>The New York Post is about the last place I turn to for news. (Maybe just before FOX News, but then again both are controlled by Rupert Murdoch, so there you go.) Here's a a prime example of why:

Peter Braunstein - the demented, hate-filled fashion writer who costumed himself as a firefighter to kidnap, strip and sexually torture a beautiful ex-Women's Wear Daily colleague - was convicted yesterday of the terrifying Halloween 2005 attack. The lightning-fast verdict - after just under four hours of deliberations - capped a dramatic, four-week Manhattan trial that featured a gossip column's worth of celebrity names from fashion and entertainment, two worlds that fascinated the mad molester.

For get the abuse of dashes in these two sentences, a pet peeve of mine. More important, I want to know why they had to mention the victim's appearance. Would it have been OK to set a fire in the women's building, impersonate a firefighter, and sexually torture the woman for 13 hours had she not been beautiful? What is the point of calling attention to the woman's looks unless you hope to either exploit them or even subtly suggest that she asked for what she got because she is beautiful? This is not journalism, folks. (Although admittedly, I feel that way about most crap that is published in the newspapers these days. Anyone read the New York Times series on the kid who did the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech? It was littered with stereotypes about Koreans as dry cleaning Bible beaters.)

The whole Bronstein case has been driving me nuts for weeks. His family and attorneys claim that he is mentally ill and therefore was unable to plan the attack. Except that not only did he obviously plan a very intricate plot to get into the woman's apartment, he clearly realized what he did was against the law, and immediately fled to Memphis. Sounds like he was more logical, critically thinking, and on his game than the average person. It pisses me off when people falsely cry "mental illness" as much as it does when women falsely accuse someone of raping them. In the end, it creates a hostile environment for people who really are mentally ill or have been raped, and they do not get the justice they deserve. (I'm thinking poor Andrea Yeager, who clearly, obviously, painfully was mentally ill and the evil initial jury conviction she suffered.)

Anyway, that's my angry rant for today. I'm going to be late for my meeting with the guy who I truly believe is autistic and that is why I am extra patient with him, even if it is condescending to assume someone has a disability. And as I mentioned, when I didn't think that he had a disability that prevented his from understanding things and thought he was merely an obstinate ass, I was in danger of throttling him.

Comment