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
Padres Have Zero Chance to Make Playoffs?
refriedgringo, The studies I cited were specifically covering 2006-2008. Your 2009 numbers for the Padres probably were from the beginning of the year. The Padres dumped salaries during the year, which may be why the 2009 number I cited was lower than yours. In particular, they traded Jake Peavy, who was a full 1/4 of their payroll ($11 million).— March 15, 2010 10:41 a.m.
Padres Have Zero Chance to Make Playoffs?
SP said: "I would bet my last dollar there is a very strong correlation with payroll and win/loss." Here is probably much more than you ever wanted to know about that, specifically for the 2006-2008 seasons. For those years the Padres payroll was at least up to $70 million. The article notes that: "Colorado, San Diego, Florida, and Tampa Bay share the award for 'doing the best while pinching pennies.'" http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/03/2006… The most amazing thing to me, is that the team they fielded last year had a lower payroll (about $38 million) than their Qualcomm team TWELVE YEARS AGO ($45,368,000). Moores rented that 1998 team for his stadium push. The team this year is also projected to have a lower payroll (about $42 million) than the Qualcomm team from twelve years ago. Remember, the stadium that was going to give the Padres the additional revenue to increase payroll???— March 14, 2010 10:15 p.m.
"Healthy" Expansion? For Whom?
Response to #95: "How in the world could Republicans get rid of the religious fundamentalists? They have become the party base." I could ask you the very same question about how the party of Jim Crow laws and codified segregation could possibly elect the first black president ahead of the party of Lincoln. I'm not arguing that the Republican party WILL evolve, only that the party is currently so weak that the possibility for change exists. The religious fundamentalist base isn't going to go anywhere else, so it is pointless to pander to them.— February 28, 2010 12:47 a.m.
"Healthy" Expansion? For Whom?
Don, it is easy for libertarians to be consistent, because they are irrelevant. I personally believe in many of the planks of the LP platform, but it doesn't matter because no change is possible from the LP. The two parties have worked hard to legislate and marginalize third parties out of any relevance. The LP will also never get any significant special interest support, because the LP doesn't believe in subsidizing special interests. That is sort of a built-in deal breaker. The LP platform is more coherent and makes a lot more sense than either the Republican or Democrat platforms, because they could write it based on ideology, logic and common sense rather than as a means to placate disparate groups into supporting your party. That also means very few people care. The way the system is currently skewed, change will have to come internally from within one of the two parties. I'm actually most hopeful for the Republican party right now, because it has been so poorly run and is so out of touch that it is the one most susceptible to a sea change. If they could turn back and embrace their historic claim of fiscal conservatism (which was probably never really true) and divest themselves of the moral majority crap (that helps drive policies like the misguided war on drugs) then they could gain back some traction. Of course if they did that, then they would really be libertarians and the PAC money would flee!— February 25, 2010 8:47 a.m.
"Healthy" Expansion? For Whom?
refried gringo said: "Either you're a hard-assed Libertarian, or you're not. Republicans that pretend to be Libertarians will still vote Republican. You can't defend that." Republicans are the party of Lincoln and Democrats are the party of Jim Crow laws, the point being that political parties change over time. A republican (or a democrat) that brings libertarian positions into the core of their party is infinitely more valuable than a marginalized Libertarian Party tilting at windmills. Paul was never going to win, but he succeeded in gaining enough support that republican candidates began to co-opt some of his positions. That is not a bad thing. Just yesterday Paul said that a republican victory in 2010 won't lead to change, that "The best hope for real change is an ideological grassroots revolution that will transform public opinion and eventually influence Congress and the President to follow the Constitution, stop the wars, end the Fed, cut spending, and allow the free market to regulate the economy." Not exactly the current Republican party line.— February 25, 2010 12:39 a.m.
"Healthy" Expansion? For Whom?
Response to #52: Don, I can't speak for SP, but that is exactly what I did last time out. I would have voted for RP if he made it. He made far more sense than anybody else I heard. He did make some gaffs, but I attributed that more to the fact he was actually expressing real opinions on important issues whereas everybody else was actively trying to say as little as possible to avoid mistakes.— February 23, 2010 7:09 p.m.
"Healthy" Expansion? For Whom?
Cuddlefish said: "Whoever runs your HOA has more experience governing than Palin?" and then "it is clear to me that you haven't bothered to read my posts" I have indeed read your posts in this thread, but you obviously didn't read mine, because I clearly said that my HOA president only has 1/3 the experience Palin gained running Wasilla. not that he gained more experience. You are quite accomplished at rash generalizations, however, having already figured out that I can't be bothered to read your posts, that I can't Google, that I didn't pay attention during the last election and that I am a Hillary hater. Kudos to you for figuring that out so quickly. It saves you a lot of time from having to defend Palin's qualifications (or lack thereof), and complete embarrassment during the campaign. You are the one that listed her being mayor of a town the size of Del Mar as a qualification for president. You are the one who called Alaska a rich state when it ranks 45th in GDP, well behind Delaware, and a big state when its entire population would place it behind 15 California counties. You voluntarily listed that as the reason she was qualified. You could have picked anything, but you picked that. What generalization should I take from the fact you fully support two white women with diametrically opposed political views, while you completely trash a black man with views very similar to one of the women?— February 23, 2010 6:57 p.m.
"Healthy" Expansion? For Whom?
Cuddlefish said: "Another Hillary hater. How trite." If being opposed to 28 straight years of two family rule makes me trite, then so be it. That was my reason. I still haven't heard you articulate a reason why Palin should be a candidate for national office, only an unconvincing defense of why she shouldn't be disqualified. There are literally thousands of people who have run governments larger than Wasilla and hundreds who have run governments larger than Alaska. Give me something to work with here. Why is she deserving of the top of the ticket???— February 23, 2010 4:12 p.m.
"Healthy" Expansion? For Whom?
Cuddlefish said: "Delaware is obviously not a comparative example, as you clearly know". I confess that I have to agree with you. Alaska has a lower population and a lower GDP so is clearly not in the same league as mighty Delaware. In California there are 15 COUNTIES with a higher population than the state of Alaska. Cuddlefish said: "Palin governed a town, and a state. She apparently did a good job in both offices and had high approval ratings." My HOA has about 1,800 residents vs about 5,469 for Wasilla. That means our HOA president is only doing 1/3 the job that Palin did so I have no pretense that he should be VP of the United States. Under your criteria he would probably be entitled to a mid-level cabinet post. For comparison, the population of the 100th largest city in California is 14 times bigger than Wasilla. Wasilla has roughly the same population as Needles. Cuddlefish said: "If she runs against Obama, I would vote for her." No, I really don't think you would. You would vote against Obama or you would vote for the Republican party. You would not vote for Palin. That is just silly. For my part I voted for Obama in the primary because I adamantly did not want Hillary to win, but then I did not vote for Obama for president (definitely Palin either, I voted for a third party).— February 23, 2010 3:06 p.m.
"Healthy" Expansion? For Whom?
Cuddlefish said: "Palin ran a big rich state" If you define the state with the 45th GDP out of 50 as rich, then you are correct. For Goodness sakes Delaware (and Biden) has a 35% larger GDP than Alaska while being 0.3% the size. Put another way, Delaware has a GDP of $24 million per square mile while Alaska has a GDP of $68 thousand per square mile.— February 23, 2010 12:47 p.m.