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
Almost 40% of households can't afford San Diego
I ask, yet again... why can't the people who "can't afford to live here" move? Why is that completely unacceptable? Why do we so desperately need over a million welfare recipients here? Most places in the country have a lower cost of living and the same minimum wage. These folks would be better off there, wherever "there" is, but they have this idea that they have a natural human right to live at the beach, and if they can't afford it, someone else has to afford it for them. It's sickening.— March 9, 2014 11:13 a.m.
County unemployment rate jumps in January
Well, the problem with QE is the same as the problem with drinking or drugs... the first hit is great. The second, not so much. You're quickly chasing a high, and next thing you know you're going full throttle just trying to maintain. One blip, and you're done. QE was ALWAYS a bad idea. It might have been survivable if it was purely a one-time shot with a fixed end date. But once money starts flowing, there will ALWAYS be an excuse why the spigot cannot be turned off, at least today. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe someone else can get cut, but not me, not today. And so the money flows and flows and flows until we all drown in it.— March 9, 2014 11:10 a.m.
Handwriting on the wall for city’s anti-graffiti bid
Government doesn't do their job, and you blame the private sector?!?! How, exactly, does that work? Let's A) hold public employees accountable for doing their jobs satisfactorily; and B) fund essential services FIRST and leave the leftovers for the giveaway programs.— March 9, 2014 10:57 a.m.
Handwriting on the wall for city’s anti-graffiti bid
I was with you until the last sentence. It's silly to blame the private sector for this... their only involvement is if they have a contract to clean graffiti for the public entity. They either do so satisfactorily, or they do not. If they don't, the contract has been broken. If the public entity doesn't stop sending checks to the private contractor, then this is STILL 100% a government problem. You cannot give someone a job, tell them they have that job for life no matter what and that they will not be fired no matter what, and then expect to get the job done well, if at all. Public employees need to be held accountable for their performance or lack thereof. Government should not be a jobs program, it should be a way to deliver essential services as efficiently as possible.— March 9, 2014 10:55 a.m.
Handwriting on the wall for city’s anti-graffiti bid
How about this? Anyone who's convicted of putting up graffiti gets a sentence, not in jail, but of responsibility for cleaning up graffiti in a given area. The City provides cleaning materials, paint, etc. They're required to respond to all reports of graffiti within 24 hours and either clean it or repaint the vandalized object. They're required to do occasional patrols to proactively look for graffiti. Do that, and I bet that not only are they permanently cured, but they'll beg their buddies to not get out the spray paint any more. And a second offense equals five years in state prison, just to give an additional incentive to not act the fool again.— March 9, 2014 10:51 a.m.
Attorney General appeals handgun restriction ruling
No more than "freedom of the press" or "freedom of speech" refers to computers or printing presses.— March 4, 2014 3:40 p.m.
Winter homeless shelters to stay open until June 30
San Diego is an ENORMOUS magnet for homeless. Providing more "services" just makes the deal even sweeter for them. Thousands come from other places, offloading the costs those cities and counties and states should be paying onto us. It's just like every other "War On Things I Don't Like"… the more we spend, the bigger the problem gets. Pouring taxpayer m obey into a problem like this is NOT the answer. The solution is private charity, not entitlements. Want a place to sleep and something to eat? Fine… but it isn't a "right" that you demand. It's charity that others are CHOOSING to grant you in return for you helping yourself. Get up in the morning, help out, look for work, attend GED or job training programs, be back by curfew, no fighting, no drinking, no drugs. What would be so awful about that?— March 4, 2014 3:38 p.m.
Attorney General appeals handgun restriction ruling
Absolutely incorrect, Don. No Constitutional scholar agrees with you, other than those like Barack Obama who see the Constitution as an outdated document that should be malleable to their desires today. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - The first part supports the second. It clearly says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The militia was, and still is, all able-bodied males aged 17 to 45. And "well-regulated" refers to the leadership of the militia, not one burdened by laws. The Bill of Rights guarantees the rights of INDIVIDUALS. Not one word refers to any "collective" right. There was no such concept for the Founding fathers.— March 3, 2014 2:41 p.m.
Taxes, no death
But… but… greedy 1%er corporations don't pay their fair share! This is a lie, obviously all of that money is coming from the poor and the sick and the elderly!— February 20, 2014 8:08 a.m.
Grandmother “did not like” her son-in-law
Clearly, we need lower magazine capacity limits. If we allowed people to buy 15 round magazines, why, they'd be pumping more lead into people! Since 5 is obviously too high, how about 2… you can use a Derringer but nothing else?— February 20, 2014 8:07 a.m.