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
Degrees
re: #39: It's ok, SurfP. Doctor's aware of it, symptom of a chronic condition. Nothing can be done about it, and I am sick of going to the hospital. I will wisely stay away from gringo's and Pete's supplemental ideas :) Anti, thanks for the links. I've seen a couple of them already, and will keep looking. re: AG's link to lawyer on adultery, and question for SurfP: So this lawyer is saying that unless adultery (presumably meaning sexual act) is committed in front of a child of the union, there will be no effect on how property is divvied up. Yet I have heard that judges do take adulterous behavior into consideration, and will favor the other party. What do you think, SurfPuppy?— October 13, 2009 11:19 p.m.
Degrees
Thanks, fishikins, I'll live. :) This is going a bit off topic, but I have a great excuse to pull out at any moment: "Why isn't adultery breaking a law? Isn't marriage a contract between two people, one condition of which is to not betray your spouse by being with another person?" To me, in the institution of marriage and this kind of contract, there is already a problem of mingling the domains of church and state. One of the three main reasons why I don't get married--the state is too involved in rewarding (tax breaks) heterosexual marriage, and should have no business regulating a union born of religious affiliation and/or private sentiment. (The other reason I'm against marriage? The issue of marriage being exclusively heterosexual, with which I disagree). AS for marriage as a contract subject to penalty for breaking--well, if there is proof you committed adultery, this will affect the outcome of any divorce proceeding in which money is involved--emotional damages. As for regulating marriage like any other legal contract, I resist this because it has purely to do with emotional commitment.— October 13, 2009 10:52 p.m.
Degrees
re: everyone's take on adultery: I'm more of Nan's mind on such things. There is gratuitous behavior, and there is behavior of necessity. Who are we to judge which is which? I truly believe that if you are to be a writer, you should force yourself to take something about which you tend wax judgemental, and write it from at least two different points of view, really exploring each protag's feelings and consciousness. This can be applied to any topic about which we want to learn more about basic humanity. re: #16 and 18: Thx for the sympathy --and no antibiotics. If I took them every time I had a fever, I'd be dead :) Water, hell yes, but tiresome! A cold beer or prosecco would be heavenly, but can't do it. 'Aguas frescas' all the way, and different juices mixed with diet sodas; mango, orange pomegranate, kiwi, strawberry. The 'great' thing about all this? I've lost 20 + lbs. Health question: Has anyone ever taken mangosteen, which is supposed to be the most antioxidant-loaded fruit on the planet?— October 13, 2009 10:30 p.m.
Ballad Of Rio Balsas
re: #13: Two of my fondest childhood memories have to do with rafting. One in Klamath Falls, Oregon, rafting and diving from a bridge onto the lazy Kern river. Taking a bucket to pick blueberries and floating down a creek on the bucket, eating berries as we passed the bushes on either side of the watery channel. The other spent at a friend's parents' vacation house on the Colorado river, which is pretty swift. Diving off a high board built into the rocky cliff. Chaining small tubes together to float a ways down, then wade to shore. Being pulled around on a big blue inflatable, and the little dog wearing a vest, too. Sleeping in the posh, deluxe treehouse at night, hearing the river flowing by. Lovely.— October 13, 2009 10:15 p.m.
Ballad Of Rio Balsas
My hope is that Rocio will have a connection with her brother that helps to heal her memories of the time spent at her aunt's. That is possible, as he is innocent of any mistreatment and has not apparently been mistreated, and she will be glad of the latter. Great glimpse into your life, refried! xoxo— October 13, 2009 10:09 p.m.
Degrees
I wasn't at first sure if diabetic woman and "one woman" were the same. I did not think so, ultimately--think you were clear enough there. It is "one woman," called "May" who had the affair. Whew. I have a fever over 100 degrees right now, and must be forgiven. :)— October 13, 2009 9:58 p.m.
Degrees
Everything can be measured in degrees--a theme particularly popular in literature and philosophy--sure, I get that. But there is something disjunct about the whole thing--CuddleFish may come back and explain: "I said, finally, that she ought to admit she had done wrong, but I also said that those people accusing her of being some kind of hardened criminal ought to remember that they had probably done something criminal in their lives. One woman said that she had never committed a crime in her life." Who is "one woman" in relation to anyone else mentioned, meaning the narrator and the diabetic woman who drove and had an affair? To me, there is no exploration of degrees here; just the idea that everyone MUST have done something wrong at some time or another, and that this woman, who denied she did anything wrong, was an adulterer. I feel judgement from the narrator--as Nan seems to--about this, and the narrator seems to get a kick from pointing this out to the diabetic woman, as though revealing her secret to her puts her in place in a satisfying way--without any context except that this woman has an illness, it just seems a bit cruel, and I don't know where the narrator is coming from. In order to identify with anyone here, as a reader I need more information.— October 13, 2009 4:36 p.m.
Degrees
I'm not totally sure what the goal is here. The title is "Degrees," and two different actions are described; both are a bit ambiguous, one more so (driving with diabetes--how ill is the person, and why shouldn't she drive? not clear)-- and one often considered to be a social wrong. Is this because you are trying to figure out in order to be in a position to judge different degrees of wrongness, or of immoral behavior?— October 13, 2009 3:59 p.m.
Columbus--The Man, The Myth...The Mercenary!
First issue, AG: Asking if I am a food snob does not equal a sound thrashing, AG :) Second issue, LPR: Yes, it was I who questioned whether or not one would get a third date. Didn't consider I was being snide, just playful, though I don't think those two establishments offer much for people who REALLY love good food--or anything at all for vegetarians-- to eat. When I was invited to eat at either of these places with others, I had no choice but to sit politely, and sip a drink. The point: If you felt that either place was sufficient for a first date with me--a hot chick--you would not likely get a second date. HOWEVER, LPR: If I were single, and you took me to a coffeeshop on Columbus day, and showed your kick-ass knowledge of the true meaning of said day, you can bet your imperialistic smarts that you would get second, third, and fourth dates ;) Third issue, Pike, who whined: "That said, what's the point in condemning past actions like this? Is there some sort of amelioration of deep-seated, cultural guilt that goes along with wagging the finger at history's "bad guys?" What's the point? What's gained by this recontextualizing of cultural "heroes" as "villains?" Any judgment we make is merely a reflection of our own issues passed off and deferred into history, thereby made basically impotent." I seriously do not get your point, Pikenstein, other than as an intellectual exercise, which is inappropriate to apply to these kinds of historical events. You yourself wrote: "genocidal rampage." It is clearly intellectually appropriate to ask how we review events from various sociohistorical standpoints and methodologies, and how narratives change over time; but wonder whether or not we should condemn the slaughter of indigenous peoples?! If you want an immediate reason to continue to ask questions about how and why we might revise history, start by considering how exactly it comes about that such abominations as Columbus day and Thanksgiving are still on the calendar--as patriotic events full of American cultural pride. Fact is, schools are still teaching how in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and how he did us a great turn by discovering all kinds of neat lands, animals, and oh yeah--people who needed to be discovered in order to exist. (Apparently they also needed to be tortured, enslaved, and murdered by the thousands). I think it is more important to question this particular putre-fact, eh?— October 13, 2009 1:58 p.m.
Rare Burgers? Rarely
Well, Joe, the recipes you've posted (even though most are land meats, and I can't eat them) prove that you are a worthy cook--I will try your recipe as is out of respect due ;)— October 12, 2009 8:03 a.m.