has bundled in TOT tax increases, a new stadium, convention center, and goodness knows what else. I think John Moores probably ends up with some sweet development deal out of this too. The Briggs / Frye proposal is so complicated I can't possibly figure out exactly how much every party wins and loses but I'm pretty sure the NFL, Chargers, and JMI would end up winning and taxpayers would end up losing.— March 21, 2016 10:01 a.m.
Chargers or Comic-Con? SD can't get both (and needs neither)
The key part of the marketing for the TOT tax will be the idea that out-of-town tourists are paying all the taxes, not San Diego residents. So why should San Diego taxpayers be opposed to this? (Have fun with that one)— March 20, 2016 4:39 p.m.
Scripps Institute says Illumina infringes on patent
I think Scripps receives a great deal of taxpayer funding and they have a responsibility to the taxpayers to limit the amount of tax dollars spent. If they can save the taxpayers some money by charging some licensing fees I think they should do it.— March 20, 2016 4:31 p.m.
Will the NFL be as powerful in three decades?
I shall have to try that sometime. I have to admit that I may be a bit of a philistine when it comes to poetry. The last great works of poetry I read were by Geisel, "I will not eat them with a box, or in a fox. I do not like them, Sam I am"— March 12, 2016 6:52 a.m.
Will the NFL be as powerful in three decades?
That one is easy. You are a poet, but didn't know it.— March 11, 2016 7:33 p.m.
Will the NFL be as powerful in three decades?
You are a pro at prose Don!— March 10, 2016 9:28 p.m.
Will the NFL be as powerful in three decades?
There is clearly a great deal of hypocrisy regarding college athletics. In theory, college football players are students first whose first priority is to attain an education. In reality, they are basically unpaid interns for college athletic departments working long hours and risking serious injury. Nobody cares whether or not they are receiving an education, with the possible exceptions of the athlete-students themselves and of their parents. I think baseball is the only major sport that has a somewhat fair system for young aspiring professional players. Talented young baseball players who don't have any interest in college can start out in the minor leagues and receive a salary and benefits package while they are trying to see if they are good enough to make it to the major league level. I think the fair thing for the NFL and NBA to do would be to set up minor league systems the way that MLB does. Of course, that will never happen.— March 10, 2016 1:37 p.m.
Will the NFL be as powerful in three decades?
The Ivy League is banning full contact practices based on data which show that a majority of concussions at the college level occur during practice, not games. Roughly speaking, eliminating full-contact practice should eliminate 2/3 of the concussions. Dartmouth has had this policy for several years and their defensive stats have been strong (indicating that it's not necessary to tackle real humans in practice to teach good tackling skills). http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/3/2/Ivy-fo…— March 10, 2016 8:07 a.m.
Romney rips Trump in speech
Trump is an egotistical, bombastic, offensive jerk. But that has nothing to do with why Mitt and the GOP establishment is slamming Trump. Wealthy GOP leaders want continued unchecked illegal immigration and free trade agreements regardless of the impact those policies have on American middle class jobs. And the GOP leaders want someone they can control with campaign donations. Trump is the only major candidate (with the exception of Cruz) who is opposed to illegal immigration and the only major GOP candidate (Bernie Sanders notwithstanding) who is opposed to our free trade agreements. That's what Mitt's speech was really about.— March 4, 2016 7:33 a.m.