Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Ok, I'll mention the Peterson case!

I am so glad that freakin trial is over (for now)... can we stop wasting media real estate with coverage of Scott Peterson's murder trial?

8 Comments:

At 5:54 PM, Blogger Pontificate4U said...

I'll give my two cents regarding the Peterson trial although I am loathe to admit that I even care enough to articulate but . . .

Assuming that Scott and Lacy were not white and she was not a cutish twenty something but rather hispanic or black, 39, overweight and deprived in socio-economic terms would we be revisiting this overly publicized glam spectacle ad-nauseum? I hardly F'ing think so. That should suffice in illustrating the value we assign life in this country, (especially that which is not whitebread and affluent) and to a greater extent, in the world.

Allow me to extrapolate briefly and play devil's advocate. Can anyone recall the last time we intervened in some genocidal episode in far flung Africa or Asia (unless of course our fiscal interests were at stake) where blacks and orientals were busy slaughtering one another with little or no compunction?
I can't, but I do recall intervention in the Balkans when it was discovered that whites were contenting themselves with slaughtering one another after the vacuum left in the wake of the Soviet breakup allowed old fueds to resume unchecked. I know this all this appears to be quite a stretch but you know in your heart that the Peterson trial was so popular because it was highly marketable to an country that seemingly only values the lowest common denominator - sex and sleaze!

 
At 1:47 PM, Blogger sadasdasdsa said...

Maybe you want to read my page,
Do you like politic?

 
At 5:43 PM, Blogger Carter King said...

Don't you remember our intervention in Somalia in 92/93?Don't think we had too many economic interests THERE...of course,simply trying to ensure that starving people ATE turned into an international goatfuck...

 
At 6:58 PM, Blogger Pontificate4U said...

Carter, the issue of our (U.S. Government's) disastrous foray in the horn did not escape me prior to my posting. I am well aware of our "selfless, beneficent" acts of '92 in Somalia and stand by my statements nonetheless.
As a military man I'm not surprised that you lend so much credence to the U.S. government version of events. Despite what you may think we did have politico/economic interests in the area and I would hope you would do a little more howework before replying THERE!
Ever heard of liberal or white man's guilt as it's almost universally known? That's the political aspect of it. The economic aspect might relate to the nearly three quarters of a billion in aid that the US pissed out the window by financing brutal Somalian dictators from 1980-90 - but of course you knew all that right? Here's a link - check it OUT YOURSELF! I doubt the US was willing to just walk away from that kind of $$ without a fight do you? Anyway just thought you might like the scoop for your own edification. You may want to explore other justifications for our intervention there but I can assure you that none of them had to do with famine or human suffering (especially that of black Africans). Maybe it was the election year or the Soviet era weapons floating around but you can bet we didn't just wake up feeling philanthropic one morning . . .
http://allafrica.com/stories/200101080446.html

 
At 7:21 PM, Blogger Greg said...

Am I the only one that thinks that the Scott Peterson case was newsworthy? Ok. So the verdict was a foregone conclusion (unless you believed, as perhaps did Peterson, that reverse-reverse-reverse-reverse psychology might actually work in court). The real interest piece relates to his punishment, and to the closing remarks of the prosecution.

Dave Harris, the prosecutor in the case said "He is not a person who deserves your sympathy." He also said "The person that's responsible is right there, right there, that's the one that's responsible," he said. "Leaving his wife's body to rot on the bottom of the ocean. Leaving his son to be found as trash in the debris. .... That is not something that should be rewarded by sparing his life."

However you look at these words, they are important for us all to reflect upon. Can sympathy be earned? Is the fact of one's existence in the world really a matter of public debate? And how does that debate get resolved? However true the prosecutor's words might have been, they were certainly not without abundant theatricality. Was it, then, an appeal to reason or an appeal to emotion that ended with the death sentence? What does our Constitution say about the right to life? Do we take our Constitution seriously?

 
At 9:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is racism, pure and simple. The leading cause of death for preganant women is murder by their husband's hand. It's an embarrassment that they focused so much on this trial when it happens all the time. Why focus on this one? Upper middle-class white folk, that's why. The media should be taken to task and perhaps even charged or forced license supsensions.

http://www.now.org/issues/violence/043003pregnant.html

 
At 12:31 PM, Blogger job opportunitya said...

Unique blog my friend, I can hardly wait to vist
this site again. I just worship the site its comes
from! Believe me in my extra time I'm consistently
looking up blogs like this.
Search for my southern california plastic surgery blog, it will leave you speechless.

 
At 12:28 AM, Blogger c-no-evil said...

I took pleasure in the site and I will go back!
Surfing online for blogs like this one is worth my
time. Sensational blog.
I was in love with your cash advance service blog site.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home