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
Unemployment rate down, so are jobs
In general I like to keep government small - but I would admit adding government jobs can be a good or a bad thing depending on what the workers are doing. If it's merely an increase in bureaucracy or needless agencies to shuffle money around. then it's very wasteful. If the workers are doing something which directly helps the public (e.g. police, fire, education, infrastructure) then added government CAN (not always) pay off in the long run) But I hope they're not adding government jobs just for the sake of adding jobs - the government should always strive to be as efficient as possible which means getting the most done with the least number of employees.— October 18, 2014 7:59 a.m.
Cheap grub not so easily come by
I think the methodology they use would tend to favor tourist traps. They factor in a lot of "per capita" metrics (restaurants per capita, etc) so tourist places are going to tend to score high even if they don't have a great actual diversity or quality of food.— October 16, 2014 7:30 p.m.
Corruption charges be damned
Given what happened in San Bruno and during the San Diego fires, I would say the word "murder" might not even be hyperbole.— October 12, 2014 9:49 p.m.
Corruption charges be damned
Yes, if greenhouse gas emission continues on it's present course we are almost certainly going to have significant changes in worldwide climates which will have drastic effects on many agricultural patterns, trade routes, catastrophic weather events, etc. Those are real problems which should be addressed. I'm just suspicious that those issues are why Peevey wanted $1M donations to a campaign fund. I suspect that caring about power, influence, and money had more to do with Peevey's motivations than caring about the future climate.— October 12, 2014 11:59 a.m.
Corruption charges be damned
From what I've read AB32 would favor "green ventures" and hurt established manufacturing. Now in itself this isn't such a bad thing - certainly "green" solutions for climate change will be needed in the long run. But I have a feeling the only "green" Peevey and his cronies really care about is the green money the can stuff in their pockets. So I would guess somehow Peevey would stand to benefit from green venture investments. (From http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Business-l… ) Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, said AB32 favors venture-backed green startups over existing industries. "You are really setting up winners and losers on this," Stewart said, adding: "There is this widespread speculation that AB32 is going to drive all these new green jobs, but in my opinion it is not worth the risk you have of destroying the good-paying manufacturing jobs we still have."— October 12, 2014 8:20 a.m.
Corruption charges be damned
As they say, "follow the money". So I wonder where the money ultimately leads to. If I understand it right Peevey wanted PG&E to donate $1M (later $500k) to oppose prop 23 which would have overturned AB 32 (global warming solutions act). http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/CPUC-head-M… Now it's possible in theory that Peevey was purely motivated by an altruistic desire to find solutions for global warming. However, I would say when $1M is on the line there is probably a less altruistic explanation. Peevey, or someone behind Peevey, really stood to lose a lot of money if AB32 was overturned. Am I right? What was Peevey's motivation to keep AB32 intact? Was it out of honest concern for global warming (which is a valid concern) or something else? Somehow I doubt his intentions were noble.— October 11, 2014 3:34 p.m.
Corruption charges be damned
So shouldn't all major decisions be put on hold until after Peevey is gone? Can anybody enforce that? Judges or the Governor?— October 11, 2014 3:31 p.m.
Corruption charges be damned
I don't think Peevey should get until December. Peevey should be fired for cause effective IMMEDIATELY. That's what would happen to any rank-and-file employee who got caught red-handed doing something grossly unethical.— October 11, 2014 7:21 a.m.
Could Brown reappoint unpopular Peevey?
Have you seen the Netflix series "House of Cards"? (In which Kevin Spacey plays a politician who will literally do anything to get ahead) I'm sure the show is an exaggerated view of reality - I doubt if any one person in real life is as bad as Kevin Spacey's character - but I wonder how much of an exaggeration.— October 10, 2014 10:56 p.m.
Could Brown reappoint unpopular Peevey?
As they say, "follow the money". So I wonder where the money ultimately leads to. If I understand it right Peevey wanted PG&E to donate $1M (later $500k) to oppose prop 23 which would have overturned AB 32 (global warming solutions act). http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/CPUC-head-M… Now it's possible in theory that Peevey was purely motivated by an altruistic desire to find solutions for global warming. However, I would say when $1M is on the line there is probably a less altruistic explanation. Peevey, or someone behind Peevey, really stood to lose a lot of money if AB32 was overturned. Am I right? What was Peevey's motivation to keep AB32 intact?— October 10, 2014 8:32 p.m.