It was recently learned by the CityBeat staff that Edwin Decker was on the tail end of an Oxycontin and rubbing-alcohol binge when, in his Sept. 7 Sordid Tales column, “It's time we started shucking the Children of the corn,” he erroneously implied that the Greeks were the victims, not perpetrators, of the Trojan-horse ruse. Decker promises not to mix opioid analgesics with ethanol ever again.
No subsidies for sports
Jerry Sanders' recent adventure reviewing sports complexes is a waste of taxpayer money [“Editorial,” Aug. 24]. It's unbelievable that he is using city funds for the benefit of the Chargers. He should return the cost of this trip to the city, and Sanders' paycheck should be reduced to reflect time away from his job. He should be renegotiating the current contract with the Chargers so that the city no longer loses money on Qualcomm Stadium.
What makes these politicians feel the need to give away my hard-earned money to wealthy sports owners? I'm not sure if we need a psychologist or a prosecutor to sort this out. In any case, my message is to stop giving away taxpayer money to wealthy sports teams. If the Chargers want a new stadium, Spanos should pay for it—all of it.
Ronald Harris, Scripps Ranch
Casting the wrong net
Regarding your Aug. 24 story “Will San Diego ever host another large-scale music festival”: The beginning of the end came when the promoters of Street Scene said that they wanted to target the 21-year-old demographic. The first headline act that year was Snoop Dogg.
When I was 21 years old, I had very little money. When I was 31 years old, I had more disposable income to attend concerts, shows, etc. In replacing all of the contemporary acts with the acts that attract the 21-year-olds, they have made festivals like Street Scene unattractive to the affluent concertgoer.
While you can't please everyone, it would seem to me that one would target the group of folks who are capable of supporting an effort, instead of the young among us who bring an undesirable element to the venture.
B.J. Hills, Encanto
Don't give up!
While I share Mr. Trowbridge's deep frustration with President Obama [“Letters,” Aug. 24], sitting out an election is not a good solution. Many progressives—out of righteous indignation—sat out or voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and arguably deprived Al Gore of a victory, resulting in the eight-year George W. Bush nightmare we (the 98 percent of non-uber-rich Americans) will be paying for for years. Yes, the 2000 status quo sucked—but it was far, far better than the 2008 status quo.
Turning this country around from years of Reagan / Bush / neocon / conservative / corporate / fundamentalist / for-the-mega-rich-only policies won't be changed overnight, or even in one term. It'll take decades. So, while a President Nader or Kucinich would be great, absent that, we must stay in the game and fight—even if it's with someone like Obama, disappointing as that can be.
To “take a pass” could contribute to a President Perry or Romney or Bachmann or whatever shill the GOP nominates and plunge us further into the dark ages—exactly what they want.
Better we progressives hold our noses, vote and fight for the long haul. Otherwise, the stink—and status quo—will get much, much, worse.
Rick Chiszar, University Heights