It’s never too soon for that!
EXACTLY
You said it a lot more eloquently and succinctly than I have. Excellent post, thank you. ;j
Again: The Petersons don’t appear to have been rich. Rich folk usually don’t get lawyers from the Public Defender’s Office.
Monty :
Point A: I believe that Scott Peterson’s financial plight (poor enough to get a public defender) is a recent phen. They were a double income, no kids (yet) couple, living in a house (vs. apt), etc. Once she was gone, her income was as well, plus the cops confiscated his truck and boat. (yes, he had just purchased a boat).
I believe he’s since lost his job and had moved back in w/his parents.
Plus, it may indeed be that her parents are wealthy. So folks commenting on ‘well to do white folk’ does not necessarily have anything to do w/Scott Peterson’s currently being poor enough to get a public defender.
Yep, it’ll be nice when this mess is all behind us and the big news outlets return to serious reporting devoid of calculated programming designed to appeal to our somewhat prurient interests and bent on generating increased ratings.
Just because you buy something doesn’t mean you can actually pay for it. Desperate financial situations have been motive for murder.
I see your point though. They did seem to be living very well.
Yes, Monty,
You seem to be splitting hairs. I see you live in Davis. I live in Napa. I think we can both agree that living in California aint cheap. Even the Central Valley. To own a house (as young as the Petersons were/are) you’ve got to have some dough. I doubt they were living paycheck to paycheck. The fact that they had an SUV, truck and boat* as well makes me doubt that they weree/are poverty stricken. I too think that the whole public defender thing is nothing but a strategic move.
Monty
I just remembered that you made a comment awhile back on this thread about the fact that Laci was a brunette and not a blonde alluding to the fact that there couldn’t possibly be media bias because of that fact.
Then you go on to say that the Petersons weren’t rich because Scott Peterson chose to use a Public Defender. Regardless of the fact that he owns a house, truck, SUV and boat. So therefore, again, there couldn’t possibly be any media bias.
Why are you so hell-bent on denying any media bias for the Petersons on the grounds of race/class? No one is accusing you of bias, they’re/we’re accusing the media. I don’t understand where the desperation to defend the media is coming from? Are you a reporter or something??
Oh, that’s a load of crap and you really ought to know it, lezlers. I did not say there was no media bias in the case. For those who can be bothered to actually read what I actually road (as opposed to what they want to dream that I wrote), I was saying that the particular media bias of “blonde-haired, blue-eyed, rich white female missing” doesn’t apply. Got that or do I need to put it in words of one syllable?
Look what was on the news today:
http://www.wral.com/news/2152460/detail.html
I live in the neighboring state and this is the first I have heard of this case, has anyone else heard of April Renee Greer? I have not heard one breath. I watch the news most evenings, but certainly never saw anything on CNN or any of the bigger news channels like it. She was 8.5 months pregnant and only 20 years old, it doesn’t mention whether the baby’s body was found. It is curious why Laci Peterson’s case saturated the news and this case didn’t. I had said I thought Laci’s case generated so much interest was because she was pregnant, I was wrong.
Margo
**
**
But were they happy?
(I think we all know the answer.)
Huh? That wasn’t the point of my post, regurgit8. My post was in response to Monty claiming they were in the poor house. Try to keep up.
Monty
No one is claiming there’s only a blonde hair blue eyed bias. People are saying that there is a white bias. That’s why I thought your brunette comment was a moot point. I’m white and I have brown hair. Doesn’t make me any less white. Your comment was a bit of a stretch.
And I stand by my position that the Petersons were far from poor. I never once said the media was biased towards
rich people. I said they are biased by race/class and I stand by that as well. You don’t have to be rich to be middle to upper class. You just have to be able to live comforatably. And the Peterson’s, from the look of it, did just that.
You also claim that you never said there wasn’t a media bias. Well, you didn’t outright. But everytime anyone mentioned it, they only thing you responded with was how Laci had brown hair and how Scott Peterson is using a public defender. I could only infer from those posts that you feel the Petersons somehow didn’t fit the “profile” of race/class and therefore, the insane media attention they recieved wasn’t at all biased.
And there’s really no need to insult my intelligence. I actually thought you had a little more maturity than that.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
And I thought you actually had some sense, lezlers. You’ve proven me wrong. Don’t freaking gripe at me about stuff you admit you pretended I said.
When the hell did I “admit I pretended” you said anything?? I said I inferred something from your posts. Inferring something is quite different from “pretending” you said something. People infer things all the time. The fact that people aren’t natural mind readers demand it, actually.
You said that the Petersons didn’t fit into the traditional “blonde haired blue eyed, rich, white” media bias. I in return said that there is no blonde haired, blue eyed, rich white bias, that the bias is simply towards a certain race/class. Hair color has nothing to do with it. Neither does shoe size or favorite color. Skin color does. Then you began insisting that the Petersons weren’t rich. I countered that you don’t have to be rich to fit into the media bias, simply middle to upper class, which the Petersons certainly were. Cue you getting all bent out of shape, claiming i’m “pretending” you’re saying things you’re not.
I think it would be better if you would attempt to help me understand where you’re coming from vs. getting all huffy that I’m apparently misunderstanding you, then offering no clarification, whatsoever.
It’s obvious we have differing opinions on who the media bias touches. This is a public message board. We’re allowed to have differing opinions. It’s what makes this board interesting. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I don’t have any sense. Get over yourself.
by Monty:
Silly me. I thought you were making a joke when you said this. Am I the only one who thought Monty was trying to be funny?
Newsflash: one doesn’t have to look Nordic to be white. I don’t think anyone has ever claimed the media is biased towards blondes, so maybe you can hunt for another strawman to rally against.
Christ ok, we all get it, let it go now.
Does Monty get it, World Eater? I haven’t seen any signs that he does.