02/20/2008
U.S. Reacts with Anger, Sorrow, Action to Lawrence King Murder
A bunch of updates on the Lawrence King shooting for you here. Hundreds of parents asking for answers attended a meeting at an Oxnard, California campus regarding the shooting last week of 15-year-old Lawrence King, shot in the back of the head in a classroom by a fellow student, allegedly because he was gay:
"In orderly fashion, one parent after another asked for metal detectors on campus, more programs dealing with bullying and for stricter enforcement of the district's uniform policy. 'There were probably weeks of this student being subjected to harassment,' said Joe Gonzales, parent of a student at E.O. Green Junior High in Oxnard, where King was killed Feb. 12. 'We need to know what was done, or not done, so we can prevent something like this from happening again instead of reacting to it.' Details about events the days before the shooting also trickled out as a panel that included school officials, mental health counselors and Oxnard Police Chief John Crombach responded to questions. One parent said her daughter told her that several students exchanged text messages the day before the shooting that talked about what the suspect planned to do. Crombach acknowledged that several students told police they heard about 'comments, statements and threats' that were made but that they didn't take the chatter seriously and that there was no evidence that it was reported to school officials. King's classmates said he had proclaimed himself gay in recent weeks and began wearing feminine accessories with his school uniform. The boy endured frequent taunting but appeared to be holding his own, students said, refusing to change his appearance."
One of three 911 tapes has been released.
Assemblyman Mike Eng (D-Monterey Park), chairman of the Assembly Select Committee on Hate Crimes, this week announced plans, in response to the King shooting, to introduce a bill expanding diversity education in California schools: "'My bill is focusing on [hate crime] prevention,' Eng said after a news conference at his El Monte district office. 'We already have bills on the books about proper punishment; mine will focus on dealing with hatred in a school setting.' Eng hopes to create a pilot program by allocating up to $150,000 to establish a diversity and sensitivity curriculum at a few school districts. The pilot program would serve as a model to be used to develop lesson plans statewide."
Sara Whitman notes in the Huffington Post: "In my LGBT community, we argue about who is more pro LGBT rights, Obama or Clinton. It's been days since Lawrence King was shot dead. Neither candidate has issued a statement or said a word. The national media has done a complete pass on the story. Both candidates make me sick...Don't worry. I get the message, loud and clear. Just one more dead faggot."
Following the King shooting, Time magazine published this classless story on King and bullying in public schools that sounds as though it was written by some fundie from Focus on the Family. It claims that gay groups are exaggerating the amount of bullying made against kids because of their sexual orientation in order to make the situation sound more dire and drum up the need for legislation.
Quote: "Still, it's hard to look at the photo of King's fragile little face and not want to do something."
The L.A. Times ntoes that at least a dozen vigils and memorials are scheduled around the country for King this week. you can find a list of them at GLSEN. The page where they are listed is currently down, but it may be up later.
There's one taking place in West Hollywood tonight at 7 pm. There's also one on Friday in Kansas City.
Additionally, here is Lawrence King's memorial MySpace page.
For all our coverage of the Lawrence King murder, click here.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 9:19 AM EST by Andy in Bullying, California, Crime, Lawrence King, News | Permalink
Comments
FINALLY, people seem to be addressing the cause and not just the symptom. There seems to be, at least at the moment, a focus on how to prevent such tragedies rather than how to punish after the fact.
I can only hope that the focused discussion continues and spreads across the country.
It's just a shame that it takes the death of a child to wake people up.
Posted by: Zeke | Feb 20, 2008 9:35:38 AM
Thanks for keeping this story in front of us. Shame on many people.
Posted by: Eddie | Feb 20, 2008 9:44:32 AM
I agree with Sara Whitman.
This election is going to be nasty for us. The Dems will do anything not to lose this time around even if it means throwing the gays under the bus when the Republicans start up the rhetoric.
The Democrats don't have to care about the gays, what other party do we have left to go to?
I'm going to start looking for some closet space.
Posted by: NotForYou | Feb 20, 2008 9:56:51 AM
Does it disturb anyone else that the only 911 tape police released was one where the caller kept repeating that the kid had shot himself?
Posted by: sparks | Feb 20, 2008 9:57:59 AM
I've written about Lawrence King for the "L.A. Weekly" in a piece recalling bout of gay bashing I was on the receiving end of 46 years ago when I was 15. It should be in this Thursday's edition.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Feb 20, 2008 10:00:47 AM
A poem for Larry:
http://areyououtsidethelines.blogspot.com/2008/02/to-murdered-larry-king-oxnard-calif.html
Posted by: Christopher | Feb 20, 2008 10:02:37 AM
I'm also outraged by the Time article: "only 18% of gay and transgender students said they had been assaulted in 2005 because of their sexual orientation~"
ONLY 18% have been assaulted? ONLY?? You know if a study showed that 1 out of 5 girls had been beaten or raped by the time they exited high school, there would be outrage.
That article is shameful and I'm writing a letter to the editor. I encourage others to do the same.
Posted by: sparks | Feb 20, 2008 10:04:48 AM
To use the TIME mag author's favorite word:
If ONLY he had a brain, and a heart, the author would never have written such a slanted, despicable piece of trash.
I am sick to my stomach.
Posted by: JT | Feb 20, 2008 10:15:55 AM
Gun control is a huge issue here. Without gun control there will continue to be a new school shooting every month in the U.S. Guns serve no purpose in this country. Continued prayers for the King family.
Posted by: davey | Feb 20, 2008 10:21:58 AM
In minimizing the risks faced by LGBT students each and every day in America’s schools, John Cloud betrays either a lack of understanding of the data or a misreading of it when he accuses the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force of exaggerating the degree to which gay kids suffer in school.
As research by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) makes clear, LGBT kids are far less likely to feel safe or very safe in school than their heterosexual counterparts (78% versus 93%), and almost one-fifth (18%) of those surveyed had been physically assaulted over the previous year.
What is more, Mr. Cloud mischaracterizes a statistic regarding the reporting of harassment or assault and suggests that much of it wasn’t significant enough to report. In fact, fewer than half of the students who did report incident(s) of harassment or assault felt that it made any difference. And among those who did not report being victims of harassment or assault fully 50% said that it was because they expected nothing would be done about it or that they personally would suffer repercussions.
On the heels of a premeditated murder of a vulnerable child taunted for being openly gay, John Cloud seems bent on whitewashing the harsh realities of a broad range of LGBT kids in our schools. I can’t imagine such gross indifference to a child being murdered after having been taunted for being Jewish, or Latino, or heterosexual. Cloud’s lack of outrage builds a strong case for exactly what he argues against – increased penalties for a range of crimes that the state and the wider culture have long dismissed as insignificant.
Jaime M. Grant, Ph.D.
Policy Institute Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Posted by: Dr. Jaime Grant | Feb 20, 2008 10:25:50 AM
Fuming indeed! I am all but speechless but I have written to TIME and to the author to express my outrage. What a despicable article. Perhaps some good will come out of this tragedy. Parents demanding answers is a good first step. The MSM blackout is an abomination. Let your voice be heard: demand answers and action. Rest in peace, sweet angel--a peace the bigots denied you here on earth. Your courageous life and untimely death shall inspire us.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 20, 2008 10:30:20 AM
i'm sorry, but i just finished the Time article...
did they honestly try to analogously link taunting because of body type to the execution of a little boy because he's gay?
also, i'm so glad the author didn't have the insight to examine that a lot of homophobia is the result of sexism, anyway.
way to go. dumbing down of america shouldn't only be attributed to jessica simpson. what happened to analysis?
Posted by: ian | Feb 20, 2008 10:48:07 AM
"We may never know the real motivations for King's murder"?
Right. And I suppose we'll never know why victims of lynchings were killed, either. Maybe because they were overweight, not because they were black? Or why all those people died in the Holocaust -- maybe it was a coincidence they were Jewish?
I'm amazed this passes for journalism. Look at how many times the article had to be corrected! And it's still hideous.
Cloud's conclusion: we should mourn, not legislate. Just accept and be good victims, have a good cry, but not DO anything, god forbid!
Posted by: Kevinvt | Feb 20, 2008 11:03:20 AM
that time article is a piece of filth and made me sick, i wonder if that douche cloud would change his tune should he ever be on the receiving end of a gay bashing but let us hope that lawrence did not die in vain and steps will be taken to provide the necessary legislation to protect children everywhere and to prevent this from happening again.
Posted by: the queen | Feb 20, 2008 11:04:02 AM
John Cloud, the author of that repulsive article, also wrote Time's famously fawning cover story on Ann Coulter.
Posted by: bcarter3 | Feb 20, 2008 11:10:53 AM
Like many others, I was sickened by the Time piece. Cloud quickly skips past King's murder (by a "sweet-faced boy") to say how things are really quite peachy for LGBT youth. (He spins statistics to do this; look closely, they're not really so peachy.) Then he puts forth his fundamental misunderstanding of hate crimes legislation. (One more time, it's not about criminalizing people's thoughts!) Then he winds up by saying we may never know the real motivations for King's murder. What?! The motivations seem quite clear to everyone but him.
Yes, you'd think such a piece had been written by Focus on the Family when in fact it was written by a gay man, albeit one who did a rosy portrait of nutcase Ann Coulter for Time. So I guess it shouldn't be too surprising . . .
Posted by: Ernie | Feb 20, 2008 11:22:02 AM
That Time would even publish such a despicable and dishonest piece of tripe is BEYOND me!!
So, it's no big f*cking deal, eh? Perhaps, instead of relying on lame "statistics" the "reporter" should have engaged some REAL investigative instincts and interviewed administrators from The Harvey Milk School, who would have surely enlightened him on the need for such schools, as most of the students who attend Milk were severely challenged in their previous schools.
They simply cannot believe that such a low percentage of LBGT youth are not being being harassed in the public school system. Especially, in suburban or rural areas, one of which I assume applies to the town of Oxnard.
That article has made me absolutely furious! Did Rupert Murdock purchase Time/Warner unbeknownst to me?
Letters to the editor are most def in order.
Posted by: banjiboi | Feb 20, 2008 11:31:13 AM
The Time magazine article is the most dispicable thing I've read ANYWHERE in a long time; especially considering its timing.
And what about those GLSEN survey results? Does anyone else find their results to be completely unbelievable? When they claim that 66% of gay and trans kids say they have heard homophobic remarks; ARE YOU F*CKING KIDDING ME WITH THIS? On what planet do these kids live?
And when they talk about a survey of gay and trans kids in school wouldn't it be important to note that by "gay and trans" they mean "out gay and trans" which is completely different thing alltogether. It seems pretty clear to any fool that the VAST MAJORITY of gay and trans kids in primary school are not OUT.
I strongly encourage everyone to contact Time magazine and challenge this right-wing fundamentalist, Peter Labarbara/Concerned "Women" for America-styled propaganda peice. I can't believe that in 2008 a respected news magazine would print such bigoted propaganda. I also can't believe that a human being could be so f'n heartless and soul-less to write such a peice in response to such a tragedy; even as the victim was being kept alive on life support so that his organs could be harvested to save other people's lives.
What a complete and total douche bag!
Posted by: Zeke | Feb 20, 2008 11:37:21 AM
I'm so over this dead kid story already. Please more posts on Anderson Cooper and Brady Quinn!
(ugh)
Posted by: JohnInManhattan | Feb 20, 2008 11:37:40 AM
I’m also appalled at John Cloud’s article in Time. And apparently he’s Gay. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1627585,00.html?xid=rss-business
Posted by: 1♥ | Feb 20, 2008 11:48:18 AM
Cloud also wrote an article for Time recently on gay relationships that includes the following sentence:
"In a 2004 paper, psychology professor Lawrence Kurdek of Wright State University in Ohio reported that over a 12-year period, 21% of gay and lesbian couples broke up; only 14% of married straight couples did." So Kurdek, who admittedly seems pro-gay relationships, compared unMARRIED gays to MARRIED straights? Anyone who a basic understanding of statistics knows that you should only compared like with like - either married with unmarried or gay with straight. You can't vary two important criteria and still compare the groups. Of course married couples will stay together longer because it is more difficult for them to break up.
Cloud does a similar thing here: "only 18% of gay and transgender students said they had been assaulted in 2005 because of their sexual orientation. (By comparison, 18.2% of male students and 8.8% of female students reported being in a physical fight at school in the last year.). There is no comparison to being assaulted and partaking in a "physical fight" (whatever that is).
Posted by: EireKev | Feb 20, 2008 12:04:35 PM
Shame on you Andy for a grossly misleadng characterization of John Cloud's piece at time.com. It is admittedly contrarian and provocative, but it is hardly the hate speech you claim it to be.
And I dearly wish that all of you now heeding Andy's rallying cry and baying for John Cloud's head on a spike would calm down for a minute and take a deep breath. Go back and read some of what you've written. The only fundie-esque rants I'm reading are from these comments.
First, if you look at the totality of his wrting, I think you'll see evidence that John Cloud is a thoughtful and sensitive writer, and, in my opinion, his platform in our most-read newsweekly and its website is good for gays and our visibility.
I should note before I mount any further defence that Cloud's piece has been amended to note that GLSEN does not concur with his interpretation of their data. As well, a couple factual inaccuracies in Cloud's data references have been corrected. These have helped to clarify some what remains an overall coherent and reasonable if controversial argument.
The corrections notwithstanding, several of you (with assistance from Andy) have wildly mischaracterized both the overall argument and specific elements of Cloud's piece on the horror that befell Lawrence King. Admittedly, I don't think that this was Cloud's most artfully argued piece ever, and it needed to be because he is taking a contrarian, "let's slow down here a minute" position that he doesn't articulate nearly carefully enough.
But to be clear, he never said "it's no big f-----g deal" (Banjiboi). Nor (Ernie) did he say things "are really quite peachy for LGBT youth." And (Ian) he didn't "try to analogously link taunting because of body type to the execution of a little boy because he's gay." He did none of those things implicitly or explicitly.
What he did try to do is put the current conditions for LGBT youth in our schools into some perspective and make the point that we are seeing substanial progress from a time, not at all long ago, when a boy in middle school who openly self-identified as gay and wore makeup and nail polish likely wouldn't have made it through the first day of school without suffering violence. (And thank God for admittedly small favors that THAT has changed.)
To be clear, I am horrified by what happened to Lawrence King, God rest his soul. But the point which Cloud didn't make and needs to be made is that this case is an utterly outrageous extreme and is not the lens through which the condition of LGBT youth in our schools in 2008 needs to be viewed.
Of course the fact that ANY feel threatened in school in virtue of their sexuality is unacceptable. But Cloud's point is that huge numbers of kids are taunted and harrassed in school every day for lots of reasons, e.g., being fat, and sexual orientation is very likely not the leading one. That was the point Eirekev of comparing the 18% of lesbian and gay kids who claim to have been assaulted in school in 2005 with the numbers of all males (18.2%) and females (8.8%) who claim to have been in a physcal fight in school within the preceding year.
(And by the way, Eirekev, did you even bother to read and understand Cloud's aricle on gay relationships that you quote? It's a thoughtful and very personal piece in which he has no agenda of the sort you impute to him in your post, which takes his reference to the Kurdek research completely out of context. And, uh, by the way, the reason Professor Kurdek, a highly-regarded social science researcher, compared unmarried gay couples to married straight couples, is that until three years ago (and still and only in Massachusetts) there's been no such thing in this country as "married gay couples" (to say nothing of gay couples who have been married for decades).
There is an unfortunate tendency in the gay community--and it's amply in evidence here on this site, which I love and read every day but that doesn't mean I can't find fault with it--to blame, judge, criticize, castigate and vilify based on snap judgment, evidently little real undertanding of issues and a kind of casuistical or dialectic (look 'em up) morality.
Problem is, if this is how we treat John Cloud, one of our own, who is a thoughtful writer with a mainstream audience on whom he no doubt has positive impact as a critical-minded and coincidentally gay journalist, then what example are we setting for reason and dispassion in discussing the difficult social issues that lie at the nexis of gay people's increasing acceptance and welcome as open and respected members of society?
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Feb 20, 2008 1:08:36 PM
Well said, Hermes! Well said.
Posted by: Quakerjono | Feb 20, 2008 1:19:57 PM
TIME MAGAZINE!! Were the hell is our gay media watchdog? GLAAD. GLAAD!!
Oh that's right they are busy raising MONEY coast to coast with their worthless awards.
GLAAD sucks it again.
Posted by: MCnNYC | Feb 20, 2008 1:28:14 PM
Sorry Hermes and Quakerjono, but the fault does not lie with the reading comprehension abilities of Towleroadies but with the vile article penned by your alleged paragon of dispassionate journalism. I read the article and I stand by my opinion (and, for what it is worth, I teach legal research, writing, and advocacy) that Mr. Cloud's article is despicable on many levels. It is precisely because he is perceived to be "[A] thoughtful writer with a mainstream audience on whom he has [an] impact" that we must not let this personal opinion masquerading as objective reporting go unchallenged. I am even more offended that he is a gay journalist because the majority will make the common fallacy of ascribing the opinion of one member of a minority group to all members. I most emphatically do not agree with Cloud's facile "conclusions" arrived at by misconstruing data and I told him and his editor so.
I welcome a civil debate about personal rights and responsibilities of my gay brethren but will not tolerate unsupported written attacks, especially from someone who is a member of my "family". We have enough enemies in the bigots who base their opinions on personal belief, "religious" or otherwise, to let such attacks remain in the marketplace of ideas without countering the ignorant assumptions. The best writing is informed by passion, clarity, and accuracy. Cloud's dismissive, and yet damaging, drivel fails on all accounts.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 20, 2008 1:46:36 PM
Sorry, Hermes, I have read John Cloud's other pieces, and it does not change my opinion of his article one bit. People were sickened by the article not because they were "heeding Andy's rallying cry" but because they read what it said and strongly objected to its message in the aftermath of a hate crime. (Most people criticizing Cloud did not know he was "one of our own," by the way.)
Regarding his other writings: The fact is his profile of wingnut Ann Coulter was widely ridiculed. His article on gay relationships took several leaps of logic based on minimal evidence. (Since I've been in one for 17 years, I have some experience to make a judgment call.) And his article on gay youth, while not without sensitivity, had an inordinate amount of space devoted to ex-gay quackery. (Ironically, one of the gay youths he quoted at length has gone on to be a darling of the ex-gay movement.)
If people reacted strongly to his article, it is not necessarily a vilification of its author--rather, it is passionate critiques of a writer carelessly using statistics in the face of a brutal hate crime (along with a common misperception of what hate crimes are) to argue against hate crimes legislation.
Posted by: Ernie | Feb 20, 2008 2:03:59 PM
Hermes In DC:
To clarify: I never quoted Mr. Cloud as saying big fucking deal. It's a common practice amongst writers, whether novice or otherwise (I consider mysel the former, BTW), that if you're going to attribute a quote to someone in particular, you'd do so by inserting quotation marks around the phrase, which I did not do, so it was my intent and hope that the sentence would be taken as purely my own interpretation and opinion of the article.
With all due, I do see how the statement could have been easily misconstrued.
Posted by: banjiboi | Feb 20, 2008 2:05:37 PM
Damn you, typos!
Posted by: banjoboi | Feb 20, 2008 2:07:20 PM
Hermes in DC I did indeed read Cloud's article on gay relationships in its entirety and I fully agree: it IS thoughtful and very personal and I was quite glad to see it in a news magazine I have been reading for as long as I can remember and which, in the European edition anyway, does not often cover GLBT issues. For the purposes of brevity I did not mention my overall thoughts on the article. Because of brevity it does appear like I'm trying to take the quote out of context. A lesson learned!
In addition, I also did read Kurdek's paper and I did appreciate what he was trying to do with the groups he had available to him. It doesn't change my point, which is that it's not statistically relevant to compare such disparate groups and Cloud did not highlight this clearly enough in his article. Possibly also because of brevity enforced on him. Certainly he has a better excuse than I. Furthermore, I am not in "this" country you speak of and Time is not limited to "this" country. So why should Cloud limit his research to it? Surely other studies have been conducted in countries with gay marriage has been available for a suitable period of time.
The reason I mentioned that article (which was fresh in my mind) was that Cloud shouldn't be comparing students who have been in "physical fights" to those who have been "assaulted". The former implies a degree of consensuality, the latter has none.
Posted by: EireKev | Feb 20, 2008 2:57:48 PM
Cloud demonstrates why the Log Caibnetes are every bit as much the enemies of the LGBT community as Fred Phelps.
They're the new Roy Cohns.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Feb 20, 2008 3:11:05 PM
All of the problems faced by gay youth (oh, hell, youth in general) aside, what I want to know is where in hell did that kid get a gun?
One poor kid is now dead and another kid, who actually might have outgrown his homophobia to become a useful member of society is going to go to prison for the rest of his life. Doubtful he'll outgrow it there...
Where did the SIU shooter get HIS gun? Where did the Columbine shooters get THEIR guns? Where did the UVA shooter get his?
How many lives have been wasted in this country because thanks to the NRA League of Firearms Promotion, guns are as easy to get in this country as a Snickers Bar...
Posted by: McQ | Feb 20, 2008 3:40:55 PM
All of the problems faced by gay youth (oh, hell, youth in general) aside, what I want to know is where in hell did that kid get a gun?
One poor kid is now dead and another kid, who actually might have outgrown his homophobia to become a useful member of society is going to go to prison for the rest of his life. Doubtful he'll outgrow it there...
Where did the SIU shooter get HIS gun? Where did the Columbine shooters get THEIR guns? Where did the UVA shooter get his?
How many lives have been wasted in this country because thanks to the NRA League of Firearms Promotion, guns are as easy to get in this country as a Snickers Bar...
Posted by: McQ | Feb 20, 2008 3:41:55 PM
HERMES IN DC aka John Cloud.
Posted by: Toro | Feb 20, 2008 4:10:30 PM
A few thoughts for various posters who replied to my previous comment:
Not that I can prove this, Toro, but for the record, I am NOT John Cloud. He has a much better platform at his disposal to defend himself anyway. I think time.com gets more traffic than towleroad.
Ernie, yes, Cloud's piece on Ann Coulter was widely ridculed. It was not a good piece. But I'd argue the principal reason it was so ridiculed is that it reported an uncomfortable truth (that that harpy has become enormously influential in this country) and then took that fact seriously enough to try to understand why.
Also, Ernie with respect, the fact that you have been in a 17-year relationship doesn't leave you better qualified than anyone else to judge Cloud's article on relationships. It surely helps to inform your own personal opinion of his argument, but it doesn't make yours a better opinion than anyone elses, simply because your 17-year relationship makes you an expert on YOUR relationship, but no more or less so on relationships in general than any other non-expert. So that's a sort of facile credential.
In any event, I don't see the leaps in logic based on minimal evidence you do. I see reasonably sober speculation on the meaning of some data, of a degree and extent appropriate to the general interest medium in which he is writing.
And Rudy, I think you continue to misconstrue Cloud's larger point because he does not share your same level of alarm about the condition of LGBT youth in the schools today. That being as it may, you make one woefully inaccurate statement when you call Cloud's piece "personal opinion masquerading as objective reporting." It is nothing of the sort. It was clearly identified on the time.com home page as "viewpoint," and reads not at all like objective reporting would. Whatever your background in legal writing may be worth, it's not helped you make the easy distincton between reportage and opinion. In reading Cloud's piece it leaps off the screen that it is an opinion piece. You're very entitled to disagree with his opinion, but don't get your knickers all in a twist that he and TIME are somehow abandoning the principles of journalism.
And finally, Banjiboi, if you're going to be so literal, what I meant to say was that nothing Cloud said could be reasonably construed to mean "it's no big f-----g deal," which is what you paraphrased and shorthanded his argument to mean. (Since two can play pedantic, let me note also that that's in fact evident from my own use of quotation marks. I put your words, in my post, in a single set of (double) quotation marks because I was quoting YOU. If I had thought you in turn were actually quoting him verbatim, I'd have used two sets of quotation marks, one single set inside a double set, like this: "'It's no big f-----g deal'." You see, I went to grammar shool too.)
As to why I'm spilling so much "ink" on this issue, I am not so much wedded to Cloud's conclusions as I am alarmed at the shrill condemnation (here and elsewhere) of any even well-meaning person who dares to depart from the LGBT issue orthodoxy. Who ordained any of us with the unerring right answer to every issue that concerns us? And how many of these posts are written without the benefit of a few minutes' pause and reflection on what other people are actually trying to say? That was my point in calling out the posters who ridiculously inaccurately mischaracterized and oversimplified Cloud's points. Such miscues speak to me of lack of thought and reflection, which surely one of our own is due.
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Feb 20, 2008 6:25:24 PM
Hermes, I don't like to get into tangential pissing contests with other posters in blog comments, so I will be brief. The only reason I brought up my relationship in relationship to Cloud's article was because he used his own relationship to make generalizations about the capacity of gay men to have lasting marriages. I hardly think my opinion is a "better opinion than anyone elses."
Furthermore, while opinions here can sometimes be "shrill" (show me a good blog that doesn't inspire shrill commentary), more often they're made by Towleroad readers who are thoughtful and informed.
To say you are "calling out the posters who ridiculously inaccurately mischaracterized and oversimplified Cloud's points. Such miscues speak to me of lack of thought and reflection, which surely one of our own is due" reeks of condescension. Because many of us vehemently disagree with Cloud's opinion piece it hardly means we haven't thought about the issues or given him his due. When a gay writer like Cloud has an influential platform to air his views, we, as gay people, have a responsibility to call that writer on his statements when we are profoundly disturbed by them.
And, with apologies for ranting, I vow to leave this topic alone now.
Posted by: Ernie | Feb 20, 2008 7:13:15 PM
What Ernie said.
And isn't it intriguing that the gay journalist who is publishing in a wide circulation magazine just happens to write article after article in which he a) criticizes gay people / organizations and b) praises heterosexuals or at least avoids blaming them for any of our problems.
I'm not saying there's any connection, of course. Perhaps they have some other reason for liking him -- his impeccable research talents, for example. Demonstrated by several retractions/rewrites on this article.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Feb 20, 2008 7:22:20 PM
"When a gay writer like Cloud has an influential platform to air his views, we, as gay people, have a responsibility to call that writer on his statements when we are profoundly disturbed by them."
You mean, when he doesn't repeat gay dogma.
And, as KevinVT makes clear, anyone who criticizes gay people or organizations in any way, shape or form, and doesn't blame heterosexuals for all of gays' problems is antigay and stupid.
It's always amusing watching gays go down the militant activist path, where anyone who doesn't reinforce the victimist mindset or regurgitate the party line is automatically blasted as an "Uncle Tom" or a "Roy Cohn".
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Feb 20, 2008 7:40:52 PM
People who thinks things are just fine when it comes to LGBT youth needs to go back to grade school immediately; their age and political infiliation is showing.
Posted by: astonedtemple | Feb 20, 2008 7:53:20 PM
Oh, now it all makes sense. Where there's a HERMES IN DC there's a NORTH DALLAS THIRTY close behind.
You guys have taken quite a break from posting here on Towleroad. What, are things going slow over at GayPatriot?
I find it funny that the two of you seem to be under the impression that you are cutting edge, of superior intelligence and real mavericks just because you are gay and to the right of Anne Coulter.
Have you guys ever met a homophobe you didn't like or a gay supportive person you did?
Posted by: Nanuck | Feb 21, 2008 12:20:46 AM
we should be very glad to read this article. We are brave enough to face the real us. It's great. It the first and most important step for LGBT. "We should be proud of ourselves as we really are." from the typical signature on the forum of http://www.bimingle.com . In this way, i think we LGBT will be accepted by all others in future.
Posted by: lynnran | Feb 21, 2008 5:09:33 AM
Mr. Cloud should have thought about the many gay students who don't finish school due to harassment and anti-gay violence. Why was a school like Harvey Milk High created? Because too many gay teens had to quit public/parochial schools--especially those who couldn't "pass" for straight.
The Times article was of no value except to remind us that not only gay kids are harassed at school. All children--whether they're gay, overweight, not considered attractive, financially poor-- should be allowed to go to school free of fear and anxiety.
Lawrence King was brave for even trying to continue his education in a traditional public school. I doubt he thought of himself as being particularly brave. That's how it usually is.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 21, 2008 11:29:27 AM
If I had the time, and ERNIE wasn't already doing such a great job, I'd write a serious smack-down to HERMES In DC.
What I will say is this: Don't tell me that I didn't read what I read, didn't see statistics manipulated, didn't see a twisting and minimization of a truly horrible happening. Because you are wasting your time, as TIME and Mr. McCloud has wasted everyone else's.
Posted by: JT | Feb 21, 2008 12:06:06 PM
Oooh, Hermes, how you've impressed me so!
While I do believe I conceded that I wasn't the best of writers, would if make you feel better if I applaud your considerable skills as a "wordsmith"?
Would it do your ego justice if I were to say that your comments on this matter did NOT hint at some degree of self-loathing?
It seems that since your remarks have been overwhelmingly opposed in this particular forum, you chose to pout and make snippy little personal attacks on my lack of proper writing skills.
Ah, well, so be it.
I still stand by comments, and I believe that you're terribly misguided on this issue.
That is all.
Posted by: banjiboi | Feb 21, 2008 12:15:01 PM
Ernie -- thank you for a thoughtful reply. Your points are well taken. I did not mean to be condescending, but sometimes it's hard not to appear as such when one is criticizing the manner in which others express their opinions.
What I don't get is why disagreeing with Cloud, even vehemently, passionately, angrily, seems for so many posters to entail simplifying and wildly mischaracterizing his argument? For those who are actually interested in the merits, as opposed to simple pattern and response name calling, it's sort of pointless and self-defeating.
Case in point, Nanuck. The ad hominem attacks on North Dallas Forty and me are baseless and irrelevant. And for the record, Nanuck, I loathe Ann Coulter and would be hard put to be more liberal than I am, e.g., I haven't voted for a Repulican in 20 years and then it was George Bush the elder over Michael Dukakis (which in hindsight I regret, needless to say if only because it begot that inbred halfwit son of his and his ascendecy to the White House).
And JT, because this is a FORUM for discussion, I won't tell you what you read, but I will tell you and others when I think you are misconstruing it. And statistics manipulated? That's what researchers (which I have been for 25 years since earning a PhD in statistical research) call analysis and interpretation. Would that the world were so simple that the data answer all the hard questions for us. But they never do; it's all in the interpretation of the data. You disagree with Cloud's. Fine. That doesn't mean he's manipulating the data.
And JT, if I'm wasting my time in arguing as much, then it's only because you have decided to close your mind to honest discussion which strikes me as a shame for you more than me. Not to mention that it proves my original point.
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Feb 21, 2008 12:30:54 PM
It is always amusing when a self-delusional Log Cabin Republican gets high and mighty and, in an attempt at pithiness or perhaps to show just how "independent" he is in his opinions or thought, refers to "gay dogma".
Now, in my years as a gay/queer man, I have never seen any evidence of "gay dogma", unless the self-delusional Log Cabin Republican is referring to the general tilt of gay opinion and votes towards the Democratic party.
Only a typical, self-loathing Log Cabin Republican fairy would pretend that, by being "conservative"--you know, the usual Log Cabin Republican dogma: "I'm for la-di-da lower taxes and less government and strong national security and national defense la-di-da"--such Log Cabin Republican is somehow, you know, just SOOOOO much less dogmatic than a self-respecting queer who supports the political party that actually FIGHTS for equal rights for queer people and sticks its neck out for those rights and may very well lose elections by supporting those rights.
The only "dogma" is the pompous bilge that emanates from such self-loathing Log Cabin Republicans who will surely support the next Republican candidate for President and, of course, all Republican candidates because, well, you know, they're CONSERVATIVE and it's just SOOOO trendy to be, well, you know, NOT "dogmatic".
And, just as those same despicable Log Cabin Republicans will work hard to make sure "their" candidate gets elected president, they can be assured that "their" candidate will work just as hard to make sure that queer people never achieve true equality in the land of their birth.
But then, most Log Cabin Republicans don't ever have to worry about ever being homeless or without a job or abused or bashed or discriminated against because they have learned how to "suck-up" to their jesus-loving, homophobic masters.
When you are SOOOO trendy-conservative and independent and undogmatic, you know that--even though the political party you support hates the very fact that you even exist and has millions of supporters who would love to see you NOT exist--you will always be safe and protected because, well, you SUPPORT those "conservative", "undogmatic" values.
Good luck in the 2008 elections, Log Cabin Republicans. May your "undogma" protect you from the holocaust to come if we have even one more year of the disaster that is the Republican Party.
Posted by: mike | Feb 21, 2008 1:08:27 PM
@Hermes
I read the article myself. I don’t need Andy T. or you to tell me what to think about it. It was appalling.
By cherry-picking statistics Mr. Cloud trivialized the verbal and physical abuse thousands of LGBT children face in schools across this country on a daily bases. His lack of compassion for LGBT children was self-evident in this article. How many Gay children have to have bullets put into their heads before Mr. Cloud cares? How many Gay children have to beaten before Mr. Cloud cares? How many Gay Children have to slit their wrist in suicide before Mr. Cloud cares? Mr. Cloud was given a national audience and he trivialized the torment that thousands of LGBT children deal with everyday. I found Mr. Cloud to be both appalling and heartless.
@North Dallas Thirty
What’s really sad North Dallas Thirty are people like you that use a story of a Gay child’s murder so you can rant about your politics of hate.
Have you no decency. Are yours and Mr. Clouds hearts so empty of compassion that neither of you care about LGBT children who face verbal and physical abuse in schools everyday? People like you and Mr. Cloud are so empty, so soulless, I find you both just so sad that it’s pitiful.
Posted by: 1♥ | Feb 21, 2008 1:27:20 PM
It seems that the message that HERMES IN DC would like for us to get here is that it is completely unacceptable to have an opinion that is the same as the prevailing opinion in the gay community BUT it is equally unacceptable to disagree with his personal opinion (or anyone who has an opinion with which he agrees) because doing so means that one is ignorant, uninformed, unintelligent, unable to read, unable to comprehend and unable to come to a reasonable and acceptable conclusion (other than his) from the information (or misinformation) presented.
The sooner everyone here gets that the sooner the world will be a perfect place to live; at least for HERMES and ND30.
Posted by: Zeke | Feb 21, 2008 2:56:09 PM
That's RIGHT, Zeke. Finally someone got it. Thanks so much for clarifying it for me and everyone else.
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Feb 21, 2008 7:54:26 PM
That is right, Hermes. That is precisely what Zeke does so well. He cuts through the bullshit but always does so with politesse whereas those of us less polished than he merely dismiss your rantings. Far be it for us to remove you from the petard upon which you have so deliberately hauled yourself. You are breathing your own fumes and have thoroughly convinced yourself.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 21, 2008 8:33:16 PM
Hermes in DC:
Again, not much time, but I'll give you one, particularly offensive (to me) example from the article:
"Of those in the GLSEN report who had been harassed or assaulted, more than one-tenth — 13% — said the incident wasn't serious enough to report."
This is how one manipulates statistics. Does the way this is phrased characterize this as a negative? No. It says "more than" in order to show that there might be something substantial associated with "wasn't serious enough to report."
Let's try it this way: "Fully 87% who had been harassed or assaulted found that the incident was serious enough to warrant reporting." I've presented the same statistic. I think it's a more accurate interpretation of the situation.
I could go through the article and rephrase everything McCloud put a rosy spin on and interpret it differently. Because I don't find some of the statistics encouraging enough to say let's not blow this death out of proportion. Because I think even one death is one too many.
You win in the pissing contest - you have a PhD and I've merely got a Masters - in Psychology. I'm a therapist. I've dealt with youths petrified to come out because of the possible negative consequences. I am aware of the statistics associated with gay youth and suicide. I have studied, extensively, the psychology of hate and prejudice, with a specific focus on the toll being devalued takes on a person. The messages sent by the oh so popular phrase, "That's so gay" are not positive ones; by comparison, I should think the message sent by a bullet sends an even stronger, infinitely more negative one. It is one undeserving of positive spin.
I do not have a closed mind. I have an educated opinion. There is a difference. Have a good evening.
Posted by: JT | Feb 21, 2008 8:53:31 PM
Holy Hannah, Hermes! Did you really drop the PhD bomb? Wow, scareda her!
Posted by: jmg | Feb 21, 2008 9:00:25 PM
Rudy -- apparently you don't know sarcasm when you read it. And I would hardly call anything Zeke has written here an example of "politesse," although perhaps you have your own special definition of that term.
Uh, JT, what you describe as manipulation--Cloud's citing the 13% who didn't consider their assaults worth reportig rather than the 87% who did--is not manipulation. It's argument. It can hardly be called maipulation when it is simple addition and subtraction. Cloud emphasized the 13% because he thinks that's the mor important part of the data. That you disagree doesn't make him a manipulator.
And yes, JMG, I did cite the fact that I have a PhD in statistics because people were making outlandish allegations of Cloud's manipulating data when anyone familiar with data analysis can see he did no such thing.
Okay guys, one more time, here's the point. And if you disagree, fine Say so. But don't get all pissy and start calling me names. Just because you don't agree with someone's analysis doesn't mean he's a liar, a cheat, a right wing fundie, a manipulator, a Log Cabin Republican or a self loathing gay man. It means he disagrees with you. If you can't argue on the merits, you're sort of missing the point.
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Feb 21, 2008 10:38:29 PM
Hermes in DC
For the sake of argument (and by this I refer rational, reasoned argument) I hoped to make what I consider a valuable point: That comparing 13% as a positive versus 87% as a negative and reaching the conclusion that the 13% is more important to consider than the 87% makes McCloud's argument invalid. Basic tests of statistical validity would show that this argument lacks validity. That you apparently agree with McCloud speaks to YOUR unwillingness to change your point of view and YOUR willingness to tow YOUR party line despite reasoned argument.
By your reasoning, I then cite the argument that 70% of reporters felt that complaints were handled satisfactorily means that the 30% who didn't feel complaints were handled unsatisfactorily is the more important statistic. But I would only agree because I don't find any level of unsatisfactory treatment acceptable.
Hermes. I am challenging you on the merits of (or lack of) your analysis. Don't accuse me or anyone else of missing the point when you are appearing somewhat dull in comparison. I'm not calling you names. I am vehemently disagreeing. How one couches ones argument is ALL about manipulation. How McCloud framed his argument is all about the slant and spin he intended to portray. I suggest that the stakes are high in this argument, because I truly give a flying f**K about what happens to gay youth, and anyone else suffering from discrimination. Or the threat of a life-ending bullet.
Because I don't sense a willingness on YOUR part to consider the flaws of your defense of this article or author, I, like ERNIE, will now bow out. But I sure as hell hope you take the time to think. And don't for one moment consider my bowing out as acquiescence. It's that I am saving my energies for the clients I will see tomorrow. The real, live faces behind the statistics. The ones who won't be able to minimize the perceived terror induced by a real-life murder fomented by discrimination and prejudice.
Posted by: JT | Feb 22, 2008 2:52:47 AM
Hermes, You continue to miss the point that misconstruing statistical data was a deliberate attempt by Cloud to cloak his vile personal opinions with the veil of objectivity. It is an old rhetorical trick that is successful only with an audience far less sophisticated than Towleroadies. Yes Mr. "numbers are our friends," we understand that it is in interpreting statistical raw data that arguments are made but that does not exempt the faulty conclusions drawn therefrom from being adjudged invalid. Indeed, Cloud's, and apparently your, opinion that violence committed against gay youth is an insignificant problem is not only invalid--as not supported by the cited data--but also reprehensible.
The subject is vulnerable gay youth--as exemplified by the assassination of someone who dared to challenge gender conformity--not the "pure science" in which you earned your PhD. (And I must salute you Joe My God: sheer brilliance, Sir!) I hope Hermes that your pristine numbers and regressions provide you with a measure of solace because you surely display a deficit of humanity.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 22, 2008 10:16:43 AM
This is getting old, even for me, and I love a good argument like a dog loves a bone. But for what it's worth:
Where (Rudy), please tell me where precisely I (or John Cloud for that matter) said that "violence committed against gay youth is an insignificant problem"? Nowhere did I say that.
What I am arguing for is two separate and largely unrelated things. First, some perspective. Cloud's argument, with which I am inclined to agree even though he made it inartfully (as I noted in my very first post), is that the horror that befell Lawrence King is a very likely misleading lens through which to view the conditions LGBT youth face in our schools today. Rather, while LGBT youth face bigotry and the threat of physical violence in school and that is to be condemned and combatted, the available data are equivocal about the extent of the problem which is not notable for its being worse than the harrassment and intimidation (including the threat or actuality of physical violence) many other kids face in school for reasons having nothing to do with their sexuality.
It's an argument for perspective, which Cloud then uses as a platform for opposing hate crimes legislation on the grounds that it criminalizes motives as opposed to outcomes and treats different crimes with the same outcomes, e.g., battery or homicide, differently based on the imputed motives of the criminal. Personally, I don't reach the same conclusion as Cloud and am undecided in my own mind on the issue. But I believe there is a very strong case to be made in defense of his position.
Second point I was trying to make is that ad hominem attacks, including labeling people "fundies," self-loathers, haters, "Log Cabin Republicans," "deficit of humanity" and the like are childish and not the way open-minded people argue over important issues. Neither are broad simplifications of another's argument, e.g., that the problem of violence facing LGBT youth today is insignificant, and baseless appeals to pseudo-science or pseudo-logic good bases for making an argument.
For instance, I respect JT's position, and I certainly respect his right to disagree with me. As well, I acknowledge that he has a perspective on the issue I do not have as a mental health professional with what appears to be a practice full of abused gay youth. I also happen to disagree strongly with his statements about Cloud's argument. But I have not used specious arguments to advance my case as he does, for instance, when he says that:
"[c]omparing 13% as a positive versus 87% as a negative and reaching the conclusion that the 13% is more important to consider than the 87% makes McCloud's argument invalid. Basic tests of statistical validity would show that this argument lacks validity. That you apparently agree with McCloud speaks to YOUR unwillingness to change your point of view and YOUR willingness to tow YOUR party line despite reasoned argument."
There are so many things wrong with that statement that it's hard to know where to begin. But in a nutshell it pairs pseudo-science with an ad hominem attack.
Let me isolate his reference to "basic tests of statistical validity," about which I know something since I am a statistician. Statistical validity has nothing to do with the validity or not of Cloud's emphasis on the 13% over the 87%. Statistical validity relates to whether the original research, its survey instrument or interviewing process, its sampling methodology, its sample size and demographic make-up, and its data collection processes are sufficient to produce resultin data that are valid for statistical analysis. About those things as relate to the original GLSEN data Cloud was citing I know nothing because I don't have access to the original report. But that's neither here nor there as regards Cloud's use of the data. So in short, despite JT's mishmash of verbal mumbo jumbo and references to "basic tests of statistical validity," the science of statistics doesn't determine the validity of arguments. It helps determine the validity of the data. And the it's up to people to use and critique those data as they see fit. But that has nothing to do with "basic tests of statistical validity."
No one, at any time in this discussion, has engaged me on the merits of the argument: to wit, that the problem of violence faced in the schools by LGBT youth may indeed be, statistically speaking, no bigger a problem for them than is the problem of violence faced by any other kids who are not gay, e.g., because they are fat, or the wrong race, or smart, or Muslim, or bad in gym class, or won't smoke pot, or whatever else.
And that's my last word. This has gone on too long for a conversation that has no balance.
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Feb 22, 2008 5:55:30 PM
Oops. I sit corrected. I miss-typed when I wrote statistical validity when I should have typed significance. Thanks for pointing out my error. I had things being valid, argument wise, on the brain.
My simple, face-value assessment is that 87% seems significantly larger than 13%. If you can show me how the 13% who didn't think harassment was important enough to report is more important to take note of, more significant, than the 87% who apparently did, my mish-mash of mumbo jumbo and me will be on our merry way. If nearly 9 out of 10 having experienced harassment or assault worth reporting is actually less significant than the just over 10% who didn't, I'll eat my specious argument. It's been a few years since my statistics classes, so I don't have the formulas handy, as you surely must.
Posted by: JT | Feb 22, 2008 6:41:46 PM
Hermes, The reason the conversation is unbalanced is that your perspective is skewed. Your inability to draw the inescapable conclusion that you view violence against gay youth as insignificant is a measure of your faith in numbers qua numbers, without the perspective of intellectual judgment. It is only when tempered by humanity that raw data tells one anything important.
Your demonstrable lack of humanity is hardly an ad hominem attack since your comments so clearly reveal the absence. No, Mr. Numbers-are-our-friends, I do not concede your putative argument for perspective because it you who lacks for same. Dr. Numbers-are-our-friends simply does not like to be challenged by those he defines as lesser beings. Since you define the argument to validate your conclusion it is hardly surprising that you agree with yourself.
The only person that you have managed to convince is yourself. ND30 dropped out long ago when he realized the vapidity of your rhetoric. Moreover, your verbosity hardly intimidates me. And it is unsuccessful in convincing me that you and Mr. Cloud are not missing a key factor in what makes us human, i.e., rational subjectivity. I sincerely hope that your numbers and regressions provide you solace in the emptiness of your being.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 23, 2008 12:23:51 PM
While I got tired of the dead-end disagreements here, I did post a more complete response to Mr. Cloud's article on my blog if anyone is interested:
http://placeinsun.blogspot.com/2008/02/debating-hate-crimes.html
Posted by: Ernie | Feb 23, 2008 1:04:11 PM
JT -- fair enough. I see your point, that it seems odd to emphasize the one in 10 when the nearly nine in 10 are on the other side of the issue. But to be fair, there's nothing about statistics that says the larger number is the more valid. I think we've lost sight of the original context of Cloud's use of this particular statistic. Here for what it's worth is the full original paragraph:
GLSEN itself has published a great deal of survey data showing that most gay kids aren't suffering the way King did. Though the organization paints a still overall grim picture for young gays, fully 78% of gay and transgender kids say they feel safe at school, according to a 2005 GLSEN report. According to another GLSEN survey released in 2006, only 18% of gay and transgender students said they had been assaulted in 2005 because of their sexual orientation (only 12% — probably many of the same kids — said they had been assaulted because of the way they express their gender). By comparison, according to a 2007 Centers for Disease Control report, 18.2% of male students and 8.8% of female students reported being in a physical fight at school in the last year. Of those in the GLSEN report who had been harassed or assaulted, more than one-tenth — 13% — said the incident wasn't serious enough to report. When they did report the incidents, the response from school staffs was positive about 70% of the time. That's not enough — it should be 100% — but it belies the dire picture painted by gay groups in the wake of King's killing.
The statistic we've been discussing is a minor, almost parenthetical, part of Cloud's larger argument. Does he make to much of the 13% figure? Probably so. I thought so at the time to be frank. It doesn't really help make his argument and stronger. But to be fair, it's not central to his argument anyway.
One thing in that paragraph I would strongly criticize (and would have changed if I were his editor) is the use of the word "only" in the third sentence in modifying the 18% of GLBT kids who say they have been assaulted at school. Only would be an inapt word in reference to 1%. I grant al f my critics here that, and can only ask you to take it on faith when I say I earnestly believe that.
Again,I have never argued that this is an insignificant problem. I am only trying to defend the notion that reason and perspective are required even when talking about issues as personally sensitive for all of us in the gay community.
As far as Rudy is concerned, you don't have the remotest idea who you're talking to and have no basis whatsoever on which to conclude that I lack humanity or a capacity for reason beyond statistics. Just because I argue for perspective does not mean I am unfeeling. I'm not going to justify your ridiculous claims with any further defense of my person or humanity. But who in the hell exactly do you think you are?
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Feb 24, 2008 8:00:50 PM
Ernie's piece at his blogsite is really excellent. I commended him on it in a cmment I left there. My two cents: his argument there is exactly what a response to Cloud's article should be. I still feel that Cloud's point about perspective is a valuable one, but Ernie makes a good case for why that perspective could be distorted.
And by the way, before any of you hotheads busts me for not quitting the way I promised two days ago to do, I've been sick in bed with the flu all weekend, and you can only watch Breakfast at Tiffanys and An Affair to Remember so many times in one weekend.
Cheers.
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Feb 24, 2008 8:26:20 PM
Keep writing Hermes. I can only judge you by your comments. They consistently show someone so caught up in the importance of numbers standing alone that he lacks perspective. Your claims to having a capacity to reason beyond numbers are unavailing in light of your posted comments. You cannot defend what you have demonstrated that you lack.
I am someone who has disagreed with you and your shining paragon of misconstrued statistics thinly hiding an unfeeling persona since your first comment. Similarly, Cloud's alleged point about perspective is negated by his lack of same.
All the basis one needs to point out your lack of humanity and corresponding lack of capacity to reason beyond statistics is evident in your comments. Your rhetorical tantrums only buttress that conclusion. Cin Cin!
Posted by: rudy | Feb 25, 2008 8:28:52 AM
Yeah, okay, Rudy. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Feb 25, 2008 9:53:15 PM
Exactly Hermes/Cloud. Res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself).
Posted by: rudy | Feb 26, 2008 7:42:34 AM
And what you continue to make obvious, Rudy, is that your need to be persecuted outweighs any consideration whatsoever of numbers or of facts.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 3, 2008 2:58:40 PM
Recent Comments