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
Aguirre Backs Off Request for Information from KPBS
I agree that maintaining the impartial nature of KPBS is important. But is it the most important thing for the city attorney to be doing just now? Is it in the top 5 or so? I might also mention that, if I'm not mistaken, the owner/publisher of the Reader has certainly shown a little political bias with his sponsorship of state-wide propositions. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, Don.— November 16, 2007 6:05 a.m.
Ho Ho Ho!
Jew words! Do you mean Hebrew?— November 16, 2007 2:57 a.m.
City's 2005 Financial Statement Rife with Misinformation
Yes Diann did absoulutely the moral and ethical act by whistle blowing. She should be formally praised by City taxpayer groups for outing the city's ill conceived schemes. I would never fault her, just wish she would have recognized it and spoke up sooner! In reference to comment #8 above... I'm in my 50's and I believe Don has a few years on me, I believe the Reader through Don is doing a fine job of keeping focus on issues that will effect us all for years to come. It's not just for the younger folks.— November 15, 2007 2:04 p.m.
City's 2005 Financial Statement Rife with Misinformation
Mr. Aquirre does a fine job of campaigning all on his own.— November 15, 2007 12:51 p.m.
City's 2005 Financial Statement Rife with Misinformation
I agree inevitably there will be down years. But if we look closely at the past performance of our hypothetical corporation we find they've done well with their investments. Only one or two what some would call bay years that I can find in the last 20. So the question is: are the shareholder/members entitled to some of the profits from the contributions. For example, last year they paid 8% but earned 15%. A portion of those profits paid a dividend or 13th check. The board has no duty to find new shareholders and it does it have a duty to maximize return. The Board cannot grant benefit, it can only administer a benefit agreed to by our silent party. And, as I outline before, a majority of the profit remained, being reinvested for that rainy day/year. I realize we're just talking here, my point to stimulate thought, to make at least for purposes of consideration that there are many ways to analyze the SDCERS situation. By removing the sensationalistic headlines, emotional retoric, and accusatory finger pointing and look at the problem in a business like way. I believe if there was more of this, appropriate and reasonable solutions can be found. But don’t take me the wrong way. It’s obvious from the facts uncovered, greed, not the public good, was the driving force in many of the decisions made in the past. But, one should also consider my final thought, although I don't have any hard numbers, I suspect a vast majority of pension payments to retirees, remains here in San Diego County, no not all, but a whole lot of it is spent here bolstering our local merchants, restaurants, and other sectors of our economy in one way or another.— November 15, 2007 11:47 a.m.
Dumb Deaths
Iraq.— November 15, 2007 10:38 a.m.
Ho Ho Ho!
Josh, you spelled menorah like a goy!— November 15, 2007 10:27 a.m.
City's 2005 Financial Statement Rife with Misinformation
The blogger above mentions the so-called 13th check. Why not consider it a dividend? I'm wondering why anyone has not considered SDCERS as an independent private "corporation". Whose business is creating annuities for its shareholders? Bare with me for a moment. If we look at in this light, it has shareholders, its members, who have contributed funds over many years. Matching funds have also been contributed by an outside silent partner who was contractually obligated to make payments of negotiated amounts. The corporation invests the monies received and makes annuity payments. In some years profits from investments lead the board to declare a dividend to the shareholders, and in this case the board declares a dividend payment of $30 for each year of shareholder membership. So if a shareholder has been a contributing member for 10 years you a $300 dividend is granted. The one problem with this model is the board gave its silent partner a loan, but the board failed to carefully weigh the partner's loan purpose and its ability to repay it in a timely manner. But the corporation is well funded and can meet its current and future obligations. However it intends to hold the partner accountable for the loan and takes notes in real property securing it's interest and maintaining its fiduciary duty to the shareholders. The silent partner complains saying it over did it with loans, but it has the assets to pay over time. So if we consider SDCERS in this light, isn't it just like any other business with an account receivable, and payment plan in place, who declared a dividend for its shareholder?— November 15, 2007 9:03 a.m.
No Habla English
To say that Americans should have to know English to be an official American is absolutely ridiculous. The impression you give is that you are really a bigot trying to find a legitimate sounding excuse to express your racist inner self. Dont be so ignorant, it's not American-like....or wait maybe it is??— November 15, 2007 5:29 a.m.
City's 2005 Financial Statement Rife with Misinformation
Its obviously become impossible to wash the consequences of San Diego’s institutionalized corruption into the ocean. You haven’t mentioned the 13th check in a while Don. San Diego taxpayer and electorate apathy still enable U-T establishment larceny as usual. At least there is still one branch of the federal government, the IRS, that still recognizes corruption when they audit it. The tradition of Huey Long lives in the hearts and minds of the U-T establishment even though their poster politician Duke Cunningham is in jail. We still need to send Duke cellmates like Golding, Murphy and Sanders before anyone can trust City Hall again. Anon92107— November 15, 2007 1:17 a.m.