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
The Swift Justice Of Cosmetology
Pikey, I actually addressed the subject of the blog. Take the time to read #56. *smooch*— November 24, 2009 12:39 a.m.
The Slightly Hodge-Podge Composition
Ted. Debbie. Sven. All the free dirt pile guy needs is a new tude about his dirt pile: http://www.robertsmithson.com/sculpture/11.htm http://www.robertsmithson.com/photoworks/mirror-y… http://www.robertsmithson.com/photoworks/oolite-i…— November 24, 2009 12:21 a.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
re: #138: Thanks, Josh. I hope you can keep your end of the bargain this time--it's best for both of us. Fred wrote in #140: "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" Fred, since you value clarity in discussion, let's be clear about this "horrible thing" and the phrase "more than a few." I have written exactly one post in regards to your sexist comments about women, and alleged that your comments were sexist. You were free to respond, but chose not to respond to that single allegation. I have no beef with you otherwise, and quite enjoy your posts. I do not see how your meeting either Josh or refried has anything to do with the price of China--I enjoyed meeting and hanging out with them both, myself. I have objected to certain rhetoric of one of these people online, and will not go into anything not mentioned here, as it shall remain personal and nameless, and Josh and I have renewed our agreement to leave one another alone online. You finish with an appeal to logical argumentation. If you take the time to read my posts, you'll agree that I use it often--feel free to respond to it when you like. Just as you go off topic now and then, it happens with others. I won't be writing off topic here any longer--bon soir everyone.— November 23, 2009 11:05 p.m.
Bonus Blog: Adam Lambert on the AMAs
In other words, erotic exchange between women in porn is condoned and even fetishized, as long as it is understood that these "lesbians" are performing for the male spectator and participant, and that of the phallic is still valued as the most desired and powerful experience possible. The women "play," but the serious business of heterosexual penetration and other classic sexual acts controlled by the male actor is still, as it were, the "main course." Should the acts between women be the main event, then this is still acceptable as long as the women are completely feminized, open to all forms of sexual union with male participants, and it is understood that they are performing for the male spectator. The figure of the phallic may still be present in such scenes, in the form of a sexual toy necessary to their pleasure, and of course we must remember that these scenes are completely regulated by those who create them, market them, and purchase them—predominantly male. Actual sexual expression between lesbian women who do not prefer the company of men, and who may appear to be non-feminine, has nothing to do with this idealized ‘play,’ and would be seen as threatening, out of control, and transgressive of accepted notions of gender roles. Society condemns what it doesn’t understand, and what seems to violate or transgress normative values for sexual behavior and expression. Sexualized PDA between gay men breaks all the rules of family values, in that one partner is always seen (in the limited, normative social view) to be feminized, and the other to take on the hyper-masculine role. Males who display feminine characteristics are still ridiculed even within gay culture, while the figure of the “Chip,” or the hypermasculinized gay male is seen as more socially acceptable than that of the “sissy,” or feminized male. There just isn’t yet much socially inscribed and acceptable space of articulation for gay male desire, though media is working to change this situation. Changes to traditional religious views are also constantly attempted, along with the institutionalization of proudly transgressive expressions of male desire within the public consciousness, against our limiting and exclusionary definitions of desire and the family structure. For now, we have men in drag that are nonthreatening to social consciousness, such as a “Tootsie” or a “Mrs. Doubtfire;” characters with the ironic purpose of crossing gender boundaries in order to regain and heal their damaged family structures. I could go on and on, but will stop here ;)— November 23, 2009 5:25 p.m.
Bonus Blog: Adam Lambert on the AMAs
Fascinating topic, Cuddle. I did not see this actual event on tv, but have a response to your question. IMO, and in the opinion of a lot of more attentive scholars of queer theory, homoerotic PDA between men is far more threatening to society than displays between women. Why? Think about it: Erotic expression between women, such as in otherwise heterosexual porn, is not only acceptable, it is encouraged, as long as it is regulated by the dominant cultural powers that be, often epitomized by the concept of the "male gaze." (For more on this concept of the male "gaze” and normative gender roles, start with Judith Butler's groundbreaking "Gender Trouble," though there's tons more updated theory out there in sociology about the public's reactions to gender expression, what is considered ok and not ok, and why).— November 23, 2009 5:25 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Dear Ponzi, You have worked out a scheme whereby you are paid to laugh? Do share the particulars of this latest racket with your non-retired compatriots. Signed, SD— November 23, 2009 12:56 p.m.
It's Better To Burn Out Than It Is To Fade
Cuddle, great points--actually, great points made by all, though this topic isn't exactly my cup of tea. The phrase "you're next" is what Bauder uses, when he isn't saying "you're up." JF, could you be mistaking the intent here? Peace, all.— November 23, 2009 12:52 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Let's start with you, Pete: Thanks for actually admitting that you were the aggressor re: race, when you first came on the site. I don't think we have shown you the "error of your ways," --have we, really? Your comments to arinoman seem to suggest otherwise; as you told him--there are "blacks," and then there are "ni&&ers." Just so you know, that belief is classically, and hardcore racist. As for your situation, and my commenting on your racism--that is the ONLY topic I'll call you on without you mentioning me. It is something I do--I protest racist expression--lately, only the most overt cases of it, since I don't have the energy or time to pursue it further, and it would necessitate returning to Josh's threads. Just as you claimed to arinoman that you would be there to denounce and treat him as a "ni&&er" whenever you felt he was acting like whatever you feel that to be, I will also comment on, and protest your racist views. You'll notice I leave most of your sexist comments alone, but can't guarantee I won't ever comment on those, either. Shouldn't be a surprise that someone will do this, but just so you know. As for Josh: Yeah, I can totally relate to being in the position of the "sleeping giant," Pete. You have NO idea what you are talking about in regards to anything between myself and Josh, and would need to do a search to show how many times he wrote things to provoke me and I was silent, over the last few months. I have been completely silent while Josh has referred to me--in arguments I have had no part in--suddenly, as "stupid," an "idiot," or someone "book smart but lacking common sense." (He's not very creative, so it is easy to cite them accurately). More seriously, he has attributed various socio-political opinions to me, concerning race relations, individuals in the news, and relations with the police. He is 100% inaccurate about my true beliefs or current positions on any of these topics, yet continues to misquote and misrespresent.— November 23, 2009 12:21 p.m.
It's Better To Burn Out Than It Is To Fade
Pete wrote: "refried could claim harassment on CuddleFish because she follows him from topic to topic like that bitch in Fatal Attraction." I could have done the same with Josh Board, then? His three-pronged attack included: 1. mischaracterization/misportrayal of me in his actual Crasher column (not as serious as the following): 2. constant misstatement of my political/philosophical views in random threads, as he systematically tried (and failed) to intimidate and discourage me from remaining on the Reader Web site. Months later, I'm still here, and he is STILL writing false comments about me, albeit at a lower frequency. This also included distorted, inaccurate reportage of our private, off the record conversations. (I'd be interested in knowing how Board is able to get away repeatedly with violating this point of honor among journalists--oh wait, I know--he isn't really a journalist) 3....and harrassment on private email. This eventually stopped, incidentally, just as I decided to write the Reader and complain about it. Russl, I know how you feel about flagging comments, and we've had some philosophical differences. It might please you to know that I flagged my very first comment recently. Of course, I immediately told the person to his physical face that I did so, and why--private information about someone revealed. That's how I roll ;) However, no matter how racist or sexist the comment, for example (and lawd knows we've had a LOT of both lately), I have decided that the only exception to my non-flagging rule is damaging, off the record information about someone. I've yet to flag any post written about me, but if it falls under that latter category, I certainly will flag/report it.— November 23, 2009 3:18 a.m.
Obama taps Alan Bersin to oversee the border
re: #86 and 87: Trust me guys, it is better to keep it on the threads. Don't IM each other, and don't give out email, either. You're both intelligent enough to--and often do-- conduct rational debate that just happens to also be informative and intellectually profitable to others here. Don't descend to gutter level. ;) re: #90: Right on. Look at Baudelaire's "Spleen," or Whitman's or Cocteau's many small press endeavors. The list goes on. re: #92: I'd like to reserve an advance copy of your latest.— November 23, 2009 2:42 a.m.