Quest for Justice
I’m a long-time fan of Joe Deegan and was impressed by the cover story last week (“Murphy Canyon Mystery,” July 3).
I had a similar thing happen to me involving the Escondido Police. I was a victim and yet treated like a perpetrator. I can assure Mr. Saikali that race had nothing to do with it.
Police training has changed and now everyone is seen as the bad guy. Departments are failing to release information even under the Freedom of Information Act.
I wish Mr. Saikali the best in his quest for justice. I can only hope he finds it.
Re: “Murphy Canyon Mystery,” July 3 cover story.
So, can the citizens of San Diego collectively sue the San Diego Police Department for advertising themselves as “America’s finest” on their cars? This is where the dishonesty starts, so perhaps if we adorn their cars with, “I’m a [insert noun] , i.e. “rapist,” “drug-dealer,” “violent, corrupt, asshole,” at least the public wouldn’t harbor any illusions about these twits.
Please don’t print my name or email. I don’t want to be beaten up by some rapist, drug-dealing, violent, corrupt, asshole San Diego cop.
Looking the Other Way
In response to Les Merrill’s letter (“Cheap Shot,” July 3), Chief Lansdowne was well aware of the dangerous activities and criminal record of policeman Ken Davis, but allowed Davis to continue roaming the streets of San Diego as a uniformed, armed cop.
Davis is the cop who, on April 13, 2013, among the SDPD Gang of 7, expressed open approval of the severe beating and attempted murder of an innocent man. See the cover story of the July 3 Reader (“Murphy Canyon Mystery”). Lansdowne did “look the other way,” and ignored written notifications of what occurred in that incident.
An internet search for “SDPD cop Ken Davis” should bring up several links to news articles, and yet Davis is only one of many SDPD cops who have been exposed for being angry, violent, and generally dangerous to the public.
Your June 26 “Steampunk Junction” feature story was a great introduction to the general movement. Much was written about the clothing and the machines, but not so much about the music of the culture. Yes, there is a reference in the opening paragraph to “Carousel,” a single recording composed and produced by Poplock Homes, in answer to the Westfield incident.
However, might I direct your readers to voiceoflajolla.com (La Jolla internet radio) to view the internationally acclaimed local steampunk band, Steam Powered Giraffe. There you can see their entertaining “Honeybee” video and listen to their podcast interview.
If you haven’t been introduced to this well-established group’s unique act and heard their story, do yourself a pleasurable favor.
- Ron Jones
- Station manager, volj.net
Junior for Mayor!
Junior Najor rocks! Elizabeth Salaam captured the man and his glowing charisma perfectly (“Man of 4000 Titles,” June 19 cover story).
I have been a fan and a customer for the past five years. My hope is that he will eventually run for city council, win, and go on to become mayor of San Diego. His intelligence and fairness would suit him well for this position.
- Dominic Martina
- via snail mail
Annoying and Sexist
The background image for the laser hair removal ad on your website is sexist and annoying. As a woman, I do not want to visit your website with a buxom female all over the screen. In addition, I can no longer view your site at my work location. Please join the 21st Century, and get rid of this annoying, sexist background ad.
Playing Fast and Loose
The Oxford English dictionary defines the noun sortie as a “mission or attack by a single plane.” Having re-read my May 22 letter (“Lindy’s Nazi Antics”) regarding Charles Lindbergh’s pre-war and wartime activities, specifically the sentence “It is true Lindbergh sortied alongside American fighters,” I am comfortable the word selection properly described his actions.
It is true that qualifying “sortied” with the adverb “merely” diminishes the weight of the activity. I did not, however, take that step. I am left to wonder why Mr. Stirling elected to do so in his June 19 correspondence (“Lindbergh v. Roosevelt”), and then to subsequently take me to task for his device.
Regrettably, this is not the letter’s only factually questionable representation. It is Mr. Stirling’s prerogative to conclude one sole reason — an imbroglio related to air mail delivery — informed President Roosevelt’s decision to disqualify Colonel Lindbergh from World War II service. However, academic historians point to a wide range of tensions, many of which traced their provenance to Lindbergh’s challenging behaviors throughout the ’30s and early ’40s. Lynne Olson’s recent publication (Those Angry Days) speaks well to the complexities the letter writer glosses over.
It is also incorrect to state, “Germany, along with every other European country, awarded Lindbergh their top civilian aviation award.” The continent of Europe has dozens of nations, the majority of which took no such steps. The assertion that an “overwhelming majority” of Americans “vehemently” opposed joining the Second World War also plays a bit fast and loose with the narrative. Public polling, which remains dicey in modern times, was not sophisticated enough during the period to gauge social opinions as concretely as Stirling now feels empowered to do. Newspaper publisher, and fellow Missourian, Basil Brewer did not broadcast his 1941 piece “Farewell to Lindbergh” in a vacuum. His calls to “finish the Lindbergh hoax…he talks on subjects of which he is profoundly ignorant” reflected the attitudes of unknown millions more.
Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of Mr. Stirling’s attempted contribution to this nuanced historical discourse is his strategy of rehabilitating Lindbergh via an attack on President Roosevelt. Stirling apparently feels no compunction about characterizing the four-term chief executive, roundly considered one of the greatest leaders in American history as a liar. His charge that Roosevelt engineered the Pearl Harbor attack is as dubious as the source he cited to uphold the claim.
Such smokescreens are not helpful to serious people. They confuse more than they enlighten and, in any event, will not alter the complex set of facts surrounding Charles Lindbergh’s pre-war behaviors. A wonderful aviator and iconic global figure, he was also a bigot, bigamist, and someone who was seen by many contemporary and historical onlookers as out of step with his times.
- Jeffrey Demsky
- San Bernardino