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
Death at a Funeral
This movie should've gotten a black dot. But one star works, too. This is not only one of the least funny comedians I've seen in years...the entire, packed theatre of old people at La Jolla, was laughing like they'd never seen anything funnier. How bizarre. Peter Dinklage was aces, as usual.— September 23, 2009 4:24 p.m.
Critical Crash
velo, I'm done fighting with you idiots. Follow the rules of the road, and everyones a happy camper and no threats will be necessary. I'm guessing you dopes don't pack heat. In your goofy tight bike shorts, I doubt anything else would fit!— September 23, 2009 4:22 p.m.
This. And That.
Nice one, Fish. Since I hated Marty, I tried to hang on and give Norv the benefit of the doubt for a long time. But he's doing some really bad things. He needs to go. Pete, you're completely wrong about WHY Norv didn't go for the 7. It had NOTHING to do with the crowd, and the half-time pep talk. Trust me, he would've loved the 7 points. It's the conservative nature (something I hated about Marty at times). He figured if they go for the play, what happens if there's an interception that's run back? What happens if there's a fumble? What happens if Phillip gets sacked and the clock runs out? THOSE ARE THE THINGS that were in his mind, when he went for a chip shot taking the guaranteed 3 points. I think it was a bad decision, as Rivers has been in the league long enough to know the deal. He could drop back. If Gates isn't open at the back of the end zone within five seconds, he can throw it out of bounds. That would give 'em 5 seconds for the field goal on 4th down. Marty used to do this thing that bugged me, where there would be 25 seconds left in half, and he'd have the team just run out the clock, instead of taking a few shots at the end zone. I never understood that (although the same examples i just gave, apply to that as well).— September 23, 2009 4:19 p.m.
Fun Football Stories
Well, sure, there are people that Favre jerked over more than Rodgers. There's the Jets, who he recently threw under the bus saying they never reported his injury. That got them a fine of $125,000 from the NFL. There's the QB and rest of the Vikes, who go thru the off-season, only to have him come in the last minute. As he usually does, simply because he "doesn't like training camp" or whatever it is. With Aaron Rodgers, the dude is a stud quarterback. And ya know what he does? The same thing another stud, hall of fame, QB did (steve young in SF). He bided his time, knowing he was holding a clipboard behind greatness (favre and montana, respectively). Yet Favre each year, for two years, said he'd retire. And then he'd "come back" again, as Rodgers was all ready to go. FINALLY, the team just said "enough. rodgers is our guy." When they realized that might be a bit of a PR nightmare, they said "Okay...you can come back. And compete for the job." Sounds fair enough to me. But not to Favre, who bails out of town. I think he should've said "Look...I know I said I was retiring. I still want to play. But I'm older now. And Rodgers is young. Start him...and I'll be his backup." Then, the Pack has the best back-up QB in the league. And everyones happy. But, nooooo. His ego couldn't handle that, so he has to throw his interceptions for the Jets. And, it's only a matter of time before he realizes that the Vikes are winning, and getting attention, because they have Adrian Peterson, the best RB in football. And he'll want to sling some 70 yard bombs that'll fall 15 yards short, and in a cornerbacks hands. He'll end up with more interceptions then TDs, but the Vikes will still make the playoffs.— September 23, 2009 4:09 p.m.
Fun Football Stories
I actually always liked the leap. Although, I always kind of liked the Packers. I like the fans involvement in the team. I liked Bart Starr and VLombardi back in the day (I was too young to watch them, but loved the old film footage). I liked Sterling Sharpe and Favre, and the football they played. I do hate Favre now, and started hating him when he d***ed over Aaron Rodgers.— September 23, 2009 10:25 a.m.
Response to: Kissing Cousins (errr, mothers) and Interracial Dating
P.S. Rickey...I'll give $100 to your favorite charity if you post a photo of your arms. The curiosity is killing me. I'm picturing someone like Charlie Brown, who couldn't lift them above his head.— September 23, 2009 9:35 a.m.
Response to: Kissing Cousins (errr, mothers) and Interracial Dating
Glad to hear all that, single. First, I'm all for having civil and respectful conversations on these topics. Unfortunatley, people like SDaniels, who we'll all agree possess a certain degree of intelligence...just jumps to "Josh must be racist" because my views don't work with hers. She's also goes down the path of "you have nothing to teach me," when in fact, nobody really does. Because she comes across as a know-it-all, when in fact, we can all learn something from everything everyone writes. Gates saying both parties were wrong is a step (albeit a small one) in the right direction. The problem is, both parties weren't wrong. And he never apologized at the White House.How hard would it have been to say "I realize that I was on edge and shouldn't have snapped at you." Gates could've even explained he's had cops harass him in the past (which may or may not have happened...I've asked black friends about this before, some have, some haven't...and some think they have; when they tell me the story, it turns out they haven't). Things are not always "both parties fault". If a guy slaps a woman in the tush at a bar, and her husband asks the guy to keep his hands off his wife...the guy turns around and punches the husband and a fight insues -- would way say "both parties are at fault", merely because we see two men throwing punches at each other? There's no doubt in my mind, had Gates shown respect to that officer...just as he commands respect in a lecture hall or classroom...the situation never escalates. Also single, if you're going to dismiss things studies say based on race, that's fine. But you have to do that with all the stats that come across, even the positive ones. And you'd also have to wonder why comedians or other people mention certain stereo types regarding certain races. People wouldn't laugh if certain things didn't happen often. That could be a white man dancing poorly at a wedding. Or a black man talking during a movie. I've always said people are all different. So for a person to be racist and not want to get to know someone of another race, is ignorance on their part. But it's no reason to be upset if someone says they "dont date blacks" or they "don't date short guys" or whatever it is. I guarantee the woman that doesn't date short guys probably wouldn't turn down a date with Tom Cruise. And the woman that won't date black guys, probably wouldn't turn down Denzel Washington or Will Smith (of course, meaning all those actors mentioned were single and not married) And lastly, I appreciate you ending your comments above explaining that you didn't find fault with my piece. In the future, keep in mind, I have no problem with people finding fault with my pieces. So if you ever do, please, by all means, call me out on it.— September 23, 2009 9:34 a.m.
Huff-Puff
Surf...did you completely misunderstand what I was saying? I never said Travolta DESERVED the Oscar nomination. I merely explained WHY he GOT the Oscar nomination. I even thought I explained why I thought Jackson had more acting range in his character than Travolta. Yes, the Cristopher Waltz Nazi character in Basterds was the best thing about it. Almost made the movie worth watching. But going back to Pulp Fiction, not only is the shooting in the head in the car a bit much, but that scene was done poorly. I'll never forget watching it in the theatre for the first time, and Travolta is having an argument with Jackson about whether they survived the hail of gunfire because it was an "act of God" and Jackson must have a purpose for living. They're going back and forth, and Travolta decides to ask their "passenger" in the backseat. He turns around, with gun in hand. And they hit a speed bump or something, and the gun goes off. Well, I initially thought Travolta was pointing the gun at him, as if to say -- you'll be agreeing with me on this one. I do agree with Tarantino about the premise of that scene being interesting. Shooting someone accidentally. And then needing to cover your tracks. And quick.— September 23, 2009 9:10 a.m.
Fun Football Stories
I agree with everything, except for the part where you say the leaps are "spontaneous". They're hardly spontaneous anymore, as they've been doing them when they score TDs for years and years now.— September 23, 2009 9:02 a.m.
Response to: Kissing Cousins (errr, mothers) and Interracial Dating
OH, and SDaniels made a comment that is baffling. She refers to threads (I'm assuming mine) that are "joyous racism". It's this same idiotic logic that people have, when they claim you're racist if you don't agree with Obama. Or if you think Harvard professor Gates was wrong in how he dealt with the cops. SD always claims she'll "learn nothing" from conversations like this. Well, of course she won't. Just as Gates learned nothing from the experience. To him, it was the "big bad cops" yet again "harassing the black man". Instead of standing back and reflecting, and realizing he was wrong. And sure, maybe the cops got angrier than they needed to, but it all stemmed from his ignorance in how to properly handle what should've been a normal situation. Also singleandawesome...anti wasn't saying people are ONLY attracted to people that look like their family or the ones they grew up with. But I believe studies back up what she is saying. It's the reason we always hear about women that find a guy that looked (or acted) like their father. It's not some oedipal thing, it's just the comfort or familiarity or whatever it is. And, if you were in a funk because of what other people posted about why they weren't attracted to certain races, well you can disregard all that. If you really want to talk about the two groups of people that have it toughest in the dating world...it's: SHORT MEN. And FAT WOMEN. Because, no matter what race you are, if you're decent looking and can hold a converation, you'll have no problem finding dates. But an overweight woman, probably won't get many looks from men. And short men, won't get many looks from women (unless they're Tom Cruise or Darren Sproles). Now...are you out of your funk yet?— September 23, 2009 2:10 a.m.