Dec. 3 2014 09:40 AM

Our readers tell us what they think


We rock at election time

Thank you for your awesome coverage of elections and endorsements ["Editorial," Oct. 8] that I couldn't vote without! Other groups I love fail to give endorsements on every ballot item, but dear CityBeat never fails me. I always try to pass it on to friends. You guys rock.

Alegra Loewenstein, Mira Mesa

Very wrong on Prop. 46

I enjoyed reading your political endorsements ["Editorial," Oct. 8]. I thought the commentary was insightful, and I am on the same page with left-to-centrist-leaning orientation. However, there was one exception: I was blown away when I read "no" on Prop. 46.

You claim Prop. 46 is lawyer-driven and requires doctors to be drug-tested as the (unsightly) hook. I agree that that provision adds an unsavory tactic to the sales pitch. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The $250,000 limit on damages has not increased since the statute was enacted, which, due to the inflation and the principles of timevalue of money (aka purchasing-power parity), is now only about $58,000 in 1972 dollars.

So, why are doctors insulated from liability? They're a powerful lobbying group. Most doctors are terrific professionals, but like all professions, there are the less-competent and the awful, too. It is a travesty of justice that consumers who suffer tragic injuries at the hands of these less-competent and awful doctors are merely thrown a few shekels and told to beat it so the doctor can attend to the next potential victim.

No, you were very wrong in your endorsement of a "no" vote on Prop. 46. Given your cred with the liberal community, I regard your endorsement to be irresponsible. A victims group of people who've had hacked limbs or family members who've had lost love ones can explain what this proposition means to them.

Ronald A. Marron, Hillcrest

Cut the crap

Gosh, good of you to endorse Scott Peters ["Editorial," Oct. 8] and then mention that you predicted Filner would disgrace the city, even as you endorsed him! It's not enough to just lay out why DeMaio would be a disaster? That Filner reference was gratuitous crap that only makes a bad election day worse.

Frances Zimmerman, La Jolla

DeMaio and Hillcrest

In your recent editorials on Carl DeMaio [Oct. 15 and 22], you hit the nail on the head! The only person Carl DeMaio really cares about is Carl DeMaio! He would sell his soul (if he has one) to the Devil to get elected.

Just remember back to the mayoral election in 2012, against Bob Filner. If you looked around Hillcrest at the time, there were no campaign signs for DeMaio, only Filner (even though DeMaio is openly gay). Why?

Probably because DeMaio benefited from contributions from Papa Doug Manchester, one of the big supporters of Prop 8—against marriage equality in California. Oh, how people forget!

John Plough, Hillcrest

Holman's beliefs

Thanks for the update on that clown, Jim Holman ["Editorial," Nov. 5]. I agree your article is self-serving, but I also agree that it is timely (in a bad kinda way). The bigger picture for me is that I really had no idea my picking up the Reader each week supported this man and his beliefs. I may have to take another look at CityBeat.

Todd Floyd, Vista

Expose the vermin

Keep up the exposés on the likes of the Jim Holmans ["Editorial," Nov. 5]! Light is an antidote to vermin.

Teddy Rodosovich, La Jolla

Send letters to


See all events on Friday, Dec 2