If He Did It
I said before in a previous post that one of my IQ tests for any American is to ask them if they think that OJ is guilty. If they say Yes, then they have at least an average or above average IQ. If they say No, then they are morons—and this includes the racist jury that found him innocent.click to show/hide the rest of this OJ segment
I’m no longer passionate about the case, except my feelings against any American who persists in ignoring the mountain of evidence against Mr. Simpson. This kind of willful negligence is the real continuing tragedy of the case.
I know the Fox channel is going to broadcast this upcoming event in a few days, where OJ is interviewed by Judith Regan. I’m not as incensed about the show as much as other Americans. I respect anyone’s right to be furious about this show, but I guess I’m too jaded at this point. I feel deeply sorry for the Goldman family that they have to sit through this. Plus, I think that Ms. Regan and Fox should have been careful to ensure that any profits from the show go to the Goldman’s and not to Simpson.
Also, airing of the show will hurt the Simpson children. It can’t help but mess them up further psychologically. Their father has proven by doing the show and book that his murdering of their mother was not a one-time fit of anger, but the mark of a sociopathic or psychopathic heart, mind, and soul.
Still, though I feel all this, I’m going to watch the interview anyway. I have no moral ground on which to stand with this. I will watch for three reasons:
1. morbid curiosity;
2. I want to see how this murderer explains his actions and watch how a psychopath expresses himself about his crime; and
3. I want to see O.J. Simpson “confess,” and watch him struggle and squirm on national TV.
A side benefit of this for me is that I hope this demonstrates to the remaining O.J. supporters what kind of human being they have been defending all these years. I know that every accused person deserves a defense in America, but I’ve always disliked, and have been on the verge of hating, the people that defended him, especially since they went above and beyond by playing the race card in this case, and stood up for him even after the trial was over, when they could have stopped their pretense.
I hold people like attorney Leo Terrell in particular contempt since they defend OJ to this day, and I assume it’s for racial reasons, which I find despicable.
click to hide most of this OJ segment
Nancy Pelosi
I was easy on Ms. Pelosi when she first got elected, but now she has disappointed me already. She seemed like she was going to be a sensible leader by reaching out to the moderates in her party, who are the ones who just won the House for her, but I see I was very wrong on this. She tried to get her radical leftist friends chosen for the important posts, like Congressman John Murtha from Pennsylvania (defeated by Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland for the position of the new majority leader) and now another, and presently gives every indication that she will indeed be fighting for the San Francisco values that moderates, independents, and conservatives feared.click to show/hide the rest of this Pelosi segment
So, it looks like San Francisco values will be worth an upcoming post. In the meantime, she has been defeated twice by her own party, and we’ll see if the moderate Democrats continue to beat her.
I still judge that she must have enormous political talent, but I think her gut feelings are overwhelming her political savvy, and she will not be able to withstand her socialist, anti-American sentiments. Which means we are in for a nightmare with her in control. Hold on to your wallets, America, and your values. Look out for your weapons and your status, military, and be afraid America. Without the political acumen and restraint she seemed to have right before the election, she is a danger to everything we hold dear.
click to hide most of this Pelosi segment
13 comments:
OK Rock, since you seem to be quite adamant about these terms, I have a few questions:
1. What are these "San Francisco values" you rail against every chance you get?
2. What sentiments does Nancy Pelosi have that are "anti-American"?
3. How was OJ's jury "racist"? According to American law, he was acquitted and found not guilty by 12 of his peers (multiracial by the way), so he's innocent. Do I think he killed someone? Yes, or at least had something to do with it, but he got off- just like four LA cops, just like hundreds of Klansmen who lynched Black citizens in the past, just like Robert Blake! People tend to think that American justice is infallible, and (un)fortunately it took OJ's obvious guilt and subsequent "vindication" to make people realize that it's not.
And finally:
Aren't you the least bit ashamed of your beloved Fox"news" that it's taking this story on when no one else would?
A lot of times when I view their "fair and balanced" news reports online (which I'm glad you're FINALLY admitting they're not!), they read like sleazy tabloid stories. I don't know if its mediocre writers, ratings, boredom or what, regardless, it feels like this OJ story should be lumped in with all the crap at the National Inquirer not at some semi-respected news outlet.
dude, welcome to the flip side of the coin! don't worry, in the overall scheme of things, Bush and Pelosi and all their friends are merely small grains in the cosmic sands of time.
OJ is definitely guilty. I always thought that. Also I don't plan to watch the show.
Lexa, you said:
OJ is definitely guilty. I always thought that. Also I don't plan to watch the show.
I guess that makes you a better person than I, and I'm not kidding. I should have enough moral fortitude not to watch, but my curiosity and professional pique have got me (excuse? probably). Anyway, thanks for your comments and nice to hear from you.
Plus, I just ran across a comment of yours on the Archives--and you suggested I clean up my profile, which I did. So thanks for alerting me to the problem. Commenting on the Archives won't be seen by many people, and probably will be missed by me too, so now it should be more clear on the profile what the main blog is.
Thanks.
Rock
Lexa, you said:
dude, welcome to the flip side of the coin! don't worry, in the overall scheme of things, Bush and Pelosi and all their friends are merely small grains in the cosmic sands of time.
You are so right. I kind of feel that God presents us with conundrums our whole lives, and it is up to us to handle them appropriately. Sometimes it's wise to accept situations, and sometimes God wants us to take action or speak out.
When I get "up against it" I do try to take a philosophical attitude like yours, and this can sometimes be the only saving grace. So, as I've said before, I appreciate your attitude and I know you are one voice from God, whispering in our ears.
On the other hand, Lexa, He (She) is also whispering in my ears (I don't know about you) that Politics does matter, and does deserve your passion.
Yin, yang.
Peace.
Rock
Paz, how are you today? You said:
OK Rock, since you seem to be quite adamant about these terms, I have a few questions:
1. What are these "San Francisco values" you rail against every chance you get?
I want to write tomorrow’s post on this, as I see the issue is going to be important.
2. What sentiments does Nancy Pelosi have that are "anti-American"?
One of my failings as a writer/journalist/blogger whatever is that I never have had a memory for details when I need them. I need to look things up or refresh my memory. Think what it’ll be like in a few years when I get older!
Anyway, she and the city she comes from are anti-military, for one thing. And I just don’t mean anti-war, I mean anti-military. San Francisco has just banished ROTC on high school campuses, for example.
One day I’ll do my homework and try to answer your question like it deserves, but another issue for me is the disrespect she shows for the President and for Republicans. I can understand, as I’ve said before, people like you and I using hyperbole, which we both do, to describe things we don’t like. I expect more from a politician, though, a member of Congress. I expect them to behave diplomatically. The world is watching. Calling the President “stupid” is not something I want any congressman doing. Al-Queda hears these things, and this can be a rallying point, encouraging them to kill American soldiers. When you’re at war, disagree, but don’t give fuel to the enemy.
And so on.
3. How was O.J.'s jury "racist"? According to American law, he was acquitted and found not guilty by 12 of his peers (multiracial by the way), so he's innocent. Do I think he killed someone? Yes, or at least had something to do with it, but he got off- just like four LA cops, just like hundreds of Klansmen who lynched Black citizens in the past, just like Robert Blake! People tend to think that American justice is infallible, and (un)fortunately it took O.J.'s obvious guilt and subsequent "vindication" to make people realize that it's not.
The jury was racist (regardless of their color) because they were going to find him innocent even if they had a photo of him slicing throats. They assumed the white police officers planted evidence. How preposterous—unless there was evidence shown at trial to support this. Their only reason for believing this was that Johnny Cochran played the race card and found a cop who used the N word. I think it’s been shown since then that even though Fuhrman was what you might call a “street racist,” like many whites and blacks unfortunately are, they don’t compromise their professionalism by going around and planting evidence. Assuming that whites do this just because they’re white, with no evidence to support it, is racist.
As far as Robert Blake goes, you’re right. Maybe celebrity and high-paid lawyers had something to do with Blake’s acquittal and O.J.’s; yet, Blake didn’t, and couldn’t, use the race card. So, the decision wasn’t racist; it was just stupid and irresponsible. O.J.’s lawyers did play the race card. Shame on them. They inflamed our country on this issue to save a murderer.
Were the four L.A. cops guilty or innocent? I’d say guilty, regardless of what the first jury found. They broke the law, and we all saw it. They were retried, and found guilty. O.J. was retried too, and what did the jury find? Guilty. Thirty-million dollars worth of guilt. You say he is innocent, paz? He is guilty, and if you are just as irresponsible as I am and watch the O.J. interview, you’ll see the guilt oozing from his pores, just like it does from Robert Blake's. I don’t hate O.J. anymore. I did once, but not because he is a murderer, or because he is black, but because he used the race card and divided our nation—something I feel is unforgivable (not that slicing throats is more forgivable). We’ve had enough racism in this country.
As far as the Klansmen go, their jurors were clearly racist, just like the O.J. jurors. It’s called jury nullification. They, like the O.J. jurors, voted to find guilty or acquit people they knew were innocent or guilty, to override the law, not to honor it. The Klansmen were evil. The O.J. jurors were not evil, but what they did was wrong. By doing this kind of act, they unfortunately probably caused more racism to exist than before—so the verdict didn’t help blacks or whites.
I am sensitive to your feelings on this matter, although thank God you see that O.J. was guilty. I sincerely abhor racism, and if cops ever gain up on a guy because he is white or black, I’ll join you in condemning them. In the O.J. case, though, paz, the only thing that pointed to this conclusion was the predispositions in the hearts of the jurors, which made them blind to justice. These jurors, of whatever color they were—I’m not anti-African American, I’m anti-racist—were either dumb or racist, take your pick. Sorry to be so harsh, as I know you are a good man, as are millions of others who feel as you do. I just am not going to countenance racism anywhere anytime from anyone.
Let me make myself clear, I don’t think you are racist for disagreeing with me. You have proven to me that you are a good person, open-minded and intelligent; but if you were on that jury, I assume you would have gone against peer pressure and voted guilty, which is what I expect any good person to have done.
And finally:
Aren't you the least bit ashamed of your beloved Fox"news" that it's taking this story on when no one else would?
A lot of times when I view their "fair and balanced" news reports online (which I'm glad you're FINALLY admitting they're not!), they read like sleazy tabloid stories. I don't know if its mediocre writers, ratings, boredom or what, regardless, it feels like this O.J. story should be lumped in with all the crap at the National Inquirer not at some semi-respected news outlet.
The news division is separate from the entertainment division. That’s what the Fox News people are saying. I realize the corporate heads are the same, though, and this does bother me. I don’t share your view of Fox news, though. I see it as the only network that delivers anything close to the truth. I respect your right to disagree with me on this, and this is one of those issues that of course is not black and white. You might be right. I think, though, that Fox is the only valid news source in America today, except for maybe the Newshour with Jim Lehrer.
Thanks for your comments. I realize I have been harsh in my condemnation of the O.J. jury, and of Pelosi, but I honestly believe I’m right on both these judgments. I cringe when I have to say things like this, though, and I certainly don’t want to hurt feelings—but telling the truth can do that. I don’t recommend in peoples’ everyday lives that they tell the truth all day long. It isn’t smart. I don’t recommend that politicians do it all the time either, nor diplomats. Bloggers, though, should tell as much of the truth as they can get away with. That’s their contribution to the world.
I sincerely appreciate your patience with what must seem to you at times to be unfair. I hope we can, as Rodney King said, learn to “just get along.” I’m sure you’re working for this, as I hope you believe am I.
Rock
Although there is nothing funny about either of these subjects, I believe Groucho Marx said it best, " If he talks like an idiot and looks like an idiot, don't be fooled, he's an idiot." It was just a matter of time for Pelosi to break out of the costume she was wearing and go back to her true nature. I will be surprised if she is able to hold on to the top seat for long, this will depend on how bad the Democrats want to win in 08. As for O.J. the one thing I have always asked was, Do you know why they called that a car chase? Because they didn't have time to get a permit for a parade. The entire thing was a circus. If Fuhrman had admitted to using the N-word, as every person (racist or not) has used in their life time, Cochran would have had to sit down and the whole thing would be over. What does this boil down to....Truth.
With keeping up with tradition, I'll make a few counterpoints to your response.
You said:
"The jury was racist (regardless of their color) because they were going to find him innocent even if they had a photo of him slicing throats. They assumed the white police officers planted evidence."
That to me isn't a compelling argument for classifying the jury as "racist" and here's why. In order for it to be considered a "racist" act, all 12 jurors would have had to base their decision to aquit on the fact that the cops were White and aquit as an act of racist defiance against White people. It seems to me that they chose to aquit based on the possibility that the cops were tampering with or planting evidence. The fact that the cops were White just made it easier for the defense to play the race card.
I'm not understanding this term "street racist"- either you're racist or you're not. I don't think Mark Furman was using the N word while on duty, knocking in the skulls of Crips and Bloods and then going home to teach his kids about the importance of racial harmony. People who aren't racist don't USE racist terminology, EVER.
My point about the OJ verdict was that it was a major shock to Americans who before that aquittal thought that American justice was "just". For many Black people in the country, justice has been quite UNjust, especially when juries historically have at times aquitted "guilty" White people of crimes against Black people (i.e. LA cops, Emmitt Till etc.) and at the same time, innocent Black people have been found guilty for crimes against White people (DNA evidence is the best thing to happen for the justice system!) It was just as shocking when those cops were seen beating Rodney King like a dog. Most of America was "shocked" because people didn't think cops could do such a thing, but for urban minorities who have experienced/witnesed police brutality, it wasn't a surprise at all. The "surprise" came when the cops actually walked despite the overwhelming evidence.
Honestly, I think it was the original Rodney King verdict is what got OJ off! The fact that the once noble LA police force were now seen as corrupt and racist is a direct result of what happened to Rodney King. Hey, I even thought that they COULD have planted evidence if they wanted to-what's to stop them? It's happened before and it will happen again.
I wasn't hurt or offended by your post- I rarely if ever am, I was just asking for your viewpoint and some clarity. Say what you need to say my man!
Sgt, you said:
Although there is nothing funny about either of these subjects, I believe Groucho Marx said it best, " If he talks like an idiot and looks like an idiot, don't be fooled, he's an idiot." It was just a matter of time for Pelosi to break out of the costume she was wearing and go back to her true nature. I will be surprised if she is able to hold on to the top seat for long, this will depend on how bad the Democrats want to win in 08.
I guess you're right, Sgt. I was fooled. I thought she was a pro. Her mask came down so fast it makes my head twirl. Well, it's a good thing it did. Now we know. Her honeymoon is over, fast! The people in the Democratic Party who want to win are Carville and Hillary, who are pressing to oust Dean. Although, I agree with you totally--their masks will come down too in the end.
As for O.J. the one thing I have always asked was, Do you know why they called that a car chase? Because they didn't have time to get a permit for a parade. The entire thing was a circus. If Fuhrman had admitted to using the N-word, as every person (racist or not) has used in their life time, Cochran would have had to sit down and the whole thing would be over. What does this boil down to....Truth.
I couldn't agree with you more. The usually professional Fuhrman dropped the ball on this one. He could have convicted O.J. just by being honest.
Rock
paz, thanks for your comments and honesty. You said:
"The jury was racist (regardless of their color) because they were going to find him innocent even if they had a photo of him slicing throats. They assumed the white police officers planted evidence."
That to me isn't a compelling argument for classifying the jury as "racist" and here's why. In order for it to be considered a "racist" act, all 12 jurors would have had to base their decision to aquit on the fact that the cops were White and aquit as an act of racist defiance against White people. It seems to me that they chose to aquit based on the possibility that the cops were tampering with or planting evidence. The fact that the cops were White just made it easier for the defense to play the race card.
paz, I just disagree with you. Even white people, I think, and Hispanics, can be racists against whites. Racism means assuming something negative because of a man's color. Imagine if all the cops were black. Cochran would not have been able to use the race card, and the jury wouldn't have made the negative assumptions they made about white cops. We can go round and round with this. I see your points, but I think you're wrong. That jury was racist.
I'm not understanding this term "street racist"- either you're racist or you're not. I don't think Mark Furman was using the N word while on duty, knocking in the skulls of Crips and Bloods and then going home to teach his kids about the importance of racial harmony. People who aren't racist don't USE racist terminology, EVER.
paz, this just shows that you are a bit above the average human being, which is fine and I applaud you for it. "Street racist" means someone who is not really a racist, but who occasionally stereotypes people, or occasionally uses a racist term. Another definition of "street racist" is a person who is practical. For example, I know that some cops will not easily go into certain areas because its dangerous there. This includes black and white cops. They won't go there normally because the area is controlled by gangs or is out to kill cops, or whatever. These areas are usually one ethnicity or another, whether it be black, Hispanic, or even white.
Mark Fuhrman used the N word because he grew up in places that used the word. He had friends who used the word, black and white. He himself had black friends. I did not grow up around this word. You probably didn't either. He did. But when it came down to it, he would put his life on the line for a black buddy of his. See the movie Crash. It's the same thing. Mark Furhman was a "street racist," not a true racist. He was a pro as a cop, and would never have planted evidence. He did make a major mistake, though. He lied under oath. Because of this, a guilty man is free.
My point about the OJ verdict was that it was a major shock to Americans who before that aquittal thought that American justice was "just". For many Black people in the country, justice has been quite UNjust, especially when juries historically have at times aquitted "guilty" White people of crimes against Black people (i.e. LA cops, Emmitt Till etc.) and at the same time, innocent Black people have been found guilty for crimes against White people (DNA evidence is the best thing to happen for the justice system!) It was just as shocking when those cops were seen beating Rodney King like a dog. Most of America was "shocked" because people didn't think cops could do such a thing, but for urban minorities who have experienced/witnesed police brutality, it wasn't a surprise at all. The "surprise" came when the cops actually walked despite the overwhelming evidence.
As with the Rodney King case, the O.J. case had a second trial, and the guilty parties were held responsible. Justice was flawed, but it eventually prevailed. Also, just because injustice was done in the past does not condone injustice continuing to be done. I join you in condemning injustice of all kinds, including that of the past, present, and future. Convicting innocent blacks was wrong, and failing to convict guilty blacks is wrong.
The problem with the left, paz, is that they are reverse racists. Every black man on death row is innocent, because he is black, because he was convicted by white juries. The list of thugs the left has defended in recent history is appalling. The left disregards all kinds of evidence to come to their conclusions. Again, they operate on feelings and not facts.
Honestly, I think it was the original Rodney King verdict is what got OJ off! The fact that the once noble LA police force were now seen as corrupt and racist is a direct result of what happened to Rodney King. Hey, I even thought that they COULD have planted evidence if they wanted to-what's to stop them? It's happened before and it will happen again.
This is exactly my point, paz. This is the conspiracy theory stuff coming out again. If something evil is possible, then you believe it happened. You need evidence to support theories like this. Otherwise, you are making global assumptions about whites, without evidence. Just because the police could have planted evidence does not in any way mean that they did.
Plus, it would have had to have been a complete conspiracy, involving many people, not just one. They all would have had to have been involved. It's a preposterous idea. It's just like the idea that Bush bombed the World Trade Center. You have to assume he is pure evil, supremely clever, and that none of his hundreds or even thousands of cohorts would "rat" on him. It's nutso.
If someone were involved in a conspiracy to frame O.J., they could work a deal with a D.A., get immunity, expose the whole thing and become a millionaire with the book deals and such. Why hasn't this person showed up? Isn't this logical, paz? Where is the smoking gun? You really think a secret of this magnitude could be hidden forever?
This is where leftist logic flies out the window. Theories like this have absolutely no logical underpinning.
The more logical thing, paz, is exactly what is happening. The real killer, O.J. starts to go mad, and begins writing crazy stuff like "If I Did It." This is the truth. Nothing more. No police conspiracy. No anti-black cops. Fuhrman was, as I said, a "street racist" who perjured himself, nothing more.
Rock
Rock, you said:
The world is watching. Calling the President “stupid” is not something I want any congressman doing. Al-Queda hears these things, and this can be a rallying point, encouraging them to kill American soldiers. When you’re at war, disagree, but don’t give fuel to the enemy.
Some might argue that we've been giving fuel to the enemy for quite some time now. In any case, I would have thought that the real rallying point would have been the recent election results. Calling the president "stupid" is hardly letting the cat out of the bag. Why did we go to Iraq? WMD's? As part of the war on terror? No, wait, I've got it: to deliver peace and democracy. Admittedly, we did it, or tried to do it, by way of daisy-cutters, but who thought it would turn out like this? I'm not religious, but that's not to say I don't admire some of the ideals and truisms promoted in religious teachings. I believe it says somewhere in the bible (correct me if I'm wrong) "violence begets violence". I think it would do us all some good if we bear this in mind as we consider the way forward.
Rock, I feel myself slipping into preach mode, which is my least favourite mode (and the mode for which I'm least qualified) so I'd like to finish up by saying that with regards to your sentiments on truth, I'm with you 100%.
eyechan, good to hear from you. You said:
Some might argue that we've been giving fuel to the enemy for quite some time now. In any case, I would have thought that the real rallying point would have been the recent election results.
I can't argue with this. You're right.
Calling the president "stupid" is hardly letting the cat out of the bag.
I think the only stupid thing he ever does is pander to the left. Until recently, he had proven himself to be an astute politician. Also, you can't become president of the most powerful nation in the world if you are stupid.
Why did we go to Iraq? WMD's? As part of the war on terror? No, wait, I've got it: to deliver peace and democracy. Admittedly, we did it, or tried to do it, by way of daisy-cutters, but who thought it would turn out like this?
We went because Saddam was one threat against us after 9/11. Yes, to have a democracy in the Muslim world would be earth-shakingly positive. It this happens peace will have a good day in the world.
I'm not religious, but that's not to say I don't admire some of the ideals and truisms promoted in religious teachings. I believe it says somewhere in the bible (correct me if I'm wrong) "violence begets violence". I think it would do us all some good if we bear this in mind as we consider the way forward.
It also says "there is a time for war and a time for peace." A time for building weapons from steel, and a time for melting them into ploughs. Did they love us before 9/11? When 3,000 of our fellow citizens are murdered for no reason, this is the time to respond. Now is the time for war my friend.
Rock, I feel myself slipping into preach mode, which is my least favourite mode (and the mode for which I'm least qualified) so I'd like to finish up by saying that with regards to your sentiments on truth, I'm with you 100%.
I appreciate this, and I thank you for all your thoughtful comments.
Rock
Sorry Rock, I can't resist. I need to respond.
You said:
It also says "there is a time for war and a time for peace." A time for building weapons from steel, and a time for melting them into ploughs. Did they love us before 9/11? When 3,000 of our fellow citizens are murdered for no reason, this is the time to respond. Now is the time for war my friend.
I think it's been well documented that the decision to go to Iraq and the legitimacy of the war were questionable at best.
How many American soldiers and civilians have died since going to Iraq? How many Iraqi civilians have died? Is the world really a safer place? At the moment, in America, far removed from the battlegrounds, you may feel that the answer is "yes", though you may have a hard time convincing those closer to the action of this. And how long do you suppose it will be before the next attack, or attempted attack, on American soil takes place? It’s hard to envisage an end to the cycle of violence.
Did they love us before 9/11?
Who are "they"? The Saudi highjackers? Al Qaeda? The Iraqi people? Whatever love there was for America prior to 9/11, and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think you will find that worldwide there is even less now. Which is sad, and does not bode well for the future.
Post a Comment