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
The Federal Reserve's Money Orgy
Mr Bauder, Perot did indeed drop out of the race, in mid July i think. Then he re-entered the race in October and took part in the debates. I remember reading a report that he basically took the same amount of votes from both Clinton and Bush, so I don't believe he handed the White House to Clinton as someone else put it. My guess is that since he only gt slightly less than 20% of the vote, the balance of people who once supported him thought he was a flake and either voted for someone else or just didn't bother to vote at all. Personally, I had planned to voted for him, but after he pulled his Brett Favre, I didn't think he had the chops to cut it as president. When the going gets tough, the tough don't just fold up their tents and run away only to change their mind.— April 30, 2011 11:11 p.m.
Judge Grants Injunction to End NFL Lockout. Victory for Players
Actually, I think what makes the Packers different and the reason they don't have the "community problems" all the other teams have is because there is nothing for people to argue about. The Packers are owned by Green Bay Packers, Inc., which is controlled by about 100k share holders. Green Bay Packers, Inc. is a non profit. The shares produce no financial gain for stockholders because all profits the team makes go to the American Legion. No money to argue about, no problems. GBP Inc does not own Lambeau Field though. It's owned by the city and the county stadium district. There was also some expansion/renovation done in the '90's. But when they did that $300 million renovation, guess who paid for it. I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the Packers. Oh, they did kick in a few million, but almost all of it was paid for by the taxpayers in the form of the tried and true sales tax increase. I had to look this up to be accurate, the tax increased passed by a narrow 53-47 margin. Apparently not everyone is that enamored by the Packers. Not long after last season was over, I read that there is also going to be a $20 million upgrade to the scoreboard and sound system with a couple of hi-def scoreboards. I did read something I hadn't hard before.Apparently a few years ago the team the city and the county agreed to sell the naming rights to Lambeau for $100 million in order to help retire the debt earlier. I guess no one has taken them up on their offer; it's still called Lambeau.— April 28, 2011 9:40 a.m.
Fire Department Compensation Far Higher than Private Sector's: Study
ok, so according to the link you provided: The WEP reduction is limited to one-half of your pension from non-covered employment. With 20 or less years of substantial earnings, under your scenario, the retiree would loose 40% of their benefit, unless that is more than 1/2 of their pension. Not quite the 2/3 of your original claim.— April 27, 2011 9:56 p.m.
Fire Department Compensation Far Higher than Private Sector's: Study
Apparently, the retiree receives 100% of his/her benefits. According to the link you posted, the pension offset affects spouses and widow/widowers. Government Pension Offset A law that affects spouses and widows or widowers. If you receive a pension from a federal, state or local government based on work where you did not pay Social Security taxes, your Social Security spouse’s or widow’s or widower’s benefits may be reduced. This fact sheet provides answers to questions you may have about the reduction. The offset applies only to Social Security benefits as a spouse or widow or widower— April 27, 2011 4:23 p.m.
Qualcomm Reports Great Earnings, Helps Lift Market
surfpuppy619 it's hard to tell if you're being facetious or not,given your want for exaggeration, though I suspect you to be serious. What you are in effect saying is that there shouldn't be any H-1b visas issued in your lifetime. The last time the u6 rate reached 6% was over 40 yrs ago. Back around 1967 thru about 1970 or so. At that time the u3 rate was in the 3% range. I can recall that being attributed to increased defense spending during the Vietnam war. Even back in 2000, when the u3 rate dipped back in that range, the u6 rate was still 7% or higher. Before that you have to go back to WWII and the early 50's, when enemployement was well inder 5%, obviously due to the war and the post war housing boom. I'm sure that the beginnings of us boomers didn't hurt, either, what with everthing you need to take care of a bunch of pregnant women and their babies. LOL I don't see unemployment dropping below 4% in my lifetime, I'm 60, nor do I see u6 dropping below 6%. But let me ask you this. How many H-1b visa holders do you think there are in this country? What do you think the total number of unemployed is and how many of those would be equipped to take jobs those H-1B visa holders have?— April 27, 2011 10:37 a.m.
Some Copley Retirees May -- Repeat, MAY -- Get Refunds
Ok,it's as I suspected. The court decision was handed down in Feb of last year and April 14th to send out the letter. That means the employees who received severance pay in Dec of 2006 are out of luck. The had until April 15, 2010 before the 2006 statute of limitations closed to file a protective claim. The employees who received their severance in 2007 had until the past April 18th, so unless they were to hire a lawyer, find an ongoing relevant case that the IRS would accept as a contingency affecting the claim and file a protective claim all by close of business in the 18th, then they are out of luck too. It might be possible, but unless Copley specifically laid out what they needed to to do, I doubt most of them would know. It seems to me, based on the information provided that they too, are out of luck.— April 26, 2011 1:49 p.m.
Some Copley Retirees May -- Repeat, MAY -- Get Refunds
What is the date of this letter? Since the decision was rendered by the court over a year ago, I'm curious how long it took to inform the retirees.— April 25, 2011 10:48 a.m.
Some Copley Retirees May -- Repeat, MAY -- Get Refunds
Don, have you been able to ascertain when it was that Copley sent this letter to retirees? Was it recently or was it some time ago? Have you been able to read what it says for yourself? What information did Copley provide to these retirees? Are they actually interested in helping them or are they just trying to cover their asses? We need more details. Inquiring minds want to know.— April 24, 2011 10:35 a.m.
Major League Baseball Will Run Dodgers
I don't know about that.My reccolection of what I read is that when the bill went to the state senate it already had a sales tax in it to provide most of the funds for the stadium and that it ended up the Brewers never had the money to contribute their share and could only throw in what they got from the naming rights from Miller Brewing Co. The main thing I remember is that originally, the deal was voted down by one vote. But one of the state senators who had voted no because he did not believe his county should be taxed for the stadium changed his vote. And a short time after that he was booted out of office in a recall vote. (Don't see that happening much in Ca. do we) Don't forget, after Faye Vincent resigned after a majority of owners gave him a no confidence vote, Selig was only acting as the "interim commissioner" for 6 years. He wasn't appointed commissioner until 1998, after construction started but before it was finished. And it wasn't until he was officially appointed commissioner that his daughter was named acting president of the Brewers and his interest in the team was placed in a trust. Imo, Selig nearly destroyed baseball with the 94/94 seasons debacle and had it not been for Cal Ripken's chase of Lou Gehrig's record in 95 and the Mark McGuire/Sammy Sosa home run derby in 98, baseball may have died a slow and painful death, And don't even get me started on the steroid issue. In the early 90's, everybody new about them. (I'm sure everyone in SD remembers Cami's great seasons in 95/96/97). As commissioner, Selig could have,should have, and, according to some, did know about their use. But hey, home runs sell tickets.— April 22, 2011 2:06 a.m.
Major League Baseball Will Run Dodgers
Yeah, but baseball very seldom loses, and I can't recall the last time it lost a "big" case.— April 22, 2011 1:21 a.m.