Happier days? O.J. Simpson, daughter Arnelle, son Jason, and first wife Marguerite.

Happier days? O.J. Simpson, daughter Arnelle, son Jason, and first wife Marguerite.


You ever see an old picture and think– you know, I looked pretty happy back then. Life was simpler.  We used to laugh together.  We didn’t have much, but we were never happier.  I wish I could go back.  Back to before life got so hard.  Before I got so hard.  Before I believed my own bullsh*t.  Back to before I hurt you.


O.J. Simpson, the nation's leading ground gainer from USC gets an ice application on his bandaged right foot from his wife Marquerite, ca. 1967.

O.J. Simpson, the nation's leading ground gainer from USC gets an ice application on his bandaged right foot from his wife Marquerite, ca. 1967.


O.J. SimpsonO.J. Simpson



O.J. Simpson and Lee Marvin, ca. 1974.

O.J. Simpson and Lee Marvin, ca. 1974.


  1. I wonder sometimes if OJ is able to see it for what it is. If he’s disgusted with what he’s done, what he’s become, but feels he’s too far down the road now to come back. Does he look at these old pictures and just want to crawl inside and get back to that happy place? He’s proven he can run fast, evade tackles, and score on other people. Maybe that’s all he knows, and that’s all life is. He was the man when I was a kid. Look at him now. There’s a lesson there aside from the obvious one.

  2. Hmm. How about, what can we learn from Nicole Simpson? What can we learn from the black community’s whoop-it-up reaction to a black man getting aquitted for murdering a white woman?

  3. “Back to before I hurt you.”

    Get real and make that “Back before I cut your throat from ear to ear.”

    This is the worst sort of sentimental revisionism.

    • Vanderleun,

      I think you misunderstood where I’m coming from–

      1.) I’m not speaking for OJ when I say — “Back before I hurt you.” or at all. I start out by saying — “You ever…”

      2.) That is not Nicole Brown Simpson in the pics, it’s his first wife. Hence, the context.

      3.) I am not sentimental over OJ, not in the least. He’s a sociopathic killer, who shouldn’t be walking the Earth. I am nostalgic in regard to his accomplishments on the football field, but even that is forever tainted now.

      Just wanted to clear that up.

  4. In response to Mr. Realist, I think there was some happiness among the black community regarding OJ’s acquittal. But it was for Johnny Cochrane rather than OJ. I dont think blacks were happy to see a white woman murdered but happy to see a black man (Cochrane, not OJ) use the system to beat the system. For once…

    • Some happiness? Some happiness?? They were dancing in the streets and shouting with joy! Now, whether that was due to a black man getting away with murder, a black man getting away with murdering a white woman, or the vile Johnnie Cochran “beating” the system, is open to debate. But the fact remains that the black community, as a whole, reacted with unrestrained glee to a black murderer walking free.

      Also, your “for once” aside indicates you believe that blacks are, as a group, somehow “victims” of the system. The truth is–look up the Department of Justice statistics yourself–that blacks commit more crime than other groups, and that’s why they have higher rates of incarceration.

      And yes, his being a murderer tainted not just his accomplishments on the gridiron, but also otherwise enjoyable movies like The Naked Gun series.

  5. Mr. Realist,

    I don’t think the rates of incarceration is the main point- its the rate of false incarceration or incarceration of innocent (black)individuals along with a feeling of always getting the short end of the stick regarding social, economic and judicial outcomes. Whether you believe these sentiments are rightly held or not is up to you (as well as whether you can separate the grid iron accomplishments from his other actions). Books and journal articles on both sides have razed forests. Let’s not replicate that here, per se, and stick to a discussion of style as expressed through clothing.

  6. Agreed, this is a style/fashion/clothing blog, and is not the appropriate forum for detailed discussion of societal phenomena. However, it is also not an appropriate forum for misinformation. The notion of “false” incarceration is not valid: DoJ statistics show that, all else being equal, blacks are slightly less likely to get convicted than whites for the same charges. The difference is slight enough that it’s hard to determine the cause, but this fact, along with blacks’ overall vastly higher crime rate, invalidates the false/innocent incarceration canard.

    The alleged “short end of the stick” schtick is another mess that we really don’t get into here, but in a meritocracy, one reaps what one sows. Despite our continuing spiral towards socialism, our society still has strong meritocratic elements, meaning that there will always be disparities in outcome based on a huge number of factors. In modern America, anti-minority racism is not one of them.

    And no, I don’t separate OJ’s achievements from his being a murderer. He is, as our gracious host said, “a sociopathic killer, who shouldn’t be walking the Earth.” Let us not forget he killed two: his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman (my apologies for the earlier omission).

    • “meaning that there will always be disparities in outcome based on a huge number of factors. In modern America, anti-minority racism is not one of them”

      ’nuff said with that. If that is your lens there is no use in this discussion.

      Yes, let us get back to style/fashion/clothing…

  7. “’nuff said with that. If that is your lens there is no use in this discussion.”

    Is that the sound of the door on your mind slamming shut in the face of inconvenient facts, or just your way of moving right along?

    • no, that’s the recognition of an uncurable ignorance on the part Mr. Realist.
      so let’s move on back to the subject matter of the blog already as this isn’t a politics/sociology blog…

      • Sweet D is saying that his ideology prohibits him from acknowledging any reality that disagrees with that thought system. In his mind, the (sole) reason for disparate outcomes between whites and designated minorities (i.e., blacks and Hispanics) is white racism (often called “institutional racism”). However, two minority groups, namely Jews and East Asians, often outperform whites, both intellectually and economically. Furthermore, in the past four decades, white Americans have provided black Americans wealth transfers (welfare, etc.) and opportunities beyond abilities (Affirmative Action, etc.) that are unprecedented in history. Through the programs of the “Great Society,” through AA, through changes in the criminal justice system, through “hate” crime legislation, white Americans have discriminated against themselves. All this falsifies the racism charge, but because these facts do not fit the “evil whitey is keeping minorities down” script, they are ignored.

        Vanderleun is right on target: a mind in thrall to liberalism/leftism cannot acknowledge realities that disagree with the ideology.

        So, who is the ignorant one, Sweet D?

  8. this will be my last reply on this thread as I have wanted to stick to the theme of style and clothes after a short discussion on political/sociological matters. here goes guys:

    disparaties in social and economic outcomes are never due to one sole factor; i never argued that. my contempt toward your comment is your dismissal of racism as a factor for social/economic outcomes. that’s outlandish. I agree that personal choices play a large role in whether individuals are well off or broke- but one cannot dismiss racism as it still rears its ugly head. And the history of racism and its legacy does as well. let’s weigh your statement of transfer of wealth- 30 some odd years of the Great Society versus 350+ years of slavery and Jim Crow…

    anyway I could go on, responding to each point you make etc and etc, but I’d rather talk style and clothes and etc.
    let’s smoke the peace pipe and call it a day guys,ok?

    • Sorry, but there’s no “peace pipe” smoking when someone’s assumptions are as far from reality as yours.

      I agree that disparate outcomes are not due to one factor, and I retract my claim that that was your assertion. However…

      Has racism been a factor? Of course. Is anti-minority racism on the part of whites a factor in the modern day? Absolutely not! The evidence shows that now, whites are, as a group, discriminating in favor of blacks and other minorities and against themselves–a situation unprecedented in history. If even then the minorities are, as a group, unable to attain similar outcomes, then the conclusion is clear: “racism” is not a reason for their failure to achieve. (I don’t deny the lingering yet politically insignificant existence of white racism against minorities, but do you acknowledge minority racism against whites, a bias that is being played out at all levels of society?)

      Slavery has been a non-issue for more than a century; Jim Crow was only a factor in the South and has been defunct for so long as to be irrelevant. Neither have anything to do with how blacks perform–or fail to–in the present.

      Which is my basic point. Anyone who believes that “racism” is a major factor in the failure of blacks and Hispanics to achieve at a level (roughly) equal to others in modern America is enslaved by the reality-denying ideology of liberalism.

      The charge of “racism” is how the liberals and leftists continue to beat down the culture and the people who created it, i.e., white America. I’m calling you on it: it is a baseless charge that is demonstrably false.

  9. if it’s not racism or some lingering psycho/sociological issues set by centuries of institutional discrimination, Realist, what do you think might be the cause?

  10. What I have to say is completely out of line with today’s liberal orthodoxy, and as such, is almost impossible for modern people to fathom.

    In a nutshell, race is real, and it has real-life effects on people who are members of that race. Medical science shows that some races are more prone to certain diseases than others, e.g., Tay-Sachs disease disproportionately strikes Ashkenazi Jews, sickle-cell anemia disproportionately strikes blacks, and cystic fibrosis disproportionately strikes whites. We see other effects as well: lactose intolerance is rare in northern Europeans, but nearly universal in SE Asians and American Indians.

    Athletic ability also varies by race. Nearly all of the world’s fastest short-distance runners are from west Africa (or have their roots there), while many of the world’s fastest distance runners are from eastern Africa. Europeans and NE Asians excel in winter sports, while those whose backgrounds are from tropical climes are virtually non-existent on the world stage of winter sports.

    This list could go on nearly forever. It’s up to you whether or not you can accept that race is a real category with real meaning. If you can, perhaps you can wrap your brain around the politically-incorrect part to follow.

    Dog fanciers readily acknowledge that some breeds are smarter than others. If intelligence can vary by breed of dog, could it not also vary by race of human?

    The fact of the matter is that intelligence is real, and it varies by race. While impossible to mention in any mainstream venue, it is an accepted fact in psychometrics.

    Put plainly, a certain level of overall intelligence among the population at large is necessary to create, and sustain, a technological civilization. Certain people–races–have this level of intelligence; others do not. The lack does not make them less human; it’s clear that early humans were all of lower intelligence, and higher intelligence evolved in some groups and not others.

    This is where either your mind is open to more, or it has slammed shut. If the latter, there’s nothing more I can say. If the former, go over to Wikipedia and check out the “Race and intelligence” entry, and the links in “Related publications” at the bottom.

    Sorry for the long off-topic discussion, but, as difficult as it was for me to accept it, I have no choice but to acknowledge reality, and I hope to help others break free of the shackles of political correctness.

    • Oh dear, there’s always one isn’t there? There is nothing duller than someone beating the ‘it’s political correctness gone mad!’ drum in an attempt to justify good ol’ fashion racism. Rather than pushing your spurious scientific ‘evidence’ in a thinly veiled attempt to scream ‘black people are stupid AND criminals,’ I suggest you ask yourself why you feel so strongly about this. If you don’t like black people (and those pesky tofu-eating liberals) fine, that’s your business but claiming that science has given its stamp of approval to your racial hierarchy theories is so ludicrous that I’m tempted to believe your posts are an ill-conceived attempt at comedy.

      The fact is, and this may come as a shock, you are NOT some kind of heroic bringer of truth, setting us free from our ‘shackles of political correctness.’ There’s plenty of ‘science’ out there to prove just about anything. I seem to remember an incident back in the 1930s/40s where millions were killed in Europe based on similar arguments to yours. I think we can all agree that ended badly.

      However, the internet is a democracy and we are all entitled to our opinions. That goes for the folks who claim to have been beamed up by UFOs and those crack investigators on the verge of proving that Elvis still walks among us too. Unfortunately for you every single shred of credibility was lost when you referenced that temple of scientific knowledge, the editable by one and all, user-generated encyclopedia WIKIPEDIA.

      The phrase ‘hung by your own petard’ comes to mind.

      Now, back to enjoying all the TSY vintage goodness…

Comments are closed.