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
No water problem — it's a no-water problem
All true, but don't count on any timely reforms--hope springs (pun intended) eternally, if water doesn't. And, the recharge rate is largely irrelevant for deep water. You can drill deeper than there is water already. (pun intended--with so much irony, they can't be avoided. Oy vay!)— June 10, 2015 12:41 a.m.
Sorry, the retaining wall won't be pretty
Don't worry, it was put t'gether by all the king's horses and all the king's men.— June 10, 2015 12:31 a.m.
Kevin Faulconer’s stealthy web war
I tol' ya we'd get Falconed.— June 9, 2015 6:52 p.m.
Residents pooh-pooh Surfrider erosion theory
"Coastal protection" by seawall is a losing proposition in many ways. When the City of San Diego decided to "protect" Sunset Cliffs from erosion in the seventies, I suggested that the properties be condemned and the homeowners compensated for the fair market value of their property. Now, thirty-odd years later, the relative cost to taxpayers and the benefits to the property owners could be re-evaluated to determine which alternative ended up being best. Either way, the taxpayers paid to preserve the property values of private parties who were unwise enough to buy property that was subject to erosion. Is it the taxpayer's responsibility to prop up the shaky business deals of the wealthy? I guess it is--we've already had countless taxpayer dollars expended, directly and indirectly, for private stadiums, and are presently about to be shafted again.— June 9, 2015 6:45 p.m.
UCSD's questioned body business
What's this all about?— June 7, 2015 6:48 p.m.
San Diego long-timers will bear water conservation burden
Them Colorado elgs are some baaaad "dudes," man!— June 7, 2015 6:41 p.m.
San Diego long-timers will bear water conservation burden
RE: " ImJustABill May 30, 2015 @ 8:08 a.m. "The word "drought" is indeed used by scientists but there is no standard definition. So to me that's an unscientific term. It's like saying something is "big" or "small" or "heavy" without any context." IJAB is right that drought is a squishy term--for a squishy subject. That maybe why it is confounding "public" understanding of the actual reality--that drought is about weather, not about water supply. A good scientist would define the term when she uses it, just like any other collective term should be. It might be "below average precipitation," which is itself squishy, or "precipitation diminished to the point that organisms dependent upon a greater amount to recover, survive, thrive, and reproduce are prevented from doing so," or any other definition that fits the context with which she is dealing. Media manipulators have given drought a bad name by confounding it with water shortage, and as such failed to convey understanding rather than to compound ignorance. "Water shortage" is the term that should be used in almost all cases where "drought" has been used, in effect, to blame the water shortage on God or Nature, simply because "we" have failed to be provident with our use of resources and base our planning on actual needs rather than whims, desires, fantasies, and wanton waste--of ANY resource (everything is connected to everything else, and everything affects everything else. Integration or dis-integration, those are our choices. That goes for our intellects as well. "Right here in River City, you say? Certainly, right here in River City." (Apologies to Edna St. Vincent Millay)— June 7, 2015 4:40 p.m.
San Diego long-timers will bear water conservation burden
I suspect that what's behind Cox's fondest hopes is that when it comes to salmon or lawns, the voters will vote for lawns.— June 7, 2015 4:06 p.m.
San Diego long-timers will bear water conservation burden
[next post] I'm all for scholars and academics communicating in plain language, but they should not condescend by presuming that non-academic reader aren't interested in references. In fact, I'd like to see "popular" writing, especially reporting, take up the practice. Yes, this is critical for issues like "the drought" and water-supply/consumption/need/demand/waste. But notice one thing about most posts to your blog: When flat, plain statements are made, they are almost never challenged directly. Oh, what a great day it would be if some of the liars would come out from under their rocks and offer a direct and plain refutation to such statements. I'm not holding my breath, because, as you may have noticed, when it gets too hot in the kitschen that the opinionators clam up instead of stand up. One would think it would be pretty easy to point-by-point refute flat statements, no?— June 7, 2015 12:15 a.m.
San Diego long-timers will bear water conservation burden
RE: " Don Bauder June 2, 2015 @ 7:15 a.m. "Twister: Stiglitz is a great economist -- one who won a Nobel Prize. A candidate for president, Bernie Sanders, listens to Stiglitz, obviously. "It is probably true that the better your knowledge, the more vigorously you're ignored. Part of that is the fault of scientists and other scholars. They communicate in their own argot, thus shutting out Joe Six Pack. A story recently in the NY Times told how some scholars are trying to communicate in plain language. This is critical for such issues as drought. Best, Don Bauder" Academic snobbery is a terrible, corrosive disease, and some (most) academics are among the ace back-stabbers of all time (wanna see my scars?). There have been a notable few who have resisted. Noam Chomsky once told me that he had "suffered under the guild" phenomenon all his life. "Professional" jealousy is vindictively vindictive, and everyone, academic or not, who tries to expose this tangled web of deceit and treachery will be attacked and slandered and whispered to death by a thousand cuts all her or his life. After death, they are slandered. Margaret Mead, for example. I had one big-time academic tell me once after we had had a few drinks that he lived in fear of being exposed. In his case, however, he was not, to my knowledge, one of the phonies; he just had a deep-seated inferiority complex largely based on his standards being so high. More irony. I'm not at all sure of this, but the true sciences seem to be less back-stabbing than the "soft" sciences. Physics and even Geology are no where nearly as bad as some of the biological sciences, for example. "Bio-numerology," sniffed one old-timer years ago when, to "prove" that their field was a "true" science, papers in some the biological sciences began being padded with Greek letters and pseudo-academic buzz-words to make them as incomprehensible as possible. This was actually pretty crafty--such papers were so convoluted and thick that no reviewer would take the time to pick apart all the tangled yarn and call bullshit bullshit. Not "politically correct," and the discredit would devolve to the discrediter. In the old day, the old masters would chop these fakers off at the ankles. Little (and big) fiefdoms have formed in some of the highest places, and young academics soon get the drift that the way to get ahead is to keep your mouth shut until you get on top, then, when you gain emeritus status you can finally tell it like it is. A great geneticist (who must go unnamed) once told me: "Now that I am retired I don't have to kiss anybody's ass anymore." I never had to kiss his either. [see next post]— June 7, 2015 12:14 a.m.