Juror B-37 has lost her publisher. A juror in the Zimmerman trial, she states she planned from the beginning to write a book. Her ex-publisher says that B-37 contacted her within 24 hours of the verdict.
She planned to write a book before the trial even began.
She contacted the publisher on a Sunday afternoon.
She appeared on Anderson Cooper on Monday night. (Anderson, I’m disappointed in you. I know it’s your job, but still…)
Now–it’s Tuesday–juror B-37 claims she’s withdrawn her plans because she didn’t know how much the public cared about the George Zimmerman trial or the verdict that exonerated him from any responsibility in the shooting/killing of Trayvon Martin. If she didn’t know how much people cared, she wouldn’t be writing a book. She wouldn’t have contacted the publisher within 24 hours.
B-37 wanted to get in first, because she evidently believes the five other jurors are also chomping at the bit to earn money and fame from the murder trial of a 17-year-old boy.
How can anyone believe she didn’t know what kind of uproar there was over this case?
B-37 “didn’t know”. Bullshit. She had plenty of time to find out how much attention people were paying, how much press the verdict was getting, and to decide to ask for her book deal ASAP. 37 didn’t call this publisher first, though–she was “recommended” by a “high-ranking producer of one of the morning shows”.
As an added bonus, and to get ever more press and hurt even more people (to get even more press), she let the public know (via Anderson Cooper) that George is “a man whose heart was in the right place”.
His heart was in the right place when he killed a 17-year-old boy. His heart was in “the right place” when he followed him, late at night, through the streets. While I’m not certain how that applies to the verdict, which isn’t about the location of his heart, I see “publicity” written all over it. Maybe a guilty verdict wouldn’t have garnered as much media attention, since there wouldn’t be the same level of anger or disbelief, and Zimmerman would be behind bars. That’s not such a good place for your main character to be, publicity-wise–you need him front and center.
She’s done a great job, however, of making a bad situation even worse. It was vicious when OJ wanted to write a book called “If I Did It” (same publisher, by the way), years after he “did it” (yes, my opinion). But for a juror to plan her book before a murder trial even began? Is there any way she didn’t have a plot line in mind through the whole damn thing? No.
The juror was planning to write it with the help of her attorney husband.
The publisher has withdrawn her offer. She never should have made it.
I know I’ve been away a long time, and I apologize for that. (Okay, no one currently reads my blog, but I’m saying “sorry” anyway.) Every time I tried to write a post about Newtown, CT and the slaughter there, I choked up. Allow me to say I believe our deadly weapons should be at least as regulated as our vehicles and drivers are.
The Westboro Baptist Church has a new event to picket–Formula 1 racing. This evidently has something to do with the military. (No, I don’t know what it is…I’m not a freak!) If you’re not familiar with Westboro Baptist, it’s a church that is so far to the right that not even Rick Santorum will agree with them in public. (He may not agree with them at all, but I’ve never seen Santorum denigrate Christian theocracy.)
Westboro Baptist Church has not come out against incorrect spelling or grammar. Fred Phelps, the lemming’s leader, probably thinks spell check is the devil’s work. Or maybe he had his 8 y.o. grandson write the website.
Misspelled words (even typos, because the WBC has a zero-tolerance policy) are bold red; incorrect words are bold blue.
Fred Phelps, the leader of the small and crazy Kansas-based church, is going to be in Austin for the Formula One race to protest it. According to the church’s diplomatically named website, godhatesfags.com, this is why they are protesting the race:
WBC will picket Formula 1 racing at The Circuit of The Americas in Austin, TX to remind this nation that God hates the vwicked people of this land of vain idolaters and that they shall be turned into Hell. These sporting events resemble the patriotic worship-the-flag pep rallies masquerading as sodlier’s funerals in that this Bible-ignorant fools worship these race car drivers like they are little gods! Shame on these people for worshipping these athletes instead of following the plain commandments of their God. They ought to obey today before it is too late. WBC knows they will not, never the less, we will kindly warn them to flee the wrath to come. These are the last days of all, Doomed america. Wake up before you find yourselves cast into the deep pit of endless fire!
John Scalzi has some tips for what Bill O’Reilly calls “the white establishment”.
Originally posted on Whatever:
Specifically, to the white men who have spent the last week freaking out about the fact that Obama won a second term without the majority of white men voting for him.
1. First off, relax. A rainbow coalition of gays, women and minorities is not coming to your door to take your guns or your freedom. As difficult as it may be to believe, when anyone else votes, they’re usually actually not ever thinking about how their vote is going to have an impact on you, the white man. Consequently, in the aftermath of the election, they’re generally still not thinking about you. You’re just not that interesting or important to them.
2. Second, stop believing that the problem was that Romney didn’t sell the message. He sold it just fine. So did Paul Ryan. So did the GOP candidates you favor. So did hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ads funded by SuperPACs. The problem isn’t the selling of the message. The problem is the message. Everyone else got the message. They just said “thanks, no,” to it. Stop being the guy who thinks the message will work by restating it again in a slightly different, often louder, way. That says “You’re stupid enough not to notice I’m selling the same message.” This is not a good way to convince people.
Mitt Romney is arrogant enough to believe private enterprise could provide disaster relief better than the federal government. Fortunately, New York’s Attorney General knows better.
Quick to point to looting during a disaster (before it even happens), I haven’t heard conservatives using that same outrage to condemn price gouging.
More than 400 possible cases of price gouging of gasoline and other essentials, including a $10 box of matches and $7 loaf of bread, have been reported in New York before and after Superstorm Sandy.
Reports are being investigated in New York City, the Hudson Valley and on Long Island by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
Schneiderman said Monday that he’s investigating an increasing number of reports of spikes in prices for essential goods including gasoline, food, bottled water, generators, batteries and flashlights.
In one report, the cost of a bag of potatoes jumped to $7, up from $3 before the storm hit. The cost of the box of matches appears more than three times the usual cost, and the loaf of bread is more than double the usual cost.
Price gouging is illegal, but the charges are difficult to prove.
Vendors may defend higher prices if they can show an increased cost of obtaining goods from wholesalers or in delivering services, making prosecutions difficult.
State business law prohibits an “unconscionably excessive price” during an “abnormal disruption of the market” that unfairly takes advantage of consumers.
Expect Romney to praise capitalist price gouging as soon as the election is over. Profits are Mitt’s thing; ethics just get in the way.
- AG Schneiderman to Investigate Price Gouging (wbng.com)
- Schneiderman probing price gouging (timesunion.com)
- Romney forced to clarify ‘immoral’ disaster relief comments (dailykos.com)
- “You’re On Your Own”: Mitt Romney Called Federal Disaster Relief “Immoral” (mykeystrokes.com)
Given that your god is involved, this must result in a win-win for everyone right? Not really. The Mormon church has lost $328,797 so far. I didn’t realize this was what Romney meant when he said he couldn’t release more tax returns because of his church.
From Raw Story:
“In this instance, Romney used the tax-exempt status of a charity — the Mormon Church, according to a 2007 filing — to defer taxes for more than 15 years,” Bloomberg’s Jesse Drucker explained. “At the same time he is benefitting (sic), the trust will probably leave the church with less than what current law requires.”
[T]he amount available to go to the Mormon church has decreased from at least $750,000 in 2001 to $421,203 at the end of 2011 as Romney has collected yearly cash payments from the trust for ten years; the average per year is $32,879.70.
From Bloomberg News:
[A] financial adviser said Romney and his trustee might arrange to compensate the church for the dwindling amount with other gifts.
“It may be that they’ve made provisions for the charity someplace else that will make up for what this isn’t going to give them,” Comstock said.
Back to Raw Story:
Estates lawyer Jonathan Blattmachr told Bloomberg that Romney’s trust benefits from the Mormon church’s exempt status because charities don’t pay capital gains taxes when they make a profit from the sale of assets.
Not paying capital gains is a big deal for Mitt, who financed his education by selling stocks; when he sold stock to get by during his college days, he avoided income taxes, but was still stuck with those pesky capital gains taxes. Read more…
In 1994, Romney–running for Senate against Ted Kennedy–claimed he would be better for gays than Senator Kennedy. Ten years later, in 2004, to then-Massachusetts‘ Governor Romney’s dismay, his state became the first to legalize gay marriage..
Not only is Romney against gay rights, he is appalled by gay families. (Emphases mine.)
Romney hadn’t even previously fathomed that gay people had children. Boston Spirit magazine reported last month that when gay activists met with him in his office in 2004, as Romney was backing a failed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the state, Romney remarked, “I didn’t know you had families.”
Julie Goodridge…asked what she should tell her 8-year-old daughter about why the governor would block the marriage of her parents. According to Goodridge, Romney responded,”I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.”
The complete lack of empathy was the worst; Romney didn’t connect, just sat there blank-faced until asking “Are you done?” After that, he invited the press in and described the meeting as “pleasant”–as Goodridge sobbed in the hallway.
Romney also refused to issue birth certificates with “parent” and “second parent” on them, insisting the birth certificates not only be altered, but that each one be approved by his office. .
As a Department of Health attorney warned Romney, the children would be disadvantaged and would have trouble applying to school or getting drivers licenses as adults, particularly in a post-9/11 world where they might be considered security risks, having birth certificates that appeared altered. It was a “violation of existing statutes,” the attorney warned Romney. But Romney waved off the warnings, not caring about the legal, psychological or personal ramifications.
Romney not caring.
Romney as usual.
- Michelangelo Signorile: Romney: ‘Some Gays Are Actually Having Children. It’s Not Right on Paper. It’s Not Right in Fact.’ (huffingtonpost.com)
- Romney to Gay Parents: “I didn’t know you had families” (slog.thestranger.com)
- Gov. Mitt Romney Blocked Birth Certificates To Gay Parents; Felt They Are Unfit And Kids Would Be Developmentally Impaired (crooksandliars.com)
- Mitt’s Mormon Bubble (digbysblog.blogspot.com)
Disappointing, but not surprising.
Racism is alive and well–and it’s gotten worse. Explicit and implicit surveys showed 51% to 56% of Americans showed prejudice against blacks. The jump in explicit racism was 3%; implicit racism was seven percentage points higher than in 2008–nearly 2% growth per year. (Hispanics fared even worse, with 57% of Americans biased against them, but there are no previous survey results for the group.)
The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character. The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character. Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.
The explicit racism measures asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about black and Hispanic people. In addition, the surveys asked how well respondents thought certain words, such as “friendly,” “hardworking,” “violent” and “lazy,” described blacks, whites and Hispanics.
The surveys used males for each race; no females were shown. I would like to see this test given to measure explicit and implicit sexism, although I dread the results, which I fear would be even higher. Sexism is not only alive and well, it’s a revered–even celebrated–conservative political stance.
- AP survey finds Americans still a bunch of racists… even if they don’t realize it (hotair.com)
- The AP reports an increase in racial prejudice since 2008 (based on research that is at least somewhat scientific). (althouse.blogspot.com)
- Majority Of Americans Are Racist New Study Finds (whitenewsnow.com)
- The above link is to comments on a “white news” site. I apologize for the distastefulness, but it adds the racist perspective. The “blacks are out to enslave white people” kind. Ugh.
Warning: Satire that could easily be a trigger for rape and sexual assault victims. But it needs to be said, and John Scalzi says it well.
Originally posted on Whatever:
WARNING: this post is going to be oh-so-very-triggery for victims of rape and sexual assault. I am not kidding.
Dear certain conservative politicians:
Hi! I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have. There’s just something about making the point to a woman that her consent and her control of her own body is not relevant against the need for a man to possess that body and control it that just plain gets me off. A guy’s got needs, you know? And my need is for control. Sweet, sweet control.