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
Police Officer Shootings
Heathergatt: Technically Josh did not bring Aaryn's child "..into this nasty mix," Aaryn did. She published a portion of what was a personal email between herself and Josh, indicating Josh wrote it, in an earlier post on this blog. Regardless of what I might think of the content (and I am one of those people who don't just believe anything anyone says someone else wrote or said without a little more to back it up), but let's say what she published was absolutely what Josh wrote without question. What was the point of publishing the private content of that email? His blog had nothing to do with African Americans, children, or anything relevant to Aaryn's posting. It was published to embarrass him. Period. Why? Because she doesn't agree with what he was saying about City Beat or police officer shootings. Seems that way to me. Otherwise, why wouldn't she have brought that spurious email to the attention of say his publishers, or just discussed it generally with his readers, or posted it if she really must post it verbatim in one of his other blogs where he is talking about people of color? Personally, I would never make public something insulting someone wrote about one of my kids. Because I wouldn't promote whatever vile thing someone else said about them by broadcasting it all over the web for public consumption. If I talked about it at all, it would be in general terms and if I showed it to anyone at all it would have been right after the comments were made to me and it would be for the purposes of exacting a retraction or apology - maybe even vengeance (like getting the person fired if they made such comments in their professional capacity for example if they were my kid's teacher). I sure wouldn't hang on to it, then post it on the world wide web for all to see when the author was writing about something completely different. Think about it, what good really came out of that? If Josh actually did write that, it wasn't cool. My guess would be it was written in anger after a pretty heated exchange between the two of them. Not excusing it, but God knows most of us have cracked off something in anger to hurt. That doesn't mean we are evil. But the point is, that email exchange was only BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM. Josh didn't publicly insult a child. The child's mother did. And you have to wonder about that...— April 21, 2009 3:03 p.m.
La Mesa's Magical Oasis...
Hi there, I own "The Wind Chime House" that you wrote about! It was fun to read about it, and, of course, I had to send it on to my family. I just reread the article and I see that someone already contacted you to change Ben from a Chow to a Newfie! I'm not sure where you got the idea of the urn fountain being a pineapple, or that it had blue light on it, but I guess that's called "poetic license". I'm planning on having the house on the La Mesa Historical Society House Tour in the Fall if you are interested in seeing the inside. Thanks for the nice description. I enjoy my house too.— April 21, 2009 2:19 p.m.
Games Gangs Play
magicsfive: LOL...very funny! (And so true). Also, I could not agree more with post #1 in terms of the domestic terrorist comment...not so much revving up the death penalty. But I respect your right to make that point.— April 21, 2009 4:05 a.m.
Celebrity Idiots -- The Jamie Fox and Hulk Hogan Edition
Actually, I speak Russian! LOL... I studied in then Leningrad (now your beautiful St. Petersburg once again) and Moscow many years ago with an exchange program in high school. I don't have a Cyrillic keyboard, but if I did I would say "zdraswheatia...cock deliya?"... phonetically spelled of course. I found the Russian people to be warm, passionate, emotional, generous, intelligent people with strong opinions and big hearts. You have an incredible history, wealth of literature, and are made of sturdy stock. Good people. And I admire you greatly for having learned English and a new alphabet at the same time. Your English is amazing when one considers this. Proud to know you, O.J. Simpson and Hulk Hogan notwithstanding. :) One good thing though about Americans and Russians is while we may not always agree on all things, we can still be good friends. I wish you all the best...Lisa (or Lizaveta :)— April 21, 2009 3:21 a.m.
Police Officer Shootings
Lastly, I have nothing but respect for police officers. My trust of them used to be blindly given. But working in the legal field I saw things first hand that made me realize that one still needs to be wary. Because you just never know if you are being stopped by a good man or woman with a badge and a brain, or somebody who thinks they are above the law because they are the law. Or worse yet, Rambo in Blue. There is little to NOTHING worse than to be wrongly accused or beaten and incarcerated, entirely denied your rights and freedom by someone who has been given the absolute authority to do so. At that point, your constitutional rights aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It can and does happen, and while we should all give police officers our full respect and total cooperation at all times. That does not mean we must also give them our complete trust. That must be earned, one traffic stop at a time. And as an aside, while I tend to lean more toward the point of view toward the City Beat posters here...not entirely as extreme but generally would agree with their research, point of view, and message, I wholeheartedly disagree with the delivery of their message. As provoked, prodded, insulted, and demonized as Josh was he never once reduced his argument to a sputtering of insults as mainly Ms. Davis, and some others, did. You lost the argument when you lost your temper and dignity in that regard. You were coming from a lofty position: outrage against what appears to be an abuse of power which ended the life of someone who clearly needed help. But you flushed it right down the toilet with your cries of "idiot" and "ass" and "moron"...you did everything but question Josh's paternity. Really, a ridiculous way to fight for what amounts to your defense of basic human rights. It causes one to look even more critically at you and your argument for flaws, not support. I happened to notice that while you blasted JoshB for his going "off topic" (I thought blogs like this were supposed to do that stream of consciousness thing)...you drop topics like the CEO of the Reader's stance on abortion rights, etc. Only further diminishes your message...and I was so hoping for as pure and intelligent a message about this topic from you as this topic deserves (and as you point out was missed by this topic's blogger).— April 21, 2009 2:50 a.m.
Police Officer Shootings
(continued from above)... Now I wasn't there, so I do not know how menacing this guy was or if he truly did present a danger to himself or others. He may very well have. I would ask City Beat to either publish or scan all the documents Ms. Davis speaks of (or request them under a FOIA request and make them available) so that we can all read for ourselves what the paperwork seems to say about it. Was an autopsy performed? Has a coroner’s report been issued? Would like to read those too. I don't think police officers need to unnecessarily put themselves at risk, but because of they voluntarily put themselves into this position of special care and trust for and by the public, yes they DO have to take longer than 17 minutes to talk an obviously unstable individual down, or use the least restrictive least deadly means possible to secure the situation (required police procedure, by the way) and sometimes the very nature of their job means that when dealing with minors or the handicapped or the mentally ill they are supposed to assume additional risk to protect that person who cannot protect themselves. Even when that person is the problem. Crazy, huh? But that is the law; that is what they are taught. They are put in a place above the ordinary citizen and that means they have to act like it at all times. Even when they are driving down the road and some woman cuts them off and engages in road rage. They can't just follow her down the off ramp into a public parking area and empty a clip into the cab of her truck or SUV, with her 8 year old son sitting next to her, through the windshield. Don't care WHAT she did wrong. She wasn't armed. She wasn't driving the vehicle toward the guy. She did not pose an "imminent threat or danger." Look how long it took them to place that off duty officer under arrest, and how much time they spent bashing the woman he shot instead (drunk, bad mom, blah blah). If it had been you or me we'd have been on the ground, face first, in a Da Vinci spread with a dark blue knee in our back. Stories like this don't do the force any favors. They are not human. They are super-human. We created the job and they accepted it. Don't like it, then don't become a cop! Ever since the Rodney King video aired people have openly voiced their mistrust of police officers gone wild. That doesn't mean those people are wrong to mistrust police officers. It means there has been a breach of trust for some pretty valid reasons, and it is up to the breaching party to make amends. (con't...)— April 21, 2009 2:49 a.m.
Police Officer Shootings
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is the fear for many people looking down the business end of a county or state issued firearm poised at arm's length from a badge, or they see the red and blue lights flash on like lightening in their rear view mirrors. For the most part, I would agree in spirit with JoshB that basically if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, that is not always the case and I think that is what has the other side of this controversy respective shorts' in a twist. Josh I have to say that police officers are not like you and me, nor can or should they be held to your "basic Joe human" standard. They are in a position of special trust. The vast majority of the time they are heroes, peace keepers, peace makers. Just as often the heroic things they do go unnoticed or not recognized or thanked. They have saved far more lives than they have ever taken, wrongly or otherwise. And I for one have been glad, with hands clasped as if in prayer, when I have needed help and there they came. God Bless them and their families. Talk about a thankless job... But they are also held to public scrutiny for a very good reason. Much like the poem my Mother used to tell me was written about me (long story) which I loosely repeat: when they are good they are very very good; but, when they are bad they are horrid. Someone who I know with the force for most of his life told me once that most police officers walk a fine line between being a "law man" and being a criminal themselves. The "blue" do cover up for each other. Some make innocent mistakes which I can assure you in my years working with them haunt them far more than it haunts the public memory. But these are not the guys City Beat or some of your other posters here Josh were talking about. Some cops are just plain bad cops. Some are even bad people. They should never have become cops in the first place. I call these types "cops" not "police officers." I hate to offer an opinion when I don't personally know all the facts or know for myself that the facts another professes are, in fact, true. But if Kelly Davis is 100% accurate in the facts she relayed, then those police officers HAVE been trained to handle that situation differently than how it apparently was handled. They did not follow policy and procedure. And Josh they can still be "cleared" of manslaughter or use of excessive force, but fail to follow policy and procedure which leads to a bad result, i.e., they kill someone. Once cleared of criminal conduct by the D.A., it then becomes an internal police matter and they can be written up or reprimanded or even discharged. That is confidential and won't be publicized with rare exception. So being cleared criminally does not necessarily mean "they didn't do anything wrong." (to be continued)...— April 21, 2009 2:45 a.m.
A Cop and Contestant in a Pagaent
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is the fear for many people looking down the business end of a county or state issued firearm poised at arm's length from a badge, or they see the red and blue lights flash on like lightening in their rear view mirrors. For the most part, I would agree in spirit with JoshB that basically if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, that is not always the case and I think that is what has the other side of this controversy respective shorts' in a twist. Josh I have to say that police officers are not like you and me, nor can or should they be held to your "basic Joe human" standard. They are in a position of special trust. The vast majority of the time they are heroes, peace keepers, peace makers. Just as often the heroic things they do go unnoticed or not recognized or thanked. They have saved far more lives than they have ever taken, wrongly or otherwise. And I for one have been glad, with hands clasped as if in prayer, when I have needed help and there they came. God Bless them and their families. Talk about a thankless job... But they are also held to public scrutiny for a very good reason. Much like the poem my Mother used to tell me was written about me (long story) which I loosely repeat: when they are good they are very very good; but, when they are bad they are horrid. Someone who I know with the force for most of his life told me once that most police officers walk a fine line between being a "law man" and being a criminal themselves. The "blue" do cover up for each other. Some make innocent mistakes which I can assure you in my years working with them haunt them far more than it haunts the public memory. But these are not the guys City Beat or some of your other posters here Josh were talking about. Some cops are just plain bad cops. Some are even bad people. They should never have become cops in the first place. I call these types "cops" not "police officers." I hate to offer an opinion when I don't personally know all the facts or know for myself that the facts another professes are, in fact, true. But if Kelly Davis is 100% accurate in the facts she relayed, then those police officers HAVE been trained to handle that situation differently than how it apparently was handled. They did not follow policy and procedure. And Josh they can still be "cleared" of manslaughter or use of excessive force, but fail to follow policy and procedure which leads to a bad result, i.e., they kill someone. Once cleared of criminal conduct by the D.A., it then becomes an internal police matter and they can be written up or reprimanded or even discharged. That is confidential and won't be publicized with rare exception. So being cleared criminally does not necessarily mean "they didn't do anything wrong." (to be continued)...— April 21, 2009 2:42 a.m.
A Cop and Contestant in a Pagaent
I remember that one! Wasn't that Sarah Palin though answering Katie Couric's interview questions? LOL....I'm just kidding. Palin's responses were even more idiotic. Thanks for the smile Suzanne & Josh!— April 21, 2009 1:47 a.m.
Celebrity Idiots -- The Jamie Fox and Hulk Hogan Edition
SDaniels...please note my correction just below the post where I misread "SurfPuppy" to be you (don't ask me how...lol), but I didn't post your screen name. I instead referred initially to your first name. Then immediately afterward I indicated to SurfP that I "...thought (he) was someone else." I know you are not SurfP...your postings make sense. :) Please forgive the error.— April 20, 2009 7:03 p.m.