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
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
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
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Anti, good try, but kinda missed me again. See what you copy/pasted? It's not me "personallY" who discovered all this evidence against the existence of "Gods", and I'm far from the only person who thinks this way. I'm not believing in an alternative "unproven" premise. I'm believing in all the evidence that points conclusively to the non-existence of any "Gods". I'm promoting independently PROVABLE theories about our origins, morality, and our place in the universe that involve no magic (or "faith") whatsoever. In addition, I point out that trying to make someone prove a negative is a well-known distraction, a petty debator's trick. In honest discourse, you point it out and it gets dropped...not repeated. Refried is getting better at this stuff. He gives an interesting argument through personal experience. He says that the social benefits of religion make faith in myths a price worth paying. Tolerance of those poor fools who believe in nonsense is a small thing to him, and more than compensated for by the benefits of maintaining the peace. Good enough. He refuted my assertion that he's being meek because he's cowardly, afraid of public and private condemnation for his views. He even gave an example of when he got the priest's goat. It's interesting that he respects the emotional involvement of those who have "faith". It's also interesting that he implies that I'm somehow overly emotional about my own lack of the same simply because I strongly defend rationality. This is a dirty double standard. Josh and Refried claim they'd never tell people to shut up about their beliefs, no matter how foolish, but they're comfortable telling non-believers like me to shut up. Even though they agree with me. Weird, huh? Then they keep repeating the fallacy that I have to accept as true anything that cannot be 100% proven wrong. This in spite of my best efforts, including the invisible brain eating lizards that crawl around the inside of both their heads. Oh well. I try to set a good example. :-)— November 23, 2009 10:01 p.m.
Obama taps Alan Bersin to oversee the border
Monaghan, I've tried to be a literate and subject-oriented defender of Matt Potter's work. I've been involved in San Diego politics over two decades now, and I find Matt's investigations very revealing. As you say, it's vital that someone in D.C. injest something other than the press-packet Kool-Aid about golden boy Bersin. But not one of our cowardly San Diego congressional delegates would dare lift a finger against Bersin. His friends and backers are stronger than any mere congressman. They know what would happen in retaliation. Matt Potter isn't afraid to state the plain facts as he finds them. I'm glad the Reader continues to publish is work, and only hope he finds an even larger audience online. Maybe someone in D.C. is reading this article too...— November 23, 2009 8:07 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Josh likes to argue, but he sometimes doesn't understand how to debate. I've spent a lot of time and effort answering what he wrote at the beginning of this converstion: "They are SO SURE that there is no God, and they think it's crazy that religious people believe in a God. They go on about science not proving it and this and that. Yet, they are SO POSITIVE there is no God, yet there's no proof of that." I showed how a logical fallacy, known as the argument from ignorance, leads him to this dumb conclusion. Back when I was competing (and winning) in Oxford Debate that would have ended it, the judges would have scored the point, and we'd move on. But Josh, along with Refried, just keep repeating their assertion that since a fiction cannot be disproved, it therefore might be true. They don't get the simple point of "burden of proof". They've shown no evidence for the existence of a deity -- on the contrary they both AGREE it's a preposterous fantasy. And still they assert myths deserve respect even from those of us who can see that it's all bullshyte. Simply repeating, ad naseum, tired (and commonplace) opinions rather than any supporting evidence is lazy and dishonest. When I label them cowards it's not because they're afraid to say there's probably no "God". Instead it's their fear of what theists might say about them. We atheists have lived in fear for far too long. Now we're finally coming out and telling the world the truth as we see it. They have no problem with religious zealots doing this, but claim I'm somehow offensive and illogical. We're told that atheism is "just like religion"...a rather stupid argument for so many reasons. We're told that we should just shut up...like we've ever been allowed to speak before. We're told we're immoral and un-American...by people who engage in religious wars and subvert our constitution. I'm serious, Josh and Refried. Take that logic course at the community college. It will help you immensely, focusing your debating skills, and allowing you to discern between fallacy and truth. As to the personal crap: SD, you've posted more than a few personal allegations against me, concluding from comments I've made (sometimes purely in jest) that I'm this or that horrible thing. I don't really much care, you know. I can engage in overheated rhetoric too. Josh can be annoying online, but I quite enjoyed meeting him in person. I've not met Refried yet, but most of the time I happen to agree with his sentiments. They can call me names. So can you. So can Fumber, Puppy or Pistol or anyone else. I've been doing this online debate thing since the early nineties, and I'm used to it. Please, let's use logic when debating a point and try to answer the evidence presented by the other side rather than resorting solely to name calling. Best, Fred "Humongous Tub of Lard" Williams— November 23, 2009 7:59 p.m.
East Village like ghost town after Padres season
HonestGovernment, you've put your finger on the situation. Those "associations/nonprofits" we support, whether we want to or not, or frequently staffed by insiders rather than professionals. They end up squandering a lot money on administrative expenses, expensive contracts for their friends, and high staff salaries. But it's peanuts compared to CCDC's fraud, waste, and abuse. Which pales in comparison with the tens of millions we give away, the well-documented result of bribery, to the Spanos and Moores sports-entertainment and real estate development companies. Which is still just a speck compared to the financial hole we dug when we decided to raise pensions and benefits without planning to pay for them. ...and surprise! Those pensions and benefits were foisted on us by the union leaders who elected some of those politicians. Those union leaders leaned on city employees to keep their mouths shut about these scams...the city employees obeyed, helping to cover up the mess. They were paid to keep quiet about their fears for the future, and to not oppose the pipe dreams of the McGrory and Golden that bankrupted this city. It's a full circle, or even a Mobius strip, eternally punishing the citizens of the city and enriching a small well-connected group of immoral swindlers. To find the names of these swindlers, just search the UT archives for the last two decades with the key words "civic leader".— November 23, 2009 7:21 p.m.
Obama taps Alan Bersin to oversee the border
...and we can all trust Fumber's opinion, because when it comes to stupid he's an expert.— November 22, 2009 7:56 p.m.
Obama taps Alan Bersin to oversee the border
Re: #77 Yes, war tends to corrupt, and the drug war corrupts absolutely. It's not Mexico's fault. It our fault. We elected religious-right fanatics into our government. Instead of using common sense and science to promote new intelligent policies to address drug abuse, they declared "WAR". The result has been nothing but a disaster. A disaster for the 800,000+ arrested every year for simple possession of a plant. A disaster for the government and people of Mexico. A disaster for our budget as we spend upwards of $40 Billion each year on this war on ourselves. Worst of all has been the steady erosion of our constitutional rights under this "WAR". The fourth amendment is basically gone. So long as the cops use the drug war excuse, they can do whatever they like with impunity. Same for prosecutors who have absolute immunity...even when they commit serious crimes in an effort to jail the innocent. The use of confidential informants, something Radley Balko has documented extensively, has corrupted our justice system. So has the militarization of our police. They've adopted an "us versus them" mentality where they see the citizens as the enemy. http://www.theagitator.com/category/drug-informan… http://www.theagitator.com/category/paramilitary-… When I see someone like Alan Bersin stepping into this environment, I have little faith that he's not going to be part of the problem. Solutions would hurt his career prospects. Drug warriors only have incentives for further ramping up this idiot "WAR", and if they ever try to inject common sense they'll be gone. So expect more of the same stupidity, waste, greed, and corruption with Bersin on the job. He does as he's told by his owners, who delight in profiting on the miseries of others.— November 22, 2009 6:56 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Josh, you and Refried both seem to think that tolerance of stupidity is a virtue that you deserve credit for. Really, you're just cowards. All your fine words come out to the same thing... "Shut up, atheists. Don't call into question our treasured myths." I am not the one advocating or defending stupidity. You are. You are equating stupidity with knowledge and thinking you're clever for doing so. That's wrong. Don't pat yourselves on the back for your "tolerance" when all you're doing is refusing to be adults and state clearly what you know to be the truth. There's probably no "God", so it's time to grow up and stop pretending there is or giving any special respect to those who are stuck in the delusion that they've got a special invisible friend.— November 22, 2009 1:25 a.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Wait, I'm just saying I don't know who said "He who thinks he knows, does not know. He who knows that he does not know, knows." And while I don't know who said that, I do know that it's basically bullshyte. Love you too, but only in a pan-sexual way. (Hey, Refried, get your hands away from there...) Gotta go make breakfast for my lovely still sleeping girlfriend. God bless, y'all. Rev. Brother Deacon Williams— November 21, 2009 10:58 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
I don't know. :-)— November 21, 2009 10:28 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Maybe I believe there is an invisble lizard eating your brain...even if there's no evidence for it. So what? We can believe any number of crazy things. But when there's strong evidence for an alternative point of view (there's probably no God) and weak or no evidence for the crazy point of view (an invisible divine being) a smart person changes his mind. What your all contending is that religious thoughts deserve as much respect as logical thoughts. Right? I disagree. I think it's counter productive. Please open your minds. Have a look at the original evolutionary reasons for the development of religion. Did any of you read the article from the Times? We don't need this albatros around our necks any more. Encouraging people to keep believing in childish stories does nothing good for the world, and often promotes evil. Time to grow up, and expect those around us to grow up too. I understand. All of you agree that what's considered conventional religion in the USA is bogus. You all know how evolution works and agree that's the rational explanation for how we came to be on this planet. So why do you defend those who insist on clinging to superstitious notions of rib women and talking snakes? Why do you insist that they're worthy of respect for believing what you agree is utter nonsense?— November 21, 2009 9:54 p.m.