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 lawyer helps defend Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Any definition is "tricky." What are you saying?— January 13, 2015 10:51 a.m.
San Diego lawyer helps defend Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Bill: "Japan has very few guns and a very low crime rate. Switzerland has a lot of guns and a very low crime rate. But Japan is not the U.S. is not Switzerland." Good point. That is, CULTURE is the independent variable, not guns or their absence.— January 13, 2015 10:49 a.m.
San Diego lawyer helps defend Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Bill: "I don't think armed citizens would be effective against well-executed terrorist or organized crime attacks." Upon what factual basis do you reach this conclusion?— January 13, 2015 10:44 a.m.
San Diego lawyer helps defend Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
No, you don't owe me an apology; you might owe yourself an apology, but not me. This is not personal. I was not offended, I was disappointed. This is about rational, disciplined discussion of issues and pursuing an issue with determination to reach a reasoned conclusion. Any time I try to put words in your mouth that misrepresent your points, I expect you or anyone participating, to call me on it. In this way, we help each other maintain discipline. Without rancor, anger, or emotional ranting. You did not insult me. When we are discussing such an important issue, we must keep personalities out of it. Of course, we should show each other respect. Part of that respect is responsiveness--complete responsiveness. Cutting off debate when it isn’t going the way one wishes it to go, particularly when one is the chairperson is an abdication of duty. In this case, you did not address all of my points, and I did not address all of your straw men (e.g., the NRA reference—a guilt via association fallacy). In this format, we can minimize such errors by discussing one issue at a time, so let’s stick to the example given that illustrates the principle—the Charlie Example. Further, let’s break this down into its components, starting with the question of whether or not lives could have been spared if the people videotaping the terrorists had had sufficient capabilities to neutralize the terrorists (e.g., shooting them) and had done so instead of or in addition to “shooting” video. This requires a simple yes or no answer (that does not mean that the answer cannot be followed up by further discussion). If a person in the position of the videographers had shot the terrorists would fewer people have been shot by the terrorists, or not? Let’s get this issue out of the way first; that resolved, move with discipline on to the other issues, shall we?— January 13, 2015 10:41 a.m.
San Diego lawyer helps defend Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
You said "best," but you put the worst possible spin on my words. Another misreading and another straw-man. I did NOT say that "everyone" should be armed. I did NOT say that weapons should be in the hands of the mentally imbalanced. If you want to debate something, please . . . well you know how better than most. And you know better . . .— January 12, 2015 5:28 p.m.
San Diego lawyer helps defend Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
You got dat right, Don. The Bush Administration went off like junkyard dogs, attacking anything when they were frustrated by not being able to get the real plotters of 9-11. But in practical politics, you do something, even it it's wrong. We, the People, wanted blood, and we got it. "We" bombed Afghanistan with cookie-cutters and bunker-busters for the TV cameras to show "the folks back home" how we were avenging 9-11. Those bombs were not "smart," but it didn't matter--their "IQs" just about matched those of the ones ordering them dropped. No telling how many little shepherd boys and other innocents were slaughtered, how many elders died a thousand deaths from horror and grief. All to "get even." "We" are hated 'round the world, and hated more with every bomb, smart or otherwise--hell, our POLICIES are "bombs," and we're too stupid or indifferent to realize it. We don't need "experts" and "authorities" as much as we need people who know how to think, not opine, in disciplined ways. We have got to stop listening to our "leaders" when they feed us what we want to hear (along with bread and circuses). To do that, we must, as Lincoln said, "disenthrall ourselves." We are narcissistic, egocentric, hubris-fat, lazy-minded oafs. We are, as such, behind Neanderthals with respect to evolution, and the evidence is continuously all around us. We must come closer together (integrity), not divide, boast, and admire our fantasy-images without reflection.— January 11, 2015 10:14 p.m.
San Diego lawyer helps defend Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Bill, "justice delayed is justice denied." Had the person in Paris who shot the video of the shooting had had a good rifle and the skill to go with it, the level of bloodshed might have gone down if the shooters "went down." It is an inconvenient truth, even a regrettable truth, that if more good people had sufficient firepower to neutralize murderers on the spot, more innocent lives might be spared. Se la va sans dire--I agree with you about the other deaths you mentioned, but I regret all violence. This does not mean that I would hesitate to use it against unprovoked violence, however. There are not enough police, FBI, Interpol, MI-5's, and other "forces" to handle the reality of "sleeper cells" and loose-bolted fanatics, as has actually been said on the TV media. I'm getting dangerously close, here, to being muzzled by the speech police for being politically incorrect. But it is true that law-abiding citizens are prohibited from having enough firepower to "neutralize" fanatics with superior weapons. Even the police where seriously outgunned years ago in that North Hollywood bank robbery, and beat officers with handguns are no match for a couple of fanatics with Kalashnikovs and flak vests. Home invasions are now conducted by criminals (even homeboys, not aliens) who have somehow gotten some good military assault training somewhere--WHERE? Are citizens who just want to go on living in their homes trained and capable in self-defense? What kind of freedom do we have when we are prisoners in our own homes? Are we to wait until the problem gets worse before we figure out some alternatives to business-as-usual? Shall "we" take all weapons away from all law-abiding citizens? Will that reduce violence? "Two paths diverged in a wood . . ."— January 11, 2015 9:54 p.m.
San Diego lawyer helps defend Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Don, I really don't have a "gripe" about your blog. It should be a standard-setter for other blogs. But I do want it to be as good as it can be. When a piece piles up more than 100 comments or so, that means that you have struck a chord, if not a nerve. When postings don't move the discussion toward a reasoned conclusion, it is sad. When you don't have the time to address highly relevant points that might move the discussion toward a reasoned conclusion by leaps and bounds, when it APPEARS that you are avoiding such points, I am saddened, not maddened.— January 11, 2015 9:24 p.m.
Go plant a native
How many acres?— January 11, 2015 8:59 p.m.
Local teen disappointed in Natural History Museum's King Tut exhibit
Doesn't matter--the King Tut stuff ain't fake neither. But fantasy always beats the hell out of reality.— January 11, 2015 8:53 p.m.