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
Local teen disappointed in Natural History Museum's King Tut exhibit
P. T. Barnum did better stuff, but history is not natural history--this belonged at the Museum of Man. The Natural History Museum (which used to be abbreviated "NHM," has been given the flip non-acronym, "The Nat," which should have gotten the overpaid consult fired instead of lumped with largesse) also did "The Dead Sea Scrolls," which was similarly over-hyped and over-budgeted. This young man is right--if it smells like a road-apple and plops like a road-apple, most likely it's horseshit.— January 11, 2015 4:49 p.m.
Mission Bay Bridge, back in the day
I tried to get the City to save the two ends of the old bridge for fishing piers. I shot 16mm film of people using the east end, but the City wouldn't "bite."— January 11, 2015 4:35 p.m.
San Diego lawyer helps defend Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
I follow your "blog" (I prefer column) BECAUSE you report on local issues that are not, generally, reported elsewhere, at least with the same clarity and quality. As I said, I fully understand that your time is limited, yet you are far more RESPONSIVE than any other columnist of which I am aware. Most "bloggers" simply ignore comments, and the quality of comments one finds on their blogs reflects the quality of their readership. Yours, on the other hand, tend to be of high quality. So the Internet is a mixed blessing/curse containing mostly egocentric drivel (to put it politely), and your column is a rare jewel in a gigantic mountain of bullshit. The one "value" of that mountain, I suppose, is that one can read the "minds" of those out there--and weep. The few "responses" I have read on some other blogs tend to make my hair stand on end! The Reader used to have a very good statement requesting that responders stick to the subject and not to get personal. It would be an interesting study to compare the tone of responses while that statement was present and the tone following its removal. You and your commenters tend to a much higher standard, so a comparison of your column with a random sample of other blogs also would be interesting. I believe that you set an example that raises the bar (no pun intended) for others, including us, the Great Unwashed Multitudes of cyberspace. As to the "death penalty," I share your concerns, particularly now that "we" have entered an era when "we" can not only commit cold-blooded murder after a trial, we now can rather blithely commit murder more remotely and "impersonally" than ever--now it is a video game writ in real blood, misery, and death, a blood feud on steroids. But I drone on . . .— January 9, 2015 10:49 p.m.
San Diego lawyer helps defend Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Well, Don, I think you're among the best, and score pretty highly within that category. One of the reasons you are so outstanding is your willingness to respond to comments. Your thoughtful analysis and usually cool head and great mind give the community what true leadership should be--setting an example, but resisting preaching and soapboxing. I am acutely aware that your dedication to setting an example for responsiveness must cost you dearly in time and stress. I understand the need for you to keep your responses brief. Given that, there is a certain trivialization that occurs in the context of your blogosphere that is all too common in all blogospheres--the discussion fizzles, sometimes deservedly, and other times just before a point reaches its epistemological peak. There has, in recent discussions on this "blog" that might otherwise rise to a real forum on important principles, been an unfortunate tendency to resort to fallacious arguments and avoidance of important points in favor of arguments that go against the established grain. This is to me troubling, but at the same time, I understand . . . I do think that it's a pity, however, that abortion occurs, just as a strangling point is emerging--often a result of boredom born of determined yahooism (which may be a blessing), but sometimes tragically, by abandonment through ignoring tough issues, or effectively closing debate. Nonetheless, I continue to believe that your column/blog deserves wider recognition, and the fact that you and The Reader continue to offer it with minimal control over content (though I wish all removals were noted and links to the deleted content provided for those interested) deserves high praise, if not prize. I admit that I spend too much time reading and responding on your blog, and I also admit that I am torn between commenting and merely reading, largely for the reasons cited. The principle raised by this particular column is a serious one, so quite naturally any comment is bound to touch nerves with both positive and negative charges; therefore, sparks can be produced, emotions can become inflamed. So why bother? Or does one have an OBLIGATION to bother? One central principle here, if not the central principle, is the question of when life should be intentionally terminated and when it should not. I admit to more than a little vacillation . . . Will this discussion get blogged down in tangential chit-chat, or will it rise to a courageous discussion, if not resolution, of the central principle?— January 8, 2015 10:52 a.m.
Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene
" Don Bauder Jan. 5, 2015 @ 8:05 a.m. "Twister: I think you are right; pit bulls are normally purchased by those who seek protection. However, the other side of the coin -- that these dogs may randomly attack persons and other dogs -- is a good reason to be exceedingly wary of them. "If you keep a pit bull or more than one of them, you should be aware that you can be incarcerated should these dogs attack someone. Best, Don Bauder" ONLY pit bulls? But if my German Shepherd or my Chihuahua attacks someone, I should be a felon? What were the particulars in this case that let the court to the first sentence, then the second? Were the women just ignorant, willfully neglectful, criminally negligent, or what? And to what degree? Is the point of the law to extract an eye for an eye, get revenge, deter other offenders by setting an example (why not put the women in stocks in the public square? Sarcasm? Guilty.), get dangerous criminals off the streets, or do something to minimize deaths and injuries? Everything, I gather, except make any changes to how the authorities approach the issue? Is legislation needed or are the laws and administrative and operational procedures now in effect effective enough? Are there any measures that the Authorities could take that would be preventative in nature rather than punitive after the fact?— January 5, 2015 10:29 p.m.
Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene
Again, "pit-bull" is not a recognized breed. This does not mean that dogs with outward appearances that register in our minds as such do not fit the category, it's just that it takes a certain amount of discipline out of the discussion. If Chihuahuas were larger and stronger, would they be more or less dangerous than what "we" consider "pit-bulls?" I sued a woman in small-claims court whose pit poodle came into my yard and bit me, because she failed to keep her dog confined. The self-styled "Judge Judy" found in my favor, but awarded me a pittance. (If you miss the puns, I may bite thee.) This was because I was "merely" pained, not killed. But, infection could have killed me. In the fundamental respects, the two cases are similar. How do we consistently draw the line in doggy-invasion cases? What about cat-invasions (my sweet, harmless, loving shepard/elkhound was attacked twice by cats--ENTIRELY unprovoked)? My dog took no action against the cats because I quietly told her to "leave the kitty alone. VOICE control alone! I was the Alpha "dog." Cats often harbor deadly parasites in their feces. Gardening in cat-invaded yards can kill you. In such cases would my survivors have a case against the cat owner(s)? Would they be thrown in jail for failing to confine their cats? Would my survivors be able to sue them and collect heavy damages? Do the rare songbirds exterminated by domestic cats have standing? Why are cat owners allowed to let their attack-cats run free, but dog owners become felons, even if out of ignorance rather than intention? "Justice," remains flawed, but that doesn't mean that we should accept every decision. Justice "worked" in this case, but in the absence of the particulars, we are hampered at least, mislead at worst. Maybe you could post a link to the court record?— January 5, 2015 11:39 a.m.
Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene
ALL "pets" CAN be aggressive. Especially when they feel threatened or under attack. So that "what if" is always present. I look forward to your comment on this issue.— January 5, 2015 11:08 a.m.
Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene
Don Bauder Jan. 5, 2015 @ 7:42 a.m. Twister: You forgot to mention dachsunds, which were bred to root out badgers. But I suspect the selective breeding that made dachsunds hostile to badgers is probably a thing of the past. They are now bred to be house pets. Incidentally, I was bitten by a dog about six months ago. The scars on my leg remain. I don't know the breed and didn't ask. But I must repeat my original premise, bolstered by reports on this blog: pit bulls and pit bull mixes are more likely to be dangerous than other dogs. Best, Don Bauder Don, I have reprinted this entry here because I think there is a glitch in the system. When I clicked on "Replies" nothing came up. I got to this entry by other means. (Hint: The webmaster should have a look at this; perhaps the solution would be to just show all posts.) Also, any ongoing exchange is difficult to follow because later responses are confined to the earlier post being commented upon. The solution here might be to provide notifications of all new posts to the participants via email or to make all posts sequential, with a link back to the post being commented upon. Onward and upward. Don, why don't you tell us the story of the (pit-bull?) dog-attack(s) that you suffered in the past? I have been bitten several times, none of them by pit-bulls (but I must say that I have seen many pit-bulls that scared the hell out of me, largely because their owners were ignorant of the importance of being the Alpha in the "pack," and being able to control their dogs by voice commands.— January 5, 2015 11:03 a.m.
Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene
That's gonna be a whole landfill full of dogs. Animal control authorities have ways of evaluating aggression (virtually all animals are capable of aggression). This should be done before killing the dog.— January 5, 2015 10:43 a.m.
Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene
In what is generally termed reasoned argument, "appeals to authority" are considered fallacious. This does not mean that the authority is "wrong" or "right," but that it is not a valid basis for moving the discussion forward, toward resolution rather than hardened polarization. "Persuasive," yes. Conclusive, no.— January 5, 2015 10:37 a.m.