The Scavenger Hunt of the Century

Amy Austin | December 28, 2004
What could you put on a scavenger list that would take someone a hundred years (or never!) to find? If you read my Wal-Mart post, then you already know what my first item is:

1. A 13-year-old (American, let me qualify) that hasn't said, heard, or knows what the "F-word" is/means.

Here's another:

2. Shit, I forgot it already while I was typing the first one. Guess I'll have to edit when I can remember it. How about... someone who actually thinks that OJ was innocent?!!! ;>

Denise Sawicki | December 28, 2004
I distinctly recall figuring out what the word meant at around age 13 while reading a science fiction book. I had certainly heard the word before but I just thought it was a meaningless generalized bad word. :) So I probably don't count.

Scott Hardie | December 29, 2004
I think OJ was innocent.

Amy Austin | December 29, 2004
[eyebrows raised] Are you serious?

Scott Hardie | December 29, 2004
Yes.

Amy Austin | December 29, 2004
Wow. Okay... well, that makes you one up on everybody (who doesn't know you) for the list then!

Scott Horowitz | December 29, 2004
I had a t-shirt back in the day. It was a black shirt, had a picture on the front. It said on top of the picture "Free OJ" below the picture "Pray for OJ" then in big letters on the back "Don't squeeze the juice."

Scott Hardie | December 29, 2004
Now why can't we get a celebrity whose nickname is The Charmin?

Anna Gregoline | December 29, 2004
Really?

I think O.J. is guilty as sin.

Amy Austin | December 29, 2004
Per the Michael Jackson/Charmin conversation in the "Photo Call" thread, that might be the perfect shirt for *his* upcoming trial, Scott!

(link)

If you think he's innocent, that is. Scott (Ho), did you think OJ was innocent, too, or were you just trying to be funny and doing it badly even then??? ;DDD

Amy Austin | December 29, 2004
I'm going to add that to the list now:

3. A "Free Michael Jackson, Pray for Michael Jackson, Please Don't Squeeze the Charmin" T-shirt

Jackie Mason | December 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

John E Gunter | December 29, 2004
I try to find out as much as I can about the situation as far as whether someone is guilty or not.

You can't just assume someone is guilty or not. Quite a few of the men who are accused of abuse are abusive to their spouse. But sometimes there are circumstances where the husband and wife had been verbally fighting before fight turned physical.

There are also times when the wife hit the husband first. That doesn't make beating up the other person ok, but alot of cases aren't just cut and dry. Emotional abuse isn't any nicer than physical abuse. Plus, emotional abuse takes longer to heal.

Though emotional abuse usually doesn't kill you, as physical abuse will.

What bothers me is the fact that there are alot of women support groups out there that label any man who has touched their spouse as an abusive, out of control woman beater. That isn't always the case, plus that kind behavior can be changed if the individual is interested in changing.

So, was OJ innocent? I can't make that decision because I avoided that whole case. It's quite possible that he is guilty, but had the money to buy an innocent verdict. But I will say that he is/was an abusive husband, and still seems to have an anger problem, from what I've heard and read. So it's quite plausible that he did do it. I just wasn't interested in the circus enough to watch it.

As far as Michael is concerned, he's got a serious problem, but the parents who allow their children to hang out with him unsupervised have just as much of a problem. If you can't figure it out, I think he's guilty! But I'd be just as guilty of child abuse if I didn't keep my children away from him!

John

Anna Gregoline | December 29, 2004
What bothers me is the fact that there are alot of women support groups out there that label any man who has touched their spouse as an abusive, out of control woman beater. That isn't always the case, plus that kind behavior can be changed if the individual is interested in changing.


What bothers me is any woman who wouldn't leave a man after he hit her even once - I think those women's groups have got it dead on. You cannot stay with a person who, no matter what the circumstances, thinks it's ok to hit you in anger.

Denise Sawicki | December 29, 2004
I don't think it's any more OK for me to hit my boyfriend than for him to hit me, however. Incidentally, I'm bigger than him :P

Anna Gregoline | December 29, 2004
Indeed - that's why I said person instead of woman. There are battered men too, but they are a lot fewer than the women out there.

Denise Sawicki | December 29, 2004
I noticed you said person. Yet there's some people in the world (not referring to anyone on here) who think every man should be ashamed of being a man and every white person should be ashamed of being a white person. Those people would probably have disagreed with my statement.... and that's a form of political correctness which I find utterly stupid and hurtful.

Jackie Mason | December 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | December 30, 2004
Very funny way of putting that, Jackie. :-)

Here's an item for the scavenger hunt: A medium-sized city or larger that doesn't have a major street named after Martin Luther King.

John E Gunter | December 30, 2004
[quote]Here's an item for the scavenger hunt: A medium-sized city or larger that doesn't have a major street named after Martin Luther King.[/quote]

Good one Scott. Course, don't get me started on that subject!

John

Denise Sawicki | December 30, 2004
I take it 90,599 isn't large enough to be considered medium-sized? (that's a silly question I'm sure, I imagine it's not hard find a bigger example)

Anna Gregoline | December 30, 2004
Heh, heh...what subject?

Jackie Mason | December 30, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | January 2, 2005
Or a city with more than 10,000 people that doesn't have a Starbucks, not even in a bookstore.

Jackie Mason | January 3, 2005
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | January 3, 2005
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | January 3, 2005
You're right - the closest to you three stores in Amarillo, which is 50 miles away according to the Starbucks site. You're still safe. =)

Whereas within two miles of where I work, there are 57 stores. Whoowee.

Erik Bates | January 3, 2005
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | January 3, 2005
Scott -- I think OJ is guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt given what the prosecutors and defense presented at his trial. Enough questions were raised about the physical evidence in that case that one could reasonably consider that OJ did not commit the crime. Not that he was framed by a racist conspiracy, mind you, but that the LAPD rushed to find a suspect and the forensics lab work was too sloppy to be considered useful in determining a culprit.

I do think that a more competent prosecutorial team could have gotten a conviction, however. Furman's racism and the FBI labs would always have been problems, but mistakes like the glove moment were simply, stupid errors on the part of the State. A better DA could have surmounted that and used the eyewitness testimony and the motive to present a convincing case against the Juice.

Erik -- So where do you go for fancy-pants coffee drinks in Dumas? Surely one can get a caramel soy no-foam latte in a town named for a French author, after all.

Anna -- It's really a race between Starbucks and Subway to see who can proliferate faster in the Loop.

Erik Bates | January 4, 2005
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | January 4, 2005
He can't be both?

And I come from Illinois, the location of Cairo (pronounced KAY-roh) and New Berlin (pronounced noo BURR-lin).

Scott Hardie | January 14, 2005
I have tried to weed out a lingering Chicagoan accent that nobody else can hear in my speech except me. The first time I read the name of Pompano Beach out loud, I said "pom-PEAH-no," pronounced like "yeah." If I'm not still mistaken, it's actually "POM-puh-no." I didn't have any way of knowing which syllable to emphasize, but I still shouldn't have pronounced the "a" like that.

On the plus side, thanks to the dumb things we discuss here on TC, I schooled the room in a recent game of Trivial Pursuit, where I was the only one to know that "pop" is said in the midwest, "soda" is said in the northeast, and "Coke" is said in the southeast.

Erik Bates | January 14, 2005
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | January 14, 2005
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | January 14, 2005
Well, Coke was the original, wasn't it? It's become like "Kleenex" - not all tissues are Kleenex, but many people refer to them that way.

Amy Austin | January 14, 2005
Yes. It's all Coke to me, too -- not really, but that's my preference. I will drink the others, too, but "Coke" is what I always order/ask for... (unless I am consciously thinking/knowing that Pepsi is what they serve... just because I can't stand to hear them ask me if Pepsi's all right!) -- as far as *I* am concerned, "Coke *is* it!" (And you gotta' love the origins of that name, too!)

Not everyone asks for "Coke" though -- I think hard-core Pepsi drinkers will always ask for it (but drink Coke et al) for the same reasons.

Wasn't this all in another thread on accents somewhere? One that I had intended to post to before leaving San Diego???

Erik Bates | January 14, 2005
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | January 14, 2005
[hidden by request]

Denise Sawicki | January 14, 2005
I guess they do say that "warsh" stuff here occasionally (North Dakota). I have also noticed aigg, way-gun for wagon, and "cran" for crayon. Also I believe "Will you borrow me a pencil?" instead of lend is a North Dakota-ism.

Erik Bates | January 14, 2005
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | January 14, 2005
I still go insane when I hear people in downstate Illinois (read: not Chicago) order a "sodee." I mean, how does that pronunciation even get started?

On the other hand, central IL does have the impossiboly beautiful food called a horseshoe.

Kris Weberg | January 14, 2005
Oh, and about "Coke" -- the Coca-Cola Company won a big old lawsuit back in the 80s agains Howard Johnsons' which served customers the house cola when they generically ordered a "Coke."

Anna Gregoline | January 14, 2005
What the heck is a horseshoe?

When I was in the lovely town of Springfield, I witnessed the eating of toast with eggs on top with bacon on top with hash browns on top with white gravy on top. I nearly hurled.

Kris Weberg | January 14, 2005
A horseshoe is a local delicacy in Springfield characterized by its simplicity of preparation and delightful flavor, to wit:

Take a burger or ham sandwich. Remove the top bun. Dump a ton of french fries onto the exposed meat patty or ham slices. Drench, and I mean drench, in cheese sauce. Serve with garnish, fine wine, etc.

Seriously, excellent-tasting, despite what it sounds like.

What you describe would make me hurl, too. Was this abomination witnessed at the now-defunct Mister Ted's, by any chance?

Anna Gregoline | January 14, 2005
HA, yes it was. I wish I knew what it was called, but I think "mountain" might have been in title.

Erik Bates | January 14, 2005
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | January 14, 2005
I don't think you would have liked it, had you seen it. It truly was gross-looking.

Amy Austin | January 14, 2005
Erik -- I know how your meaning "Coke" as an improper name...

Kris -- Sounds delicious to me!

Sometimes, food that is ill-presented and/or "gross-looking" turns out to be some of the tastiest...

Anna Gregoline | January 15, 2005
True enough - but trust me on this one. Kris can attest to the grossness of the late Mr. Ted's in general, as well.

Amy Austin | January 15, 2005
hehehe... okay

Scott Hardie | January 15, 2005
Downstate Illinois is the only place where you can order a horseshoe (I enjoyed quite a few in Peoria), but you can make your own anywhere, just by rearranging the burger and fries on your plate, and maybe asking for some melted cheese to pour on top.

Am I the only one that likes his scrambled eggs covered with shredded cheese and ketchup?

Erik Bates | January 15, 2005
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | January 15, 2005
I can dig the cheese... but not the ketchup. I take mine scrambled with cheese & tomato (fresh) -- close... but not ketchup!

Anna Gregoline | January 15, 2005
I would totally eat scrambled eggs with cheese and ketchup. I wish I had some now, hehe!

Kris Weberg | January 15, 2005
Sounds a lot like an omelet to me.

Anna Gregoline | January 15, 2005
No, definitely not. An omelette must be unbroken - on sheet of eggs with cheese mixed in.

Scott Hardie | January 15, 2005
I like cheese omelettes just fine, but this isn't an omelette. I mean a heaping portion of scrambled eggs, covered with cold shredded cheese (not melted), and in my case some ketchup on the side. And salt. On top.

Amy Austin | January 15, 2005
Yes... not an omelette -- definitely scrambled.

Anna Gregoline | January 15, 2005
LOL

Amy Austin | January 15, 2005
I'm feeling a little like "Rain Man" right now...

Scott Hardie | January 16, 2005
New scavenger hunt entry: A dentist's office that doesn't have some cutesy little sign saying, You don't have to brush all of your teeth... Only the ones you want to keep!

Anna Gregoline | January 16, 2005
The real hard one - the dentist office without the above AND without a pastoral scene of some kind.

Scott Hardie | March 21, 2005
Thinking about Illinoisan mispronunciations, re-reading this discussion... How about Des Plaines, pronounced "dess PLAINS"?

At least "Illinoisan" makes sense. Here you're called a "Floridian." It's like "Canadian": Where does the extra i come from?

Erik Bates | March 21, 2005
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | March 21, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | March 27, 2005
Did you bring that up as another example? The proper pronunciation should be "day MWAN," but most people call it "deh MOIN."

Erik Bates | March 27, 2005
[hidden by request]

Adrianne Rodgers | September 18, 2006
I don't have any examples of local dialect of the top of my head, but here's what I would put on the scavenger hunt list:

3. Jimmy Hoffa's body
4. A five minute audio recording of Lewis Black speaking without using the F-word
5. A gym teacher who tolerates non-athletic students (still bitter from high school, can you tell?)

Kris Weberg | September 19, 2006
6. A fair or carnival that doesn't sell some form of fried dough snack.
7. A tape of a successful sitcom starring Dabney Coleman.
8. A Sacagawea dollar coin voluntarily used as money, rather than grudgingly taken as post office change or hoarded as a collectible.

Aaron Shurtleff | September 19, 2006
Oh, at Target here in Florida, we still get the occasional Sacagawea, so that's not too bad. I've even seen a couple of Susan B. Anthonys! Two dollar bills, though... You never see those being used as money! I've even known people who didn't believe that there were two dollar bills until they saw one...and they were still skeptical!

Michael Paul Cote | September 19, 2006
How about towns in Massachusetts! Want to confuse people - Worcester is pronounced "Wooster" while Dorcester is pronounced "Dorchester".

Jackie Mason | September 19, 2006
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | September 23, 2006
Worcester and Dorcester drive me nuts. Then there's Liecester on top of them.

As long as we're talking about gym teachers: 9. Someone other than a gym teacher, your dad, or an occasional drill sergeant who will shout at you to "Hustle!"

For Aaron: (link)

Amy Austin | October 15, 2006
Speaking of the land of crazy names... greetings from New England, everyone -- my scarcity lately has been a direct result of all the logistics (and expense!!!) involved in accepting a new job and relocating to the great Ocean State of Rhode Island. No longer a slacker, I. ;-D

Scott Hardie | October 15, 2006
Congrats on the new gig, Amy. I hope you're pleased with it.

Tony Peters | October 15, 2006
yup she arrived just in time to watch the leaves change...damn it's cold...oh wait I'm going to Crete on Friday 8>P

Jackie Mason | October 15, 2006
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | October 15, 2006
WELL I'm not Amy but I do know that her job is as a Graphic Artist...cool Job too, one I would like to have in 2 years

Amy Austin | October 15, 2006
Glad you realize that you aren't me, Pal -- what an identity crisis that would be.

But yes, Jackie... the title is "Illustrator" (as I updated on my profile) -- and thank you. Since I am limited, however to "training purposes"... it could be a smidge cooler. I'm not complaining, though. (Yet. ;-p)

Aaron Shurtleff | October 16, 2006
Well, congrats on moving to the smallest state! Yay!

You're gonna freeze! Unless you like that stuff... *shudder*

Amy Austin | October 17, 2006
It may be the smallest state, but did you know that it has the longest name: the real "official" name of the smallest state in the Union is The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations -- I only just learned that a week ago myself (from one of my new neighbors)!

And no -- as a native Florida gal -- I don't particularly relish the idea of freezing... as I also learned that the edge of the ocean will do up here!!! (Thanks for your support there, AARON! ;-p)

Lori Lancaster | October 17, 2006
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | October 17, 2006
True, true. It's just too bad that most of those whom I'd like to throw some at will be in other states... non-neighboring, even. :-(

Kris Weberg | October 17, 2006
I remember having one of those "magnetic state maps" as a kid, where you supposedly learned geography by sticking together little magnet-backed cutouts of the states to fit an outline of the USA. Guess which state was the first one eaten by the cat?

Aaron Shurtleff | October 17, 2006
I believe Rhode Island also is the state with the largest amount of coastline (if you use a proportion of coastline to area of the state..an advantage of being tiny and having buttloads of inlet-y projections)!

Oh, by the way, the ocean that far north, the currents run from the north, so the ocean is cold as a witches you-know-what, so be careful with the ocean. Are you happy now? :P

How did that expression begin, I wonder? Someone who gives witches the old purple nurple (which is what the kids called it when I was a kid...anyone who doesn't understand, I can draw a picture!)?

Tony Peters | October 17, 2006
Yes we Rhody's have the most coastline per acre of any state in the union.
Yes the Ocean is cold but it's oh so nice in July and August to hit that cold water.
For such a small state it's actually pretty varied, there are so many different communities from City to small town to downright country and the weather from one side to the other can be drasticly different as well. Often times it will be pouring rain here on the west side of the state and the same rain will never come ashore over where Amy lives, less than 40 miles away...not to mention the snow difference. Changing seasons are wonderful especially the fall and spring.

Not sure about the "witch" one but I do know the internet history of "freezing the balls off a brass monkey" sadly it's not true but it sounds cool.

Kris Weberg | October 17, 2006
The "cold as a withc's titty" has at least something to do with the old notion that witches were marked by Satan with (I kid you not) a "devil's breast," that eing a small pockmark somewhere ont he body through which they nursed Satan with their blood. Since witches were unnatural, their blood was warm rather than cold.

This is also the source of the old belief that witches floated because they weighed as much as wooden ducks...er, wait, that's Monty Python. The actual old belief was that witches floated in water because the water, beign natural, rejected their bodies.

Steve Dunn | October 20, 2006
Scott, I find it very difficult to believe you really think OJ is innocent.

I don't blame the prosecutors for blowing the case. I blame the judge. The trial should have taken a month, maybe two. Instead it went on for over a year. He simply lost control of the trial and allowed the defense team to get into endless tangents about things that had virtually nothing to do with the case.

If OJ is onnocent, a police conspiracy is the ONLY plausible explanation of the physcial evidence against him. Not just sloppiness - someone actually had to plant blood all over OJ's car and house.

It's certainly a sad commentary that many people believed the LAPD was capable of orchestrating a a conspiracy to frame OJ because he is black. Surely the LAPD shares in the responsibility for that social dynamic. To me, it always seemed ridiculous. Sure, he's black, but more significantly he is OJ FREAKIN' SIMPSON! OJ was never exactly known for "keeping it real" with the community, if you know what I mean. And I've never noticed the cops to be "out to get" superstar Cal athletes, NFL hall of famers, or movie stars. OJ was all three.

OJ is just one of several cases (Robert Blake, Michael Jackson, Claus Von Bulow) proving that, with a little luck, reasonable doubt can be bought. The vast majority of inmates whiling away their time in prison today were convicted on FAR less evidence than there was against OJ. And most of them are guilty, too.

Steve Dunn | October 20, 2006
I just read a couple articles about the case, and I'd like to amend my statement somewhat.

I do blame the prosecutors. But mostly, still, the judge.

And OJ is still guilty.

Kris Weberg | October 20, 2006
Bad as the OJ trial was, I often look to the T. Cullen Davis case is the nadir of the American criminal justice in recent decades in terms of moneyed influence. With OJ, as Steve points out, racial politics came into play. With Davis, it seems clear that money and charisma bought a genuinely loathsome person his freedom, depsite evidence on tape that he was involved in planning aqt least one murder and plenty of evidence to suggest that he'd carried out two others.

I also think Steve's absolutely right in saying that most of the people in jail today are guilty. Easily 99% of the people who lose a criminal case and the (usually) inevitable appeals are in fact criminals and deserve jail. And yes, OJ is to my mind very likely guilty. The way in which he not only won acquittal, but has since deliberately besmirched the names of the victims in that awful double murder in an effrt to reclaim his reputation is sickening.

But every time I reread the infamous statement of a Texas jurist who refused to reconsider a conviction obtained against a defendant whose public defender slept through the trial; every time I glance at the horrifying conduct of Nancy Grace as a prosecutor or as a "journalist;" every time I consider the equally well-known ,A HREF="http://www2.law.columbia.edu/instructionalservices/liebman/index.html" TARGET="none">Columbia Law/DoJ study showing a 5% error rate in the U.S. Justice system, I find it a little more difficult to advocate some of the more extreme "reforms" advocated by certain self-appointed prosecutorial types.

I suspect that Steve feels at least somewhat the same -- certainly, I seem to recall his having a similar degree of distaste for Grace when her name came up some time back.

Oh, and Steve, if you're in North Carolina anytime this summer, perhaps we could try to meet for lunch or drinks or something?

Scott Hardie | October 22, 2006
I really think OJ is innocent. You're a lawyer, Steve, and much more qualified to evaluate the case than I am. And it's been years since I researched it and (objectively) came to my conclusion, so I can't offer much of a compelling argument right now. Basically, just as you see evidence that makes him seem guilty, I see evidence that makes him seem innocent: The lack of corresponding damage to the gloves, the way their throats were slashed that only a trained killer would know how to do, the presence of additional DNA samples on the steering wheel of his car. I normally reject conspiracy theories without a moment's thought, but this case is an exception: The more I read about the mob ties of the victims, the more plausible it seems that they were executed and that her black, formerly abusive ex-husband was set up as an obvious fall guy. The police aren't the only ones who can plant blood in someone's house and car. I agree with you that there probably wasn't much police conspiracy against OJ if any.

As much as I'd like to be disappointed in black America for automatically jumping to OJ's support as a knee-jerk reaction, I'm even more disappointed in white America for automatically concluding that he's guilty and being resolutely convinced of it to this day despite the quite reasonable doubt established in court, expensive defense team or not.

Steve Dunn | October 23, 2006
The mob framed OJ? I am not familiar with that theory. I won't reject it out of hand, and I'm certainly no OJ expert, but I don't see how it explains OJ's lame alibi or the damning effect of the low-speed chase. Remember, OJ was busted in the white Bronco with $8500 in cash and a fake beard. All other evidence aside, he did not act like an innocent person.

Kris, I'm in NC all the time. I live in Charlotte, and make it back to the Triangle on a semi-regular basis. I assume you're still in Durham - for how long?

Jackie Mason | October 23, 2006
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | October 23, 2006
I don't know enough about mob ties or anything like that, but I don't know why you need to be a trained assassin to know how to slash a throat - you slash a throat hard enough (her head nearly came off) and the person will die - what else do you need to know?

Kris Weberg | October 25, 2006
Steve, I'll be in Durham a good long while, I think. I don't foresee any international study in the next year.

Steve Dunn | October 25, 2006
Cool man. I'll let you know next time I'm in town.

New question: do you need/want any basketball tickets? I always distribute tickets on behalf of a friend who lives in Taiwan. All of the good games are taken already, but I've got a pair of tickets for several of the early season games if you're interested.

Of course, I ask this question assuming that you are philosophically opposed to sports. Or scorekeeping, at least.

Scott Hardie | October 25, 2006
Steve: I've never considered running away to be a sign of guilt in any crime, least of all OJ's. People run because they're afraid of something terribly intimidating coming up in their lives – ask Jennifer Wilbanks – and what's more intimidating than being accused of a capital crime you didn't commit? OJ was just as capable of such a lame getaway/suicide attempt if he was innocent as he was if guilty, so I don't see how that's evidence he did it. I dunno about the alibi; it's not especially trustworthy or untrustworthy.

Jackie: Fair enough. I'd love to say I'm giving the guy the benefit of the doubt until I read convincing evidence that he's guilty, but there's convincing evidence both ways. :-\

Anna: Certainly, anybody can slash a throat with a knife if they're strong enough. What I've read is that the particular way the victims were slashed and stabbed, directly in their major bloodways, is a method unique to trained killers such as Special Forces operatives and elite hitmen, not football players and Hertz spokesmen.

I'm reminded of the thing with the restaurant. (link)

Amy Austin | October 25, 2006
Ha! I was going to concur with Anna's comment, with the added assumption that it must also have something to do with the very thing you just said... as well as the probability that it was a "clean" incision, made with sufficient force and intent as to suggest a motivated professional, rather than just an angry (and perhaps repulsed???) spouse.

But still... can't help but think the same thing on the subject as Anna. Additionally... did Dahmer's work look like that of a professional??? ;-p

Scott Hardie | November 16, 2006
So now OJ is about to publish a book explaining how he would have killed Nicole and Ron, if he did. When I read it earlier today, the article was merely mentioning the upcoming publication, and I thought, "Well, he's a shitbag to do this, but he must need the money, and I guess this still doesn't prove he did it." But over the afternoon, the article changed to focus on his publisher's comments that this is pretty much his confession. (link)

This is undoubtedly going to grow as a news story over the next two weeks, crescendoing when the special airs and bloggers can break down the book revelation-by-revelation. I hope the hoopla inspires a genuine confession if he did do it, so the whole mess can be put to rest.

Amy Austin | November 16, 2006
Uh, "shitbag" -- yes. Now I definitely believe he's guilty, because why the hell would an innocent man even *consider* the notion of such a writing?!!! And how will a true confession put anything (other than the "hoopla", I guess) to rest? Because double jeopardy means that he'll never do any time for it... unless they figure out a way to make another set of charges stick. I guess it will do as you suggest it was intended, however, and generate a new source of income for him. I guess he figures "what the hell" -- his image is already permanently tarnished with presumed guilt (by the vast majority, I'd say) -- but what if those who don't doubt his guilt boycott his book on that alone? Hah! How naive of me is *that* to believe that Americans would choose principle over prurient interests??? :-p

Scott Hardie | November 16, 2006
Well, I have heard for years about Simpson's financial problems. That's what happens when you're successfully sued for tens of millions, I guess. He keeps his NFL pension and one house, but everything else goes to the Goldman family. He has appeared at all kinds of celebrity events in an effort to raise money towards the debt, but I can't imagine many people want his photo or autograph. I could imagine him being innocent and still writing this controversial book as a means towards paying off that debt – after all, if he *is* innocent and everybody already thinks he's guilty, then he may as well cash in on that bloody fascination in order to pay off a civil debt incurred over the false belief in his guilt – but even in that scenario, he'd still have to be a real shitbag to do it.

By put to rest, I mean the debate over his guilt or innocence. There isn't much of a debate in mainstream white America since everyone there made up their minds during the white Bronco chase, but plenty of other people in the country and world think otherwise or are at least willing to give him the benefit of the doubt without a conviction. Just as I'm an atheist and yet I'd still be grateful to have a genuine holy vision because it would eliminate any doubts by swinging me completely the other way, I do believe in OJ's innocence and yet I want to hear his confession because that would close the book on the subject once and for all.

Scott Hardie | November 16, 2006
Heh. I just read that on the cover of his book If I Did It, the word "If" is a different color than the rest of the title. Ouch.

Steve Dunn | November 17, 2006
There isn't much of a debate in mainstream white America since everyone there made up their minds during the white Bronco chase...

This is insulting and wrong.

Scott, it seems as though you don't really believe in OJ's innocence, but you've adopted the position as a dramatic signal of your skepticism of "white America." Now you want OJ to confess so you can be let off the hook. "Noble Scott," who is absolutely totally not a racist in any way shape or form, wants to reconcile with "Rational Scott" who weighs evidence and probabilities.

For what it's worth, I am not convinced that "black America" believes OJ is innocent in the same sense that you do, as in, actually believing that someone else killed those people. I think many of the people lumped into the group who believe in his "innocence" think he probably did it, but they're glad he was acquitted (for reasons only tangentially related to the facts of the case), or they think his acquittal was reasonable, or at least they certainly didn't think his acquittal was a travesty.

Scott Hardie | November 17, 2006
Sorry it was taken that way, Steve. I didn't mean it like that. :-( I intended that sentence as a neutral statement of fact, not as a condemnation of anybody.

I sincerely do believe in OJ's innocence, whether you think I'm making it up or not. But I admit, the secret reason I want OJ to confess soon is because if I'm going to be made an ass for believing in him, I'd prefer to get it over with already. There have been plenty of signals in the last 48 hours that after carrying this unpopular belief for years, I'm about to have it become a major embarassment for me. Should I deny something that I believe in order to stop looking like an idiot (and to some people a liar)? I might consider it if the cat wasn't already out of the bag about my opinion.

Being considered a moron is bad, but being considered a liar is worse. I don't know how else to say it except that I truly believe in my heart that the man didn't do it. I may see significance in how few of my people agree with me, but I don't take opinions to prove points or seem noble. I don't even think I do seem noble to believe it; I think I seem like a fool. Please take any current backpedaling on my part as regret at having opened my big mouth in this discussion.

Your statement about black America is fair and true.

Amy Austin | November 17, 2006
Aww, man... now even your *cat* is making fun of your opinion?!?! I'm sorry, Scott... ;-)

Scott Hardie | November 17, 2006
:-)

Maybe there's another way I could put this: A few years ago, I truly believed The Aviator was going to win Best Picture. For weeks, Million Dollar Baby kept gaining ground and gradually everyone came to believe it had a lock, and as such I paid lip service to the possibility of its victory in order to reduce the degree to which I'd look like an ass if everyone was right. In the eleventh hour, I changed my prediction to Baby for purely statistical reasons (better shot at winning) and it worked... but in my heart, up until that envelope was opened at the very end of the show, I honestly expected to hear Aviator called out. Avoiding looking like an ass has an unusual effect on me (see my opinion about Borat) and I'm backpedaling on OJ because it could turn out soon that he's guilty after all and in that event I want to have covered my ass... but in my heart, I'll still be surprised if the words come out of his mouth.

Unfortunately, this probably only seems like I'm trying to have it both ways: Acknowledging the likelihood for what it is while claiming to believe differently in my heart. I have no defense except to acknowledge the likelihood that I'm actually a two-faced son-of-a-bitch even if I believe differently in my heart. :-)

Amy Austin | November 17, 2006
Steve: Thank you for saying -- albeit a bit harshly (and probably why I couldn't have formulated a similar comment without feeling like I sounded like a major bitch) -- what I think I was feeling in part as a response to Scott's comment...

BUT... I hope that Scott realizes that it wasn't an attack on his character -- I certainly didn't see it that way and think you rational and gentlemanly enough to believe that as well -- because I can see by his response the understandable sensitivity to the above. After all... I think most would rather be thought a fool than a liar -- at least, I know I would -- and there was the implication that perhaps, on some level, Scott is fooling (and thus lying to) himself.

I assure you, Scott... I only think you are a fool, not a liar! ;-) (No, not really... just a foolish opinion -- as you said -- and I can certainly understand any accompanying embarrassment from the potential revelation of current affairs. It's a bit unfair, really, because the burden of proof lies completely in OJ's hands and can *never* be provided in contradiction to popular opinion... unless some "true culprit" were magically apprehended and incontrovertibly proven guilty (if there *is* such a thing anymore?) -- I am sympathetic to you for just this reason, and I don't think you are one to adhere to any opinion out of a mere sense of pride or "nobility"... no matter how tempting it is to laugh and agree with Steve (who, I think, was only making a bit of a jibing suggestion... if only to draw out a true "confession" from you about your real current stance on the matter... which he did). ;-)

Scott Hardie | November 17, 2006
It's all good. Steve has proven himself a gentleman a hundred times over. He even took it politely when I once launched a personal attack against him and claimed that he was lying about his own opinion, something I wouldn't have taken so well if it had been said of me in the same fiery tone.

This fool thanks you for your support, Amy. :-)

Steve Dunn | November 17, 2006
I guess we should wait a while and see what is revealed in the book. There's little sense continuing to argue about this if it's imminently to be rendered moot. If you still think he's innocent in a month, I'd be curious to know your reasons in greater detail.

I'll explain my problem with this statement: There isn't much of a debate in mainstream white America since everyone there made up their minds during the white Bronco chase...

I interpreted this as a criticism of "white America" for rushing to judgment. While I agree with you that most Americans jumped to the conclusion that OJ was guilty because of the Bronco chase, I disagree that that is the reason there is no ongoing debate. I think there is no ongoing debate because of the staggering amount of physical and circumstantial evidence against OJ, very little of which was generally known at the time of the Bronco chase.

I'll take you at your word that your belief is sincere. I never doubted that, actually. I didn't mean to call you a liar - I only meant to suggest that there's a wisp of a notion that he did it rattling around in the back of your mind, and it won't go away, and it manifests in otherwise inexplicable feelings like hoping that OJ will confess. If you were rock-solid on the innocence wagon, and worried about being "made an ass" because of all this, you would want him to make good on his promise to find the real killer. ;-)

Amy Austin | November 17, 2006
This fool thanks you for your support, Amy. :-)

Heheh... no problem. ;-) And I only wish we could all be as cool and collect as Steve... evidenced magnificently by his latest discussion contribution link ;-D

Steve Dunn | November 17, 2006
Ha, Amy I didn't read your post until after I posted my last one. The funny (to me) part of all this is that I ran through about a dozen drafts of my 8:53 pm post before I finally settled on the language you see.

Some of the earlier drafts were considerably more... shall we say... bitchy and fiery.

In one of them, Scott, I even referenced your adept take-down of me from long ago and stated that, with all due respect, it was time to return the favor!

Amy Austin | November 17, 2006
Hehehe... see the above post, Steve... ;-D

(BTW, I can *totally* relate to the sentiments expressed in that discussion! I've lost, too -- and it's not something I do very well. ;-p)

Scott Hardie | November 18, 2006
It is time to return that favor, and I do hope OJ finds the real killer. :-)

I oversimplified in my statement about the white Bronco; you are correct.

Aaron Shurtleff | November 22, 2006
Well, Scott, looks like (unless you've got an inside source) we'll never know what's in the book now. I hear that it's been recalled...I can't find a link to the story, of course. :(

But in good news,

I guess we should wait a while and see what is revealed in the book. There's little sense continuing to argue about this if it's imminently to be rendered moot.

Scott Hardie | November 24, 2006
Good point in the Huffington Post (link): As repugnant as OJ's book and TV special were, do we want Rupert Murdoch or any other one person deciding that they're too repugnant for us to see?

Kris Weberg | November 25, 2006
No, but I don't mind Murdoch and everyone else deciding it's too repugnant to fund.