Saturday, August 29, 2009

Two Transgender People Attacked in NW, One Dies

The Washington Post, yesterday:
Two transgender people who were stabbed Wednesday, one fatally, in Northwest Washington might have been victims of a hate crime, D.C. police said, although investigators had not determined what led to the violence.

The victims, one of whom suffered lacerations that were not considered life-threatening, were found bleeding in the 200 block of Q Street shortly after 2:30 p.m. The incident is being investigated as a possible hate crime based on "a shred of information" that detectives obtained from the survivor, said acting Lt. Brett Parsons, the department's top liaison to the city's gay community.

The surviving victim told a detective that the attacker might have used an anti-gay epithet during the incident, Parsons said. But it would be "extremely premature" for authorities to definitively classify the crime as having been motivated by the victims' gender identity, he said.

"Until we're able to do a really detailed interview with the surviving victim, I'm not sure that anyone really knows," Parsons said.

Police identified the dead victim as Joshua Mack, 21, of the 7500 block of Clinton Vista Lane in Clinton. Parsons said Mack was a biological man but was living full time as a woman, using the street name "Nana Boo." Mack was pronounced dead at Howard University Hospital.

The other victim, also a biological man living as a woman, suffered "serious lacerations" that required immediate medical treatment, Parsons said. Stabbings Probed as Possible Hate Crime - One Victim Dies; Both Identified As Transgender

I hope this event does not require any discussion, I hope there is nobody in our community who finds violent crime to be an acceptable way to express your inability to understand why someone else lives the way they do.
Detectives conducted a brief interview at the scene, Parsons said, before the surviving victim was sedated. Authorities hoped to talk more with the victim Thursday, Parsons said.

The surviving victim was a witness to the incident, and D.C. police do not publicly identify witnesses. Parsons said investigators were not completely sure of the survivor's identity.

Officers responding to a report of an assault on Q Street found a blood-soaked crime scene, Parsons said. "It was a moving scene, like the stabbing occurred at one location and the victim collapsed at another location, all within the block."

It was unclear whether a weapon was recovered.

As for Mack's wounds, Parsons said: "I can tell you, just looking at the scene, it was an artery. There was blood splashed everywhere along the block."

As is standard for D.C. police in homicide investigations, the department offered a $25,000 reward for a tip leading an arrest and conviction in Mack's killing. Police urged anyone with information about the case to call 888-919-2746 or send a text message to 50411. The department pledged to honor requests for anonymity.

If you know anything about this, if you've heard somebody bragging or saw something suspicious, please contact the authorities and tell them.

This didn't happen very far from our county, this is a local crime. If it can happen in Northwest it can happen in Montgomery County.

43 Comments:

Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

We had 250 people attend a vigil in the rain last night at the site of the murders. Some trans persons, but mostly gay and straight allies, including Councilmember David Catania.

A pretty normal residential street, in broad daylight. In the nation's capital, 2009.

August 29, 2009 9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I hope this event does not require any discussion, I hope there is nobody in our community who finds violent crime to be an acceptable way to express your inability to understand why someone else lives the way they do."

well, no one knows that that was the situation here

saying it is, having rallies based on an assumption, turning a "might" into a fact...

is irresponsible and inflammatory

August 29, 2009 10:41 PM  
Anonymous Maryanne Arnow said...

There is a Significant difference between having a "rally", and holding a candlelight vigil of respect and reverence for the lost and their loved ones.

August 29, 2009 10:55 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Very sad in deed. This is exactly why we need an inclusive ENDA.

August 29, 2009 11:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

could you explain the connection, Drick?

August 30, 2009 12:56 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

A sad story of violence...though I think judgment should be reserved until we in FACT know that it is a hate crime. It could have as easily been the survivor, attempting to make it look like a hate crime.

August 30, 2009 1:55 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Ah, Orin, good to hear from you. I just love your cynicism, though.

We'll see what the investigation yields; though, regardless, a tragedy is a tragedy.

Interesting that I don't hear any Christianist websites excoriating the white Christian couple who had abducted and raped that girl out in your part of the country.

August 30, 2009 8:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana

Every time some transgender or gay person is the victim of violence, the first thing up is a bunch of lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups jumping and screaming "HATE CRIME!!"

We're a big country. Violence happens. Based on the rarity of these stretched cases, it seems gays and transgenders are actually safer than the average person in our country.

It gets kind of sad when you start hoping what you pretend is happening really does just to prove your case.

In this case, one of the victims thinks they "might" have heard an epithet based on sexual abnormality.

Even if that proved to be true, it wouldn't necessarily make this a hate crime.

The motivation could well be simple robbery but the perpetrators just chose to insult the most obvious defect about the person they could observe.

Here's an example:

A portly woman is walking down the street wearing the Hope Diamond. A lesbian gang walks up with a gun pointed at the woman and the leader says "Give me the ice, fat ass!"

Does that make it a hate crime against overweight people?

btw, that section of town is not entirely safe

I'd keep my eyes open and back covered there.

Travel in packs.

August 30, 2009 1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Every time some transgender or gay person is the victim of violence, the first thing up is a bunch of lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups jumping and screaming "HATE CRIME!!""

You shouldn't talk about DC POLICE as "a bunch of lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups."

The Washington Post article said

"Two transgender people who were stabbed Wednesday, one fatally, in Northwest Washington MIGHT have been victims of a hate crime, D.C. POLICE SAID, although investigators had NOT DETERMINED what led to the violence."

August 30, 2009 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Police: Might

Lunatic Fringe Gay Advocates: Case Closed

August 30, 2009 5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous"...as usual, you exhibit not one hint of human compassion and empathy; it seems to be beyond any simple shred of human decency for you to express sympathy for the victims of this criminal act. You almost revel in giving support to the perpetrators, whether this is classified as a hate crime (and you have NO evidence that it wasn't) or just your ordinary heterosexual street crime.
You, unfortunately, exhibit what has gone wrong with this country...hatred and bigotry run amuck! So sad.

August 30, 2009 5:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wasn't the topic of this thread: "Two Transgender People Attached in NW, One Dies"?

I am reposting this comment from another blog topic where the same problem presented itself:

When I was teaching I always required and expected students, when writing essays, to stick to the given topic. If it happened to be: "Three characteristics of a winning Civil War General", I didn't accept an essay titled: "Cumquats: The Savior of the World Fruit". In this case, the student failed to meet the objectives of the assignment because of not addressing the assigned topic, and received a failing grade.

Seems to me that a similar rule should apply here: STICK TO THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD! Simple request...easily achieved as an objective!
Is there any possible way the Anonymous poster here could exercise a little self-control and courtesy and "stick to the topic"?
RT

August 30, 2009 6:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All the comments have been related to the post.

Here's a part of the post that implies the attack was a hate crime:

"I hope there is nobody in our community who finds violent crime to be an acceptable way to express your inability to understand why someone else lives the way they do."

Thus, the topic of hate crimes, and dubiously assuming any crime committed against a certain type of individual is a hate crime, became part of the discussion.

The last two posts spent time whining about off-topic posts when, actually, the last two posts were the first off-topic ones.

Strange how the hypocritcal mindset loves to show itself off.

August 30, 2009 9:01 PM  
Anonymous henry said...

here's some words of wisdom from Newt Gingrich for our President, who has disappointed America so quickly:

"Obama faces a choice: He can attempt to run a left-wing government against the American people. Or he can govern from the center with a large majority of Americans supporting him. He can have either his left angry or the American people angry. We will know in September which choice he has made."

August 30, 2009 9:58 PM  
Blogger Tish said...

As the sister of a transgender person, I am always afraid of something like this. Whether this fatal attack was committed because the victims were transgender or not, there are far too many violent attacks on people who are perceived by their attackers as not gender conforming. I understand that a stranger could accost or attack any of us at any time, but the chance of that happening to a transgender person are greater than they are for me.

That's what hate crimes do. They make victims of entire communities. Individuals live in fear. Families live in fear. The anti-transgender language that is posted here, from derogatory to defamatory to dehumanizing, is typical of what I hear in other places, read in the papers. Too many people give tacit permission to violent thugs who savage transgender people.

As I understand it, the police do not know if this was a hate crime, but they are willing to investigate to see if it might be. That is very important. Too many police departments have not been willing to do that. The assailant is reported to have begun harassing the victims in a grocery store and then to have followed them several blocks down the street. A police department that collects this evidence and looks for witnesses means that in this city, at least, a transgender woman's life is as valuable as any other person's life.

August 30, 2009 9:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 30, 2009 10:12 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Get on topic, Anon

JimK

August 30, 2009 10:34 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

From:
COMPARISON OF HATE CRIME RATES ACROSS PROTECTED AND UNPROTECTED GROUPS
( http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/Comparison%20of%20Hate%20Crime%20Formatted.pdf )
(Group : Hate Crime Rate)
African American: 8 per 100,000
Muslim: 12 per 100,000
Jewish: 15 per 100,000
Lesbian, Gay, & Bi: 13 per 100,000

"Currently hate crimes based on gender expression are not covered in federal hate crime legislation. This omission persists despite evidence that transgender individuals experience a similar number of hate crimes as some other protected groups, with an average of 213 hate crimes per year.(1)"

The document later goes on to claim that "In 2004, the NCAVP reported the highest number of hate crimes against transgender people: 321 hate crimes.(6) Nationally, this level of violence is comparable to the level of violence perpetrated against Muslims since 2002. Thus, the inclusion of gender identity in the categories reported in the Uniform Crime Reports and in the new National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) system would allow for more tracking of this serious problem."


However, in order for an average of 213 hate crimes per year to be on a level comparable to that of Muslims, extrapolating from Table 2 in the document implies an estimated population of (213/112)*1,742,112 = 3,313,124 trans people, or about 35% of the LGB population, and about 1% of the overall US population. I've met a LOT of trans folks over the past few years but I don't think we're anyhwere near 1% of the population. I have never been to an all-inclusive LGBT location or event where the Trans population managed to get above 5%, much less anywhere near 35%.

I have seen independent estimates of the Trans population range anywhere from 1 in 500 to 1 in 30,000, depending on how one defines transgender. This would put the total US population of trans folks somehere between roughly 600,000 and 10,000. With an average of 213 hate crimes per year, that works out to between 35 and 2130 hate crimes per 100,000 trans folks per year.

The problem with getting the numbers to jive with expected population numbers is likely due to the overlap and confusion the media, police, and the public have with telling the difference between a gay or lesbian person, and a trans person:

“Perpetrators seldom differentiate between sexual orientation and gender identity in the bias-motivation for their attacks.” (From page 9 of http://www.ncavp.org/common/document_files/Reports/2008%20HV%20Report%20smaller%20file.pdf )

In reports of the murder of 15 year old Lawrence King, he is identified as being gay.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/23oxnard.html) However, his choice of attire also put him on the trans spectrum. He may have continued to identify as a gay male his entire life, or he may have followed a more feminine route. We will never know. He was murdered by a 14-year old classmate.

And yet there are still folks that argue we shouldn’t try and promote peace, tolerance, and understanding of people who are just a little bit different.

Peace,

Cynthia

August 31, 2009 12:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And yet there are still folks that argue we shouldn’t try and promote peace, tolerance, and understanding of people who are just a little bit different."

Could you explain how hate crime laws do that?

August 31, 2009 8:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The last two posts spent time whining about off-topic posts when, actually, the last two posts were the first off-topic ones."

Hooray, "Anonymous"... Although the two posts were pertinent to your continual attempts to pirate this blog site, you have finally recognized and conceded the point: Stick to the topic!! Now that you have reached that understanding, can we now expect you to follow your own words?

August 31, 2009 9:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't say I was opposing to broad discussion.

I said that those who favored narrowly defined discussions and whined about them were hypocrites.

Of course, the truth that I didn't bring up before is that you couldn't care less if the topic is maintained but that you object to any point that doesn't support either the gay or liberal agenda.

Your side is losing.

Get over it.

August 31, 2009 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wah, wah, wah "Anonymous"
"you couldn't care less if the topic is maintained but that you object to any point that doesn't support either the gay or liberal agenda."
Nice try...but you are soooo wrong. One doesh't have to be "gay or liberal" to be interested in civility, comity, relevant arguments, avoidance of personal ad hominem attacks, the use of "trigger" words to evoke some sort of emotional reaction, and general good manners.
Perhaps you need to step back and evaluate the value of your presence on this blog site.

August 31, 2009 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wasn't the one whining.

You were.

The partisanship of your complaint is evident from the fact that you don't complain about TTF supporters changing the subject or not being "civil".

I'm not complaining though. It shows you have substantive argument to make.

August 31, 2009 11:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As I understand it, the police do not know if this was a hate crime, but they are willing to investigate to see if it might be. That is very important."

Hard to see why.

It's a crime regardless of the motivation.

In D.C., the police have important things to do.

August 31, 2009 2:11 PM  
Anonymous Maryanne Arnow said...

Incorrect anon. If the crime was committed as part of the personally percieved survival needs of the accused, that is one thing, such as shoplifting, self defense or defensive assault, or even robbery.

The motivation, if bound up in discriminatory hatred of any kind, is considerably different, and as such, is also weighed differently by the same laws that the police attempt to enforce and that the courts attempt to define and prosecute appropriately based on these and other factors of circumstance when a crime is committed.

Try to wrap your head around this for a moment. If YOU, were, in fact, a member of a very vulnerable human community, that has an extensive history of being singled out and deeply harmed, primarily based on a variety of social and cultural factors, and had yourself suffered that kind of discriminatory hatred, i am nearly certain that your perspective would be a little more broad on this topic.

You could then easily understand better why it means more to some (like myself, as a transgender woman), than it might to anyone else that has not personally experienced this kind of constant and completely unfair and unreasonable persecution.

It would change your perpective and bring it a little closer to home on likely both an emotional as well as social and possibly even political or legislative context.

Most respectfully,


Maryanne

September 01, 2009 12:09 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Your side is losing.

Get over it.


LOL Anon!

Your side is the toothless minority.

The Democrats don't need a single GOP vote to pass anything.

Get over it.

September 01, 2009 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you're assuming all Democrats will drink kool-aid just because Harry "Rev Jim Jones" Reid tells them to

Democrats in conservative states want to be able to say that Republicans supported the bill too so it can't be used against them in Nov 2010

Gallup recently reported that not only do more people in America call themselves conservative than liberal, but that the statistic is true in each and every of the fifty states

surprising when you consider that the media has played up the whole "yes, we can" revolution

truth is Americans didn't vote for change to a new socialist era

they voted for a restoration of the Gingrich era when a moderate Democrat enacted the conservative agenda

the illusion that Obama was the moderate he claimed to be was shattered when he called the police "stupid" and sided with a wild-eyed radical professor in Cambridge

as for health care, Americans' only concern is with the escalating cost

they don't want to create a new entitlement in the midst of a nasty recession

and Blue Dog Democrats don't want to be blamed for exacerbating the deficit that is seriously threatening our security

take away sensible Blue Dogs and red hot Republicans and just plain nervous nellie vanilla Dems and you don't have 51 votes

September 01, 2009 9:09 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Democrats in conservative states want to be able to say that Republicans supported the bill too so it can't be used against them in Nov 2010

Democrats in conservative states want to be able to show their constituents that they can bring the change they were elected to bring. Their constituents want a public option to lower insurance premiums, and the end of dropped coverage for long term illness and denial of care for pre-existing conditions.

Democrats who vote for HR 3200 will be richly rewarded in 2010 and the Republicans who don't will continue to slide into meaninglessness.

September 01, 2009 9:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon-B is confused about who has the momentum at the moment

did you know that polls show Harry Reid is trailing his most likely challenger in his state by 49-37?

that can't be a good sign when the majority leader doesn't have the support of his own state

David Brooks in the NY Times:

"Two tides swept over American politics last winter. The first was the Obama tide. Barack Obama came into office with an impressive 70 percent approval rating. The second was the independent tide. Over the first months of this year, the number of people who called themselves either Democrats or Republicans declined, while the number who called themselves independents surged ahead.

Obama’s challenge was to push his agenda through a Democratic-controlled government while retaining the affection of the 39 percent of Americans in the middle.

The administration hasn’t been able to pull it off. From the stimulus to health care, it has joined itself at the hip to the liberal leadership in Congress. The White House has failed to veto measures, like the pork-laden omnibus spending bill, that would have demonstrated independence and fiscal restraint. The president has promoted one policy after another that increases spending and centralizes power in Washington.

The result is the Obama slide, the most important feature of the current moment. The number of Americans who trust President Obama to make the right decisions has fallen by roughly 17 percentage points. Obama’s job approval is down to about 50 percent. All presidents fall from their honeymoon highs, but in the history of polling, no newly elected American president has fallen this far this fast.

Anxiety is now pervasive. Trust in government rose when Obama took office. It has fallen back to historic lows. Fifty-nine percent of Americans now think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

The public’s view of Congress, which ticked upward for a time, has plummeted. Charlie Cook, who knows as much about Congressional elections as anyone in the country, wrote recently that Democratic fortunes have “slipped completely out of control.” He and the experts he surveyed believe there is a good chance that the Democrats could lose more than 20 House seats in the next elections.

The public has soured on Obama’s policy proposals. Voters often have only a fuzzy sense of what each individual proposal actually does, but more and more have a growing conviction that if the president is proposing it, it must involve big spending, big government and a fundamental departure from the traditional American approach.

Driven by this general anxiety, and by specific concerns, public opposition to health care reform is now steady and stable. Independents once solidly supported reform. Now they have swung against it. As the veteran pollster Bill McInturff has pointed out, public attitudes toward Obamacare exactly match public attitudes toward Clintoncare when that reform effort collapsed in 1994.

Amazingly, some liberals now argue that the administration should just ignore the ignorant masses and ram health care through using reconciliation, the legislative maneuver that would reduce the need for moderate votes.

This would be suicidal. You can’t pass the most important domestic reform in a generation when the majority of voters think you are on the wrong path. To do so would be a sign of unmitigated arrogance. If Obama agrees to use reconciliation, he will permanently affix himself to the liberal wing of his party and permanently alienate independents. He will be president of 35 percent of the country — and good luck getting anything done after that."

September 01, 2009 9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert Byrd, Evan Bayh, Arlen Specter, Ben Nelson, Joseph Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor...

that's eight non-Republican Senators who have said they won't vote for the health care bill unless it has bi-partisan support

put that in your blender and press "frappe"

btw, Obama's approval rating us down to 46% in the latest reading by the fabled Ramussen polling group

September 01, 2009 9:56 AM  
Anonymous henry said...

I doubt anyone will be richly rewarded for hopping on that train!

September 01, 2009 10:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anybody ever wonder what happened to the Depression?

You may remember how Democrats said we had to elect them because the Republicans had brought about the second Great Depression.

As we now seem to be coming out of it, we can look back and see that it was never anywhere near the level of the 1930s and that Democrats probably made it worse by their hyperbolic rhetoric which shook consumer confidence. Furthermore, the only action they took was to pass a bill to stimulate the economy, of which 85% was never spent and now seems unnecessary.

The recession, based on statitistical evidence, was more similar to the 1973-75 recession. In 1976, we elected Jimmy Carter, who Obama so resembles. With a Democratic majority in Congress, Carter and the Dems made such a fine mess of things that American threw them out in 1980, commencing the Reagan era, a quarter century of unparalleled prosperity.

How can Obama avoid this fate?

Make Bill Clinton your role model.

Start palling around with conservatives.

Also:

-introduce a health care bill with cost containment provisions like tort reform and individual choice

-lower marginal tax rates

-repeal the remainder of the stimulus bill

-veto the cap and trade if it passes Congress

-permit offshore drilling in Alaska and the Eastern Continetal Shelf

-make memberships to fancy health clubs with naked women tax deductible

-appoint Sarah Palin to a cabinet post

If you don't wise up, Barry, Sarah's campaign song in 2012 will be "We Won't Get Fooled Again"

September 01, 2009 12:44 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“Strange how the hypocritcal mindset loves to show itself off.”

Indeed.

Sociopathanon: “A portly woman is walking down the street wearing the Hope Diamond. A lesbian gang walks up with a gun pointed at the woman and the leader says "Give me the ice, fat ass!"

Does that make it a hate crime against overweight people?”


No, but clearly it would be a hate crime against the ever maligned “wearers of the Hope Diamond” community.
---
Cynthia: "And yet there are still folks that argue we shouldn’t try and promote peace, tolerance, and understanding of people who are just a little bit different."

Sociopathanon: “Could you explain how hate crime laws do that?”

From the Anti-Defamation League’s intro on Hate Crimes Laws (spaces added for the comprehension impaired):

“All Americans have a stake in an effective response to violent bigotry. Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community.

The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim's community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law.

By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups -- and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them -- these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities.”

---
And as a friend on SoulForce said:

“The need for hate crimes legislation, in reality, comes from the follow-up crimes of police and justice officials exercising their power in a biased manner by determining that certain crimes against certain people are not worth their effort.”
---
So, Socio, if you’re against all hate crimes, say so. If not, then admit it and make your case as to why not.

September 02, 2009 2:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

improv

If you're mentally challenged, just say so

don't throw together a rambling series of no sequiturs to show us

September 02, 2009 6:09 AM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Anon, Emproph's question to you was very reasonable. Your name-calling response demonstrates the emptiness of your beliefs. Are you against all hate crimes, or just certain ones? Fair question. Answer.

September 02, 2009 7:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

don't see any question marks in improv's non-sensical post

your question doesn't make any sense either

I don't think I said I was for or against any hate crimes although I think the question is offensive

btw, if you’re against all sexual morality, say so. If not, then admit it and make your case as to why not.

September 02, 2009 7:35 AM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Emproph said "So, Socio, if you’re against all hate crimes, say so. If not, then admit it and make your case as to why not."

I think that's a reasonable request.

September 02, 2009 7:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

really?

am I against all hate crimes?

I thought everyone was against hate crimes

I thought we were discussing hate crime LAWS and whether they are appropriate and whether they are widespread against homosexuals

btw, if you’re against English grammar, say so. If not, then admit it and make your case as to why not

September 02, 2009 8:49 AM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Maybe you can explain your position on prosecution of people who commit a crime against someone because of their religion.

And maybe you can't focus on the question.

September 02, 2009 9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if you want to equate religion and sexual deviance, say so. If not, then admit it and make your case as to why not

btw, I never got an answer to:

"DRICK: This is exactly why we need an inclusive ENDA.

BRILLIANT ANON: could you explain the connection, Drick?"

or this:

"CYNTHIA: And yet there are still folks that argue we shouldn’t try and promote peace, tolerance, and understanding of people who are just a little bit different."

BRILLIANT ANON: Could you explain how hate crime laws do that?"

if you can't answer the question, say so. If not, then admit it and make your case as to why not

September 02, 2009 9:16 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon asserted:

“if you can't answer the question, say so. If not, then admit it and make your case as to why not”

I do have an answer for the question. However, as I don’t limit myself to 2 line insults (the genre preferred by some authors who shall remain anonymous) it takes me a while to type them in. (And then the Anons complain about them being too long.)

There are were many concepts put forward in the last week I’d like to comment on, however my work schedule has severely limited my free time. I will be on vacation next week as my mother comes up to visit from North Carolina. Maybe I’ll have time to share my wisdom then.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

September 03, 2009 10:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we'll await your comments, Cynthia

I'd strive for brevity if I were you- it makes for a more convincing argument

September 03, 2009 10:33 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Dana writes,

Ah, Orin, good to hear from you. I just love your cynicism, though.

"Cynicism"? Please...my comment is in accord with statistics that state that most victims know the person who assaulted them. A good investigator does not make any sort of assumptions until they have all facts in hand.

We'll see what the investigation yields; though, regardless, a tragedy is a tragedy.

Interesting that I don't hear any Christianist websites excoriating the white Christian couple who had abducted and raped that girl out.


For someone as educated as you are, that is a classic cheap shot, and it ought to be beneath what I have read you are capable of in making comments on this blog. I am all too painfully aware of the evil and the pain religion has caused; the year I became Roman Catholic the Boston Archdiocese was literally imploding from all the Priest sex-abuse scandals.

The evidence thus far in the case of Phillip Garrido though is mixed, at best. What does appear to be the case though is that Garrido made choices that lead him to a life of vice long before he found religion. This is what one background story in the LA Times states,

Start Quote:
But Garrido started mixing with the "wrong crowd" at Liberty Union High School, his father said, and began selling and using LSD. "After he got the LSD pills, he was gone. It ruined his life," he said. "He didn't want to go to school. We had a hell of a time getting him to graduate."

Garrido received a new blue Oldsmobile as a graduation present in 1969, evidence, his father said, of how "spoiled rotten" his youngest son was. "Anything he wanted growing up, he got."

Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll defined Garrido's life. He was arrested for marijuana possession and left Brentwood for Reno when he was about 20, reportedly one step ahead of angry drug dealers. He did odd jobs and played bass guitar in a band.


The article can be found here,
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-phillip-garrido5-2009sep05,0,3336769.story

So, I guess if I wanted to I could as easily come back at you and assert that it was the Anything Goes culture of the Sixties, the drugs, sex and rock 'n roll that is to blame. I think it more likely to attribute his behavior to bad choices he made in High School and the habits he formed from those bad choices than any so-called "christianist" theology/ideology.

September 06, 2009 4:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home