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
For Obama Sunrise a “poster child” for renewable-energy strategy
One last thought: I believe it was Albert Einstein who once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. It seems to me that sometimes, if not most of the time, he was describing the mindset of many of the people living in California.— May 29, 2009 5:29 p.m.
For Obama Sunrise a “poster child” for renewable-energy strategy
response to # 12: again you say "reality is that all of our politicians have failed us completely ". And again I say it's not the politicians who have failed us as much as we have failed ourselves because we are the ones who put them there. Let me ask you this; did you vote in the most recent election? I did and if you did that puts us in the vast minority. Voter turnout was about 22% statewide, meaning only about 3.5 million of those registered and only about 14% of those who could be eligable voted. Put in other terms, less than 10% of the population is deciding the fate of the other 90+ percent. That is absolutely ridiculous but unfortunately normal in this state. Further consider this thought: Voters typically seem to re-elect the politicians who are in office, even while expressing disgust with elected officials. Jerry Sanders is a perfect example. It probably comes down to the simple fact that most people don't have the time or inclination to study up on all the issues, so they go with the person whose name you recognizeor hear the most. But at the same time they also don't trust career politicians. So to protect themselves from re-electing the same people over and over again, in 1990 voters passed prop 140, limiting Assembly members to six years in office and Senators and Governnor to eight years in office; after which time they are banned from that chamber for life. For sure term limits lead to to plenty of turnover at the Capitol, but that means you get rid of the good along with the bad and that leads to another problem: the lack of continuity and dwindling institutional memory among lawmakers. What ends up happening is that lobbyists and staff members—who remember why decisions got made and the deals that were struck in the first place—gain ever increasing increasing power while the few talented lawmakers are put out to pasture to make room for a new crop of amateurs who have little, if any understanding of the system. BTW more than twice as many people voted on that election almost 19 years ago as voted in the recent election. As I said earlier, whether it's apathy or lack of knowledge of the issue, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the people, especially,those who don't vote. And to lay blame otherwise is simply folly.— May 29, 2009 5:21 p.m.
For Obama Sunrise a “poster child” for renewable-energy strategy
Pt. 2 Face the facts. In Ca, no one wants one in their back yard and geologically speaking there are limited the areas where they could even be built. Absolutely no one wants to pay for it and with state of the economy, absolutely no one is going to lend for one anyway. And whether it's apathy, lack of knowledge or people just opposing it, you still can't get around the law without the votes to change the law. You can say the root cause is the politicians we elect at federal, state and local levels or that military-industrial complex still controls the campaign funding for incompetent politicians, but the fact of the matter is before it even gets to the politicians for them to deceide where it goes and who pays for it, no one can even get 500,000 voters to sign petitions. California has close to 25 million eligible voters, but only about 60% of those even bother to register and no one can get even 3 1/2 pecent of those to sign a petition. I'm not naive enough to think politics aren't involved at some level, but if people in this state wanted it enough there would be a grass roots movement to get people to sign up and money would be raised. Whether you agree with it or not aside, prop 8 was a perfect example. Both sides got people to sign up and they raised close to 100 million in funding between them. Nuclear energy apparently is just not that big of an issue to most people and you can't lay blame for that on the politicians or military industrial complex; it fall squarely on the shoulders of the citizens of California.— May 29, 2009 9:55 a.m.
For Obama Sunrise a “poster child” for renewable-energy strategy
#9 Don't mistake my "responses" for my opinions. At this point I am neither an opponent of nor a proponent for nuclear power. About 2 yrs ago my girlfriend and I moved out of Southern California. We live north of Santa Barbara on an absolutely beatiful piece of land I bought quite awhile ago. Last summer we completed intallation of pv panels and 2 wind turbines( we have the same kind Leno has on his garage). Except for the "neccesities" of phone and data lines, we have the ablility to be self sustaining; we are " off the grid" as the pop culture phrase goes. We did it for 2 simple reasons. For the 2nd half of our lives we don't need the trappings and the "hustle and " bustle of living a metropolitan life. and most importantly, i guess, we can afford to do it. However, for more than 25 yrs before we moved, I lived within a few minutes of San O. I went to the beach there, I surfed there, I benefited from it's existance, with no problems. But when you talk about the future that is one issue I have with nuclear: where does the waste go? We are leaving that problem for the generations that follow, which is exactly what you say you don't want to do. Put simply, my feeling is that fossil fuel burning power plants are an environmental issue but so is not having a way of disposing of spent fuel from nuclear powered generating stations. It does no good to trade one for the other, the end result is the same. I don't think my response "represents the dominant conventional wisdom ". I have friends of both pro nuclear and anti nuclear persuasion. Those are the questions they ask on both sides. Where are they going to be built, who's going to pay for it and how is they waste going to be disposed of.— May 29, 2009 9:55 a.m.
For Obama Sunrise a “poster child” for renewable-energy strategy
#7, you'll have to forgive my ignorance in the area of nuclear physics, but when you say convert San Onofre, do you mean from fission to fusion?? Please correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't fusion power generation still just in the experimental phase? Isn't the use of controlled fusion as a power source years if not decades away??? As for South Bay and Encina,that's not very realistic. You just don't "convert" a conventional plant to a nuclear powered plant. And you still can't get past the issue of where is the money going to come from. Then there's the legal issue. In order to event get a measure to repeal the law on the ballot, you need 500,000 VALID signatures. A group tried in 2007 and ended up withdrawing their measure because they drew very little financial support and collected less than 10% of the needed signatures. Put another way, as of a year and a half ago. apparently no one in Ca wants it.— May 28, 2009 8:35 p.m.
For Obama Sunrise a “poster child” for renewable-energy strategy
#1, A California law passed in 1976 prohibits the construction of any new nuclear power plants in California until the Energy Commission finds that the federal government has approved and there exists a demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel from these facilities. How do you propose getting around it??? Secondly, at this point in time, where do propose to get the money to build these plants??? And finally, exactly where along the California coast would you have them built???— May 27, 2009 1:54 p.m.