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
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
California public utilities vs. us
Jeff McDonald at the UT has another article today about how The CPUC is involved in dealmaking using donations and secret meetings. Poppa Doug owns no private utility stocks?— May 13, 2015 10:07 a.m.
California public utilities vs. us
Don, I love being right. It is not as profitable as being a private utility hack, thought. Look at the campaign contributions that flow from private utilities to our esteemed political representatives. Small wonder that a guy like Peevey gets appointed. He is a real player for the private utilities. Not so much for ratepayers. The Public Utilities Commission is set up to discourage attorneys who represent intervenors from exposing the truth. The attorneys who pull no punches are punished by not having fees awarded. The Commissioners themselves want $900 per hour lawyers. Reading the documents in the SONGS case was a real eye-opener. Going to a few public meetings proved that the PUC needs statutory reform. It is the biggest kangaroo court I have ever seen. Attorneys for intervenors should get a percentage of all amounts recovered for ratepayers. That would attract the best legal talent. Being paid by the hour is rarely effective in representing victims. The ratepayers are victims here. It took 14 deaths in San Bruno. How many could have died at when meltdowns happened at SONGS? A message must be sent to the shareholders who can influence the Board of Directors. Safety first. They teach you that in kindergarten. This is about cover ups that endanger public safety. The PUC hearings avoided the issue of fault. Who ran the red light must be decided before sticking the ratepayers with 70% of the losses. Deeper inquiry would have exposed many skeletons in the nuclear energy sector. That is what this is really all about. The lame excuses I heard for avoiding this issue included that too many trees would need to be cut down to make paper for legal briefs - to the need for electricity for janitors to plug in floor waxers. Governor Brown should have fired Peevey. He was aware of the issues at SONGS. Returning campaign contributions in a virtually unopposed governor's race was too little too late. Now Aguirre and Severson have to unwind the travesty of this settlement by their sole efforts. Unbelieveable!— May 13, 2015 10 a.m.
California public utilities vs. us
Aguirre and Severson and the San Bruno City Attorney's Office went for the paper trail of emails. Texting is the new subterfuge but harder to use in lengthy messages. One can use their own private email server - no, that was already thought of. If you are a public official, do not use email unless you want your emails made public. Clearly, these are public records. Using "noble causes" by making donations to mask dangerous and wasteful business practices to increase profits has become part of the American way. So many little non-profits were given contributions to support the SONGS settlement that it took hours just to parade them all through at public hearings. Race, gender, nationality, and class status cards were all played by Southern California Edison. One environmental card -climate change - was being played against the dangerous nuclear industry practices card. Clever! Peavey is pro-nuclear, and uses climate change to justify the inherent dangers. What a parade of paid-off non-profits was produced to support an anti-consumer settlement! The great UCLA can be bought, too. Sports proves that. So do the military research grants and industry contributions. If everyone had solar panels, we could rid ourselves of these parasites. Good article, Don.— May 13, 2015 8:23 a.m.
Saltier than average environmentalists
Has anyone heard of the energy-water connection? Climate change is worsening the epic drought. How "green" is it to increase carbon-dioxide emissions to attempt to solve a problem caused in part by the purported "solution" - more people living in a desert that is drying up? San Diego must get 90% of its water from outside sources. My sister skied in Dubai. Are we "skiing in Dubai?" Desalination has numerous environmental costs - salt and carbon as well as expense come to mind. Unless voters are willing to study these problems in debt, they have "opinions." Since the advent of cable news followed by blogging. It is fashionable to offer opinions on any and every subject in many cases without any prior investigation. Once expressed, that opinion must be vigorously defended at all costs. Cognitive dissonance theory would predict this result. At least in school, the teacher can tell you that you did not do your homework without being attacked. My question is how many hours of research did the author of this article or those commenting engage in on this critical subject before coming to an opinion that will likely remain resistant to change? One hour? Ten minutes. Please get into a habit of spending 100 hours of research before expressing opinions on subjects of public concern. It this too much to ask? Your opinion is only worth the effort you made in forming that opinion. Without a serious prior investigation of the facts, why would you consider yourself "experts" on the subject? Spend at least 100 hours in the coming month studying the drought, climate change and paleoclimatology. The time you save in expressing uninformed opinions could translate into being a truly informed citizen. We need more voters with expertise, not more opinions from the hip. You are smart, no doubt; but lazy. Do your homework first and then spew opinions. An opinion is like a navel - everyone has one. Make yours an informed one. You will feel much better about yourself and accomplish great service to the public. Otherwise, you are just exercising your fingers on a keyboard without engaging your brain.— May 11, 2015 9:54 a.m.
Peevey the pusher man
Don, Aguirre can ask Peevey in his deposition about his possible motives.— May 4, 2015 9:24 p.m.
Peevey the pusher man
Does Peevey own stock in utility companies? His retirement accounts would increase in value by saving utility shareholders 3.5 billon dollars.— May 3, 2015 2:36 p.m.
Two lawyers walk into a swamp...
Now that we know who's in bed with whom -Briggs with his wife and the City Attorney with developers, we should ask ourselves if environmental attorneys act as brakes on unlimited development. That is a good thing for many. That hurts developer profits and many union jobs, but those "brakes" protect what is left of the environment by slowing down over-building. An oncologist slows down your cancer. That gives you a few more good years. Rarely are you cured. The cost is high for chemo, radiation and surgery, especially if there is no cure. The cancer is population growth. Developers profit from that. Nothing personal - I like the environment more than the cancerous process we call "progress" and "growth." Briggs is just slowing the cancer. If developers had their way the entire ocean front would be high-rise by now.— April 26, 2015 8:40 a.m.
Two lawyers walk into a swamp...
Android did not like "deponent." But at least I myself know the difference. A "better answer" is one thing but someone's professional reputation is at stake. Briggs already returned a lot of money. Anyone with the cajones to stand up against the good 'olé boys and girls downtown has my admiration. Briggs has stood up to Goldsmith before about using text messaging for public business. There are countless other times Briggs has done this. Better answer for a first time deponent Aside, character assassination is inexcusable. Are you at court reporter or a lawyer? If the later, do you want some know-it-all reporter to disparage your reputation on half truths and innuendos? Briggs is a law professor and a much better lawyer than Goldsmith. If you are a women, how about someone talking about your chastity? Your marriage? You get the point, I am sure. 'Nuff said. No offense intended to you. Briggs is a friend of mine. I have seen them go after Aguirre. This time, they went too far.— April 25, 2015 1:52 p.m.
Two lawyers walk into a swamp...
Is does not go to her credibility. She is allowed to look up facts. This was not a "what color was the light" question. It is called an admonition, not admonishment. There are ambiguous verbal responses in many depositions. The CSR has to make a judgment. if the dependent needs to verify periods of employment or other objectifiable facts, then is it really about her credibility? That is the purpose of the period of thirty days to review and correct the deposition.— April 25, 2015 10:32 a.m.
Two lawyers walk into a swamp...
Briggs did nothing wrong In my opinion. Using an unsigned and uncorrected deposition Is unfair. I wondered why Goldsmith kept referring to some cryptic statement. To attack Briggs through his wife to protect special interests Is really hitting below the belt. I see an invasion of privacy case, too. The reporter enlisted all the "ethical experts" but provided them with misleading and incomplete "facts." With all the facts on the table, I'd say that Briggs did nothing wrong. I am sure that those same experts would agree. Just vary the hypothetical with the real facts and their opinions would probably change. If fact, Dorian, you should do this and ask the same experts if Goldsmith did anything wrong. That would be a real story! Andrew Jackson was attacked through his wife as he fought the bank. Did his critics really care about the validity of Jackson's first divorce? Or was it just political and financial reasons for their "professed morality?" In the stipulation at the end of most depositions it usually says that if not signed and corrected within thirty days, an unsigned copy may be used for any purpose. Does that mean that the City Attorney should give that deposition transcrpt to the press before it is corrected and signed? Only if he is trying to crucify an opponent in the press. This seems to be an abuse of discovery by the office of the City Attorney. Briggs may well sue. Where is the fairness in this? Use of incomplete testimony is misleading and unfair. It is false by omission. By publishing it in writing, it is defamatory about Brigg's character regarding his profession. Damages are presumed in such "libel per se" (regarding one's professional integrity) cases. It also appears to have been done with "malice," or reckless disregard for the truth falsity thereof. Even if Briggs is a "public figure," such conduct meets the test of New York Times v. Sullivan for "malice" of the press, despite the First Amendment protections accorded to the press. I was really surprised when this story broke and such condemnations were aired by the "reporter." It did not pass the smell test. It is way worse now - but not for Briggs - for Goldsmith and the reporter.— April 25, 2015 6:23 a.m.