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
Jockstrap rant
don bauder, Personally, I don't think that the big question is why 300 pounders are common today but rare 50-60 yrs ago. Players have been getting bigger faster and stronger since the 60's. It's not confined to pro sports and it's not confined to men. In my day, there was 1 kid in my jr. high who was 6' tall. I still know him and he's still 6' tall. Now there are a lot of kids 6' and over in jr high and much bigger in HS. I find it hard to believe that ped's are a factor for all of them. And what about the women. Take a look a some of them playing in college today. And I don't mean the ones playing hoops. Look at the best volleyball players and softball pitchers, going back almost 20 yrs. Here's another personal experience. My wife was 5'11'' by the time she was 20. Not skinny and not too "big", I always felt she had the perfect figure for her height. Our daughter is 6' even. She was that tall when she graduated HS. When she was in high school, my wife and I used talk about how kids her age then looked more like the college kids did back in out day. My point is this. If you want to keep the jaded outlook that bigger, faster, stronger athletes are the result of good chemicals, feel free. As I said, exception, not the rule. Try this. Look up Jennie Finch, who is my daughter's favorite athlete. And then tell me someone like her, female or male got that way because of chemicals.— January 26, 2015 9:22 p.m.
Super Bowl lies
Yeah, ice hockey in the desert.Speaking as someone who was born and raised in Arizona, it pains me to say that an NHL team in Glendale is not even close to being the dumbest thing that's happened in Arizona.— January 26, 2015 3:40 p.m.
Jockstrap rant
OK, but I'm not sure what that has to do with big 300lb players. I would be more inclined to think that linebackers and receivers who are big, strong and fast would be more likely. Guys that weigh 240-250ish, who run 4.4 40's and have very little body fat, or long lean and ripped receivers who play like linebackers. To me, they seem far more likely than a bunch of far guys that happen to weigh in over 300lbs and mostly look like they have never walked away from a meal if there was any food left on the table. Sure, there are a few big guys that I wouldn't be surprised if it was was due to ped's, but I think they are the exception, not the rule. I have no doubts that ped's, in particular steroids, are in the NFL. I just don't think the bulk of the users, no pun intended, are the big guys.— January 26, 2015 12:36 p.m.
Jockstrap rant
don bauder I don't have an explanation. It's really not something that I have ever felt the need to ponder. But I will say this. Very few of those 300+ guys could be described as physical specimens. Yes, they are very strong from time in the weight room, but physical specimens? Not so much. Two examples. Jeff Saturday, O-line for Baltimore. Played at 6-2 and about 300 lbs. Retired and is now around 230: http://slimcelebrity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/… Vince Wilfork plays D-tackle for New England. Plays at 6-2 and 330+ and is one of the best: http://thepenaltyflagblog.com/wp-content/uploads/… Yeah, they are and always have been guys in every sport who use PEDs. But just because someone is a 300-pound player doesn't mean they do.— January 26, 2015 10:29 a.m.
Jockstrap rant
Quarterbacking skills aside, personally, I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of Tarkenton's mouth. IMO, he's a hypocrite, a fraud and a huckster. He got into the whole "self-help" hype back in the 80's and 90's. I can remember seeing him in some of those late night infomercials. I have this crazy, bizarre memory of seeing him and Susan Powter in back to back infomercials on TV. Talk about an image you wish you could get out of your head. Whew!! He also was a shill for Tony Robbins for a while. And around 1999 or 2000, he got busted by the SEC for fraud. It was a software firm in SJC that he owned and he and some other executives were busted for allegedly misleading investors with false financial statements that inflated the company's stock price, then selling their shares for a huge profit. I think he ended up paying a couple hundred K, without having to admit any wrongdoing. As I recall, the SEC was alerted by their former accounting firm. It was like the 3rd or 4th firm doing audits for the company that had quit within only a few months. Apparently, someone called the Feds and voila. Not all that long before the SEC problem, Tarkenton was sued for something like $20 million by a guy named Irwin Jacobs( no, not that one) for misleading investors about the financial condition of another computer software company he owned. I think that companies shareholders also filed a class action lawsuit. Last I read, he had his own company, Tarkenton Financial. Yeah, right. Like I would trust this guy with anything.— January 26, 2015 7:42 a.m.
Mayor Faulconer's folly
don bauder Forbes just released their latest NBA valuations this morning. Despite the fact that Ballmer paid $2billion, they listed the Clippers with a valuation in a mere$1.6 billion, saying "Ballmer would likely be hard-pressed to get $2 billion on the open market". The Lakers lead the way with a $2.6 billion valuation.— January 21, 2015 9:57 a.m.
Mayor Faulconer's folly
don bauder Aren't those to statements sort of contradictory? I mean, if the politicians, are under the thumb of team owners, and they tell the city lawyers to cave, then the ability of the city-employed lawyers would be rendered mute. I might be somewhat cynical in some ways, but I am no where near as jaded as you are. I don't think that all politicians are "under the thumb" of pro sports team owners, as you do. But on the other hand, if they wanted to they could indeed hire more competent legal council for those negotiations.— January 16, 2015 9:18 a.m.
Mayor Faulconer's folly
Let me clarify. Yes the clippers are worth $2 billion to Steve Ballmer, but apparently not anyone else. I guess it's a matter of semantics... and I'm always up for some antics. But seriously. Personally, I place different meanings on value and worth. Worth of the Clippers is $2billion, according to Ballmer. But are they valued at that? Did everything that makes up the Clippers, the sport, the market, the arena , the brand, almost 4 fold just because Ballmer paid $2 billion to call him self the owner? If that is the case, then What arre the Lakers worth? By that metric, it would be a valuation of nearly $5 billion. Let me give you a better example, a personal one. One of my most prized possessions is a vintage 1969 Rolex Submariner. That was Steve McQueen's go to watch. I have always been a HUGE Steve McQueen fan. They were sold only in the UK, but my wife managed to find one somehow, somewhere and gave it too me on my 40th birthday. I have seen Rolex Submariners of that vintage, late '50's thru late '70's, sell for as much as $45k. I don't know how much my wife paid for the one she gave me. It may be worth $45K to someone, but to me, it's value is incalculable. As I said, worth and value, to me two different things.— January 16, 2015 9:06 a.m.
Mayor Faulconer's folly
don bauder, If you read my post above, you would see that the next highest bid was reportedly $1.6 billion, by a group headed by David Geffin. This was not a traditional auction. Those interested were invited to make a bid, their best bid, and Shelley Sterling made her choice from those bids; there was no "compitetive bidding" in the traditional sense. You don't really follow these type of things so you're probably not aware of all of the circumstances. There was a deadline of June 3rd to sell. On that day, The NBA was to meet with the other owners who would vote on stripping control of the team from both of the Sterlings, and taking over control of the team and of the sale. At that point, the NBA would decide when, to whom and for how much the Clippers would be sold. Several interested parties were said to have met with Shelley Sterling and then made their bids, I have read that it was 5 or 6 bids that were submitted and she chose Ballmer's bid.— January 16, 2015 8:30 a.m.
Mayor Faulconer's folly
don bauder My recollection is that Arlington contributed about $350 million, the NFL another $150 million and Jones was responsible for the rest. You would have to ask those that negotiate these satadiums why they don't get more revenue from the teams. As for the naming rights, let me play devils advocate. The reason AT&T was built was as a home for the Cowboys. If not for them, there would be no stadium and thus no $17-$19 million per year in naming rights fees. In other words, AT&T is paying that much BECAUSE it's the Cowboys. NO Cowboys, no naming rights/advertising fees. Everything I have read and heard has been that the next highest bid was by David Geffen's group, who bid $1.6 Billion.— January 15, 2015 4:14 p.m.