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
Hysteria won't build a stadium
don bauder, I don't know the NFL would or even could stop a team from having thousands of people as owners. As long as they met the same requirements as anyone else who wants to own a team, one could, in theory have as many shareholders as they want. That is, of course, as long as they are led by a single individual who owns at least 30 percent of the team. So if someone in San Diego wanted to pony up about $600 million or so, based on what people there seem to think the Chargers would be worth in Los Angeles, then in theory, the remaining ownership could me made up any number of individual shareholders. BTW, I highly doubt that anyone in San Diego would want to own part of the Chargers in a Green Bay scenario anyway. The Packers are a nonprofit organization. Shareholders get nothing in return for buying stock. That means no dividends, no share price appreciation, no return if the team is sold, no securities law protection, no charitable tax deduction, no merchandise discounts, no option to transfer ownership to anyone but a family member as a gift AND... no tickets.— July 14, 2015 9:56 a.m.
Hysteria won't build a stadium
don bauder I don't know that I would exactly call what was done to Soldier Field a "rehabilitation." It cost $632 million in 2003 renovation, which is about $810 million in 2015 dollars, not to mention that so much of the stadium was torn down and rebuilt that it was stripped of its National Historic Landmark status.— July 10, 2015 4:36 p.m.
Young, black, and...hassled?
visduh Not to take sides here, because I'm not, but look around at what's going on all across the country. Law Enforcement leadership, if you want to call it that, is dismal seemingly everywhere. Off the top of your head, can you name even a handful of large cities where the leadership in law enforcement is talked about in a positive way? I can't. Maybe it's not so much a case of settling, but rather maybe there just aren't any good ones out there any more.— July 7, 2015 9:57 a.m.
Young, black, and...hassled?
read the story again. If it indeed was a consensual encounter, that is the law you've never heard of. It is a well recognized rule in California that an officer can stop a motorist or pedestrian for questioning under circumstances that fall short of probable cause for an arrest. Abundant case law supports the generally accepted criterion for determining the validity of a temporary stopping for investigation is whether the circumstances would have indicated to a reasonable man in like position that an investigation was necessary to a proper discharge of the officer's duties. Law enforcement can ask questions without an objective justification, but in a consensual encounter you can leave, refuse to answer questions or decline to act in the manner requested by the authorities. To stop you would be a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. If, on the other hand, they have articulable suspicion that you have committed or are about to commit a crime, they can detain you, but only for a limited time and for limited purposes. Of course, they can also arrest you, but only if they have probable cause to arrest the you for a crime. This was all ruled on by the courts a long time ago.— July 6, 2015 9:48 p.m.
Pro golfer problems
don bauder, You should drop Mickelson a line and ask him to tell you about the time he lost 200K to 3 amateurs while playing a round at Augusta. After the round, he tried to welch aon the bet saying he was just kidding and would never play for that much. Next thing you know, he got called into the principal's office, so to speak. The foursome ended up in Billy Payne's office(chairman of Augusta National). Basically Payne told Mickelson to pay up every penny or he would never play at Augusta again. Michelson tried to call Payne's bluff and was told take it or leave it. Apparently he must have decided that it would probably not be a good idea to have to explain the the PGA commissioner why he was no longer welcome at Augusta, so he arranged a wire transfer to cover the bet.— July 1, 2015 5:42 p.m.
Pro golfer problems
don bauder There is a huge difference between gambling on which of 2 players will do better and throwing a golf tournament.— June 30, 2015 6:43 p.m.
Pro golfer problems
Does that include golf courses irrigated using reclaimed waste water, the same water that most don't want to be purified into potable water, that most don't realize is already being done in San Diego?— June 30, 2015 11:14 a.m.
Pro golfer problems
don bauder Here's the problem with your supposition. In order to get that one golfer to throw the game to lose, they must first be in a position to win. The U.S. Women's Open begins next Thursday. At this point, can you tell me whom it might be that will be in that position to influence the outcome? Of course you can't. The tournament takes place across 4 days. In the vast majority of tournaments, the outcome is in doubt until the back nine on the final round and many times until the last 3 or 4 holes, if even then. How would you predict before the start of the tournament, let alone before the start of the final round, whom to bribe. Not to mention how you would do so during the final round. And it wouldn't have anything to do with a putt. Any errant shot on any hole would produce the desired result. Could you influence a specific player not to play well in a tournament, shorting the player as it were to play poorly enough so as not to be in contention? Of course. But bribing a player to miss a crucial put or hit a bad shot at a crucial point in the round would be nearly impossible because as I said, they have to be in the right position in the first place and there is no way to predict that when there are over 100 other players each playing as individuals. Team sports are much easier, because a single player can influence the outcome. A pitcher can groove a fastball, bounce a curve with the bases loaded, walk too may batters. A basketball player can shave points with no problem. A QB can easily have a "bad game" by missing receivers, throwing int's, taking a sack. A receiver can drop passes, an Rb can fumble, a kicker can miss. It's inherently easier in team sports because that 1 player can influence the outcome for the whole team. It happens every week, even when there is no corruption involved. In golf, it's individuals playing for themselves. That one player can only control how he/she plays and can only influence the outcome of an entire tournament if and only if they are in the right place at the right time, which is of course totally unpredictable. Here's your example. At this past weeks LPGA tournament, the leader was 1 up with 2 to play and the second place player had three to play. How would you ever predict those 2 players would be in that position at that time. Then the 2nd place player eagles 16 and birdies 17 while the leader pars 17. The second place player goes from 1 back to one up in the space of 2 holes. How would you predict that. No golf is not one of the easiest games to throw. While you could influence an individual player to perform badly, it would be extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible, to influence a particular outcome.— June 30, 2015 10:04 a.m.
Reverse "rape of the ratepayer"
don bauder, Well, of course that is all true. However, as I believe I made clear in my comment, I was not limiting much condemnation of the PUC to Peevey's time as it's President. The point is that this corrupt activity has been going on within the PUC, with the state being complicit, if not out right colluding with them, to allow not just the electric utilities, but ALL of them, to both figuratively and literally get away with murder. The pragmatic view remains that based on past history of these "indiscretions" within the PUC and by it's sitting commissioners, it's difficult to believe that any of them will suffer anything of consequence, legal or otherwise, for their actions, the efficacy of Aguirre's efforts not withstanding. Just my opinion. Opinions vary.— June 30, 2015 9:28 a.m.
Reverse "rape of the ratepayer"
don bauder Well, yes you could say that. But that is not what was being commented on.— June 30, 2015 9:08 a.m.