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
Of Ball and Bus
...once again, how is it that hosting a professional football team makes our city a BETTER place? Can we get the Chargers to reimburse National City police for their wasted time that was solely caused by this sports entertainment company...maybe there's a criminal or civil suit available under "attractive nuisance" so National City can sue the Spanos family for their expenses? Any lawyers out there, or just football fanatics?— November 21, 2009 7 p.m.
New! Rapid! Costly?
Actually it seems relatively reasonable to have a route like that. Back when I spent more time in Mexico, I'd have appreciated this service and probably used it frequently. And, Ponzi, you're right. It will be used by service workers living in Mexico who have clients in wealthy neighborhoods. I don't really have a problem with that. I'd rather share a bus seat with one of them than with some wannabe junior gang banger. Have you ever met those women? They tend to be really sweet, hard working, taking care of families, and generous to a fault. I love talking with them, improving my Spanish and hearing about their families. Our government policies on immigration are certainly messed up. But those women are golden and ought to be better treated, not scorned.— November 21, 2009 6:57 p.m.
Cat Killer on the Loose
Too many of the commenters jump to the conclusion that this is done by a human. I'm glad to reassure you that this is almost certainly the work of coyotes. They eat cats, especially the ones living in our urban canyons. Some estimates put cats as high as 40% of an urban coyote's diet. Like a lot of carrion eaters, they're messy. They do tend to scatter body parts around, and finding them on roads is no surprise. Think of it: A happy but skitish coyote is trotting along with a hunk of fresh cat in the early morning hours, when a car appears. The coyote, startled, will drop the hunk of cat and scurry away. If it doesn't come back for the food, it lies there until it's discovered by a human who immediately has dark thoughts about that creepy teenager down the street who always wears black t-shirts. When they hunt in packs (and sometimes they do) they tend to surround your precious kitty, bark up a storm making the cat cower down, and then rip it to pieces. Sorry about that. That's just what they do. Nothing personal against your cat. So don't worry. It's highly unlikely to be that spotty boy who listens to weird music and doesn't have many friends. If you let your cat out at night in almost any neighborhood in San Diego, chances are the coyotes will be very interested. The coyotes were here first. Keep your cat indoors or accept the consequences.— November 21, 2009 6:51 p.m.
Obama taps Alan Bersin to oversee the border
Calreb1, are you seriously suggesting that there's no sniff of corruption or insider dealing in this story? If so, come out and say it. Otherwise, it seems you just don't like the writer and the publication, and otherwise have nothing to offer but rather amusing observations on the advertisers. Best, Fred— November 20, 2009 9:38 a.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Josh, You wrote: "I don't know FOR FACT that there isn't a God." That's "....a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignora… Josh, neither of us can definitively disprove the existence of a number of things: 1. Apollo and Zeus 2. Vishnu and Shiva 3. Leprecauns and Unicorns We all agree that those things are not real, believing in them is not reasonable, and that intelligent sane folks don't take them seriously. Why do you expect an exception when it comes to the mythical creature you call "God"? I suspect it's just tradition and cowardice. You've been brought up not to question the emperor's non-existent wardrobe, and are obediently quiet. You're reasonably afraid of the consequences of coming right out and saying that you don't believe in any kind of magic...whether it's tradition or not. Josh, was it magic that made your traffic ticket go away? God? Jesus? The flying Spaghetti Monster? Thor? Isis? No, you know exactly what led up to it being dismissed and would think anyone claiming it's some kind of victory for the lord is nuts. You also know how plants and animals have evolved, how earth quakes happen, where babies come from. So why insist on giving credit and respect to a notion that is really quite ridiculous? You think it's wise and prudent to nod your head when someone says that a rib woman met a talking snake that convinced her to eat an apple therefore condemning all children to original sin? You agree that the notion of a "Just God" is quite insupportable, and I appreciate that. With all the evidence of how children are treated in this quite unjust world, it's hard to understand how anyone could think it's true. I'm sure you're not a creationist. Do you believe in resurection? Salvation from your sins in the blood of the son of the lord (who's actually a copy of the father who was sent down to commit suicide...oh you know the story)? Do you believe in miracles, faith healing, an invisible omniscient being that picks sides in football games? No? I thought not. Why not go all the way? What do you have to lose? Josh, not only do you think that God, as "He" is commonly conceived, is highly unlikely to exist, but also that you have no obligation to respect those who think that such myths are true. Go ahead and say it. Don't be afraid.— November 20, 2009 9:21 a.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Hi Josh, gotta go, but will get back to you...— November 20, 2009 1:25 a.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Oops. Before I go, a few more cut/paste quotes from Einstein: A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein) I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954) http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god… "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peo… Now it's true that Einstein had no time for atheists, and he didn't like either side quoting him for backing up any theological views...one way or the other. So please don't use him to advance your contention that religion inspired Einstein. He very clearly denied that and doesn't really want to be involved in this discussion, though he explicitly did NOT believe in what you and I would call "God".— November 20, 2009 1:23 a.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Refried, when you get up in the morning, peruse this: http://einsteinandreligion.com/ "To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world." — Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085 "I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it." — Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154 Pretty clear, huh? By the way, in about a half hour I'm going to walk by the house on Prague's old town square where Einstein used to play his violin and flirt with the local beauties. Sleep well. Try not to think about those undetectable brain eating lizards, okay? Fred— November 20, 2009 1:17 a.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
THIS universe is BEING explained every day. Don't you read the newspapers? What a crock of crap to claim otherwise. Einstein was NOT a believer. Who told you that? There's so much evidence in his journals, letters, correspondence...everywhere. Yes, he made some off-hand references to "God" but also made it very clear he did NOT mean anything close to what anyone would consider a religious notion of a deity...rather he was talking of the wonders of nature and our universe. So do a bit of research before you claim "facts" like that to somehow bolster your arguments. Really, your gaps of logic are embarrassing. Re-read what you wrote. "Science dictates that only proven theories are accepted, and religion dictates that only unproven facts are important (faith). There is an undeniable similarity in that difference." Does that make any sense whatsoever to anyone here? Of course science does NOT "dictate" that only "proven" theories are acepted...science welcomes new theories always. It only requires that theories have some evidence and be testable so they can be duplicated. The notion that because religion is the opposite of this that somehow there is an "undeniable similarity" is...well..."A is not B and C is not B, therefore C is the same as A". Dumb, huh? You're right there is a lot left to be explained about the universe. Science is continuing to aid us in explaining these things that were mysterious not long ago. Religion cannot do this. It claims to already have all the answers. Religion says God causes earthquakes, famines, floods, and plagues. Science has allowed us to find out the actual causes of all these things. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, and neither does anyone else who uses science to guide their thinking. Only the religious morons do that, openly, loudly, repeatedly, with tax-exemptions and public approval. They still sell faith healing, threats of magical storms and tremblors, worldwide floods... All of that, I'm sure you'll agree, is ignorant. Yet you claim that ignorance is equal to knowledge. I disagree. I won't ever agree that people who are willfully ignorant are the same as people who are open to evidence.— November 20, 2009 12:48 a.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Again, Refried swings and misses the point... Science is not something you "believe". You insist on equating science and religion. They're not remotely the same, my friend, no matter how you stretch. It's never necessary to "believe" in science. That's not what it's about at all. Don't you get that? On the contrary, the scientific method is all about doubt. Looking for contradictions. Updating and debating to improve the state of knowledge. Religion is the opposite. You're taught to close your mind, never update the old, never question or debate, only believe. Get it now? The last ten years have been explosive in terms of advancement of knowledge. We've come to understand so much more about the brain, biology, evolution, and the universe in such a short time... Science allows and encourages this. It doesn't require me to ever believe in any theories...only test them to see if they are supported by evidence, rejecting those that don't pass the test. It's a tool, a process, an evidence-based approach to reality rather than a faith-based approach. Claiming that if I "believe" in the scientific method then I must also "believe" in bloodletting and a flat earth just makes you look desperate. So please find a line of reasoning that actually makes sense in THIS universe we inhabit. Equating science and religion is a tired debator's ploy, not evidence for your position but evidence of its weakness. Your position is something you still haven't articulated. What do you "believe"? Do you really honestly think that science and religion are equal? Really? Honestly? If not, then drop it. If so, then again the burden of proof is on you. Prove God exists. Don't expect me to prove non-existence unless you can simultaneously prove there's no invisible lizard in your brain. Get it? However you may wish to distract us from the main point, the truth is quite obvious to anyone with the maturity and courage to accept it. There is probably no God just as there's probably no invisible brain lizard. In fact, it's such a remote possibility that wasting your time worrying about whether or not "He" supports your football team or if the invisible lizard is somehow responsible for your compulsive masturbation is worthy of everyone's ridicule. On the other hand, we've got a marvelous very REAL universe around us and a way of learning more and more about it...this process is called science and requires no belief in anything. Only intelligence and honesty is required to use the tools of science. Honesty and intelligence are absolutely foreign to the childish believers in religion.— November 19, 2009 11:51 p.m.