printWhat a performative contradiction: cable’s point men and women have been contorting like Cirque du Soleil contortionists because of the despicable antics of HarperCollins publisher, Judith Regan, in publishing the sociopathic rants of the killer, O.J. Simpson. Yet they’re all giving this uninteresting, idiotic development time—almost as much time as they devote to the bubblehead with the double chin and chubby cheeks, Britney Spears.
From an impassioned interview Mark Fuhrman gave Hannity & Comles, it transpired that Allan Colmes is a pretty weird gnome; he believes O.J. is innocent, and has written as much in his “book.” On the program, Colmes attacked Fuhrman furiously.
I admire Fuhrman. He did his job and was slimed for it. He then bootstrapped his way back into so-called polite company. There is something utterly revolting about a liberal who, bereft of an argument, reaches for his standard stock-in-trade: accusations of racism. Colmes threw everything but the kitchen sink at a guest who’d come on to speak about this latest low in the American publishing world—a How-To instructional by a murderer—because he had investigated the case.
Fuhrman told the two talking heads, whose books Regan has published, that he would no longer be dealing with said publisher. Needless to say, the two hosts did not join Fuhrman in a show of principle.
What was also of interest was Hannity’s contaminated perspective. Conservatives have absorbed the therapeutic idiom completely. Hannity expressed the view that O.J. was consumed by guilt—could no longer contain the remorse, and was using a book as a confessional. He, Hannity, wanted closure too.
My God. I don’t know if there’s anything that disgusts me more than this meaningless, immoral mumbo-jumbo. Fuhrman, far more intelligent than his hosts, tried to explain to both about the nature of evil. There are people in this world, O.J. being one such specimen, who can kill another human being (or a couple), and then pop into KFC for some chicken, he said. Murder is nothing to them. (At this stage, Rumpelstiltskin intensified the racism accusations, because of the mention of KFC. Don’t ask me why.)
Neither one of these gents got it. The root-causes rot runs too deep in both. As for publisher Regan, she says, “What I wanted was closure, not money.” Since when is every self-appointed proxy of pain in a position to seek closure (whatever that means) for pain she has not sustained?
The only two people who have the moral authority to forgive this monster have been dead for a decade, their throats slit from ear to ear. (There’s more here. Send these on to Judith Regan so she can have “closure.”)
Pungent words, as I’d expect from you, Ilana.
I’m looking at Nicole Simpson’s pictures… trying not to puke. How can
a man do this to his beloved wife? How does that hand hold that knife
that cuts that tender throat from ear to ear?
If she were the walking epitome of immorality, disgrace, and evil, why
not just walk away and keep whatever is left of your dignity? If she
wasn’t, then how do you manage to share the same bed with her for
decades if you could reduce her to just a bloody heap of meat?
What kind of beast does this?
Do I still have to grow up? Haven’t I grown up enough already? [Maybe in that you keep ascribing to an evil entity the emotions of love and remorse–and you ask a monster, “How could you do this?” You have the same problem Hannity has–and most Americans have; they don’t get evil.]
As I recall, after O.J.s acquital (which caused a great deal of merriment at America’s expense among the Brits at the school I worked at in Warsaw) Alan defender-of-the-rich-and-guilty Dershowitz went on CNN and came as close to admitting his client was guilty as a lawyer could and not be disbarred. Then a few years later, the private detective the “dream team” used, quite unprofessionally gave an interview to Playboy which detailed why O.J. was guilty. Then there was that Esquire interview where he said, “If I did it, it must have been because I loved her, right?” (And did he love Ron Goldman too?) And he has reportedly admitted as much on a few occassions.
Nonetheless, I also know people who think he’s innocent. Such as one dear lady, the daughter of an S.S. officer who found himself at the end of WWII in Yugoslavia. He burned his uniform and walked home rather than surrender and wait to be repatriated. She doesn’t believe Daddy did anything wrong either.
Sigh. I guess that it can be said of many humans that they are rationalizing animals rather than rational animals.
I don’t think anyone ever seriously thought OJ was innocent. Even his many vocal defenders. The race card was played early and often by Johnny Cochran who then deftly turned the circus of a trial to the prosecution of Mark Fuhrhman for saying naughty words. Gutless California judge and jury couldn’t wait to acquit so they could run home and take a valium.
To a large segment of our populace you may be a swine, but if you are “our” swine we will back you even if you are guilty.
You’re probably right, Ilana. (Not that I can possibly claim saint status; I have something else in mind as observation.)
If this man is guilty – and there’s not an iota of evidence that anybody else might have committed this atrocity – and if he can still walk around free with no compunction, no pangs of guilt whatsoever, knowing full well that practically everybody (other than his “brothas and sistas”) knows/believes that he is guilty, then that itself pretty much shows what a psychopath he is.
I cannot imagine myself seeking anything else but being incarcerated if I were guilty of such a heinous crime. I could not possibly carry the burden. Most probably, I would just finish my miserable, sorry life.
And yet… the creep proudly and merrily plays golf in full sight of cameras, gives interviews, signs book deals…
I don’t have a brain module to process this degree of callousness.
Fox News has shamefully over-done the OJ Book and Interview – no doubt as an advertising effort. This was quite transparent. Giving so much time increased the legitimacy of the show and book.
But Fox News special documenting the history of the Simpson case Sun ever was useful – it brought back the incompetence of the prosecution.
Low point was Judge Ito allowing admission of “racial slur” (completely out of context) by Fuhrman. Many judges said this just isn’t the way things are done.
Defense attorneys want to present an endless list of issues to prolong the trial, among other motives – the longer the trial, the more likely an acquittal. Judges have the job of sorting out relavant issues – Fuhrnam’s recorded N Word was not relevant to the case.
Glove that didn’t fit also made prosecutors look like fools.
One good came out of this show – I will always be skeptical of “justice”.
It is very obvious that OJ Simpson slaughtered & butchered his ex-wife & Ronald Goldman. What isn’t very obvious to many people is that OJ would have been on deathrow right now at San Quentin Prison, if the city of Los Angeles “chose” to put him there. They instead chose to orchestrate a judicial freakshow to avoid a riot such as what happened with Rodney King. The then-DA prosecutor Gil Garcetti had full choice to have the trial in Santa Monica, vs. downtown LA. He knew full well he would have a hostile jury in downtown LA. He had all of the power to prosecute him in Santa Monica where he would be assured of a totally IMPARTIAL JURY. If Garcetti & the city officials in Los Angeles chose to do the only correct & moral thing concerning prosecuting OJ Simpson, vs. avoiding a riot by a trial in downtown LA, the outcome in the criminal trial would have been exactly the same as the cival trial, perhaps even swifter. When Gil Garcetti was asked, “WHY did you NOT take OJ to Santa Monica,” his answer was: “the central jail where Mr. simpson was locked up was more conviently located to the court room”. Doesn’t this say it all?
-Martin