With the election just days away, make sure you check out what our readers are saying about the mayor’s race, campaign ads, medical marijuana measures and a school construction bond.

Here are five comments from the week:

Tom McSorley on “DeMaio and Police Widows: Fact Check“:

First, I appreciate this fact check service. In this case, I believe that the correct result should be, at the least, misleading. Misleading because of the context in which the ad is being put forth — to create the perception that Mr. DeMaio is against survivor benefits for our fallen heroes. This is simply not true. Mr. Filner’s ad takes a budget issue, in which police survivor benefits were a part of the whole package and uses it declare a false representation of Mr. DeMaio’s position. The ad, itself, is manipulative. The ad is not intended to make sure that survivor benefits get assured, it supports no solution or legislation but rather is self-serving on the part of a politician who wants to use an emotional issue for his benefit. The ad is clearly misleading. It is also sad that our politics have sunk to this, the lowest level, when we use dead heroes to serve a political goal.

Greg Levin on “Sob Stories Emerge Late in Election Season“:

I loved this piece because I always thought San Diego’s problems lay mostly with its priorities. What I found most interesting is the lack of the adjective “angry” preceding the words “white men”. Because that’s what I took it as, it wasn’t a dig against men as much as it was a dig on the stereo-typical talk show caller who seems to only care about two things, the Chargers and overpaid government employees. (Both of which are painful to watch work at this point). But from an outsider’s perspective it is that voice that dominates the debate in San Diego. The lede works when you understand the point of the story was to highlight the insertion of substantive issues in the last week of a 12 month campaign.

John Highkin on “Tiny Dancers Muddle City Arts Money Talks“:

Students learn better — more thoroughly and joyously — when they do more than just sit at desks and listen. They’re not machines with spigots to be force filled. They’re children! At their happiest and most productive, they play, pretend, make up stories and songs. All of these activities lead to productive learning when adults are smart enough to balance the rote with the imaginative in teaching. Learning — genuine learning, like genuine thinking — is joyous and sensuous and complex.

All children begin with imagination and artistic abilities; if we as adults have become curmudgeonly and dull and dismissive, it’s because we had the play kicked out of us. More’s the pity.

Bill Bradshaw on “Approve Medical Marijuana Ballot Measures“:

Until this legal situation is rectified, I cannot support any measure to make marijuana easily accessible. The drug has become infinitely more powerful in the last 20 years, and the idea that it’s, e.g., a harmless alternative to booze, is simply crazy. It’s hallucinatory powers make it dangerous, regardless of whether it’s either addictive or a “gateway” to other drugs.

I’ll never forget the experience my wife and I had in Amsterdam about 10 years ago. We’d shared a joint or two in our younger lives, and the idea of legal cannabis shops was too tempting to pass up, so we purchased a joint (filter tipped, no less) for old time’s sake. We took it to our hotel room and lit up. It laid both of us very experienced drinkers prostrate within twenty minutes. The room spun, we fell off the bed, totally helpless. I shudder to think what might have happened if we’d been crazy enough to get behind the wheel of a vehicle.

Today’s marijuana is no joke; it’s serious stuff and without strict regulation spelled out in advance, count me out on voting for any measure that would make it more accessible.

If, in fact, it could be certified as a prescription drug, that’s a totally different situation that I might be able to support.

Aaryn Belfer on ” Prop. Z’s Overlooked Charter School Promise“:

This is just one more way to siphon public money away from public schools (and charter proponents will yell back that they, too, are public schools, which is semi-true: they’re publicly funded private schools). Yes, charter schools have less rigidity than public schools and some of them are meeting the needs of kids who weren’t served in public schools. But only 17% of charter schools nationwide are doing better than their public school counterparts; this isn’t a model that would be reciprocated in any business. Charters tend to cherry-pick their students, and have fewer special needs kids than in the public schools because they aren’t mandated to serve everyone like the public school system is. The thing we should be doing is not funding charter schools willy-nilly. We should be looking at the 17% that are working — like High Tech High, say — and then bringing that type of education into all public schools. The goal of the charter movement is not to better education for all children. It’s to better education for *some* children at the expense of others (of note: “we should move most students from SDUSD to charter”), to strip teachers of much needed representation, and to privatize education. And they’re doing a very, very good job of it.

Statements have been lightly edited to fix spelling errors and typos.


Want to contribute to discussion? Submit a suggestion to Fix San Diego.

Dagny Salas is the web editor at Voice of San Diego. You can contact her directly at dagny.salas@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.550.5669.

Like VOSD on Facebook.

Disclosure: Voice of San Diego members and supporters may be mentioned or have a stake in the stories we cover. For a complete list of our contributors, click here.

Dagny Salas

Dagny Salas was web editor at Voice of San Diego from 2010 to 2013. She was an investigative fellow at VOSD from 2009 to 2010.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.