- What, now the Smithsonian is somehow against displaying the suits that double murderers (allegedly) wore when they were acquitted of crimes that they (without a doubt) committed? When did this happen? When I heard that the Smithsonian Institution, often called "America's Attic,” rejected a golden opportunity to secure a piece of 1990s history for its collections, I was astonished and heartbroken. Just a day earlier, a California judge handed the museum a golden chance to secure a true piece of Americana by approving an agreement to donate the brownish-green suit O.J. Simpson wore the day in 1995 that he was acquitted of murder if museum officials wanted it. Now if that gift was handed to most of us, we would grab it and not think twice. But not the snobs at the Smithsonian; they apparently feel they are above displaying the memorabilia of double-murderers currently serving eight years in prison for armed robbery. "The curators feel that it doesn't fit with the collections here at the National Museum of American History," said Valeska Hilbig, spokeswoman for the museum. Nice try, V. Could your arrogance be any more obvious? The suit doesn’t fit with your collections? Then dammit, you start a new collection centered on the Juice’s suit. Maybe you could secure Phil Spector’s wig, Scott Peterson’s golf clubs and gear from other famous murderers. Don’t tell me that you can find a place for Judy Garland's ruby slippers from "The Wizard of Oz" and the hat Abraham Lincoln wore the night he was assassinated and you can’t find a place for O.J.’s suit. If Honest Abe were still around and we could ask his thoughts on this topic, I am 109 percent confident he would agree with me completely. This suit has been at the center of a years-long battled between Fred Goldman, the father of the one of the two people the Juice turned into human Pez dispensers, and Simpson's former agent Mike Gilbert, who has possession of the suit. Perhaps those involved in trying to find a suitable home for this piece of clothing should have contacted the Smithsonian first, but to me that’s secondary. Sure, museum officials learned of the potential deal on the Internet and never received an official offer to donate the suit and that officials. Now that the Smithsonian has turned up its nose, the involved parties must now seek a new museum to take the suit, as per the Los Angeles County Superior Court order on Monday. "I suggested to go back to USC (the University of Southern California, where Simpson starred in college football), even though they've distanced themselves, or maybe the Pro Football Hall of Fame museum," said Simpson's attorney, Ronald Slates. "We had worked six hours on Monday to reach the settlement, and to find the finest museum in America turning down what is truly a piece of highly controversial litigation in the United States -- it was very disappointing. Of all the museums in the United States, this would be the one most open because it is our national museum. You don't see the Smithsonian walking away from days of the Depression -- which were certainly horrible days in our history -- because it was so horrible.” Now that’s what I like to hear. Nothing quite like comparing a guy who (almost certainly) knifed two innocent people to death and was acquitted by a jury of twelve people with a collective IQ of 56 to one of the most horrifically sad and difficult periods in the history of the country, wherein millions of people couldn’t find work or afford to support themselves and their families. Certainly nothing offensive or inappropriate about that, counselor. Of course, this suit is just one chapter in the prolonged battle between Simpson and the families of both Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, the two people he knifed on that fateful night in 1994 in Brentwood. The reality is that those families will never see the money they were awarded in a civil suit against the Juice for the wrongful deaths of their loved ones and the Nevada prison in which O.J. currently resides is as close as he’ll ever get to the punishment he truly deserves…………
- Riot Watch! Riot Watch! Takin’ it to the streets in Jakarta, Indonesia is one of my favorite pastimes. So while I may not have been their physically as anti-government protesters hurled rocks Tuesday at police in Indonesia’s capital city, I was there in spirit. Likewise, in my mind I was standing tall right beside those same protestors when police retaliated with tear gas and water cannons outside Indonesia's national parliament. I just don’t see how authorities could be so harsh on the protestors when inside the building, lawmakers were screaming one another down and even shoving one another in the debate over a controversial bank bailout. Why not direct your energy inside, Jakarta police? But let’s not focus on The Man and his typical overreaction to a riot, because the true heroes are the nearly 1,000 people who rallied outside the building to protest the government's $715 million bailout of Indonesia's Bank Century in 2008. Sure, that was two years ago, but don’t deny them their rage. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was re-elected in July 2009 and because he’s still in office, their rage is warranted. Overall, it was a very good riot effort, including the banner demonstrators hung across the front gates of the parliament compound that read: "Replace the regime, replace the system without SBY." The pride I felt watching police have to use their riot shields to deflect the rocks and other projectiles being hurled at them……it was immense. The sight of them unfurling rolls of razor wire to cordon off parliament was something you don’t often see at a riot and that really kicked things up a notch. Two protest leaders were arrested on charges of defaming government officials and allowing their followers to throw rocks, but police did not specify who had allegedly been defamed or how. The police really needed to chill out, as no one was injured in the riot and no arrests were needed. I don’t care that officials had earlier warned protesters against using insulting banners and language. You can’t trample free speech like that, guys, and no one listens to those sorts of warnings anyhow. The one great aspect of the warning is that it was preceded by a ban last month on the presence of animals at rallies, enacted after protesters tried to parade a water buffalo with Yudhoyono's name spray-painted on it through the city's main traffic circle. That, I dare say, is freaking awesome. Nothing says protest quite like adopting a water buffalo as your mascot, spray painting it with your president’s name and trekking the beast through your capital city’s main traffic circle. Well done, Indonesian protestors, well done. On a day when a parliamentary committee inside the building delivered a report on its inquiry into the bank bailout, someone needed to remind them that the public is watching and that the allegations of irregularities in the bailout won't just go away. You know there is tension around the issue when lawmakers are brawling over the simple decision of whether or not to hold a vote about how to proceed with the inquiry. The actual fighting commenced after parliamentary speaker Marzuki Alie angered many by ruling that the vote would be held Wednesday, spurring his peers to bum rush him and begin throwing hands among themselves. In actuality, the vote is largely symbolic because the final decision on any charges against those involved with the alleged corruption rests with the police and an independent anti-corruption commission. In any case, I salute all the protestors who turned out for a great day of social dissidence, blew right past the idiotic police warnings and exercised their right to make their voice heard. Indonesia’s defamation laws are stifling and overbearing, so ignoring them and saying what you want about your government officials is a must for anyone with even a smidge of a social conscience. Big ups to you, Indonesian protestors, you guys rock…………
- To empower gun-toting whack jobs in the Windy City or not, that is the question. The answer will come from the U.S. Supreme Court, which on Tuesday heard in a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons. The case is a direct challenge to Chicago's long-standing strict ban on handgun ownership, which appeared very much in. A conservative majority on the court seemed ready to say the U.S. Constitution gives individuals greater – or at least equal - power than states -- or at least equal power – in terms of owning certain firearms for self-protection. At the heart of the case? Competing parts of the 14th Amendment relating to some "reasonable" gun control measures in place nationwide. "There are provisions of the Constitution, of the Bill of Rights, that have been incorporated against the states, where the states have substantial latitude and ample authority to impose reasonable regulations," Justice Anthony Kennedy said. "Why can't we do the same thing with firearms?" In other words, does the constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms" apply to local gun control ordinances, or only to federal restrictions? It is a question that has hung in the air like a carrot on a judicial stick for decades and now, it gives a conservative-led high court another chance to allow Americans expanded weapon ownership rights…….eventually. The timeline for a ruling in the case is late June, so there’s no need to get too excited about it just yet. As with all issues that come before the Supreme Court, this one is attached to a specific case that has made its way through the judicial system, one painfully slow step at the time. The case relating to this issue began with an appeal filed by a Chicago, Illinois, community activist Otis McDonald, who sought a handgun for protection from gangs. McDonald wants a handgun to protect himself and his family local gangstas (I hope in the Supreme Court briefings, all justices are required to say it like that, gangstas, and not “gang members” or “gangsters”). "That's all I want ... just a fighting chance," McDonald said. "Give me the opportunity to at least make somebody think about something before they come in my house on me." McDonald’s problem is that Chicago has some of the toughest private weapons restrictions in the nation and under those guidelines, the city denied McDonald's application for a handgun permit. So the question is whether the Second Amendment's 27 words grant gun ownership as an individual right or as a collective in order to arm a military group, i.e. a militia. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," the amendment reads. To whet our appetite for the case, attorneys for both sides presented an hour’s worth of arguments Tuesday with the focus mainly on the whether the Second Amendment should be "incorporated" or applied to state and local laws like most of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. James Feldman, the attorney for the city of Chicago, argued that that gun laws are different. "Firearms are designed to injure and kill," Feldman said. The conservatives on the court didn’t seem to like that, especially Justice Samuel “The Ol’ Gunslinger” Alito. "Your position is that a state or local government could completely ban all firearms?" Alito asked Feldman. This is a big case for the obvious reasons, but just to underscore its importance, the Justice Department estimates as many as 275 million guns are in the United States. As recently as 2005, three-fourths of homicides nationwide involved handguns. In other words, we’re a nation of gun-toting whackos and someone needs to police this sort of thing…………
- In case you didn’t know, the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement has expired. The CBA is the deal between players and owners that stipulates how revenues are distributed and deals with other important labor- and football-related issues governing the operation of the league. Like any contract, it is for a given number of years and depending on the deal, it can be opted out of by one side or the other. Now that the CBA is dunzo, that means 2010 will be an uncapped year in the NFL, giving teams much more liberty with their spending. However, it also means that after this year, the owners could (and are expected to) lock out the players prior to the 2011 season. With that possibility looming over them, NFL players are planning ahead, with the NFL Players Association advising its membership to set aside money in case of a lockout a year from now. In previous instances where professional sports leagues have locked out players, the athletes have proven that they don’t have a freaking clue how to manage their money and have found themselves drastically outspending their resources within a few weeks. Perhaps this time around, things will be different. Last week, more than 75 current and former NFL players participated in the league's business management and entrepreneurial program held at Wharton and Harvard University. Players such as Seattle Seahawks wide receiver Deion Branch and Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Farrior went in thinking they knew how to manage their money, but left admitting the program was a wakeup call for players to prepare for life after football. Apparently a week of workshops at the Wharton School was enough to open their eyes, but it remains to be seen if those lessons stick and these guys have truly learned their lesson. My money is on about a third of them actually retaining, applying and abiding by what the Wharton School imparted to them…………
No comments:
Post a Comment