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
Degrees
Adultery still isn't a crime though, right? Not a criminal offense in California? Maybe May IS the one person who never committed a crime. Highly, highly doubt it though...— October 13, 2009 10:02 p.m.
Columbus--The Man, The Myth...The Mercenary!
Easy there, homey, let's try to keep the guns in the holsters for now, aight? Wasn't even me who made the "surprised about the second date" comment, otay? So let's try not to take my strange, academic, ultimately pointless condemnations of contemporary culture personally because, I assure you, it's nothing personal, ever. You're a cool guy and a good writer and I appreciate you raising some interesting topics for us to talk about. Fact of the matter is that the elevation and destruction of historical figures are both completely arbitrary practices. Conquistadores only get to be heroes or villains (always arbitrarily) through the retrospective lens of history which is ALWAYS a fantasy created by us, in the present, in the practice of historicizing. My point is not so much that you or anyone else is ruining my fantasy world (wherein Bold White(ish) Men Conquer the Savage Lands So That I May Live In Suburban Utopia Several Hundred Years Later), rather I more mean to say that the practice of turning a judgmental eye towards history easily becomes a ritualized gesture of looking away from the present. To put a twist on AG's "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," I offer that we spend an awful lot of time creating a past to remember and therefore repeating it, perpetually, under the guise of remembering and controlling it. We might think we get closure on past wrongs by recognizing them and attempting self-effacement for the sake of history, but really closure is a process of connecting absent facts to present ones. Scott Mcleod (in a book on making comic books, of all places) quite rightly points out that "closure" is really the practice of reconciling the unknown with the known. Getting closure on the past is just a way of recognizing the myriad ways in which it is no different from the present. We ARE repeating the errors of colonialism, every day and in different ways, the practice of looking backwards and saying "never forget" allows us the liberty of creating an artificial gap between then and now, of achieving closure. Ultimately, it helps us to NOT change anything. You said we ignore reality in favor of fantasy, I'm just suggesting that all we have is fantasy and maybe the tendency to point to a fantasy which is fashionably preferable and say, "oh, look, reality!" is worth a wee bit of scrutiny.— October 13, 2009 1:38 p.m.
Low-Res
That looks way rad with your ineffectual HTML tags showing. Don't sweat it. Thanks for the commentary, home slice.— October 13, 2009 12:31 p.m.
Sixteen Candles
Surely, I am still amazed at the wrongs done you by the people closest. Nowhere in your stories is there anything like, "and then, out of nowhere, some total stranger did whatever...." It's like your stories of tragedy are enhanced by strong overtones of constant betrayal by the people close to you.— October 13, 2009 12:11 p.m.
Degrees
I don't think adultery's illegal in California, but maybe it was when said affair took place? If so, what's the statute of limitations on minor crimes which have since become unprosecutable under the law? Any lawyers out there? Interesting idea though, that virtual flirtation or an internet based relationship could be considered straight-up adultery. The tone of the post implies that the woman in question wasn't boning out of wedlock AS SUCH, but the moral prophylaxis of the World Wide Web doesn't convince you that the act might not just as well have taken place. Definitely a civil case, and a twisted one at that. Is she divorced now? Was her facebook infidelity grounds for such?— October 13, 2009 11:18 a.m.
Sixteen Candles
"One of my friends tackled me and held me down till the cops arrived. I was so pissed." Unless my readings have glossed over some one or another of the unpleasantries which befell young Pete, it surely seems like most (all?) of the wrongs done to you were committed by "friends;" a term perhaps best used VERY lightly and ironically in your case.— October 13, 2009 11:02 a.m.
Dear Mr. Fantasy
Spawning season is in full swing.— October 13, 2009 2:33 a.m.
Low-Res
Yup. No more daguerreotypes for you, gringo!— October 13, 2009 2:32 a.m.
Dear Mr. Fantasy
Wicked pissah, dude!— October 12, 2009 9:52 p.m.
Columbus--The Man, The Myth...The Mercenary!
I wonder about the impetus to demonize historical figures. Obviously, we all feel (and SHOULD feel) shame for the rivers of blood which washed away the indigenous cultures of America. The extermination of pre-Colombian Americans is prolly the worst thing that's happened, ever. Nothing will ever come close to putting right the wrongs done between the fifteenth century and, well, today. That said, what's the point in condemning past actions like this? Is there some sort of amelioration of deep-seated, cultural guilt that goes along with wagging the finger at history's "bad guys?" What's the point? What's gained by this recontextualizing of cultural "heroes" as "villains?" Any judgment we make is merely a reflection of our own issues passed off and deferred into history, thereby made basically impotent. I'm not saying you guys are wrong, you're RIGHT about Columbus, de Soto, Cortes, et. al., hell, the whole Age of Exploration, equating to a genocidal rampage of some fabulous cultures, which it would be much better to have around today. But why judge past actions so harshly? What good does it do? Is it even, perhaps, harmful that we do this?— October 12, 2009 7:12 p.m.