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
Outlawed Canine Community
Hey Bisker, I'm voting for you for president. What a crazy world we have! In the 60s and 70s, when I grew up, no one would have guessed that we'd tussle over whether people had to follow the law or not. Take the illegal aliens--should we make them follow the law? The nerve of us for even thinking such a thing! They are special. They are entitled to their "rights." Back then, people, particularly the city council, would have backed the law, no question. You don't like the law? Think we're racists? F you, go home!" Unfortunately, due to that ugly word greed, insanity rulesin our country.— June 30, 2010 5:18 p.m.
No Park Wants the Homeless or their Dogs
I doubt the police officer would have cited you and I for an off-leash Chihuhua, I think he was trying to make camping out there difficult so the homeless will go somewhere else. It's a difficult situation. While I'm not without compassion for the homeless, I have to admit I can't stand to watch them lay around, dirty and under the influence. I don't think the public should have to tolerate their blighting the neighborhood. You sound as if the police are the ones who are dangerous. As a rule, the homeless are not sweet, loving victims. Even some of the homeless will tell you that. I've often thought that a remote park somewhere might be the answer. It would require security which may not be affordable, but at least it would be somewhere they could go, and not harass the public. In a fantasy world, maybe we should, as a society, take responsibility for them. Have some type of institution to keep them in where they get some kind of care and supervision. But I can only imagine the problems that would lead to. Most of them can't be controlled, that's why they are out on the street. What is the answer? Well,I just don't believe that families should have to put up with being approached in parking lots, asked for change as they enter the grocery store, etc. About a year ago, a lady was stabbed to death by a man with psychiatric issues in the parking lot of Toys R Us. She didn't say anything to him, he just walked up to her, took out a knife, and let him have it. Addicts and mentally ill people are dangerous. I guess the best answer for right now is to cite the Chihuahua.— June 30, 2010 5:05 p.m.
Michael....
I like this TheRegulator person. Where have you been? Do let me know about the petition. I'll sign. The editors, unfortunately, allow the cruelty to go on in the name of freedom of speech. They don't believe in censorship. They are shooting themselves in the foot, as far as I'm concerned. Grasca: "Ed Hardy" is a line of clothes designed by a brilliant designer named Christian Audigier. He has set the trends for today. You have probably seen his clothes on the street, or at least the knock-offs because everybody is wearing them--from Madonna to people with a "douchebag mentality." (When it comes to class and good taste, I will certainly defer to Ms. Grant from now on, as she is so good at determining such from the classy Web sites she gets her information from.) He is famous for making the skull with roses popular, although I don't care for that. Recently, he has gotten attention for designing the clothes for the no-talent, little known peasant named Michael Jackson, for his "This is it Tour." But who needs a chump like him when you can have the sophistication of the successful "kitty click" on the Reader Website? My shoes and scarf are pictured in the above avatar. Ms. Grant: I don't knopw how I gave you the impression I thought you wrote for a living. One 3rd-place win doesn't make you good enough to do it for a living. Who am I to say? I'm someone who has been in a winning category 5 times, never third place. Call it bragging if you want to, but it is a fact, and I think it qualifies me to have a say. So you and your group don't like me? Well, okay. What do I need you for? Since you don't read my blog, you don't know that my first story appeared in Good Housekeeping, and was subsequently chosen for a book called "Blessings" which is for sale at Barnes and Noble. The editors of GH refer to the contributors as "talented ladies" which includes myself, Alice Hoffman, Jodi Piccoult, and Luanne Rice. Because of that piece, which was about dog rescue, I got calls from all over the country. Good Housekeeping forwarded letters to me, and published a letter to the editor about it. A dog rescue person praised it and used it in her newsletter that helps raise money for rescue. I met two ladies at the shelter who went nuts when they found out I was the one who wrote it. A few months ago, a lady in Arizona called me and asked me to attend a party in Escondido so I could sign copies of the book for her and her friend. A friend of mine has an autographed copy of one of my Reader stories hanging in her living room. I don't consider myself to be a threat to Toni Morrison, but I'm o.k. with what I've done. I would prefer to be liked by everyone, but if I'm "too low" to be liked by certain people, that's o.k. There are plenty of people around who think I'm o.k. Best.— June 30, 2010 1:05 p.m.
Michael....
"The only people that love you on these boards are the cat lovers Nan, SDaniels, Grasca, Ms. Grant, and Anti. Wow! 5 whole people." As for the stringers, only a total dumbass would take the stringer news seriously. It's obviously done a bit tongue-in-cheek. I believe it's there to entertain, not to keep readers up-to-date on the latest hard news. All journalists, no matter who they are, stretch the truth here and there to shape a better story. Otherwise, it wouldn't be interesting. I happen to think Matteo's work is brilliant. She has a unique ability to turn the simplest matter into an engaging story. I envy her. With all of the "intellect" around here, I think Charlie Brown, as simple and pestrian as he may be, had the best quote for these women. "Those who can't do teach; those who can't teach criticize."— June 30, 2010 10:39 a.m.
Michael....
No, no, Honey. Quotes mean that's what the OTHER person said, not the writer The volunteer coordinator used the word "fanciful," see? She was being kind. You know me better than that. I'd call her an outright liar, and a hypocrite at that. It's o.k. when she lies, but she hold me to a higher standard. Get it now?— June 29, 2010 9:58 p.m.
Michael....
P.S. Thank God you only acquire your opinions on Web sites, who know all about high fashion, music, etc. God knows that's where sophisticated ladies such as yourself should get their information. Give up. You won't win.— June 29, 2010 5:19 p.m.
Michael....
russl: I don't have anything against someone who doesn't have bundles of money, I don't have them either. I have a problem with someone who acts like she knows better than everyone else, and has nothing to back it up with. She says things like there isn't much money in writing, as if she's the ultimate authority. There is a ton of money in writing, people just don't want the literary stuff. It's what now? BORING! There are many people in academia who are there because they feel it puts them above others, and for no other reason. SDaniels acts like that often, and I happen to call her out on it. This goes way back before this blog entry ever got started. I don't think you probably know even half of what went on before. If you prefer to side with someone who is rude and gauche, who uses her educated opinion to put others down, good luck with that. It's not what I stand for, and I'm as entitled to my opinion as anyone else on the site. If you think her way is an acceptable way to act, hope that works for you. As they say, if you're not a part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I suspect you just don't know the whole pathetic story.— June 29, 2010 5:03 p.m.
Michael....
"I think one should not critique another in ways that they would not want done to themselves and their writing." Very well put, Grasca. Your reluctance to start a blog is exactly the reason I went to bat for this blogger. I think you have a lovely way with words, and I suggest you start that blog. I will give you my full support. There is no right and wrong thoughts and feelings. Ugly people like to say so, because they have no other way to feel important. People like this aren't worth listening to. SDaniels reminds me of my father-in-law. He used to say, "Schools nowadays teach people to read, not think." Josh and I are hopeless losers, and yet, we make money with our writing. Suzanne,on the other hand, is an online teacher who blogged about buying her shoes at Payless. Thanks to the Reader, I have A collection of shoes by Ed Hardy. Who do you want to listen to? I care about what editors think and they seem to like my writing just fine. Even they had to start somewhere. They know how it is. Start your blog. I look forward to seeing it.— June 29, 2010 2:21 p.m.
Money Does Not Buy Wisdom...Nor Can Lucre Rent It!
I enjoyed this blog. I couldn't believe that Tiger Woods and Jessee James did all that screwing around and what? Didn't think they were going to get caught? Like the tabloids won't pay a billion dollars for pictures of them in the arms of women other than their wives? How stupid could they be? I just wondered how they got away with so much for so long. Money is power and it eventually just goes to their heads. Rabbi Shmuly attributed Michael Jackson's downfall to a "Messiah Complex." He thought he knew better than everyone else. Eventually, guys like this just self- destruct. J. David was caught with a license plate that belonged to the Ferrari dealership in SD. I used to work there and there was all kinds of stuff going on--cocaine was everywhere, the mechanics were making silencers in the shop, there were dealings with orgainzed crime, once I was interrogated by the F.B.I. because a salesman had sold a car to one guy and the pink slip to another. He was somehow connected to Christopher Boyce--the alleged spy that the Feds were looking for in Mexico when he was really in Idaho. I think he had mixed TRW documents up in a blender. Anyway, God only knows what all J. David was mixed up in. I think the stuff the public knows about is just the tip of the iceburg. I've often said that the royalties paid to celebrities allows them to buy just enough rope to hang themselves. It isn't natural to have so much money without working for it, and they self-destruct too. It allows them to buy too much cocaine.— June 29, 2010 12:26 a.m.
Michael....
As for Refried's comment #37: There is a difference between criticism and cruelty. To say that this writer's entry "sucks" is cruel and unnecessary--not constructive at all. I think people blog to be heard, not to be criticized. This is not the arena for it, unless asked for. I think the people who treat other people badly, as I've found many animal people do, are the people who are maladjusted. Ms. Grant, SDaniels, and Cuddlefish are bitches, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. I think with them off the sight, there would be many more bloggers here. They are ignorant, unkind, and tacky. To support them--if that's what you're doing--means you are as bad as they are. Congratulations.— June 28, 2010 4:09 p.m.