canongrl
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
Breaking the Law, Breaking the Law (when it's students)
On March 17, 2009, Josh Board wrote of the teenage cheerleader who took a nude photo of herself (which was then distributed to the entire student body of their school by a group of boys): "[I] hope that the [she] is humiliated by this for the rest of her life. I hope she goes in for her first job interview, and the boss pulls out the photo." (Comment #11). Yet, on June 18, 2009, Board holds to a different standard the male teenager who perpetrated physical violence on his classmates: "I hate the idea that a good student is probably going to have his life ruined by one bad decision." Inconsistent, at best. At worst? Well. There really aren't enough descriptors. But certainly "sexist" can be added to the growing list of unflattering adjectives that describe this author. Your friend in full disclosure, ~aaryn belfer of San Diego Citybeat— June 23, 2009 10:52 a.m.
Lakers Win, State Loses
You know the real truth about losers? They're often given a public platform to spout their uninformed, unenlightened, grammatically perverted, intellectually stunted opinions. This, despite any ability to form cohesive sentences. But! The upside is that they can type AND drag their knuckles on the ground simultaneously, a feat not easily tackled by just any loser. No. It takes a very special---though unfortunately not rare (see Sherri Goforth and Rusty DePass)---kind of loser to master this multitasking challenge! Carry on, Josh. Your friend, ~aaryn belfer (This is where I'm supposed to let all of Josh's regular readers know that I'm a writer for San Diego CityBeat, because Josh doesn't think I qualify as a private citizen when leaving comments on blogs, and therefore have an obligation to disclose that I work for CityBeat when commenting on his blog posts, even when what I have to say has nothing whatsoever to do with my job.)— June 16, 2009 10:39 p.m.
Police Officer Shootings
For the record, the menace to society line was mine. Josh didn't say it. Well, he *did* say it, but not using those exact words. My point in posting his email here is to show the kinds of inflammatory statements that are too often given a pass in our society. It's not as if Josh is the only person who holds these narrow, ignorant views. It's the some-of-my-best-friends-are-black defense of people who understand that being openly bigoted is unaccepted by most of society. Josh is a racist. Period. (He also suffers from ageism and adoptism, among what I'm sure is a plethora of other -isms.) That aside, as a fellow writer (barely) with a bone to pick, Josh can rip on me all he wants; I have no problem with that. But using my kid to prove his point is despicable. And ultimately, lashing out at her only highlights the racist underpinning of his entire argument.— April 20, 2009 12:29 p.m.
Police Officer Shootings
Get out your library card and your dictionary so you can start making your way through Tatum's book because I read Freakanomics in 2006. And it didn't talk "a lot" about adoption. There was some mention of it but there's *plenty* of literature to counter what the author wrote. You can find some of it at www.adoptioninstitute.org, if you're truly interested in learning something about which you "rant." You seem to agree that adopted children are "never as smart" as children raised by their biological parents. So, then. What's the reason you're so intellectually stunted? Finally, I did debate you on a previous blog post titled "Sexting" without using my real name, because someone else is already registered on this site with it. I stand proudly behind every single comment on that string, but I didn't need to identify myself as a CityBeat columnist because it had nothing to do with CityBeat. To my credit, when you sent me the bit of fan mail (which is, by the minute, seeming ever more disingenuous), I didn't pretend to be anyone other than the person who eviscerated you. ~aaryn— April 20, 2009 11 a.m.
Police Officer Shootings
Josh, is a racist and a bigot who has taken his diatribe directly to the staff at CityBeat. Below is the text of an email he wrote to me this morning (after sending me emails earlier this month telling me that he was a fan of my column and that I'm a great addition; during a brief string of communication, he took it upon himself to look at some of my photos and then complimented my "cute kid" who happens to be black). Here, he is responding to my suggestion that he try learning something by reading "Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting In The Cafeteria" by Beverly Daniel Tatum. Take it away, Josh: "You should try finding (or writing) a book about why black kids sit in cars, with their stereos blasting, as if they think everyone else wants to hear 50 Cent. Or, why they sit in movie theatres making noise, talking on cell phones or at the screen, as if they are Chris Rock. I'm sure you'll get to deal with all that fun, when your little one grows up. (read Freakanomics, they talk about how adopted kids are never as smart...because they get the intelligence from the folks that gave them up). So, good luck with that. Geez, now that I think about it, it's probably good you couldn't have kids. It's one less idiot that has your genes in this world. J" It will be interesting to see whether The Reader lets this comment stand or whether it gets censored. Does The Reader really stand by one of their writers who is willing to go on record to say that my black daughter is going to be a menace to society because she's black and adopted? ~Aaryn Belfer— April 20, 2009 10:31 a.m.
Sexting
@MsGrant: No, I didn't base anything on hearsay. I wrote my opinion based on the original story and only mentioned my general sentiment ("It's my interpretation...") about the law suit. I didn't weigh in at all on what I personally thought of that move. In addition, I would respectfully add that there are still parents out there who are horrified by their kids smoking pot. Just look at the vehemence directed at Michael Phelps if you think all parents are okay with *that* behavior. To use your own words, think it through. @Josh: You're an intellectually stunted, uneducated, chauvinistic, chest-thumping hack masquerading as a "writer." I have to wonder why The Reader chooses to give you a voice. I mean, it just wouldn't be that difficult to hire someone with your mindset who could simultaneously spell, punctuate AND make valid points out of horses***. What they see in you, I have no idea but I'm honestly sorry I stopped in. It was my first (and accidental) exposure to you and is also my last. But I'll leave you with a parting tip, sir. UCSD offers extension classes for writers and people trying to become better writers. However, you'll have to find a clinical trial for people who need to extricate their heads from their sphincters because they simply don't offer courses in that.— March 20, 2009 5:06 p.m.
Sexting
"Once the class starts whispering about it, and giggling, and it gets to be too much...the girl should be gone. Out of the classroom, out of the school, and her parents can find a new school, or home school her." Wow. You really are an idiot, Josh. Thanks for the laugh today.— March 19, 2009 10:09 a.m.
Sexting
Did you guys even read my comment? My point is that, if the school was going to hold the girls accountable (by kicking them off the cheer team), then to be consistent, they should also have held the boy(s) responsible for distributing the photo. It is my interpretation that the parents' lawsuit stems from this. Whether any of us agrees with the lawsuit isn't the issue I was addressing. I will say, however, that I question whether their motive is one to "make some cash," since everyone knows the schools don't have any of that. I still maintain that each of you is coming down exceptionally hard on the girl. Everyone makes stupid mistakes when they're young and kids today have tools that allow those mistakes to be broadcast without limit. Think of the self-proclaimed "stupid fu**in' red neck" who was suddenly thrust into the national spotlight along with his embarrassing website, when he got the wrong girl pregnant. MsGrant: You said, "Why are young women doing these things? Low self-esteem?" Perhaps. Or perhaps they're just dumb teenagers making dumb choices. You know, like teenagers do. Certainly, it's an issue that needs to be addressed but how is suspending her from school going to teach self-esteem? This is one for the parents to deal with at home. And then you wrote, "You seem to think that based on their sex (female), they should be exempt from discipline due to an existing "boys will be boys" mentality." No, I didn't say this. I said that the excuse "boys will be boys" made by the author, is archaic and ludicrous. If girls need to be taught self-esteem, boys need to be taught self-control (not to mention respect). And you said, "They did something stupid and got caught. What they did was horrifying to the parents because it involved their daughter nude, not smoking pot or shoplifting." How do you know that the parents wouldn't be horrified if their daughter had been caught smoking weed or shoplifting? Look, the parents were rightfully horrified and they should deal with the issue at home with their child. The school did their job by bringing it to their attention. But throwing her and her friend off the cheer team while not, for example, removing the boy from the football team, is hypocritical. And when I wrote my opinion, there wasn't one other person here saying that the boys should ALSO be held responsible, which was what I was saying originally. The hypocrisy of the school's action was my point. Well, that and the fact that the original post sucked. Speaking of which, the author's hope that "the daughter is humiliated by this for the rest of her life" is further illustrative of what a callous, self-righteous jackass he is. Must be nice to be so perfect up there on your podium, Mr. Board. Hope you don't get a nose bleed.— March 19, 2009 10:06 a.m.
Sexting
What trash! And I'm talking about this blog post and not the young girl who made a mistake. I, too, heard that story on NPR the other day and think readers of this post deserve to know that the author has completely misrepresented it. (You can read the entire story here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor….) The girl and a friend took some nude photos of themselves using camera phones, an increasingly common (and depressing) phenomena. Then her friend forwarded a pic to a boy, who sent the image to his friends and soon it made it's way to the football team, the student body and eventually to administrators. The girl's parents were called in and were understandably horrified. The school then kicked the girls off the cheer-leading team. The boys who distributed the photo were not disciplined in any way. Sexting is such a new thing that law enforcement officials have no protocol for dealing with it. According to one of the agents interviewed in the story, this uncharted territory can be classified as child pornography and as such, if a person has a nude image of an underage individual, that is considered possession. Passing that image around is considered distribution. The boys should be held accountable for their actions, too. The tone of this irresponsible post is as sexist as the school's handling of the incident. The boys-will-be-boys reasoning is immature and unenlightened and reminds me of the kind of thing you might hear on Fox News ("...some people say..." or "...it is perceived..."). It's not difficult for a writer to do a little research before launching into a misleading tirade. The internet is a great place to learn all sorts of things, including when to use "than" versus "then." But even more disturbing than (see? Not too difficult) Josh Board's loose-with-details rant, is that the responses to it reflect the same archaic, backwards, blame-the-girl, knuckle-dragging mentality of the author. I couldn't help but think of Hester Prynne as I read the thoughts of antigeekess and MsGrant, and am baffled by their stubborn preference for the Dark Ages.— March 18, 2009 11:02 a.m.